Our plans for Wales and my culture strategy, ‘Creative Future: Cymru Greadigol’, commit the Assembly to ensure that all main lottery funding streams have a clear Welsh direction. Over the past year and a half, we have been working closely with the five main lottery distributors in Wales—the Sports Council for Wales, the Arts Council of Wales, the New Opportunities Fund, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Community Fund—to develop a more strategically focused way of working. We have been looking to maximise the benefit of the lottery in Wales and to ensure that people in Wales see real benefit from the funding available. However, under the current arrangements only two of the lottery distributors are directly accountable to the Assembly. The sports council and the arts council are Assembly sponsored public bodies. The other bodies are UK-based organisations—albeit with a growing presence in Wales—that are accountable to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

While we are consulted over the formulation of policy and the strategic direction for these UK organisations, we can only influence these via the DCMS. We have, on some occasions, failed to convince both DCMS and the distributors of the different needs of Wales. This is a major barrier to developing a strategic approach that is sensitive to the needs and priorities of Wales. For this reason, I was pleased to launch, jointly with the other UK Ministers with responsibility for lottery funding, a major review of the distribution of lottery funding across the UK. The review, which was the subject of a public consultation that ended on 30 October, provides us with a unique and timely opportunity to look carefully at the present arrangements. It also allows us to see whether improvements can be made to ensure that the Assembly has much greater influence on the future direction of lottery funding in Wales to reflect our needs and deliver the maximum benefit in terms of improving the quality of life of communities across Wales. Responses to the consultation already indicate that key stakeholders in Wales are keen for the Assembly to have a greater role in setting the overall direction for lottery funding in Wales.

We also know that there are other issues that people in Wales want addressed. We need to ensure that, in future, the lottery becomes more accessible to communities across Wales and that application procedures are simplified. This is of particular importance to the voluntary sector and to small community groups. The range of funding available must be looked at carefully and, where possible, we need to encourage joint working between the lottery distributors and other funding providers where there is potential for a common approach. One of the main focuses for the future will be the development of capacity, particularly in areas of extreme deprivation or exclusion, but also in other areas where there is less deprivation but still a lack of ability to access lottery funding. We must consider carefully with the lottery distributors how we can increase awareness, improve skills levels within communities, realise opportunities and ensure fair distribution of lottery funding across Wales. Importantly, we must ensure that organisations and agencies from all sectors working within communities in Wales are empowered to put forward quality applications for lottery funding. This capacity building will not only be relevant for applications to lottery distributors, but will also contribute towards the capacity of groups and communities to bid for other funding—the skills can easily be transferred.

I am pleased that, in Wales, lottery distributors are leading the way in the UK as far as co-operation and joint working are concerned—particularly in how they promote awareness of lottery funding and the opportunities that funding offers. I will ask the distributors to build upon this work and consider how they can target this activity, particularly at those areas of Wales with a poor record of accessing lottery funding and, moreover, at our deprived or excluded communities.

As I stated earlier, there is a general consensus that the Assembly should have a greater say in the strategic direction of lottery funding in Wales, without necessarily exerting central control. I am also aware that there have been calls previously for a reduction in the number of distributors in Wales, and even the proposal of having a single distributing body. I can confirm that responses to the consultation show that this would not be a positive step forward. While a single body is attractive cosmetically, it is acknowledged that it could have several disadvantages—not least the loss of expertise built up by the distributors, and the disruption that would be caused by organisational and structural changes. I therefore intend to pursue with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport how we can make changes in Wales that really make a difference to how lottery funding is distributed in Wales. Giving us the powers to set the lottery directions generally across all distributors would ensure that they are more sensitive to our needs.

I have already received broad support for my proposals from the Culture Committee. I will make the Welsh Assembly Government’s views known to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport before the end of November, and the views of Members in Plenary will help to shape my conclusions.

Croesawaf y datganiad yn gyffredinol, Weinidog. Bob tro y mae pwnc y loteri yn codi ei ben, y mae Aelodau o bob rhan o’r wlad yn cwyno nad yw’r arian yn cael ei ddosbarthu’n deg—mai’r tlawd sy’n cynnal y loteri a’r dosbarth canol sy’n manteisio arni. O’r diwedd, ymddengys y caiff y cwestiwn pwysig hwn ei ystyried.

Croesawaf, hefyd, yr awgrym i ddod â phenderfyniadau yn nes at y bobl, gan wneud y loteri yn fwy atebol i anghenion cymunedau ac yn symleiddio’r holl gyfundrefn drwy ddod â’r cyrff sy’n gyfrifol am ddosbarthu’r arian yn nes at ei gilydd. Rhaid hefyd sicrhau nad yw achosion teilwng yn colli cyfle drwy syrthio rhwng dwy stôl. Sut ydych chi am sicrhau hyn?

Mae Cyngor Celfyddydau Cymru a Chyngor Chwaraeon Cymru yn atebol i’r Cynulliad o ran polisi, ac i’r Adran dros Ddiwylliant, y Cyfryngau a Chwaraeon yn San Steffan am reolaeth ariannol. Mae’r cyrff eraill—y gronfa gymunedol, cronfa dreftadaeth y loteri a’r gronfa cyfleoedd newydd—oll yn llwyr atebol i’r Adran dros Ddiwylliant, y Cyfryngau a Chwaraeon. Croesawaf eich bwriad i gryfhau dylanwad y Cynulliad yn y maes hwn.

Mae’r Gymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol ac eraill am weld cyfran Cymru o arian y loteri yn codi i adlewyrchu anghenion, yn hytrach na phoblogaeth, hynny yw, i lefel o ryw 6.5 y cant. Caiff yr egwyddor ei pharchu yn barod gan rai o’r cyrff Prydeinig, gan gynnwys y gronfa gymunedol a’r gronfa cyfleoedd newydd, ond nid yn achos chwaraeon a’r celfyddydau. A yw’r Gweinidog yn rhagweld newid yn y ffigurau hyn?

Hoffwn feddwl bod yr adolygiad yn agor y drws i ni yng Nghymru gymryd yr awenau drwy hawlio’r cyfrifoldeb am weinyddu ein cyfundrefn ein hunain drwy Gymru. Teimlaf, er mwyn i’r broses ddod yn nes at y bobl, ac er mwyn symleiddio pethau, mai’r Cynulliad ddylai fod yn gyfrifol am lywio a rheoleiddio polisi pob un o’r cyrff sy’n dosrannu grantiau yng Nghymru. Beth yw agwedd y Gweinidog at hyn?

The figures do not show quite the stark picture that you paint of the middle classes benefiting and the working classes paying. I do not think that. However, there are cold spots. The best way to address those cold spots is to ensure that the lottery directions are sensitive to our needs in Wales, and the best way of doing that is to ensure that they are set in Wales, by the Assembly.

The distributors are currently working well together and are ahead of the rest of the UK in that; one advantage of being a small country is that working together is easier. Three distributors are producing awards for all, which is a common scheme.

Occasionally, they hold lottery fairs at which they are all present, and invite members of the public and local organisations to find out what is on offer. People can move easily between the stands and can get the information that they require. If the Assembly had more influence, we would make it a priority to encourage working together.

On the percentage of lottery share issued, the present situation is, frankly, illogical. The new opportunities fund takes deprivation into account, the Sports Council for Wales percentage share does not, yet its grant programme does. It is unfair and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is aware that we regard this issue as an important part of the consultation. We are submitting more representations on this.

Minister, it is important that we are all lottery winners in terms of benefiting from these funds, especially our deprived communities. I come from an area that has not been particularly successful in winning lottery funding for many projects. Having said that, I recognise that matters are improving. I appreciate the good work of the new opportunities fund and the Heritage Lottery Fund in particular, which sends teams to places like Blaenau Gwent to help build capacity and to help inform people in the community of the opportunities available to them. Lack of information and communication is a great problem and, as there are so many different funds, people are confused.

Match funding is also a problem, and always has been. It has meant that deprived areas like Blaenau Gwent remain on the bottom level. That was highlighted in a recent press article which noted that around three Sportslot applications were received from Blaenau Gwent as opposed to 100 or so from a county in north Wales—and good luck to them. Without match funding, you cannot go anywhere, and without business sponsorship, you are in your own world—you have had it. That is the problem that my constituents face.

Will the Minister redouble her efforts to encourage the lottery funds distributors to be more visible? If necessary, they could hold mini-conferences in each county to inform people of what is available. They should try to get away from match funding as much as possible, and provide people with the capacity building capability that some of these funds have begun to provide, which is vital for deprived and excluded communities like mine.

I am sure that the lottery distributors will welcome your comments, as they have been working hard to deal with the issues surrounding the so-called cold spots in Wales. Over the next year or so, I hope that they will ensure that lottery fairs, which I referred to in my earlier answer, are held in areas with cold spots. However, cold spots are not the same for each distributor, which is a complicating factor. For example, Blaenau Gwent has a good record with the Sports Council for Wales. It has received a significant amount of money from the sports council—well over £3 million—compared to other areas, which have only received £1 million within the same categories of grant. It is not an even balance, but we need to learn from that. We must find out why it is not even. What are some distributors doing that others are not?

Finally, the question of capacity building is clearly important. We have identified that we need to tackle match funding and the sources of match funding.

Minister, we welcome the major review of the distribution of lottery funding across the UK. Indeed, we welcome and support most of what you said in your statement today. It is impossible for us not to support the need for a clear Welsh direction for all lottery funding streams and a strategically focused approach. We particularly support your enthusiasm for joint working with other supporting organisations. Some small bodies find it more difficult to deal with the administration than larger organisations. If there is joint working between organisations that support those small bodies, it often reduces the administrative burden on charities making applications.

On Owen John Thomas’s point, you mentioned the Sports Council for Wales, which the Assembly controls. We have a problem with regard to the percentage of funding available to the council, which was 5 per cent until 0.5 per cent was redistributed four years ago for UK purposes. In broad terms, Wales lost around £1.2 million, although it has been given back £600,000 in terms of grants. We are still losing around £500,000 a year, even without considering deprivation and the greater costs relating to the issues of sparsity and rurality that are linked with deprivation. If those issues were brought into the debate, perhaps funding of 6 per cent would be more appropriate, which is the point that you make. Are you taking forward every aspect of this argument and making a strong case on this issue? I am sure that you will find support from all parties if you take a strong line. Wales is not getting its fair share in terms of this area of funding. Every Member supports you on this issue, particularly Conservative Members.

Your support, in general, is helpful, particularly on the final point that you made. Funding of 5 per cent is too low because it does not reflect the greater costs that arise because of deprivation. When 0.5 per cent was redistributed for the UK performance programme—regardless of whether we get our money’s worth from that programme—we lost our ability to decide on how that money is spent. That percentage share is a problem because it costs the same amount of money to build a swimming pool in Wales as it does in the Midlands. The fact that Wales is such a small country reduces our ability to fund capital development.

The number of athletes from Wales on the performance programme varies, which causes a problem in terms of ensuring that we get our money’s worth from the 0.5 per cent that was redistributed for UK use. We certainly do not benefit fully from some aspects of that programme. To my knowledge, there is only one performance manager working in Wales. I assure you that I have raised this issue at every meeting of the UK Sports Cabinet that we have held, and in many other ways. It will be a central part of our response on lottery funding. The DCMS has recognised that this is an important issue for us and has stated that it expects to address it as part of its review. We can only hope that it will consider the issue positively. I hope that we will be able to unite on this in order to put forward the strongest possible case.

I also welcome this statement. It is important that lottery distributors are more aware of the needs of Wales when deciding how to distribute funding and resources, so that Wales gets its fair share. I welcome the commitment in the statement to asking distributors to consider how they can target their activities at those areas of Wales with a poor record of accessing lottery funding.

I think the idea of teams going into areas to consider match funding and to try to simplify funds is particularly important. One of the areas that I represent, Bridgend, currently receives the lowest amount of lottery funding per capita, despite the fact that it has many deprived areas. It is important that we consider ways of improving the flow of money to areas like that and, to that end, I would welcome any contribution that you can make as part of this review.

There is also the issue of the sustainability of lottery funding. A number of organisations rely on lottery funding to get projects up and running and they have great difficulty with the administrative burden and the red-tape and bureaucracy involved in acquiring funding. At the same time, they are establishing schemes without necessarily having the core funding in place to support them and that is a huge problem. At the end of three years, the funding is taken away from that scheme; it is almost impossible to get a scheme renewed with lottery funding and, as a result, the good work that it has been doing effectively comes to an end and the community suffers.

A Swansea charity that established the Play Resource Centre, which collects waste material for resale to schools and community groups, recently had to make four workers redundant because of those problems. Minister, as a part of this review, will you consider making lottery funding more sustainable, given the reliance of the voluntary sector on it, and will you make representations to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to try to find mechanisms by which crucial community regeneration schemes, dependent on lottery money, are able to keep going once that lottery money falls off the end of the cliff?

I am well aware of the thorny issue of sustainability and, in fact, almost all the responses to our consultation referred to it. Sustainability was certainly underplayed in the early years of the lottery. The reasoning is that if you continuously renew lottery grants for the organisations that you have already given money to, then you do not have the opportunity to give fresh money to new organisations. At the same time, there is an element of erasing people’s hopes and wasting money by creating projects that eventually fail because they are not sustainable. I think we need to consider the length and renewability of funding, so that we give organisations a fair chance to get up and running properly before the money is withdrawn. There must be a clear exit strategy—as it is commonly called—in applications which need annually renewed funding, so that those organisations set out a clear programme as to how they will fund themselves in future. There is also a strong case for potential future partners to make a commitment. For example, local authorities could be stronger partners in some projects to ensure that there is an element of sustainability, when the lottery funding comes to an end.

It has been widely reported that lottery ticket sales across the UK have fallen because of the large sums of money that are being handed out to extreme left-wing politicised groups, some of which have been extremely scathing about the Government; one inferred that the Government was an extreme right-wing Government—we all know that is not true. Can you ensure that any changes you make will not allow this to happen in Wales?

I am delighted that you read the Daily Mail, David—I would have expected no less of you. However, I agree with your view of the Government’s political complexion. The way that lottery money is handed out to organisations is clearly a key issue in terms of the original concept of the lottery. The original idea was that it should provide additional money for organisations to undertake work that would not otherwise be funded from the Government’s pot of money.

As other Members have said, the application process for lottery funding is sufficiently complex and rigorous. The checks on the submission of business plans, the status of organisations and so on are rigorous enough to ensure that the money is generally well spent. In any system that involves so many hundreds of millions of pounds being handed out to third party organisations, there is bound to be the occasional controversy. I welcome the idea that organisations take risks with money by trying out new ideas that have been considered to be acceptable according to the general principles. The Government should not dictate exactly how every penny of lottery money should be spent, and I do not think that you would agree that it should. I deplore the campaign in the Daily Mail. Having received one or two letters on that subject, I can tell you that the matter was irrelevant to Wales. The kind of hatred that that campaign has stirred up does nothing but divide, and detract from, our society.

I also welcome the statement. Like Peter Law, I am one of those who represents a cold spot. As Peter Black mentioned, Bridgend is severely disadvantaged in terms of lottery funding. I often wonder if that is because of the capacity within communities. Community groups are desperate for funding and are aware of the importance of lottery funding, but they are terrified of the forms and are concerned about the application process. That is why I am glad that there will be capacity building. Who will help those groups—which, in the main, consist of volunteers—to fill out those forms and thus possibly access funding? Can we streamline the forms so that they are easier to complete? We must address those issues. I compliment the Finance Minister—

The community and facilities programme that Edwina Hart announced in October has simplified forms. The community groups to which I have spoken are heartened by the fact that the Assembly has considered the complexity of funding forms, which has made them less fearful of filling them in.

I am pleased to be able to tell you, Janice, that the Sports Council for Wales has simplified its system so that there is no application form for community chest applications. That is because it works with local authorities, local groups and local contacts, which provide the capacity that you mentioned. I am pleased that other lottery distributors are prepared to consider that approach as the way ahead. The key aspect of the sports council’s system is that it has set up partnerships with local authorities. The Arts Council of Wales and the sports council have been good at working with partners in that way.

I thank the Minister for her statement. It is received positively. Of course we would like to see a Welsh agenda and Welsh influence better placed as regards lottery spending. However, I sound a note of caution. If funding for Wales is allocated merely on the basis of population, UK-scale projects will never take place in Wales. I highlight the example of the national swimming pool that is about to be built in Swansea. That is welcome. However, that is not a UK-scale project, partly because the funding requirement for such a large-scale project is not available in Wales because the population is split and because of the Sports Council for Wales. Therefore when you seek to interpose a Welsh agenda, which we would view positively, will you also ensure that UK-scale projects will come to Wales? If the matter is considered simply in terms of population, we will not see a project of that scale again.

You have pinpointed a crucial issue. One problem is that we have had UK-scale projects from two funds; the Millennium Commission, which is winding down and no longer gives money for UK-scale projects, and the Heritage Lottery Fund. My proposals do not affect the way in which the Heritage Lottery Fund distributes money. We are conscious of the fact that the Heritage Lottery Fund has a Wales fund, which provides smaller grants, and a UK fund for large projects, such as the Swansea Maritime Museum. The availability of large sums of money is important for the kind of projects that that fund is dealing with. I will be careful not to interfere with that concept in putting forward the proposals. One reason why a single lottery body in Wales was proposed—though it was unpopular in consultation—was that different funds could then be amalgamated to get the significant sums of money that are occasionally needed. However, the overwhelming view was that the disadvantages of that outweighted the advantages.

This lottery is a regressive tax, as Members have said, and we must ensure that our deprived communities get their fair share. You know of the situation in Newport East. I have statistics from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—

Will you address that situation? The people of Newport East are among the highest contributors, but they receive the least benefit.

I did not catch all of that. However, the key issue that you pinpoint is that there are areas where lottery spend is higher. Transparency on what is distributed in different areas is important, and it would encourage fairness. However, to ensure complete transparency, consideration must be given to the money that goes to Wales-wide organisations, which gets attached to individual postcodes. That distorts the overall figures in certain areas.

Mynegaf fy ngwerthfawrogiad, ar ran y Pwyllgor Diwylliant, o’r ffordd gynhwysol y mae’r Gweinidog wedi ymdrin â’r mater hwn yn y Pwyllgor ac yn y Cyfarfod Llawn y prynhawn yma. Clywodd bryderon rhai Aelodau. Yn benodol, mae angen hyfforddi pobl ar sut i lanw ffurflenni. Mae bron â bod yn wyddor erbyn hyn, sy’n golygu mai dim ond rhai mudiadau sy’n medru gwneud ceisiadau. Fodd bynnag, cefnogwn yr hyn y mae’r Gweinidog yn ceisio’i wneud er mwyn sicrhau cyfiawnder i Gymru yn y maes hwn.

Thank you. I assure you that the views expressed today will be taken into account in our final comments to the DCMS.

Monday’s announcement that the major Spanish steelmaker Celsa is the prospective buyer of Allied Steel and Wire’s assets is an important step forward. The joint administrative receivers of ASW Holdings plc announced yesterday that they have reached an exclusivity agreement with Celsa Group, a leading steel manufacturer, for the sale of most of the Cardiff site of ASW, together with some plant and machinery at the Cardiff site and at Sheerness. It is hoped that the proposed transaction will take place in January 2003. Confidentiality clauses prevent the receivers providing further details at this stage. However, we all hope that steel-making will recommence in Cardiff next year.

On Monday, the First Minister and I spoke with Juan Carlos Orozco, Celsa’s finance director, to hear of Celsa’s next steps. The First Minister welcomed the announcement of the prospect of continued steel-making in Cardiff. Both he and I extended a standing invitation to the company’s executives to meet us at an appropriate future date, and that was accepted. It has been a long five months for former ASW staff and the communities around the Cardiff plants. Last July, there was devastation at the news from ASW. I was involved in the nine-hour marathon negotiation session in London, where it proved impossible to retain the support of ASW’s financial backers for a continuing operation in Cardiff. I applaud the Welsh Development Agency, Education and Learning Wales, the Employment Service, Jobcentre Plus, Careers Wales, Steel Partnership Training, Cardiff County Council, and others—and the receivers remarked on the agencies’ commitment and focus—for the terrific progress that has been made since then in helping former ASW employees to find new work and to claim their entitlements.

The news for Sheerness is devastating. We sympathise deeply with those who have continued to produce steel there. The encouraging news for Cardiff does not prevent us from feeling for those who may lose their jobs at Sheerness.

I emphasise that the speculation that the Assembly Government provided financial inducements for Celsa to commit to Cardiff is groundless. Such assistance would, in any case, be illegal under the European steel code, and would have to be paid back with punitive interest by the company concerned on discovery. I spoke to the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, Alan Johnson, earlier today to assure him that no aid had been offered to Celsa, and that the company’s decision was taken on a purely commercial basis.

The Welsh Assembly Government has campaigned hard and has been successful in ensuring that former ASW staff qualify for the one-off iron and steel employees re-adaptation benefits scheme payment, which is paid to redundant steel workers in recognition of the severe restrictions on state aid to the industry. Those made redundant by ASW now know that discussions will continue until January.

The Assembly Government has made a great effort to convince Celsa that reopening the Cardiff plant will not only be good news for the Welsh economy but also exceptionally good news for Celsa. We expect to see a major gear change now that we have formal confirmation of Celsa’s involvement. However, further discussions are needed. Yesterday morning, the First Minister and I co-chaired a further meeting between ASW’s receiver and interested parties, including trade unions, Assembly Members and Members of Parliament, to discuss the proposed sale of ASW. This was another in the series of meetings that the Assembly Government has brokered since July. The tone of the meeting was positive, although it is inevitable that, at this stage in negotiations, there are more questions than answers. Team Wales will continue to do everything possible to ensure a fair and positive resolution to the outstanding issues surrounding the sale. However, for the present, our attention is focused on providing every support to allow the Celsa purchase to go ahead so that steel-making returns to Cardiff as soon as possible.

While we recognise that several hurdles remain, we believe that, after a spell of continuous bad news in the Welsh steel industry, the news of a potential buyer for ASW is a much welcome good news story.

I too welcome Celsa’s continued interest in these negotiations and the extension of the exclusivity talks. It is important that we continue to work together without trying to make political capital of the situation. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in the meetings.

It is an ill wind that blows no good: the blow to Sheerness means good news for Cardiff as it may enhance our chances of reopening the steelworks here. I regret the closure of the Cardiff nail shop and the sale of its plant and machinery, but I welcome the National Assembly Government’s intention to ensure that nail shop workers, who do not produce steel, and therefore do not qualify for ISERBS payments, get some measure of help from this Government for their years of work.

I understand that the receiver, KPMG, has not arranged for a meeting between Celsa and the ASW workers. I can understand the sensitivity of the situation but, considering the workers’ experience, knowledge and skills I am sure that, if representatives of the workers were to meet with Celsa, Celsa would understand the benefit of re-opening the works and drawing upon the skills of those who know the machinery and understand the workings of the site. It would get them off to a great start. Therefore, I urge you to arrange a meeting between Celsa and the ASW workforce, as this would help to ease the concerns of, and pressure on, the workers as we approach Christmas.

I understand that the Spanish Government has strict rules on the treatment of staff and safeguarding jobs. That is important and a good omen. Celsa is a Catalonia-based firm that also has branches in the Basque country. There are long-standing links between the iron and steel industries in the Basque country and Wales. The Dowlais iron works in Cardiff used to ship iron ore in from, and railway track out to, Spain and other parts of the world. We should draw Celsa’s attention to these links, as the idea of two small countries working together might have some influence upon it.

KPMG has made it clear that the agreement to buy the works is not binding, and has stated that at no time was there mention of restarting the—

I will draw to a close now. The wind-up process of the pension—[Interruption.] I will be glad to hear what the Tories have to say later. The wind-up of the pension scheme is causing great concern. Will you try to accelerate the process? It is, after all, no more than an arithmetical exercise, but it takes four to five years, largely because of the lack of civil servants to deal with the issue of the inland revenue national insurance contributions office, and the fact that the professional bodies do not hurry as they make a lot of money out of it. I hope that you can take steps in this matter and that, in a few months’ time, we can celebrate the reopening of the works with the workers.

In terms of development in Cardiff, we are gratified. The fact that Celsa, apparently within one week of ASW’s going into receivership, was in active negotiations with KPMG, the receivers, over a possible purchase, and that it has spent three months visiting the ASW site and holding meetings with senior and middle management, are excellent omens for the future. Celsa is not a peripheral player in the steel industry; it is a major player. We welcome its interest, and hope that steel production will start soon.

On relations with the trade unions, we understand that Celsa has a positive industrial relations record, and, as you know, following the meeting yesterday, I gave a commitment that the First Minister and I would help the trade unions engage with Celsa in negotiating the restart of production in Cardiff.

Pensions are a separate issue. It is a complex area, which is not devolved; it is a reserved matter for the Westminster Government. We have taken the matter up with Whitehall Ministers, as have Members of Parliament. The pension fund is run by independent trustees and is a complex issue. We have raised some of the workers’ concerns with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry, and we are still pressing and hoping for a positive conclusion. The pension shortfall is unfortunate, and a major contributory factor has been the recent decline in the stock market, which has meant that investments have lost considerable value. We are taking up the other, statutory issues with Whitehall Ministers.

I thank you, Minister, and the First Minister for facilitating the meetings since ASW went into receivership. Those meetings have included everyone: elected Members from all parties, county councils, the Lord Mayor of Cardiff, who has attended each meeting, the trade unions—Amicus and the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and their shop stewards—the WDA and the receivers. That has been helpful as everyone has known what is happening, even though much of the information was commercially sensitive. The receivers in particular had some difficulty in giving us information at some junctures.

We welcome this announcement, though somewhat cautiously until matters are more certain. However, what more can be done to ensure that former ASW workers are given the first choice of any new jobs? What training funds might be available to Celsa to facilitate any necessary up-skilling, as many of the craftspeople from ASW have now found other work? Owen John covered the issue of encouraging Celsa to meet local people, the unions, the workforce and the Lord Mayor, particularly as the council is prepared to put all the resources it can towards ensuring that this steel plant re-opens in Cardiff.

I welcome your praise for all those who played a part in this matter. It has been a Team Wales approach. KPMG said that it has never encountered such a concerted and committed response to any of the big receivership issues that it has dealt with. That is a tribute to all those who have played a part in this all-party, all-institution matter.

If and when Celsa starts operating in Cardiff, I cannot give a commitment that the jobs will go to former ASW workers. It is a matter for the trade unions and us to discuss with Celsa. However, due to the specialist production at ASW and its highly skilled, committed and adaptable workforce—one of the most attractive aspects of ASW for any potential purchaser—the workers are probably well placed. There are retraining issues, as you mentioned, and they emerged during yesterday’s meeting. I said that I would take the matter up with ELWa, the WDA and the local authority to see what we can do to match skills to jobs and to retraining. That is one of the major issues that we will take up.

The statement is good news, not only for the former employees of Allied Steel and Wire, but also for Cardiff and the wider community. I can understand why the Minister wants to be associated with such good news. He mentioned in his statement that, last July, everyone was devastated by the news from ASW. Should he not have addressed the Chamber prior to that devastation to make a statement on the difficulties that would be experienced? I note the congratulatory comments made by some of his backbench colleagues. Was the Chamber not the place to share the information? Obviously, that does not include the commercially sensitive information, but you should have come here, at what you called a devastating time, to make a statement. However, this is good news, and we welcome it.

On a separate point, will you now commit to lobbying the Westminster Government to review pension legislation so that people who have worked for an organisation for many years—sometimes for as many as 40 years—do not find that there are no funds to pay their pensions after their retirement? Such legislation needs to be reviewed. I do not have the answers, but a review is the first step to ensure that such a situation is never repeated. I noticed that, during an answer to another Member’s questions on pensions, you said that stock market falls had not been helpful. Were the tax raises that the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed on pension funds also unhelpful?

Getting agreement from all parties except the Conservatives is becoming common practice, and we have come to expect it. I made a statement in Plenary—you may not have been present, Alun—in response to ASW’s going into receivership. I felt it appropriate to do that, and I have tried, wherever possible, to keep Members with a constituency interest informed, either through the Economic Development Committee or privately. As Lorraine Barrett and Owen John Thomas said, they have been actively involved, as has a member of the Conservative group, in some of the meetings. I regret that you wish to make party political points out of this. I have kept Members as fully informed as possible, in Plenary and Committee, although we have been unable to inform Members of all developments because of commercial confidentiality issues. On pensions, we have already lobbied the UK Government and will continue to do so. The local Member of Parliament, Alun Michael, has taken up this issue, as have other south Wales MPs with a constituency or industry interest.

On the pension fund, the most important contributory factor has been the decline in the stock market, which has affected many pension funds. Therefore, I refute that the problem has been caused by anything other than market forces, which your party has always so actively supported.

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure that others would join me in congratulating all the parties that have worked together to bring about this announcement, which I am sure we all accept, although with some caution, because it is not yet finalised. At the same time, we sympathise with the demise of the works at Sheerness.

Your statement referred to the ‘sale of most of the Cardiff site’. What will happen to the rest of the site? It is important that we know.

I join other Members in expressing deep concern about the pension situation, but I also want your view on the increased insurance premiums that are being demanded as a result of 11 September. That is beginning to impact on many businesses. Has this been taken into account during discussions with Celsa?

I also want to know more about the sustainability of the jobs—and I am sure that you have discussed that—particularly with respect to wage rates. Can you tell us how many of the previous employees will want to take up employment with the new company? While we all welcome a takeover, we must ensure that the quality of pay is retained.

Finally, I commend the task group approach. Has research been undertaken on the back of this into the impact on the community? Could the community be assisted through Assembly grants—perhaps not Communities First, but similar social grants—because, often, the impact on families is forgotten, particularly as we approach Christmas?

I said, deliberately, that the sale was not of the whole of the site. Celsa has decided, for commercial reasons, that it does not wish to acquire the nails plant and, on that basis, the receiver has sought to dispose of those assets to other purchasers. That is a commercial matter and I am not party to that. That was discussed in the meeting yesterday, as Lorraine and Owen John Thomas know.

Insurance premiums is a big issue and is affecting many companies in Wales. Our economy is largely made up of small companies—98 per cent of our companies are small and medium-sized enterprises—and they are particularly hard hit by any increase in insurance premiums. I have taken this matter up with my ministerial colleagues in Westminster, pointing out that, while this may be a short-term blip in the market, it could cause a longer-term, secular rise in interest premiums, which would have a disproportionate effect on companies in Wales. I have therefore asked for early meetings with my ministerial colleagues, and have sought to influence their policy in this matter, as we are concerned about this.

On the sustainability of jobs, Mick, our concern is that the long-term future of the plant is secured and that the jobs are sustainable. Everything we know about Celsa gives us confidence that that is the case. It has a good record in Spain, and its industrial relations record is also good. However, I understand that many ASW workers have already obtained alternative work or, in many cases, have sought education and training. One employee said on the radio yesterday that he was training to be a teacher. ASW employees have reacted in different ways, but we want to ensure that as many former ASW employees as possible are given an offer of employment with Celsa.

That relates to your fourth point about research on the impact on the community. Many of the former ASW workers lived in areas such as Splott and Tremorfa, which are some of the poorest communities in Wales. We do not have any research at present on the impact on those communities, but there is ongoing research about the effect, for example, of the Corus redundancy announcement on the communities affected by that. We are considering what can be done to help ASW workers and their families. For example, there is an Objective 3 training package, which was signed-off recently, which is aimed specifically at former ASW workers. We will be considering every avenue, whether it is through us, through agencies such as the Welsh Development Agency and ELWa, or with the local authority, to provide support to the local community.

I have several questions, but before I ask them, I welcome the statement. The Minister will acknowledge that I have pressed for a statement on this matter for some time now—since we returned to business this term and before then. I wrote to him on 2 August, and, after raising in the Chamber the fact that I had not received a reply, I received a response dated 8 November. Therefore it has not all been good news on responding to concerns, nor have I been asked to any meeting. Had I been, I would have attended. I am seeing some of the workers next week, and many of them realise, as Mick Bates said, that we are not out of the woods yet. We must lower expectations a little.

Will you indicate how many of the 1,000 jobs lost Celsa hopes to secure? Will you ensure that those who have lost their jobs are the first in the queue when it comes to filling posts? That is an important point. I also press you on the issue of state aids, which I feel sure that this company will be seeking. I hope that I am wrong, but I would be surprised if it does not. There has already been some talk of offering resources from Cardiff and so on. If we are able to do that, that is fine, but I pressed you on state aids previously in relation to ASW, and you seemed unwilling to present a case for that. The European competition directorate-general confirmed that steel is one of the sectors for which it is more open to us to give state aid. Recently, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain have received approval for state aid. I am uncertain as to why we have not pursued that. Belgium and France are currently seeking permission.

One reason that our steel industry in Wales has been suffering is that the Welsh Assembly Government and the UK Government have been unwilling to pursue state aid, while other countries have. I press you on that again, and I would be surprised if we were not asked to help in terms of state aid. I hope that you will be willing to seek approval of that. However, that raises the issue of why that approval was not sought previously, particularly in relation to emission abatement equipment, which was approved in principle and then not pursued in relation to ASW in 2001. Much more must be done, Minister, and we should not be too self-congratulatory yet. The workers will need the reassurance that these jobs will be genuine opportunities, and I hope that they are.

On pensions, there is not much that you could do about the stock exchange position, short of resigning as a Government here and in Westminster, which I do not believe you will do. However, you can press Gordon Brown on the tax hike that he has placed on the stock market, which has undoubtedly made a difference to pensions, as any worker or pension fund manager would tell you. Will you make representations on that, because we are unable to influence the level of the stock market in the short term?

I hope that I was not self-congratulatory. The statement cautiously welcomed the news by Celsa, and acknowledged that a considerable amount of work is yet to be done. In terms of your involvement, you are more than welcome to attend any future meetings. Those invited were invited because they had a local constituency interest; Jonathan Morgan attended the meeting in the summer. That was the principle behind who was invited, but I would be more than happy to welcome you to the meetings.

In terms of the number of jobs, it is again difficult to say. The number 600 has been mentioned, linked to a company statement, but it would be wrong for me to make a commitment on that, as it is a matter for the company. As I said in yesterday’s meeting with the trade unions and the receivers, as a Government we will do everything possible to ensure that former Allied Steel and Wire workers are first in line for jobs. The fact that they have the skills that a steel producer needs gives them a lead in that.

On state aids, it is not true that there is a dispensation on this. We have sought clarification from the Department of Trade and Industry and from all the experts available about the issue of state aid. Under the European Coal and Steel Community agreement, support for the steel industry is limited to helping redundant steelworkers or to enhancing the environmental sustainability of steel production. We cannot give direct financial assistance to steel companies. Given that allegations were made about other countries being able to do so, we researched the matter and found that, where that had been the case, the European Commission—as soon as it had discovered it—had come down on those companies like a tonne of bricks, and had sought punitive repayment. In fact, that forced those steel companies into receivership. The rules are clear, but I will put into the public domain the information that we have on the rules concerning state aid for the steel industry, and I am more than happy to send you a copy of that.

Minister, thank you for this statement. It is an important day. There is better news today and yesterday than there was last week. I should declare that my father is a retired pensioner of ASW—or GKN as it was then. My brother is a former employee and worked in the nail factory until August this year, and his son, my godson, is also a former employee. Therefore, I have concerns. Most of them have been mentioned, but do you intend to hold an investigation into activities on the stock market relating to ASW’s receivership? I have been told that a director’s wife dumped 8 million shares before the announcement of receivership in July. I have also observed operations material being transported out of the plant—I travel that way regularly on my way to the Assembly.

Will there be an investigation into those matters?

I am unaware of these allegations, but if you want to write to me with specific issues, Brian, I will consider them and respond. On the nail factory, I know that you have a family connection, and I am sorry that it will not be sold as a going concern. However, we are considering whether the staff of the nail factory, which is part of the ASW plant, can be included in the ISERB scheme—and I have taken this up personally with the Department of Trade and Industry. We may be able to do that for some of the staff, but we are awaiting a final decision.