I propose that

I thank the Assembly for allowing these motions to be debated together. The Act makes it easier for leaseholders of houses to qualify for the right to buy the freehold of their house and extend their leases. It abolishes the low rent test and the residents’ test for most purposes. These changes are among those that will come into effect in Wales on 1 January 2003. As a consequence, amendments are needed to the statutory notices which are to be served on landlords in applying for enfranchisement with the extension of long leaseholds under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

The current notices are set out in the Leasehold Reform Notices Regulations 1997. In the interest of making the amendments to the forms easier to follow, it is intended that the new consolidated set of forms incorporated in the changes be introduced rather than simply amend the existing regulations. These amended forms are set out in the Leasehold Reform (Notices) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2002, which are now before us.

As we have already approved the commencement Order that requires these amendments as a consequence, it makes sense for us to approve these amendment regulations today so that they can come into effect at the same time.

I welcome the changes made to the existing leasehold legislation by this Order. The reforms will come into force on 1 January 2003. However, little or no consultation was undertaken with the people of Wales before drafting this legislation. While these regulations extend the rights of leaseholders to purchase their freehold or to extend their lease, they do not address the many inequities involved in determining the freehold price and other matters relating to the crucial purchase proceedings, namely that the standing value of the property is frequently overestimated and the value of the site as a proportion of the property price is frequently too high. The landowner, having in the past compelled the leaseholder to insure the property with a named company, then seeks compensation for the loss of commission. The leaseholder has to pay the fees of solicitors and surveyors of both parties. Although, the freehold purchase should be a simple matter involving three pieces of correspondence from each side, the combined transaction fee can often exceed £1,000, although the freehold price may be only a fraction of that sum.

Landlords often delay the transaction for long periods, causing unnecessary anxiety to the leaseholder despite the simplicity of the process. Often, landlords do not supply the leaseholder’s solicitor with a breakdown of the freehold evaluation unless the leaseholder employs a surveyor. Employing a surveyor to check the evaluation can cost the leaseholder around £300 or more. When you buy a house, there will be plenty of evidence of its value, but with a freehold, there is no transparency, leaving you vulnerable to exploitation. Leasehold evaluation panels deal mainly with rent assessment and the leaseholder can face waiting over a year for a hearing even though no costs are awarded at local tribunal hearings. A leaseholder would normally need to be represented by a solicitor and a surveyor, often making the appeal process financially prohibitive. Leaseholders are usually aware that the freehold price increases as their lease shortens. That exerts pressure on them to settle at an inflated price. All these circumstances combine to co-erce leaseholders into paying over the odds for their freeholds—an element referred to in tribunals as the ‘Delaforce effect’.

My own experience as an adviser for the Citizen’s Advice Bureau for many years has familiarised me with these injustices. Forty per cent of 99-year leaseholds in England and Wales are on dwellings in Wales, therefore it is a matter of some importance to us. The moderate reform is welcomed, but is only a shadow of the reform that this Assembly could achieve given legislative powers.

The Welsh Liberal Democrats have always been opposed to the principle of leasehold, as I stated in our last debate on this matter some weeks ago. One hundred years ago, Lloyd George described the system as legalised robbery. Our central aim is to abolish leasehold outright. That would be most easily achieved by making the conversion from leasehold to commonhold as simple and easy as possible. We propose that the automatic right of ballot for all leaseholders in a block of flats to determine their ownership status is petitioned by one third of leaseholders. If the majority of leaseholders then voted in favour, ownership of freehold would transfer to either a company in which each leaseholder held a share or a commonhold association that would handle maintenance of all common areas of the property. However, given the constraints of Assembly powers, we cannot implement our policies completely and we recognise that passing this Bill is a step in the right direction. If the Assembly were to have powers akin to those of Scotland, then the Welsh Liberal Democrats would have to reconsider this issue.

We welcome the measures proposed by the Minister today. They are a move forward. To address a comment made by a previous speaker, most well-managed estates have long pursued a policy of sale without excessive prices. These measures introduce the following changes to qualifying rules: the abolition of the residents’ test—which was an important test; a new requirement that the tenant must hold the lease for two years only; abolition of the low rent test; and the right to buy the freehold within the term of a lease extension. Previously only a 50-year extension was permitted. New rights and qualifying rules for a personal representative of the leaseholder are greatly welcomed. These measures will be endorsed by my party.

I concur with William’s comments. He has outlined the positive measures included in this legislation. I make it clear that the purpose of today’s debate is solely to discuss the Leasehold Reform (Notices) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2002 and not the merits of the Act. Members of all parties have strong views on leasehold reform and I emphasise the importance that we attach to the issue and reassure you that we have tried to be as involved as possible in this process. The Assembly carried out a consultation exercise on the draft Bill in Wales and those comments were outlined in the consultation paper in August 2000 on behalf of the Secretary of State for Wales. While the responses to the consultation were disappointing, comments from Wales were taken into account. During that consultation period, we did not receive comments from Members.

She said that there was no consultation or response from any Members. That is patently untrue.

I propose that

There is a requirement to carry out a business rates re-evaluation every five years in England and Wales. That is set out in primary legislation. If the Order is not passed in Wales, the Valuation Office Agency will not be able to revalue business properties in Wales by reference to the common valuation dates. The antecedent valuation date has always been set two years in advance of the re-evaluation date in order to allow enough time for the Valuation Office Agency to carry out the valuations. This Order therefore sets the antecedent valuation dates as 1 April 2003. I ask you to support the motions.

I support these necessary amendments. I recognise that the explanatory note does not form part of the Order, but I note that there was consideration by this administration to specify in those notes:

‘the day by reference to which the rateable value of a non-domestic hereditament is to be determined for the purposes of the local and central non-domestic rating lists which are to be compiled on 1 April 2005.’

Unfortunately, the date specified is 1 April 2003. Was that an attempt to give non-domestic ratepayers an early Christmas present in the form of a discount of one denarius?

This motion is of a technical nature and it is sensible to have a fixed date for the purpose of both central and local government.

I thank William for drawing our attention to the incorrect date.

This Order is mainly concerned with the treatment of erectile dysfunction. We take this subject seriously because although it is not directly life-threatening, it can affect relationships and mental wellbeing. At the same time, the Assembly has to make difficult decisions about priorities and if we use resources to treat one condition, those resources cannot be used to meet other demands. Current policy is that drug treatment under the NHS is available only to people with specified medical conditions or who are suffering from severe distress. As new drugs for this condition become available, they will be subject to the same policy. These regulations add the drug apomorphine hydrochloride, which is marketed as Uprima, to schedule 11 of the principal regulations.

We are also taking this opportunity to make certain appliances available under the NHS that were not previously available. They will be subject to the same restrictions. The appliances are not specified in this amendment, which is an enabling Order. They will be added to the drug tariff by administrative action later. The Order also contains some unconnected amendments of a technical nature. Some relate to the extension of nurse prescribing and some are consequential on changes in primary legislation. These are essentially tidying-up exercises.

Plaid Cymru welcomes these regulations. Making the drug Uprima available on the NHS will bring Wales in line with England, and will give GPs and patients further choice in the treatment of impotence. Unfortunately, impotence is still one of those taboo issues that we, as a society and as individuals, find it difficult to talk about. We should not lose sight of the importance of suitable and properly regulated treatment for those who need it for their physical and emotional wellbeing—

Sorry, I did not wish to intervene. I was merely returning to my chair.

I have one serious concern: outside the regulated NHS framework, Uprima and Viagra are already freely available to buy on the internet. Anyone can log on, go through a so-called online consultation and, subject to verification by a registered but anonymous GP, receive their drug of choice within hours.

Two issues are raised. First, the legal standpoint—it is technically against UK law to advertise the sale of prescription-only medicine. What is the legal position of companies that advertise and trade such medicine over the internet for financial gain? The second issue concerns the obvious and serious risk to individuals in obtaining drugs by those means. There are no one-to-one consultations, no personal discussions on an individual’s circumstances and no access to medical records.

We also welcome the extended definition of nurse prescribing. Plaid Cymru applauds any move to develop the skills and career pathways of all health professionals. Of course, support and adequate training resources are vital. I was glad to hear announced earlier today that £0.5 million in funding has been made available for the training of nurses and pharmacists specifically to this end. I welcome the regulations.

I am grateful to Geraint for his constructive remarks. It is a difficult subject, which must be dealt with sympathetically. Under the new arrangements, those drugs can be prescribed for a wide range of medical conditions. Patients who are in severe distress can obtain the drugs under the NHS from hospitals. We believe that we have got the priorities right in this regard.

The commercial advertising of Viagra and Uprima must be subject to some restrictions in terms of medical arrangements. However, because they are not under the control of the NHS, there is clearly less control, as you, Geraint, as a pharmacist, will be aware. I am also pleased that we are moving to extend nurse and pharmacist prescribing—a move that we discussed earlier this month and in Committee.

I propose that

Directive 2001/18/EC introduces a regulatory framework that is much tougher on the releases of genetically modified organisms into the environment than previous arrangements have been. For the first time, members of the public will be able to challenge and object to applications before a marketing consent is given to a genetically modified organism. In the new directive there will be an extensive environmental risk assessment that stresses environmental and health risks. There will also be greater transparency and openness during the consenting process and improved arrangements for post-market monitoring. I am also pleased to say that the antibiotic-resistant marker genes, which may adversely affect human health and the environment, will be phased out by these regulations. The Welsh regulations have been drafted in a way that demonstrates the Assembly Government’s commitment to applying the most restrictive approach to the commercialisation of GM crops. We have included the widest possible scope for the public to make representations as to the risk of damage to the environment. Also, part B applications will need to be advertised in a wider range of publications, to allow public engagement in the process.

I have carefully considered the argument that amending the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in implementing this directive may weaken our powers, and I wish to assure Members that this is not the case. In July 2001 the Assembly set out an article 16 notice on separation distances between organic and GM crops, on the grounds of adverse effects on human health and the environment. These regulations do not change our ability to take further action of this kind. It may be the case that the current definition of harm, in section 107(6) of the Environmental Protection Act, could be allowed under the directive. All legal opinion presented to me is agreed that the only terms under which you can take action are on the grounds of possible damage to the environment. We have ensured the widest possible scope for a definition of damage to the environment under the amended Act. Any other grounds, such as economic damage to property, would be inadmissible. Therefore, the definition as it stands can be interpreted in two ways, and it could mislead the public into thinking that the law is more powerful in Wales than elsewhere. I concluded that retaining this definition would, at best, constitute a symbolic gesture and, at worst, an irresponsible misleading of the public.

However, I will always welcome any new evidence that may yet mean that we should consider amending the Welsh regulations again in the future. In every decision on genetically modified organisms, I take seriously our commitment to operate the most restrictive policy possible within the European Union legislative framework. The spirit of the policy is to investigate every avenue to ensure that we are doing all that we can to fulfil it. I have done so in this case, and I recommend this directive to the Assembly as a welcome step forward in the regulation of genetically modified organisms in Wales. I ask you to support the motions.

It should be noted that the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has had much opportunity to discuss this Order and the issues surrounding it. We all know that the Assembly is duty bound to observe its previous resolution that we wish to restrict growing GM crops in Wales as much as the law allows. That decision was made unanimously in this Plenary and I support that stance.

The Minister will know from our Committee discussions that we are not happy with the new definition of harm in these regulations. When questioned on this, he claimed that the new definition, which is much narrower than the previous one, was the definition that was to be found in the directive. When we pointed out that there is no definition of harm in the directive, officials then told us that one had been extracted from the directive. We are unconvinced by that argument and we prefer the old definition. The Minister argued that we must change our idea of harm in order to be more transparent, but it is worth reminding ourselves that the old definition served us well for 12 years and it was not challenged in court once. Our request to revert to the previous concept of harm has been ignored. Your new definition only refers to damage to the environment and fails to offer any protection to property—including organic or conventional crops that may be contaminated by genetically modified organisms and rendered unsaleable. The issue of liability for such potentially huge losses remains unresolved. I have requested that the Minister’s view be made public, but I have not received a reply other than that he might tell us at a later date. In opposition, of course, the Minister took every opportunity to be vocal on all aspects of GM policy. Perhaps he will respond this afternoon with the same enthusiasm that he displayed previously. The previous Minister was clear on liability and said on several occasions that GM growers should be liable for the losses incurred as a result of contamination. Does that continue to be the Cabinet’s view?

Finally, the Minister cited the inclusion of the precautionary principle as one of the most important aspects of these regulations. I welcomed that because I had assumed that it would mean that applicants would have to prove that no harm would be caused by growing these crops before they could proceed. Yet the regulations do not define what ‘precautionary principle’ means. In Committee, you said that it had been included at the request of Friends of the Earth, but your legal advice was that its inclusion made no difference to the application of these regulations. To my mind, that is the most arrogant and patronising approach: to be prepared to include matters to placate pressure groups just as long as the additions make no material difference. You are wrong on that front. Taking all those concerns together, we cannot support these regulations as they stand. Plaid Cymru will vote against this motion.

There is one central point that I want to put to the Minister to see if I can get some reassurances from him. He mentioned earlier that the Assembly had a policy, agreed across all parties, to have the most restrictive approach possible on handling GMOs. At the heart of that has to be the concern expressed by people in the Assembly and outside regarding the safety implications of GMOs in terms of human health and the environment. Those are now included in the definition of harm in this new Order. A central part of that necessity to protect human health and the environment has been the right, which has existed hitherto, to call for a public hearing so that individuals can put their case to an independent hearing about their concerns. That right existed previously.

It was such an important right that the Minister, in his previous incarnation as an ordinary Assembly Member, exercised it. In April 2000, in respect of Chardon LL, he used that right by calling for such a public hearing. Now, as a Minister, he argues for something different. I do not necessarily disagree with him on this point, but he is arguing that the right that previously existed when a seed was being considered for listing should now be considered—Minister, there is no point in shaking your head just yet. You argued the case for a public hearing in April 2000, and I will read out an extract from your own consultation document in a moment.

You are on the wrong track.

It might be better if you followed my argument and then tried to reply as coherently as you can.

I refer you to your consultation document dated 19 September 2002 in which you invited views on these matters and stated in summary:

‘We believe that the national list system is not the appropriate place to challenge GM safety assessments.’

These are your words from your own document:

‘Instead we plan to put in place improved, effective and transparent mechanisms that will enable public concerns on GM safety to be heard and taken into account before approvals are granted (ie under the Directive 90/220/EEC regime on the release of GMOs.)’

As it happens, I do not disagree with the Minister. That approach is sensible. Safety considerations should be examined when considering the release provisions and before listing the seeds. However, if the Minister wanted to do that, there would have to be provision for a public hearing in the Order before us today and there is none. Why has the Minister not made that provision? He has issued a consultation document making clear that he will remove from the seed listing regulations the right to a public hearing and wants to include it in the deliberate release regulations, namely these regulations. However, that right is not included here, and I would like to know why. The Minister may well argue that the regulations could be amended at a later date. I would be prepared to listen to that argument. However, if that is his argument, will the Minister address the issue of the attitude of the other countries who are party to this procedure, because Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland will have to agree to a subsequent amendment to these regulations? Largely because of opposition in Scotland, there has not been any possibility hitherto of reaching such an agreement.

If we were to accept the Minister’s suggestion to abolish the right to a public hearing in the belief that it might be reinstated in future, we would be buying a pig in a poke. That pig would not squeal, because the Minister is not capable of delivering on this. It would be disingenuous of him if he were to suggest otherwise. He may argue that it is matter of disengagement rather than of being disingenuous, as ‘disengagement’ seems to be the word of the week; he wants to disengage from the Government and his past when they prove to be inconvenient. However, he cannot put these issues to one side on this occasion.

The National Assembly has a clear, precise and unanimously agreed policy on GMOs. It is not for the Minister to set that policy to one side. There are three important principles at work: our policy of restrictive use of GMOs; our commitment to open government; and the fact that we have declared our policy as a National Assembly, which the Minister cannot set aside.

If the Minister wants us to support this Order, will he give a clear and unequivocal undertaking that the right to a hearing will not be deleted from the seed listing regulations until such time as a similar provision is included in the deliberate release regulations? We should expect that from the Minister as a minimum requirement.

It is apparent that the use of GM crops has become increasingly controversial in recent years. The National Assembly must do all in its power to ensure that Wales stays GM-free. The First Minister and his deputy have, on separate occasions, advocated a GM-free Wales. Will they now honour their promises?

Not enough research has been conducted into the implications for human health and the environment of the controversial cultivation of GM crops. The Assembly needs to set an example to the rest of the UK in taking a united stand against adding Chardon LL to the national seed list. Moreover, Wales needs to set an example to the rest of Europe.

The Assembly has rejected amending the definition of harm to that contained in the English regulations. Restricting the definition could lead to adverse effects on human health. It is a priority of the elected Assembly to protect the public and represent its opinions. The public is clearly sceptical about GMOs, and that view must be respected.

We need a public consultation on the deliberate release directive. We cannot allow Chardon LL to be added to the United Kingdom national seed list or the EU common catalogue.

I am concerned that my constituents will interpret these regulations as a dilution of the Assembly’s stand on GMOs, not a strengthening of it. I seek reassurance from the Minister in that regard. As the Assembly knows, resistance to GMOs in Pembrokeshire has been such that, last year, plans for GM maize crop trials in Mathry were aborted because of public pressure. Will the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that the narrower definition of harm contained in these regulations does not represent a retreat or does not in any way hamper our ability to pursue our stated GM policy? Will he explain why he asserts that the definition of harm must be changed to bring the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in line with the directive when that Act has been in force, unchallenged, for 12 years under the previous deliberate release directive, the relevant provisions of which are the same as those of the new directive?

Some interesting comments have been made. I am mindful of our collective desire to have the most restrictive GM crop policy possible in Wales. Ron highlighted the principles at work and we have produced that policy. We can say that because Friends of the Earth is also at work on this in England and Scotland and has not had an impact. Ron also mentioned transparency. In Wales, using the powers available to us under article 16, we established a separation distance. We worked well with Friends of the Earth to achieve that. Far from this being negative, we see a strengthening of our principles.

‘Farming for the Future’ reflects our good practice of encouraging environmentally friendly farming and organic farming. We took every step possible to ensure that that was achievable. We used the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enable us to establish a separation distance on environmental grounds. We should continue in that direction. Under article 16—soon to be article 23—we must ensure that we strengthen that. The case is not totally secure. A professor has provided evidence on wind pollination.

Which professor?

I cannot remember the name at the minute. However, the professor said that a separation of 200m is not sufficient and that it should be extended.

Mae’r pryder mwyaf yn ymwneud â’r ffaith y gallai ffermwyr organig ddioddef yn fasnachol yn sgîl plannu cnydau GM yn agos i’w ffermydd. Gallai hyn effeithio ar y prisiau a dderbynia’r ffermwyr am eu cynnyrch, hyd yn oed mewn amgylchiadau lle na ellid profi niwed i’r amgylchedd. Felly mae perygl y gallai’r ffermwyr hyn ddioddef gan nad yw’r diffiniad o niwed yn cynnwys niwed economaidd neu fasnachol. Mae cyfyngu’r diffiniad o niwed yn golled ac yn gwanhau’r sefyllfa flaenorol. Ni allaf ddeall pam eich bod yn fodlon cymeradwyo—

Thank you for your timely intervention, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to put on record that the name of the professor is Professor Jean Emberlin, the director of the National Pollen Research Unit.

To answer Cynog’s point, I accept that there will always be a risk involved. Only a definitive case, where it goes to a judicial review, will settle the matter. That route is available to Friends of the Earth, and it can be followed, as Cynog knows. In terms of the price of organic produce, I am not aware that any of the factors you outlined have caused the price of organic milk, for example, to fall. We must be cautious about using price as an argument because there is no connection at present.

We have a great opportunity, when marketing consent is discussed, to ensure that the regulations refer to Wales as a geographic area. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that. That would allow us, under marketing consent, to say that Wales, as a geographic area, can implement as restrictive a policy as possible on GM seeds.

Ron raised the issue of public hearings. I would also like to hear the Minister’s views on this because previously, under part C, public hearings were possible. I have no doubt that the consultative processes under the current directive will provide a mechanism by which communities, such as those in Pembrokeshire, will be able to voice their opposition to GMOs.

Finally, there is no doubt that the overall effect of the policies that have already been implemented has been good. Scotland and England have failed to make as much progress as we have made. Two steps would help us to continue that progress. One would be to try to re-establish our GM group, so that the legalities of all positions can be well established. The second would be to raise the profile of our accomplishments in Wales by holding a European conference here to ensure that we learn from Europe and that Europe learns from us. There is no doubt that we will retain our position of having the most restrictive GM crop policy possible by accepting this regulation.

I thank Members for the various points that they have raised. However, Jocelyn, you cannot have it both ways; when you want something, you say the precautionary principle is just a trite measure, when at the same time you are asking for a legal gesture, with regard to misleading the people of Wales on the legality issue. I would like to define the word ‘harm’ in both the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and in the directive. It must be borne in mind that the Act was drafted before the EU directives came into force. It has not been challenged because no-one has used harm to properties as a justification for an economic basis; otherwise, I am sure that it would have been challenged originally.

The current legal definition of harm in section 107(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is capable of being interpreted in a way that is inconsistent with this directive. As the definition of harm includes harm to property, restrictions can be imposed on the use of GMOs because of the risk of conventional and organic farmers suffering economic loss. Member states can only impose restrictions on GMOs that have part C consent if there is

‘a risk to human health or the environment’

as stated in article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC.

In its reference to the environment, the directive is looking at physical harm to animals, plants, land, air and water—the environment—and not pure economic losses that might be faced by one or more groups of producers. The domestic courts would interpret harm to property in section 107 (6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in the light of the directive, as meaning physical harm to animals, plant, land, air and water, not risk of economic loss being suffered by GM or non-GM farmers. Hence, our definitions of harm and environment in regulation 5 of the draft regulations remove the misleading ambiguity in the current definition. On this matter, the legal advice from both Friends of the Earth and Assembly lawyers is that the Assembly can take action only on environmental grounds, not on economic grounds.

I am disappointed that I was not called in the debate. I was advised that I would be called.

Deputy First Minister, you will be aware of the impact on my constituency of the genetically modified maize trials that took place a year or so ago. Public concern about the matter was clearly reflected in the Chamber, not least by yourself. I have heard little today that reassures me. You have been at great pains to point out the additional measures and powers that will be deferred to the Assembly. However, we should do nothing that diminishes the right of the public to make the appropriate representations and to have the widest public access, through public hearings, that are currently available in the regulations. Without those assurances, I am unable to support these regulatory changes.

That was going to be my next point—I have dealt with the issue of harm and I now wish to mention public hearings. As you know, we are discussing a different set of regulations. The Assembly is consulting on the proposed changes and no decision has yet been made—the closing date on the consultation was 16 December. Along with the other UK administrations, we are seeking views on whether assessing the scientific issues surrounding genetic modification is more effectively done prior to authorisation of experiments or marketing release of GMO plants. Admittedly that could be done by amending or dealing with these particular regulations. However, this Assembly Government agrees that the right to a hearing should not be removed until an equivalent right is in its place. Both you and Ron have raised that issue, which I support entirely.

With the greatest respect, that is not the point. I asked you to give a clear, unequivocal commitment not to remove the right in the listing regulations until these regulations are amended. The word that you used—and I am sure that it was carefully chosen—was that the Assembly Government believes that the right ‘should’ be there. However, you must get the agreement of the three other countries and, without that, the National Assembly’s policy in respect of genetically modified crops goes out of the window. If we agree to these regulations this afternoon without your having given a clear and specific commitment, we are selling the pass on GM crops in Wales.

All I can say is that that is the Welsh Assembly Government’s commitment. I take that position, and I will argue for it. We are currently consulting on it: the consultation exercise has not finished, and the process continues. These regulations are now late in being determined; they must be in place by the end of 2002 to comply with the regulations already in place in England and Scotland.

I guarantee that I will argue at every step of the way for that decision, which is that the Assembly Government’s position is correct. There should not be any changes to the public hearing list without that right being given an equivalent place in the regulations. However, if I am not legally in a position to argue for that because of the restrictions placed upon me by the other administrations, I will have to return and argue for it before the Assembly. I cannot decide on a matter that has been out to consultation, the result of which I have not yet seen or heard. The debate is ongoing, so I cannot present its conclusions to any forum. I have not yet read the consultative arguments.

The logic of your argument is that you now include an equivalent right in the regulations that we are considering. If your wish is to take them out of the listing regulations, why do you not put them in these release regulations?

You misunderstand me. It is not my intention to take them out of the listing regulations. The listing regulations are not before us; they are not being debated here today. I have stated the Welsh Assembly Government’s position, namely that the right to a hearing should not be removed until an equivalent right is in place. That is as much of a guarantee as one can give on this matter. When we come to debate the regulations before us, we will have to transpose any amendments made into this directive. However, if no changes are made, the regulations will remain as they are.

Mike, many times we have heard you expressing one point of view as leader of the Liberal Democrat group, or expressing another as the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Rural Development and Wales Abroad. We all know your previous stance on this as leader of the Liberal Democrat group. Is it not therefore the height of hypocrisy that you expect us to agree to a new set of regulations today without the right to a public hearing, when you have taken advantage of that in the past? Should you not be telling us that, as Minister, you commit yourself to supporting the view that the right to a public hearing be perpetuated in these new regulations?

As I said, I am committed to having a right to a public hearing, either in the existing regulations, which are not before us today, or in these regulations. If a change were to be made, those regulations would have to be brought before us for debate. My view and the view of the Government here is that the right to a hearing should not be removed until there is an equivalent right in these regulations. However, no decision has yet been made as to whether there will be any change to any of these regulations. The right to a hearing remains in place.

To make this point absolutely clear, is the right to a public hearing diminished by voting for these regulations today or not?

It is not diminished, because the right to a hearing is still in place. If it were to be removed, that would be different. The Assembly will not remove the right to a hearing without debating the regulations here. A right to a hearing remains in place, but concerns a different set of regulations.

Point that out to Mick Bates, then. Your consultation document of 19 September 2002 states

‘in summary, we believe that the national list system is not the appropriate place to challenge GM safety assessments’.

That is your policy, Mike. You want to take the right to a public hearing out of the listing regulations. Will you explain that to Mick in one-syllable words so that he can understand it?

I will explain it once again to you in one-syllable words, Ron. The right to a public hearing is still in place as part of these regulations. Any changes to that would have to be made by the Assembly.

The issue of whether there is an economic basis—

In that case I will finish there.

When does the Minister intend to review the strategies that councils will put in place? When they are reviewed, will she ensure that what councils say is happening is really the case in practice? In my constituency, as in many others, there are people who qualify as being homeless but are not treated as a priority in their areas. Will she also satisfy herself that those who are offered accommodation are made aware of subsection 7C of the Homelessness Act 2002, which states that

‘the applicant is free to reject a qualifying offer without affecting the duty owed to him under this section by the authority.’?

There are many people in my constituency, particularly women in refuges, who have accepted an offer of accommodation that they feel is unacceptable and unsuitable, because they are scared of jeopardising future offers of accommodation. When you review the strategies, will you bear those issues in mind? Will you also join me in congratulating the jazz group, Assembly Broadband, which raised £285 yesterday for Cardiff Action for the Single Homeless?

The Government will know that it is failing on the homelessness issue. Sadly, homelessness continues to rise. The use of bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless also continues to rise, despite assurances to the contrary. We will vote against this measure—although we do not often have to directly criticise the Finance Minister—because she has entrusted much of the thrust and direction of this legislation to the Deputy Minister, in whom we have no confidence whatsoever.

This is a delegation of functions Order. I note Janet Ryder’s comments and I congratulate those who raised the money. I do not accept that we are not successful in dealing with homelessness, to which we have allocated a great deal of additional money. We are doing the business and trying to tackle this issue properly in Wales.

I propose that

Standing Order No. 36 - House Committee Title There shall be a House Committee. Terms of Reference

36.2 Subject to the following provisions of this Standing Order, the Committee is responsible for:

(a) the provision to and for Members (including when acting in proceedings of the Assembly) of facilities, accommodation, staff and such other support services as are reasonably necessary for the better performance by Members of their position as Members of the Assembly, including in its capacity as a legislative body ;

(b) the provision of translation services between English and Welsh for proceedings of the Assembly;

(c) the preparation of guidance to Members on matters within the Committee’s responsibilities;

(d) the provision of advice to the Assembly on matters relating to its terms of reference and to Members’ salaries, allowances and pensions;

(e) the preparation of a draft budget for the expenditure to be incurred by it and for the administration of the approved budget; and

(f) the provision of such other services to and for Members of a similar nature to those described above including responsibility for any extension to the building where the Assembly normally meets in Plenary session, as the Assembly may from time to time authorise by resolution in Plenary.

36.3 Nothing in paragraph 36.2 shall make it part of the Committee’s terms of reference to have responsibility:-

(a) in any field in which the Assembly has functions (within the meaning of section 57 of the Act); or

(b) in respect of proceedings of the Assembly Cabinet

Membership

36.4 Subject to the requirement of section 54 (2) (b) of the Act and paragraph 8.3 that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the political groups in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the Committee, the House Committee shall consist of at least 7 and not more than 11 members including the Chair.

36.5 If elected to be members of the Committee, the Presiding Officer, the Deputy Presiding Officer and the Business Minister shall cease to be members of the Committee once they cease to hold those offices.

36.6 In the event of the Presiding Officer or the Deputy Presiding Officer or the Business Minister not being members of the Committee they shall be entitled to attend meetings of the Committee and may participate in meetings, with the consent of the Chair, but may not vote.

36.7 A Committee member (‘the member’), who has given advance notice to the Chair, may be represented at a meeting of the Committee by another Member nominated from the same political group who has been identified in advance. In giving such notice, the member shall indicate the reason for the need for substitution. The nominated representative may participate in the meeting of the Committee in all respects as if he or she were a member of it. No Member may represent more than one Committee member at a meeting.

36.8 The Committee shall elect one of its members to chair it.

36.9 Another member of the Committee may chair a meeting of the Committee in the absence of the Chair of the Committee or if the Chair is disqualified from participating in the Committee’s consideration of any matter or otherwise voluntarily withdraws from such participation. Such member shall be appointed at the meeting concerned or at a previous meeting.

Meetings

36.10 The Committee shall meet not less than once in every 4 weeks that the Assembly meets in Plenary, unless the Committee decides otherwise.

36.11 The Committee may, as it considers appropriate, meet in public or in private, but the minutes of its meetings shall be published not later than 6 weeks after the meeting to which the minutes relate.

36.12 The Committee may report to the Assembly from time to time and shall submit an annual report.

The Presiding Office 36.13 The staff support services that the Committee is responsible for providing under its terms of reference shall be provided through the unit of Assembly staff known as the Presiding Office and headed by the Clerk and which is established and maintained under arrangements put in place by the Permanent Secretary.

Code of Conduct

36.14 The Chair of the Committee shall prepare and submit to the Assembly for its approval guidance (‘the Code’) to:-

(a) the Committee on its terms of reference; and

(b) the members of the Committee on their responsibilities as members of the Committee.

The Code shall include guidance on the relationship of the Committee and its members with the Permanent Secretary and with the Clerk and the other staff in the Presiding Office.

The Chair of the Committee shall issue a copy of the Code to each member of the Committee and shall seek to ensure that each member of the Committee complies with it.

Assembly Ministers and Other Assembly Staff

36.17 Subject to paragraph 36.18, nothing in this Standing Order shall make it part of the Committee’s terms of reference to provide facilities, accommodation, staff or other support services or guidance to or for any Member when acting as an Assembly Minister or Assembly staff who are not part of the Presiding Office.

36.18 Paragraph 36.17 shall not apply to the advice that the Committee may give under paragraph 36.2(d) in so far as it relates to advice on Members’ salaries, allowances and pensions.

Transitional Provisions

36.19 The first members of the Committee as reconstituted by the preceding paragraphs of this Standing Order shall be elected as soon as possible, whereupon the members of the House Committee as constituted under the provisions replaced by this Standing Order shall cease to hold office in that capacity and to that extent paragraph 8.3 shall not apply. This paragraph shall cease to have effect on the members of the House Committee as previously constituted ceasing to hold office. (NDM1257)

I propose that

Definition of Clerk: Replace ‘Office of Presiding Officer’ with ‘Presiding Office’

(b) Standing Order No. 4

4.3 and 4.4 replace ‘Office of the Presiding Officer’ with ‘Table Office’

(c) Standing Order No. 5

5.1 at the end add ‘and a Member of the House Committee answering on behalf of that Committee’

(d) Standing Order No. 6

6.3 insert new (vi) as follows:

(vi) a member of the House Committee to answer questions for oral answer at least once, and for at least 5 minutes, in every four weeks that the Assembly meets in plenary.

6.5 insert new subparagraph as follows:

(va) debate on annual report of the House Committee

6.9. at end add:

If the matter is within the responsibilities of the House Committee, then for ‘Minister’ in this paragraph, there shall be substituted ‘a member of the House Committee answering on behalf of that Committee’.

6.11 after entry ‘Statements by Ministers’ insert:

Statements by a member of the House Committee about any matter coming within the responsibilities of that Committee

New 6.26 (A) as follows:

Members may table questions for oral answer by a member of the House Committee about any matter coming within the responsibilities of that Committee.

(i) after ‘two questions’ insert ‘to a particular Minister’

(ii) after words ‘paragraph 6.3 (i)’ insert ‘or to a member of the House Committee under paragraph 6.3 (vi)’

(iii) leave out ‘by a particular Minister’

6.30 after ‘Ministers’ insert:

and the member of the House Committee.

6.31 at end add:

This paragraph shall not apply to questions for oral answer by a member of the House Committee.

6.34 (A): omit

6.37 (ii) after ‘Officer,’ insert:

or, if the matter is within the responsibilities of the House Committee, a member of that Committee.

6.37 (iii) leave out ‘Minister’ and insert ‘Member’

(e) Standing Order No. 12

12.5 Omit present paragraph 12.5 and insert:

12.5. Whenever the Committee submits a report to the Assembly under paragraph 12.3(i) it shall send a copy to the First Minister. If the report relates to any matter coming within the responsibilities of the House Committee, it shall at the same time also send a copy to the chair of that Committee. Within 30 working days of the First Minister receiving the report a Minister shall, if the report relates to a matter for which a Minister is accountable or responsible to the Assembly, lay before the Assembly a response to the Audit Committee’s report on behalf of the Assembly Cabinet and, if that response is of an interim character, the Minister shall lay a final response before the Assembly within a further two months. In so far as the Audit Committee’s report relates to matters coming within the responsibilities of the House Committee, then within 30 working days of the chair receiving a copy of that report, a member of the House Committee shall, on behalf of that Committee, lay before the Assembly a response to the Audit Committee’s report; and if that response is of an interim character a member of the House Committee shall lay a final response before the Assembly within a further two months.

12.7 at end add:

(or if the matter is within the responsibility of the House Committee, if he or she was at the relevant time a member of the House Committee as reconstituted after [date]).

(f) Standing Order No. 16

16.1 (ii) at end insert ‘or the Code of Conduct under Standing Order No. 36.14’.

(g) Standing Order No. 17

17.5 (iii) at end insert: or, as the case may be, members of the House Committee

(h) Standing Order No. 19

Replace references to ‘Office of Presiding Officer’ by ‘Presiding Office’ in paragraphs 00, 5A and 7A each time it occurs

19.00 omit ‘between the Presiding Officer, the Clerk and’ and insert ‘with’

19.5A after first ‘House Committee’ insert ‘following discussion by the Committee with the Finance Minister’

19.5A omit ‘Clerk may, subject to paragraph 19.5B,’ and insert ‘House Committee may, following discussion with the Finance Minister,’

Omit paragraph 19.5B

19.7A omit ‘the Presiding Officer and’

19.22 omit ‘Presiding Officer’ and insert ‘House Committee’

(i) Standing Order No. 20

20.3 after ‘Minister’ insert ‘or the Chair of the House Committee’

(j) Standing Order No. 21

Insert new paragraph 21.10, as follows:

21.10 Where a report or further report relates to a matter within the responsibility of the House Committee, the provisions in this Standing Order which relate to the involvement of Ministers (other than the First Minister) and of subject committees shall, so far as appropriate, not apply, but the chair of the House Committee shall make appropriate arrangements with the First Minister for the report to be considered by that committee and for its response to be sent to the First Minister.

(k) Standing Order No. 33

Standing Order No. 33.1 omit ‘Office of the Presiding Officer’ and insert ‘Table Office’. (NDM1259)

I must first apologise, as there are slight errors in the Welsh translation of the changes to Standing Orders. There is nothing that changes the meaning of the text, but there are a few missing circumflexes. I assure Members that, should Plenary approve the changes, corrections will be made prior to publication.

The proposal before the Assembly is to reconstitute the House Committee as one to which executive powers in respect of ‘parliamentary’ services are delegated. This further move towards separation between the Assembly’s government and legislative functions is in keeping with the Assembly’s resolution on 14 February 2002. The Presiding Officer and the First Minister have warmly endorsed the principle behind the change. The present House Committee and the Business Committee are also unanimously in support of these proposals. In constitutional terms, they are an important step forward. In practice, however, we expect little change in how the Presiding Office operates and is governed, and in how the House Committee operates.

There are three motions before the Assembly: NDM1257, which establishes the new Committee; NDM1258, which formally delegates powers to the Committee; and NDM1259, which makes the necessary consequential changes to other Standing Orders. In the interest of brevity, I will not explain the changes. However, I am happy to answer Members’ questions.

I welcome the motions. I will make two brief comments, as we are running out of time. First, on the provision to allow the House Committee to meet in public, although that is a matter for the Committee, I believe that it should do so whenever possible. I understand that it may need to meet in private to discuss confidential staff issues and so on, but otherwise it should meet in public, so that people can see how it operates and scrutinise its work.

Secondly—perhaps I should have commented on this in the Committee—I notice that we are effectively reintroducing oral questions to the House Committee in the Chamber. That caused unease when it was first introduced—as a Member sitting behind me has just commented, it was a shambles. It is important that we exercise restraint in how we utilise oral questions to the Committee in the Chamber, and concentrate on important, rather than trivial, matters.

I am generally happy to see these changes coming into effect. However, I am not happy with the idea of reintroducing oral questions to the House Committee. They may have added the word ‘narthex’ to my vocabulary and provided column inches for many diary writers, but I am unsure as to their purpose.