My topic for the short debate iss the concern that the Welsh economy iss not getting the Assembly’s full attention. Calls were made for the First Minister to relinquish one of his posts. The same can be said for the First Minister’s role. We are told to judge outcomes, and in the debate two weeks ago that is what I sought to do. I quoted from several economic surveys and forecasts by a range of organisations: the Confederation of British Industry; Barclays Bank; Dunn and Bradstreet; Business Strategies Limited; Robert Huggins Associates; Cambridge Econometrics; and the Assembly’s half-yearly review of the Welsh Development Agency, to name only a few.

I will not repeat the details of those reports—some claim that statistics can be used to support almost any argument. However, I hope that Members will agree that the general thrust in terms of the economy was worrying and that a fair case was presented to warrant a full-time Minister for Economic Development. I do not recall any specific rejections on the economic case from the First Minister. I look forward to his response today if he seeks to justify the outcome. There is no doubt that a great deal of confidence and hope has been invested in the First Minister. A fledgling Assembly, with a history of censure and no confidence motions, needs stability and credibility. To the former Deputy First Minister’s credit, when he resigned he said that he did so partly for those reasons. On Radio 4 on 6 July he said that he resigned to protect the Assembly and the Government of Wales. Stability and credibility can only be achieved through delivery. The Assembly needs to deliver if it is ever to win the hearts and minds of the electorate. The First Minister has said that some posts, such as that of the Minister for Economic Development, tie in with the First Minister’s role. On some occasions, no doubt, that may be the case.

You listed many reports that discuss the economic situation in Wales. Will you list how many of those reports mention the particular problem that you are trying to highlight as being the source of difficulties?

In response to such matters, I will focus on the points made by the First Minister when he says that we should measure outcomes. Those reports have questioned output, unemployment, and the recession in manufacturing. I will highlight those issues. If the First Minister thinks that he can give economic development his full-time attention, he is clearly neglecting his responsibilities as First Minister.

Do you accept that it is possible to combine two roles? Ken Clarke combines the role of MP for Nottingham with that of selling cigarettes to children in the third world.

I am glad that Alun Pugh has led me on to my next point. The benefits of devolution—as it was presented at the time of the referendum—meant that Ministers, across the Cabinet divide, would focus on their responsibilities, such as developing the Welsh economy, the health service and the education service. You cannot have it both ways. You either have the benefits of devolution with Ministers focused on their duties or you have a system where the Secretary of State takes responsibilities for all duties. At the moment, we have neither.

Since our recent short debate on Wales’s need for a fill-time Minister for Economic Development, there have been additional examples where the duties of First Minister and Minister for Economic Development have not supported each other. The day after the debate, a British-Irish Council meeting was held in Dublin. The First Minister needed to be there, of course, particularly in mind of the recent events in Northern Ireland. However, there was also a meeting with British Aerospace in Broughton at the same time. The company could have been in a position where they would be forced to announce that 17,000 highly skilled manufacturing workers were to be made redundant. Fortunately, that was not the case. However, because of the physical impossibilities of conducting both roles, the First Minister could only get to Broughton by 4 p.m. that day. What sort of message does that send to a major private sector investor in north Wales?

Will you acknowledge that, in spite of the First Minister’s busy diary, he made every effort, and succeeded, to attend a crucial meeting at Broughton. Preceeding that meeting, the factory was visited by the Deputy Minister for Economic Development, John Griffiths. Both visits were warmly welcomed by British Aerospace in Broughton, by the management, the workforce and the wider community. I do not think that anyone could have asked more of the First Minister on that day. His commitment to Broughton is absolute.

Of course I commend the First Minister’s visit to Broughton that day. I am not surprised that the management there welcomed it. It was probably a rare occasion because he is so stretched in his duties. More importantly, what sort of message does it send out on the international stage that our First Minister cannot give his full-time attention to such an important meeting in Dublin.

Yr wyf yn falch o glywed bod Prif Weinidog Cymru wedi ymweld â Rhuthun. A wnewch chi ofyn i’r Prif Weinidog a yw’n debygol o ymweld â Dolgarrog? A fydd yn gwneud hynny cyn y Nadolig, ac os bydd, pa Nadolig?

Gobeithiaf y bydd Prif Weinidog y Cynulliad yn fodlon ateb y cwestiwn hwnnw pan gaiff gyfle i siarad yn nes ymlaen. Yr wyf yn siomedig nad yw’r Gweinidog dros Ddatblygu Economaidd wedi ymweld â Dolgarrog. Y broblem yw, nid oes gennym Weinidog dros Ddatblygu Economaidd.

The second example was highlighted by Nick Bourne in questions to the First Minister earlier today. It relates to an incident at a meeting of the Committee on European Affairs last week when commissioner Barnier’s Chef du Cabinet, Ronnie Hall, stated that virtually every region in Europe had submitted a report on the succession arrangements of Objective 1. The First Minister asked Ronnie Hall at that meeting if Wales had submitted its report. He raised an important matter with a senior European official in front of opposition Members. I suspect that Ronnie Hall is a sensitive and sensible individual who did not want to make political waves in such an important meeting. However, raising that point in front of opposition AMs only underlines their concern.

The UK has a reputation for gold plating all requests from Europe—clearly the Assembly and the First Minister cannot do so. He is exhausted and does not appear to be in the best of health, compounded, no doubt, by his over-stretched timetable. That leads me to the specific phrase of today’s motion:

‘The National Assembly would be better served by a full-time First Minister.’

Few people can reasonably believe that one leading AM torn between such demanding priorities can do better than two AMs focused on their individual tasks. If the administration’s response is that the First Minister is showing leadership—that may or may not be the case—but that should be the subject of a separate debate. Today’s motion states that there are physical, and some would say psychological, impossibilities to him taking on two jobs.

I fail to understand why he will not appoint one of the deputy ministers as Minister for Economic Development. If he is duty-bound to re-appoint a Liberal Democrat, why not do so, even temporarily? He should not ignore calls from the private and public sectors—some from industry—and even an ordinary Labour Assembly Member, which highlight the frustration that people feel about this matter.

I will turn briefly to the amendments. Mick Bates’s amendment 2 can be dismissed immediately. It is our role to scrutinise the administration’s policies and conduct. That is what we are doing. If Mick Bates is uncomfortable with that, then he can say something about it. However, I see that he has given his party priority over the Labour Party in his amendment.

Amendment 1 would be worthy of note in another debate. We are not debating the First Minister’s leadership. A vote on such a motion would fall along party lines. We are simply saying that the Assembly would be better served by a full-time First Minister, and pointing out the physical impossibilities of his taking on two jobs. If you want to commend the First Minister on leadership or any policy area, that is up to you. However, you still cannot say that even he would serve the Assembly better than a person acting on a part-time basis. To do so would be to ignore all reason.

The reality is that the First Minister is putting his personal interest before that of the Assembly. As a result, the Welsh economy and other policy areas are suffering, but the Labour Party will pay the ultimate price at the next election. Do you honestly think that the electorate will thank you and the Liberal Democrats during the next election campaign for holding the post open for a Liberal Democrat AM?

If you believe in devolution, in the success of the Assembly and in this administration, help out the First Minister—and I address this to the Liberal Democrats in particular—support the motion and reject the amendments.

It gives me great pleasure to propose this amendment. I would never say that everything is perfect with government. That applies to this Government. For example, who likes to be called a toerag?

I will not give way. [ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ‘Give way.’]

However, in terms of achievement and high standards of performance, the partnership Government has delivered and will continue to do so. This is the beginning of an empowerment for the people of Wales which will improve the quality of life for all, including those in Blaenau Gwent, Conwy and Montgomeryshire.

The sponsors of this motion, the WC—that is, the Welsh Conservatives—do not understand devolution. They do not understand how to empower the people of Wales, they do not understand fairer votes and they do not understand how to be constructive about building a future for Wales based on stability, not the chaos of the pre-partnership days. Their continued attempts to undermine this partnership have been ineffective in comparison with the partnership Government’s achievements.

I will not give way. [CONSERVATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ‘Go on.’]

Let us consider this Government’s performance. For example, on agriculture, we have provided an additional £60 million for rural development. We have established Farming Connect, and an independent appeals panel. The Tories savaged the agriculture industry. They cut a quarter of vital hill payments, and they killed co-operation. Their pursuit of competition at all costs crushed many family farms. Yes, little boys, you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

May I raise a point of order?

There are examples of this Government delivering on health. Prescription prices have been frozen and we have introduced exemptions for under 26-year-olds. We have introduced dental exemptions for young and old and we have delivered a new human resource strategy.

Imagine what a full-time First Minister could do.

Will you be quiet, please? On education, we have introduced free school milk and we are piloting a Welsh baccalaureate. We are implementing the reforms recommended by the Rees Commission and have already increased hardship funding—

Does this mean that you are making a pitch for a Minister’s job?

On economic development, we had the resolve to ensure the effective implementation of Objective 1. More resources have been given to the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board. We made a fresh commitment to innovation and enterprise and have introduced new, streamlined enterprise support grants for investment of between £5,000 and £50,000. As for the Welsh Conservatives’ criticism of the partnership Government’s running of the Welsh economy, that will be met by howls of laughter outside the Chamber. People remember. We are all painfully aware of the systematic destruction of Wales by Jac Coed Coch—that great sorry soul, John Redwood—and his sidekick, William Hague.

On culture, we have introduced the Assembly’s first culture strategy and free entry to museums. We have made new resources available for the Welsh Language Board and mentrau iaith.

You cannot reverse 18 years of Tory rule in 18 months. However, the partnership Government is having a damn good try. We will not fail through lack of commitment or lack of belief in the future of Wales.

The Tories—sorry, the Welsh Conservatives—are part of an Assembly that they did not want, elected by a system that all but one of them rejects, and in a country that they tried to destroy. They are jealous of the partnership Government’s performance. They lack leadership skills, the courage to stand up for Wales and, above all, the vision to build a future for Wales. By the way, most of what I have said also applies to the nationalists from north Wales and the socialists from south Wales who form that great coalition—Plaid Cymru.

Future generations will see this first attempt to break the conflict mode of British politics as the dawn of a new epoch in Welsh life delivered as a result of the high standard and performance of the Welsh Liberal Democrat/Labour partnership Government.

If anyone had asked me before the National Assembly was established what its two greatest challenges would be, I would have said to develop the National Assembly for Wales into a body that the people of Wales could cherish, and to strengthen the economy of Wales in absolute terms—as Brian Gibbons said last week—in comparison with the other parts of Britain; the failure to do so underpinned our Objective 1 bid. The National Assembly has existed for almost three years. Nothing has changed in respect of those two major challenges, except that some of the goodwill, naturally flowing from the ‘yes’ vote has dissipated. If anyone had predicted that an individual was going to try to lead the fight on both these fronts, taking on the role of First Minister and Minister for Economic Development, I would have dismissed it as a daft idea. Every Labour Assembly Member in this Chamber would have agreed with me, including Rhodri Morgan and the Members who proposed today’s amendments, Andrew Davies and Mick Bates.

In Plaid Cymru’s minority party debate last week and in Alun Cairns’s short debate the week before, good speeches were made outlining the reasons why the National Assembly needs a full-time Minister for Economic Development. My contribution focused on the failings of the national economic development strategy process—the delays involved in that process and the incredible lack of realism. However, today, I want to fulfil my duty as an opposition member and criticise the consequences of having a part-time First Minister in the National Assembly both before Mike German’s appointment to the Cabinet and since the unfortunate denouement of his term as Minister for Economic Development—

Perhaps we can offer some advice to help the First Minister to make a permanent appointment for one of the two jobs that he holds. Mike German might be preferred to the House of Lords. He would be known as ‘Lord Thrombosis’, because he is a threat to circulation and we all know that he is a bloody clot.

I do not know how to respond to that because my next line is that I have no interest in personal attacks. [Laughter.] I hope that Rhodri, if he is watching on television, will not take my criticism in any way other than the positive spirit in which it is intended. I also hope that he does not live up to the new title that he now has among the Tory groups and continue to lose his ‘rag-wag’. I prefer—for those of us who speak Welsh—the Welsh title of ‘pen-wag’.

The main problem is the lack of focus on the job of First Minister. Consequently, there has not been enough time for him to follow decisions through and consult with his own Assembly Members, judging by the look of shock and anger that we sometimes see on their faces after announcements. There is a limit to what one person can do. There have been damaging ministerial announcements, such as the one on the new building, which was suspended for three months and which probably cost us almost £500,000. There was also the announcement that his Cabinet was going to be called the Welsh Assembly Government, without realising that his Ministers would be known as ‘wags’ or the Cabinet known as a ‘wag-bag’. Other thoughtless actions have inflicted a great deal of damage on this Assembly because we do not have a First Minister who is on top of the job. Nobody is keeping a tight reign on the Minister for Assembly Business, who, on Tory corridors, is rather unfairly known as oily-wag. The kind of decision I mean, and that angered me most—

I will give way in a minute, Gareth. What angered me most was the decision to allow the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to move her Plenary question session to a different day for her own convenience. That was a poor example of leadership. If the National Assembly for Wales is to be regarded as a serious institution of government, we must have full respect for our procedures.

Ymfalchïwn yn y ffaith bod nifer o’r Aelodau yn dysgu Cymraeg. Fodd bynnag, mae rhai Aelodau yn cael trafferthion gyda rhai treigladau o bryd i’w gilydd. Pan gyfeirioch at ‘pen-wag’, ai at ben gwag yr oeddech yn bwriadu cyfeirio?

Pan drafodais y pwnc hwn gyda’m hathrawes, dywedodd fod ‘pen-wag’ gystal â phen gwag.

Before he was elected First Minister, Rhodri Morgan was a popular and witty person. In some ways, he still is. In other ways, he has sacrificed his popularity and his good humour for the sake of the Liberal Democrats—and Mike German in particular—on the altar of old brag-wag himself. However, the truth is that, since the coalition, the First Minister has completely lost his way. For one person to take on the two important jobs of First Minister and Economic Development Minister is an extremely bad idea. In his heart—big and generous as it is—the First Minister knows this. It lets down he National Assembly, the Welsh economy and Wales itself.

The wording of the amendments before us today throw some light on the Government of Wales’s difficulties in seeking to promote the idea that the First Minister is doing a first class job for Wales. When asked over the weekend whether he intended to discontinue the use of the term ‘WAG’ to describe his Government, he is quoted as saying, ‘you must be joking’. If those were his words, then he really has problems, as I am sure that he has now realised that the joke is not on us but on him. Amendment 1 shows that the WAG will continue. We saw what fun Wales on Sunday had with this. We now have a competition to name each one of the WAG Members. He tells us that this was discussed for 15 minutes in Cabinet. Was this the most inspired discussion that you have had in Cabinet, First Minister? I am sure that it would not take 15 minutes to change your mind. For your own sake and the sake of the good name of your Government, ditch the ‘WAG’ at the earliest opportunity.

We have Mick Bates’s wonderful amendment 2. This is worth more than a cursory look. During the past few weeks, I am sure that we have all been struck by the determined way that Members of the Cabinet have been at pains to describe the coalition as Labour-led. They seem to place great emphasis on this whenever Mick Bates rises to speak. Carwyn Jones made a pointed reference to the Lib-Dems’ role when, in his reply to Mick Bates on Thursday’s statement on the future of farming, he said,

‘I welcome any Liberal Democrat policy into a document produced by a Labour Minister.’

Carwyn said that with much feeling. However, Mick Bates was in no way deterred by such a put-down. He no doubt passionately believes that this is a Lib-Dem led coalition because, in his amendment, strangely tabled in his own name, he espouses the virtues of the ‘Welsh Liberal Democrat/Labour partnership Government’. Note the order: the Lib-Dems come first. It will be interesting to see how many Labour Members support this amendment.

I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his observation. Given Mick Bates’s incredibly stirring speech, I wonder whether there is a more radical solution. The First Minister enjoyed being Minister for Economic Development greatly. Given the strain of two jobs now, perhaps he will step down temporarily from being First Minister, and invite Mick to fill that role.

That is an interesting suggestion, which I am sure the First Minister will want to take on board. The evidence of what the First Minister’s Government has achieved during the last eight weeks is ample testimony to the fact that the First Minister should concentrate on the top job.

A few weeks ago I mentioned to the Minister for Assembly Business the amount of time that has been allocated for debate in the Assembly since 15 October. He responded to that today. I repeat that since 15 October we have spent 80 per cent of our time responding to statements, commentating on consultation papers, debating ombudsman reports, or noting progress on this or that. That can hardly be described as a programme for Government.

The First Minister leads a Government that is characterised by inaction. It fails to see the big picture and its agenda is clearly dominated by Westminster. For example, the Bill setting out far reaching reforms to the health service was debated in Westminster, even before those reforms were agreed in the National Assembly. It shows that Tony Blair is still the boss—so much for Welsh solutions to Welsh problems.

What has the Government achieved since 15 October? Precious little. The only new policy achievement I can find is the giving of concessionary bus fares to pensioners. Yes, that is an achievement, but it is only one policy initiative in eight weeks. No wonder the electorate believes that this Government is under-performing.

There is, however, one matter on which the First Minister excels, namely on his defence of his embattled former Minister for Economic Development. He stubbornly refuses to appoint anyone in his place. His press officer said that the First Minister will wait as long as is necessary to bring Mike German back into his Cabinet. This display of loyalty may be laudable, but it is obviously misplaced. It seems that nothing will budge the First Minister. The whole Government may be paralysed as he seeks to juggle three jobs. Ordinary Assembly Members from his own party are becoming restless, but nothing deters him.

Our advice to the First Minister is clear: his duty is to provide leadership and devote his energies wholeheartedly to the task of leading his Government. The way he dissipates his energies is debilitating. It is causing immense damage to his position and to the authority of his Government. It must stop now.

The First Minister should appoint a Minister for Economic Development and get on with the job of being First Minister. We remind him that it is a job, which this Assembly elected him to discharge.

People in north Wales have suffered a triple whammy in ‘three-jobs-Morgan’, because he is also the Minister with responsibility for north Wales. The stubbornness of the First Minister in retaining these three jobs is damaging to that area. I live in an area that has bucked the general trend: unemployment figures rose at the last count. We are also faced with the latest report that, by 2016, up to 10 per cent of the working population will have left Anglesey due to lack of opportunity.

We need commitment, but Rhodri has taken his eye off the ball. For example, he has neglected a developing crisis in north Wales regarding Objective 1. Môn Training runs two projects, worth over £10 million to the area, namely the skills for business, and skills for employment projects. However, because of the bureaucracy left unchallenged by the First Minister, it has had to close both schemes to new applications. This closure was announced in September.

I remind you of Objective 1 projects that have been successful in north Wales. Over the last few weeks, I have spent some time in north Wales and, while many projects are coming on board, several projects are already happening in that area.

I am sorry that I let you speak at that stage. If I had finished my contribution, I would have said that these projects were involved in training people and equipping them with skills in those areas. The rise in unemployment and the forecast for 2016 must be addressed.

The closure was announced in September and the project was due to resume yesterday. However, the situation has worsened and Môn Training will not accept any more schemes until the end of March. It had an audit two weeks ago. In that audit, the auditor asked if he could have all the paperwork in two boxes to examine in another room. The staff asked him whether he must be joking, because there were six filing cabinets full of paperwork. This is the sort of problem that must be addressed. Other providers will not touch this scheme with a barge pole, because their operations would simply grind to a halt.

Earlier, Rhodri said that the Objective 1 programme was developing well, but I have a message for him. First Minister, you may say that the money has been allocated, but it is not going anywhere. Young people are being denied training and businesses cannot develop their staff. This is the result of your stubbornness in hanging on to three jobs. It is about time we had a fresh start and met the needs of Wales as a whole.

My friend, the First Minister, is undoubtedly a good man who cares about Wales and its people. He is a full-time First Minister. There is no strain on him—I have no doubt about that. He is able to do the work. [CONSERVATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: Where is he then?]

He is probably watching us on television.

This debate should not be about the First Minister, whose commitment is unquestionable. It gives me an opportunity to comment on a constitutional situation, which concerns me. I support amendment 1. Amendment 2 is infantile, which is what you would expect from the Liberal Democrats. It is a waste for them to be here.

However, when I consider the motion, I expect nothing else from this bunch of political charlatans, known as the Conservative Party, because it seeks to wreak havoc and make capital on any chief political points it wants. However, I am concerned about the First Minister and the good work that he is doing. I am also concerned that the National Assembly Government of Wales should have an appropriate approach to dealing with the people of Wales.

To suggest that the First Minister has not been able to carry out the economic development portfolio is nonsense and an insult in my opinion. He has ably carried out that portfolio along with his special responsibility for north Wales. I compliment him on that. He has carried out these roles with efficiency, commitment and belief for the last six months. He knows economic development backwards. He was the first Secretary for Economic Development, and nobody knows this subject better than him. This job has been in safe hands over the past six months, but it has been a difficult time.

His approach to Mike German throughout his personal difficulties has been sympathetic, sincere, understanding and noble. I respect that as an Assembly Member and a human being. However, it is time to draw a line under what is becoming a difficult situation, which is to some extent is a constitutional aberration.

As democrats, people loan us power. We know that when we come here. We must remember that the structure laid down in the Government of Wales Act 1998 is a Government of nine Secretaries. That is how it was planned. Therefore, should we tamper with this structure? Should we change it? I do not know of any government in the world where a place at a cabinet table is kept open for six months, as has been the case here. The First Minister needs a full team. I ask him to start 2002 with such a team, and with a new Minister. I hope that that new Minister will come from the Labour Members, because heaven knows that there is enough commitment and belief among my Labour colleagues to be able to provide what is necessary to serve the people of Wales.

I do not take kindly to Alun Cairns’s suggestion about appointing a Liberal Democrat Minister. We should not do that just because the administration has become a home for vagrant Liberal Democrats, especially where ‘Give us a job, Bates’ is concerned. His strategy must be to change overnight from ‘toe-rag’ to ‘toe-wag’. That is what I think about him.

The First Minister’s loyalty to Mike German has been unquestionable. However, loyalty is a two-way street. The last six months have been difficult for Mike, and we have heard of the difficulties that he has had to deal with. Having said that, he knows that, as far as many people are concerned, his current position is virtually untenable regarding a post as a member of the Cabinet. I publicly plead with him to release the First Minister from his pledge to hold the job open. It is neither appropriate nor fair.

I am grateful to Peter for giving way. However, does he not agree, in the last analysis, that it is for the First Minister to demonstrate leadership? He is, after all, the First Minister, and it is for him to make it clear that he needs a separate Minister for Economic Development. It is not fair to blame the former Deputy First Minister. I can understand why he would want to do so—to shift the blame to the other side of the partnership Government. It is for the First Minister—and I wish he were present—to show leadership on this occasion.

You just cost me 30 seconds. Although I do not agree with it, we have this abominable partnership, which is equal—I am informed—as far as Labour and the Liberal Democrats are concerned. A responsibility of loyalty lies with both sides, which is why I plead with the leader of the Liberal Democrats to make that public announcement. Over the past six months, the people of Wales—and indeed many in the Liberal Democrat Party—have looked on with anxiety and some consternation, and they agree with me that a line should now be drawn.

It is not so much a personal matter for the First Minister as an obligation to the nation. I look forward to the new year and to the First Minister’s opportunity to appoint a new Minister, to help take forward the important policies that he is designing and developing for the good of all the people of Wales. The way forward—the way to improve the quality of life for the people of Wales—is a new Cabinet team.

Gobeithiaf y bydd pob Aelod o’r Cynulliad, o ba blaid bynnag, yn cytuno mai’r swydd wleidyddol bwysicaf yng Nghymru ar hyn o bryd yw swydd Prif Weinidog Cymru, ac mae angen iddo ganolbwyntio’n gyfan gwbl ar y swydd honno i gynnig arweiniad i’r Cynulliad yn ystod ei flynyddoedd cynnar, wrth inni geisio sefydlu gwleidyddiaeth ddemocrataidd yng Nghymru. Mae angen gweledigaeth ac arweiniad arno, ac mae angen iddo yrru’r prosiect hwnnw ymlaen os yw gwleidyddiaeth Cymru, o ran datganoli grym, am fod yn broses ac nid yn ddigwyddiad. Tra bod amheuaeth ynghylch gallu’r Prif Weinidog i dreulio’r amser angenrheidiol ar y swydd, er mwyn gyrru’r prosiect ymlaen, mae perygl y bydd gwleidyddiaeth ddatganoledig yng Nghymru yn ddigwyddiad ac nid yn broses.

Un o aelodau’r Blaid Lafur, John Morris, a ddywedodd nad yw’r sefydliad hwn eto wedi ystyried o ddifrif y pwerau sydd ganddo; nad yw eto wedi ceisio defnyddio’r pwerau hynny i’r eithaf. Os yw hynny’n wir—a daw’r feirniadaeth o’r Blaid Lafur—pwy sydd ar fai? Syrthia’r bai ar arweinydd y Llywodraeth, Prif Weinidog Cymru. Dylai’r swydd honno fod yn swydd amser llawn.

Ni fyddai unrhyw un yn dadlau yn erbyn y gosodiad bod angen Gweinidog dros Ddatblygu Economaidd amser llawn arnom. Dangosodd ystadegau a ryddhawyd heddiw bod mwy o bobl Cymru a Phrydain ar gymorth incwm yn awr na phan ddaeth y Llywodraeth Lafur i rym yn 1997. Nid fy ffigurau i mohonynt, ond ffigurau’r Llywodraeth. Gwyddom fod problemau gydag economi Cymru, ac mae Ewrop wedi cydnabod hynny drwy estyn Amcan 1 inni, nid fel rhodd o Ewrop, ond fel cydnabyddiaeth bod rhan helaeth o Gymru yn gymharol dlawd o’i chymharu â Phrydain ac Ewrop. Mae angen Gweinidog dros Ddatblygu Economaidd amser llawn i fynd i’r afael â’r problemau hynny.

Gwyddom oll fod problemau yn bodoli yng ngogledd Cymru. Mae pobl y Gogledd yn teimlo nad ydynt yn rhan o’r broses o ddatganoli grym gwleidyddol i Gymru, ac nad yw’r Cynulliad yn berthnasol iddynt. Byddai’n swydd amser llawn i geisio argyhoeddi trigolion y Gogledd i ymrwymo i’r broses o ddatganoli grym gwleidyddol i Gymru.

Beth bynnag yw rhinweddau Rhodri Morgan—ac nid oes neb yn amau ei allu—nid oes modd i un person wneud y swyddi hynny i gyd. Beth bynnag fo’i allu a’i brofiad gwleidyddol, y mae’n sicr o fethu. Nid yw’n ymarferol bosibl, a dyna paham y penderfynodd Grŵp Ymgynghorol y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol, wrth edrych ar swyddogaethau’r sefydliad, fod angen naw ysgrifennydd i gyflawni’r gwaith. Dyna oedd yr awgrym. Serch hynny, y mae’r Prif Weinidog yn ceisio cyflawni dwy swydd, ac yn methu. Nid yw hynny oherwydd diffyg gallu, ond oherwydd ei bod yn ddynol amhosibl i unrhyw un wneud hynny.

On the wonderful term adopted to describe the Assembly Government—the WAG—we must ask whether a full-time First Minister would have allowed for that to be used. The consultation process cost £7,000, and the focus group said that there was a danger that the term could be considered to be slightly ridiculous. We could argue about ‘slightly’, but not about ‘ridiculous’. It is the subject of ridicule in Wales. If we had a full-time First Minister, he would have been aware of the problem and would not have allowed it to happen. We now have a rudderless and leaderless Government because Rhodri Morgan, who could ably carry out his functions as First Minister, is trying to do the impossible in trying to carry out three jobs.

I will take an intervention.

A ydych yn cytuno bod llawer o bobl yng Nghymru yn gresynu at y ffaith mai Rhodri Morgan sydd bellach yn gyfrifol am yr economi, o gofio iddo wneud ei enw yn San Steffan drwy erlid Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru?

Cytunaf, yn sicr. Pe bai Rhodri Morgan yn Aelod cyffredin o’r Cynulliad, ef fyddai’r cyntaf i feirniadu unrhyw un a fyddai’n ceisio cyflawni tair swydd yn hytrach na chanolbwyntio ar un. Dyna a wnaeth yn San Steffan pan oedd yn Aelod Seneddol ar y meinciau cefn.

We have a WAG, a Government, a Cabinet, a First Minister and Minster for Economic Development who are all wilfully trying to avoid governing Wales.

All of us understand that, behind this debate today, there are difficult personal circumstances for Mike German. I understand and have sympathy for the difficulty he is facing. I do not know how the matter will be resolved as a result of the police inquiry or what the Crown Prosecution Service will decide. I do not know and I do not really care. However, I hope that it is resolved to your advantage, Mike. I have not seen anything that suggests that you were deliberately culpable of any wrongdoing. My personal hope is that you will be acquitted as a result of the investigations.

That had to be said. However, having said that, the Assembly now faces a difficult set of circumstances. Even Rhodri understands, because he has said that present circumstances are unsatisfactory, that he does not want them to continue and would like for them to be resolved as soon as possible. Everyone understands that it is not possible for Rhodri to carry out two jobs effectively. I made it clear to him that it was not unreasonable to carry out two jobs for a few months during the summer recess, in the hope that the difficulties would be resolved as a result of an early resolution of the circumstances surrounding Mike German. That did not happen, and we now face the prospect of six months of Rhodri attempting, to the very best of his considerable ability, to do two jobs and doing them well. However, there is no prospect of an early resolution of the circumstances surrounding Mike German. If we received an indication from the police, the CPS or the Attorney General that they will be resolved shortly, we could agree to wait a further fortnight or three weeks perhaps for that to happen. However, there is a continuing police investigation in which the European Union anti-fraud unit is involved, and it will take the CPS a considerable time after that to examine the case. It is my understanding that, even if the CPS decides on a course of action, it will have to refer it to the Attorney General because a public figure is involved, and believe me, that process will not be dealt with expeditiously.

Let me develop my argument, David. There is a long process in front of us, therefore. It is not as if Rhodri doing two jobs was the only way out of this. There are many alternatives. There would be no shortage of volunteers from your own party, Mike. I am sure that if Rhodri wanted to be expansive and wanted to broaden his coalition, he could even ask Phil Williams to do the job. I daresay that there would be one or two willing hands in the Labour Party who would be prepared to help out in these difficult circumstances. Why has Rhodri not done it? He need not necessarily make a permanent appointment. It could be made on the clear understanding that it was a temporary appointment. Therefore, why has it not been done?

That is the question that I have kept asking myself, and it has not been answered. I can only assume, Mike, that it is because, somehow or other, the Liberal Democrats have decided that they will exercise some sort of veto, or that you, Mike, have entered into some sort of arrangement with Rhodri that has not been made clear but which is blocking Rhodri from making that appointment. That is a disappointment in your own terms. I believe in co-operative politics. I broadly agree with inter-party co-operation—sometimes I would like to think that we could have intra-party co-operation. You, Mike, wanted to establish coalition politics. Entering into that agreement meant a commitment and concessions on your part. You have a responsibility now to ask yourself whether this arrangement that you have—either spoken or unspoken—with the First Minister and the administration, is such that you cannot make that gesture, and whether you want this unsatisfactory set of circumstances to continue. That is unreasonable. You believe in the coalition, you have a deep commitment to the future of the Welsh economy and you understand that the present arrangements cannot be discharged satisfactorily.

I believe that you, Mike, understand that the best interests of the Assembly are greater than the best interests of individuals. I cannot believe that you would knowingly or willingly sacrifice the best interests of the National Assembly for your own personal interest or for the best interests, as you see them, of the Liberal Democrat party. I do not believe that if Rhodri were to take any other course of action, you and your party would sabotage the coalition. I do not believe that if you were faced with that choice that that is what you would do. Therefore, you and your party have a clear responsibility now to make it clear to Rhodri that you will remove from him any residual obligation that he might have to keep this unsatisfactory state of affairs in existence any longer.

I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Cabinet. As it is the festive season and the season of goodwill, I shall try to temper my comments accordingly.

This is the time of year when we all attend carol services and school concerts. Last night, I attended a fire brigade carol concert. The priest spoke about the plight of the homeless and the countryless—the asylum seekers who are fleeing war, pestilence and persecution. This morning I was at an infants school in Gowerton—the infants school that I attended—where I watched the nativity play and saw the hopeful faces and heard the hopeful voices celebrating. Then I come here this afternoon to hear the same old record playing time and time again. Those of us who are conviction politicians, like the First Minister and myself, came into politics to change people’s lives for the better. This resolution as it stands does nothing for the people of Wales. What arrogance this resolution shows. As Peter Law often reminds us, when the Conservatives were in Government, Wales was a political wasteland, without hope and with record unemployment, a generation with no future.

We have heard enough from you this afternoon, Nick. Youth unemployment is now at 25 per cent of its level during those Tory years. Now they want to tell us—and this is absolute arrogance—how to run the country, after their history of colonialism and, as I think we all acknowledge, their recent pragmatic conversion to devolution.

Central to the economic development of Wales in the coming years is how well we use the benefits of Objective 1 status. The social partners drive Objective 1 projects. That is the nature of the programme. The Assembly Government cannot drive this agenda on its own. However, it can provide guidance, leadership, back-up and co-ordination. Providing such support and co-ordination requires not only the involvement of a Minister for Economic Development, but the active intervention of the whole Cabinet, both individually and collectively. Christine Chapman mentioned the many successful Objective 1 projects in north Wales. Such projects are now being implemented across the Objective 1 area.

Economic development cannot be wholly compartmentalised. In order to drive forward our economy, we must address issues across the boundaries of responsibilities, whether they be health and social services, education and lifelong learning, local government, community development, transport, environment or any of the other portfolios in this administration. Therefore, it is crucial that whoever is responsible for economic development brings these elements together. The First Minister does so day after day, and it is fully compatible with his role as Minister for Economic Development.

The Minister is winding up this debate effectively. However, the logic of what she has just said is that the First Minister should fulfil the two roles for the duration. She cannot be serious about that.

I am serious about everything that I say. The First Minister has performed an exemplary co-ordinating role in this area. The Tories do not accept that the First Minister can also perform the role of Minister for Economic Development. However, they have so far been silent as to their vision on how the job should be done differently. You are reverting to your stock-in-trade of criticism for criticism’ sake.

Rhodri Morgan has set out to create a fundamental change in political leadership. He has created a genuinely collective leadership of all Ministers. He has devolved and shared responsibility among Ministers, but the emphasis on individual ministerial responsibility has been accompanied by effective co-ordination across Ministries.

In Wales, we have an economy of scale that enables us to tackle problems in the round. Most of the challenges that face us involve the economy, education, health and social services. In Whitehall, these policy areas are dealt with by massive, separate departments, housed in huge, mutually discrete buildings. Devolution has changed Wales. Empire-building is not on our agenda. You have heard the First Minister refer to Team Wales. This is not spin. It is an accurate shorthand description of how we work to benefit everybody in Wales and to have partnership in Wales.

When we entered our successful partnership with the Liberal Democrats, we redefined the role of First Minister. One important feature of that role was co-ordination. The First Minister would bring together the work of all Ministers. I admit that this is not a new idea. Clem Attlee, who, in retrospect, is viewed as a successful twentieth century Prime Minister, saw himself as the Cabinet Chair. This is not to deny the First Minister’s leadership role. Most people in Wales without an axe to grind acknowledge the First Minister’s leadership role. If you go out and about on the streets with the First Minister—

Will you give way?

No. When we go out and about—[Interruption.]

Can we have silence, please? When we go out and about with the First Minister daily to meet the people of Wales, we see that they understand who leads Wales. They identify with Rhodri Morgan, whether he is watching them playing rugby or whether he is talking to them in an old people’s home. That is what the opposition hates more than anything. He is clearly defined as the First Minister and the leader of Wales.

The First Minister takes all his roles seriously. Peter Rogers said that north Wales is losing out. I believe that the First Minister has achieved much in ensuring that this is not a Cardiff-based Government. People—particularly those in north and west Wales—recognise that the First Minister is thinking about Wales and its future with various initiatives regarding the location of Government offices.

The economy is central to all these issues. The First Minister’s co-ordination of issues involving the economy has been unprecedented. The last time that the Tories brought this old chestnut to the Assembly, the First Minister successfully defended his economic development portfolio. He then left the Chamber to address a conference on governance, which was attended by Canadian delegates. He addressed the conference in French, Welsh and English. I do not want to embarrass the First Minister and say nice things about him—even though it is the season of goodwill—but he has been an inspirational leader. His profile has benefited the administration. It has also benefited Wales, in that the First Minister has led delegations abroad, and that he is keen to attract investment to Wales.

I, therefore, respond to this debate with pleasure on behalf of the administration. Be under no illusions: the people of Wales are not interested in this debate. The people of Wales are interested in the issues that affect the homeless and the hungry, and issues such as education in schools. All you are doing is undervaluing the role of the Assembly across Wales. The First Minister is in charge, and I am certain that he will remain in charge after the next election. Let us not pretend that the Tory Party have any hope of coming to power here—you will never be elected to run Wales, and any notion, Nick, that you will be First Minister is the stuff of Fantasy Island.

We all remember the last badly-timed entrance by the First Minister, as it led to the departure of the then Deputy First Minister. I am sure that we will remember this one too. It is notable that the response given had obviously been written some time ago, and had not been tailored to the debate. It is extraordinary that there were only two speeches given by the Labour Party today, and, however Labour Members vote, the speeches were in support of the motion. This makes it clear that they have no truck with the First Minister holding two key roles in Wales.

Goodness knows why the Cabinet decided that the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities should speak on this, instead of the First Minister—or indeed the Minister for Economic Development. It did you no credit today. It was a speech that was not tailored to today’s contributions. The debate is not about the record of the 18 years when the Conservative Government was in place, or the Labour Party’s record in running this show—some of the time with the Liberal Democrats—it is about how the Assembly, the people of Wales, and Wales in general would be better-served by a full-time First Minister. We all know that that is the truth.

This partnership agreement, ‘Putting Wales First’, was supposed to bring respectability and stability to Wales. How are we putting Wales first when the First Minister is trying to do two jobs? We are also told that the partnership agreement requires goodwill and mutual trust. I agree with Peter Law and Ron Davies on that. If the former Deputy First Minister is holding up the appointment of a full-time Minister for Economic Development, it is time for Michael German to make clear that he will have no truck with that for the future. If it is, as I suspect, the First Minister delaying the process, it is time he listened to people—not just in my party, but those in Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, and many in his own party. I do not know to whom he has been listening.

If Rhodri Morgan felt that he must appoint another Liberal Democrat, I can understand his hesitation, particularly having heard Mick Bates’ contribution—he mysteriously said ‘in conclusion’ halfway through his speech, having not had a beginning or a middle. I can understand why the First Minister would be worried about appointing a Liberal Democrat.

However—without looking at the personalities and without wishing to ruin too many political careers—there are many former Ministers, for example, Ron Davies, Tom Middlehurst, Peter Law, Christine Gwyther, and Rosemary Butler, and deputies, such as Alun Pugh and John Griffiths who could do the job on a temporary or on a permanent basis. How it can be said that it would be against the interests of Wales to have someone doing the job full-time, goodness only knows Minister. I do not know where you have been.

The First Minister has argued on previous occasions—although he did not argue this today, and I welcome him belatedly to the debate—that this is something to do with the South Wales Police. This is complete nonsense. How can the First Minister stepping aside for somebody on a temporary or permanent basis place pressure on the South Wales Police? It is the perpetuation of this ridiculous situation of running the two jobs together that is putting pressure on the police.

No democratic parliamentary institution in the world would tolerate the nonsense we have here. Can it be contemplated that Tony Blair would not appoint someone on a temporary or permanent basis? We were told on 10 July, that during a recess:

‘demands are entirely different. In some areas, such as tourism, they are greater, but we will not be as tied down with questions, Committees and Plenaries as we are when the Assembly is in session. The demands are entirely different and far more flexible’.

That ended when we returned at the beginning of October. We are now halfway through December, and the First Minister is saying that he will continue to hold both positions for as long as it takes. I suggest, First Minister, that you, the Cabinet and the riff-raff in the Liberal Democrat Group put your heads together and sort this mess out now, in the interests of Wales, before it is too late.