National Assembly for Wales

First of all, can I welcome you all to the meeting? I welcome Rhun ap Iorwerth to the committee for his first time. I also welcome back Neil McEvoy to the committee. And, again, I welcome David Rees, who's standing in for Mike Hedges. Welcome to you all. Can I say that, obviously, participants can speak in either Welsh or English? Headsets are available for translation of Welsh into English. There's no need to turn your mobile phones off but if they can be put in silent mode—. 

The first new petition before the committee is 'Port Talbot Community Against the Super Prison'. This was submitted by the Port Talbot superprison protest group, having collected something like 8,790 signatures. We have had an initial response from the Cabinet Secretary on 12 October. I welcome the committee to look at the points for discussion. I would like the committee to note that on 20 September 2017 we had a Plaid Cymru motion, which also called on the Welsh Government not to sell or release the land for the construction of a superprison in Port Talbot. So, in our consideration of the possible actions, perhaps we should take that into account. [Interruption.] Yes, David.

Thank you, Chair. Can I first of all declare my interest? Obviously, it's in my constituency. In relation to this matter, I think the fact that we have a petition, which online has received over 1,270, and a handed-in petition that received over 8,700 signatures, shows the strength of feeling in this case of members of my constituency regarding this matter. Whilst I appreciate that a debate was held on 20 September, that debate was a little bit wider, in a sense, because it didn't just cover this matter, it covered a wider picture on prisons across Wales, and I think those individuals expect a debate and I think we should respect that view. 

I want to give credit to the committee and the community that have put this together. This is a non-political group. They have come together, they have worked to ensure that residents have been informed. They have presented this petition with the intention of getting this debate in the Senedd and I think we should respect that and give them that debate. I appreciate the previous one but I think this is a different agenda, particularly as I also am disappointed in the response from the Cabinet Secretary. The petition clearly says about not selling the land. Whilst I appreciate it's a UK Government decision whether they wish to go ahead with the development, and I appreciate that it would be a planning application dealt with by the local county borough council, the petition specifically said not to sell the land. There was no reference in that response by the Cabinet Secretary. I think, just getting another Cabinet Secretary in here—whoever now is in charge, I think it's Alun Davies, possibly—will just give us the same answers. We need that debate where these issues can be explored in detail and questions can be asked of the Cabinet Secretaries. I think there are more than one because we have a situation where Alun Davies, I think, is now in charge of crime and justice and we have Ken Skates who is economy and in charge of the ownership of the land, so there is clearly a picture here where we need to explore and debate better than perhaps a simple evidence session. If we get the petitioners in, we'll end up going to debate anyway, so let's go straight to it. I think we deserve to do that.  

Okay. Thank you, David. Does anybody else want to make a comment on that? Rhun.

I absolutely agree that this should go to a debate in Plenary. In terms of the fact that there has been a debate in the past, I think in relation to the Womanby Street petition, Plaid Cymru actually withdrew a debate in the Chamber in order to not have them both. That was different because they were scheduled to be around the same time. I think six weeks or so have passed since this. I don’t think there’s a reason to not press ahead with a debate because it’s been discussed before. Also, as Dai Rees said, there is a new Cabinet Secretary, and that, in itself, is reason to have this as another debate in the Chamber.

Yes. Okay, fine. Neil, did you have a comment on that? You are quite happy to go along with that.

Totally agree. I totally agree, yes.

Okay. Janet, are you in agreement?

I can understand the concerns here, but I know that it has been aired numerous times in the Senedd, and I know that our time is limited in terms of debates. As long as it doesn’t push any other issue that’s equally important, where we don’t have time or the ability to take it to a debate—.

Okay, yes. Well, there are two possible actions for us here, and that is obviously to request time for a debate in Plenary and also the possibility of inviting the petitioners to give evidence to the committee at a future meeting, but that would obviously delay the time of the debate. Now, whilst we are agreed that the debate should take place, do we ask for an early debate on it or are we content to leave it to the normal Plenary?

Normal Plenary.

Can I also highlight that since the last debate, there has been further evidence identified by the petitioners that can be added to the debate and arguments, particularly the covenant that I know exists? So, I think there’s more information that can be held within a new debate as well, and, to be honest, if we ask the petitioners in, all we are doing is delaying what they want.

There is an urgency to this, because we really don’t know where the UK Government stand with regard to when they will actually ask for this land. That’s still under debate.

I think there’s an urgency because—. We can avoid wasting public money. Because at the moment taxypayers’ money is being spent on any progress or development that is ongoing. The sooner we can get this debate under way, the sooner we can, perhaps, have that position clear.

Fine. So, are we agreed that we go for a Plenary debate as early as possible?

On a point of information, would it be appropriate for us, as a committee, to write to the Ministry of Justice to inform them that a debate is being requested here in the Assembly, or as part of the aim of highlighting the—?

You might get the same answers as I get.

Yes?

Yes.

I don't know if that's something—

Because they've not formally decided on that site at this moment in time, but it's imminent at any time, isn’t it?

Well, let’s make it clear: they have identified the site as to what they say—. They have formally identified the site. What they haven’t done is formally submitted a planning application. There’s a difference, and as I said, at this stage, from my understanding, there’s funding going into developing their design. If we want to try and avoid some cost to us, cut it now, before they spend any more time doing something that may not go ahead.

Okay. Everybody is agreed on that.

Right, the next petition is 'Build a Chepstow Bypass to Remove the Bottle Neck from the M48 onto the A48'. The petition was submitted by Jez Becker and collected 201 signatures. We wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure and received a response from him on 19 December. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be considered by the committee but had not responded when papers were finalised. Now, there is a possibility that the designation of ‘trunk road’ may be altered, which would mean that the responsibility for this development would lie with the local authority, rather than with the Welsh Government. So, a possible action is to await the views of the petitioner on the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure before considering any further action on the petition. Are we agreed on that? Yes. Are you happy with that, Rhun? David, are you happy? Yes, fine.

The next petition is ‘Ensuring Equality of Curriculum for Welsh Medium Schools e.g. GCSE Psychology’. This was submitted by Chris Evans, having collected 652 signatures. The Cabinet Secretary for Education provided an initial response to the petition on 10 October. This advised the committee to write to Qualifications Wales, because the approval and designation of qualifications is a matter for them as the independent regulator. A response was received from Qualifications Wales on 23 October. It's quite a detailed response, pointing out that there are a number of other subjects that are subject to exactly the same restrictions with regard to this. We've written to the petitioner, but they had not responded when these papers were finalised.

So, the possible actions are to await the views of the petitioner on the response received from the Welsh Government and Qualifications Wales before considering further action on the petition. Are we happy to do that? We usually, Rhun—. We usually do give the petitioner an opportunity to respond before we take further action on it.

I'll note, on the record, that I'm hugely concerned about the points that have been raised, and it's an issue that's new to me.

Did he put the letter in Welsh or—?

Okay. I must have got the pages stuck together. Diolch, Rhun.

Ah, right. Yes. I understand.

We had a response in both languages, but there's a separate Welsh language pack for Members and an English language pack for Members.

Okay, that's fine.

Right. Are we—? Just one question, yes.

Just because I'm new: when do we come back to that, possibly? If we get a response soon, do we get a chance to discuss this soon?

It will be decided—. We'll look at it in the next committee meeting.

Petitioners always have a chance to submit their comments in advance of the first meeting of the committee, so the petitioner has had—. He had approximately a week before the papers were finalised to submit that comment. We will write to them after this meeting as well, to say, 'This is what the committee has agreed, and they're awaiting your views.' Whenever we have those, we will put it back on the next available meeting agenda. If we don't receive them, we tend to chase a couple of times and then bring it back to the committee at that point to decide on the next step.

Just as long as I know I have an opportunity to—.

Can I just make one further observation, really? I don't think there's a country in the world where you're not able to study in the native language of the country. I just find it incredible. I agree.

I think the point they're making is that there were a small number of applications to do this: 147 nationwide, I think.

I would argue that 144 is not a small number when we are in desperate need, especially of, for example, educational psychologists through the medium of Welsh. This has been an issue that's been on the floor of the Assembly recently. I would argue that 144 isn't a small number.

Fine. Thank you.

Have they given us indication—? Clearly, we're looking at a September 2018 possible start now. Have they given us an indication as to when they need to have things in place for a September 2018 start?

I don't believe that information is explicitly available in the letter.

To be honest with you, I'm not picking up that they are trying to do it by 2018, but that they're trying to do it between now and 2026. That was the best I could find, unless you—

I haven't. That's what I'm trying to find out—the timescales.

This is seriously worrying, which is why I'm keen that we have an opportunity to have a wider discussion.

Okay, right. Are we content that we write to the petitioner in the first instance now? That's the way we take it forward. Yes. Thank you.

The next item is 'Routine Screening for Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Young People'. It was submitted by Anthony Cook and Beth Baldwin and was first considered in March 2016, having collected some 3,670 signatures. It must be pointed out that we've had a question session with Beth Baldwin; she's been in front of the committee. And we've had some very comprehensive replies from almost all of the health boards, with one exception, and the general consensus on this seems to be that we ought to be giving much more information and education to front-line practitioners with regard to this, but it would seem that most of them are in favour of complying with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence regulations with regard to this and they feel that they are adequate for the item. They point out the fact that most GPs would never see this particular problem presented to them in a whole lifetime of being a GP. 

But I think it's fair to say that some of the wards—. There is a lot of inconsistency here in terms of the approach, and whilst some say that it's routinely available, we know it isn't and that some of the private GPs and what have you—. I think one thing that is highlighted from the response is that there is quite some inconsistency and we did actually state during our last session that if we felt that more was needed to be done, that this was a prime topic to go forward for a debate, because if we can save one life, it's certainly a life worth saving, and we do need to raise the profile of this shocking illness and how a simple test in a GP surgery—. In theory, everyone agrees with it, but we need something a little bit more solid as an Assembly, I believe, in holding the Welsh Government to account to make sure that nobody else falls through that net. I'd like to propose that this goes forward to a debate.

Right. The possible actions, apart from that: await the views of the petitioner on the detailed responses received before considering further action on the petition; and/or produce a report summarising the evidence received on the petition before seeking time for recommendations made by the committee to be debated in Plenary.

But I think if we've all read our submissions back from the boards, there are huge inconsistencies there and there are recommendations that finance should be put forward to raise awareness of this disease more widely, and there's no better place than raising it on the floor of this Chamber.

Right. What do the other Members think?

Yes, I'd be very happy to see it raised on the floor of the Assembly. I'd also like to see the report summarising the evidence, and I'd also probably like to hear from the Cabinet Secretary, so it's a bit of a mix of all of them, but with the end point being a debate on the floor of the Assembly. I think we owe it to this family—

Absolutely. 

—and to others to show that we're talking about awareness raising, you know? One thing we can do is to have a debate in the Assembly.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. Neil, are you okay with that?

Yes. I'd like to maybe propose another action in writing to all GP surgeries in Wales. It could be done cost-neutral through e-mail and we just need the addresses, which can be collated by the research department. So, I think if we could write to general practitioners and ask them what they do with this issue, I think that would be very valuable.

Yes. I think what it will do is show, as Jan mentioned, the disparity between different practices, and there doesn't seem to be an actual system in place for each and every one of the surgeries. Apparently, the equipment is almost universally available both to the practitioners, the nurses and to those in the community as well, but the methods of working seem to be that, at the moment, it's only if a patient is presenting with particular symptoms that they would initiate the analysis. David, do you have any comments on that?  

In a sense, I partly agree with Rhun. I think that the summary of the report needs to be produced for discussion, but at the same time we should be bringing the Cabinet Secretary in to ask some questions, because I think they focus very much upon, as you say—. This petition talks about the screening of all children and a lot of the responses I've seen are actually what they do and they don't necessarily screen as per se. So, I want to know: well, is your preventative agenda really a preventative agenda, and should we be doing things such as screening to be preventative? I think there's a question that can be asked there. So, I would suggest you're heading towards a debate, but you want to put it all together.

It's going to be about timing—whether we can find slots.

Yes, Neil.

I agree with everything. I think we should have a debate, but it'd be good to get everything put together as well. But, I think we should write to GPs also, to be honest.

Can I just check—seeing the clerk turning pale there—are you suggesting that we write to give information about what we're doing or just to seek information back from them? I would guess that there'd be a capacity issue there.

Yes.

We could always ask the Government to contact every—

That's right. I think the problem would be that we'd have a whole plethora of different methods that each of the surgeries would use with regard to that. It doesn't seem as if, as I say, there is a set system in place or way of working that would make sure that everybody does the same when they're presented with this situation—I think that's true.

We have a lot of complaints about GPs' workloads at this point in time. We have received correspondence from the Royal College of General Practitioners and the health boards, so, in a sense, I'm not convinced that we'll get anything extra out of it, other than, perhaps, putting extra work on GPs, which they will not welcome. But, the issue has to be processed. I think we need to get the report, we need to get some extra evidence from the Cabinet Secretary and you need to have the debate.

Yes.

Just echoing the point on GPs, we could look, as a committee, when you're pulling together recommendations for a report, at whether there's a mechanism for writing to GPs to inform them of the recommendations you make as a committee, or whether, in fact, you could recommend that the Government do something around communicating with GPs. Maybe that's an issue that we could look at then.

Are we happy with that? We would wish to have the Cabinet Secretary before us before we go forward to a debate—is that right? Are we in agreement with that?

We can do.

Yes.

Yes, okay.

So, we will draft up the summary points and present them back to the committee for you to reach recommendations and conclusions. At the same time, we'll invite the Cabinet Secretary in for an evidence session as well on that.

Yes. Thank you.

The next petition is 'To improve access to Education and services in British Sign Language'. This was submitted by Deffo! and was first considered by the committee in February 2015—some time ago—having collected 1,100 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 27 June, when Members took oral evidence from the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language. The committee previously agreed to also take oral evidence from the Welsh Local Government Association, but, as was mentioned, I think, a little earlier, we've not had a response from the Welsh Local Government Association with regard to this. I think we should consider the matter of writing again to the Welsh Local Government Association on this matter—perhaps a more forceful letter saying that we're anxious to get their response, because it falls under their—

You're very kind to say 'anxious'. I would've said that we're extremely disappointed not to have received a response by now. I think it should be stronger, because this was 3 August, and I would've expected the WLGA to have responded by now.

Yes, absolutely.

I think the message needs to be made clear now: 'We've written to you on an issue that we think you're responsible for; you haven't responded to us; we're extremely disappointed that you've not given us that courtesy.'

Yes, I think that's certainly the action I would take. I think we ought to be very strong. We can't demand a response, but we can certainly say that we're very disappointed that we've not had a response. So, you're happy to do that.

Yes.

So, we shall do that? Obviously, we will hope for a response to that before we consider the petition again.

The next petition is 'Stop Compulsory Welsh Language GCSE'. It was submitted by Emma Williams, having collected 128 signatures. The committee first considered the petition on 19 September. We agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education. We had a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education on 16 October. The Cabinet Secretary stated,

'the study of Welsh remains a key element in the curriculum in Wales to age 16, and there are no plans to change this position.'

Given our commitment, obviously, to 1 million Welsh speakers over the next decades, I feel that she's given a proper and right response to this. The possible action now is that we close the petition in light of the unequivocal commitment expressed by the Cabinet Secretary for Education to the compulsory study of the Welsh language at GCSE, and her answers to the concerns raised by the petitioner, which means it is difficult to identify how the committee should take this petition further. Are we all in agreement with that?

Yes.

Yes. Fine. So, the action is to close the—

Can I just ask one question? Whilst I'm not going to dispute that fact, seeing as we've asked others to await a response, are we therefore treating them equally? Should we await a response before we make that decision?

This, I think, is a slightly different situation, because we've previously had a detailed response from the petitioner. It's not the first consideration of this petition, whereas the other two earlier on in the meeting were the first time that we've considered that issue.

Fine. As long as there's equal treatment, I've got no problem.

Okay, yes. Fine. The next petition refers to 'TATA Steel Port Talbot Power Plant'. It was submitted by Peter Bamsey and was first considered in September 2016, having collected 531 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 9 September and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure. We had a response from the Cabinet Secretary. It was received on 17 October. In that response, the Cabinet Secretary pointed out that the Welsh Government has provided £8 million in funding towards an £18 million investment by Tata in the improvement of the power plant at Port Talbot. So, given that response, possible actions—. Yes, David.

Thank you, Chair. I'll just say: can I thank Peter Bamsey—who's a former steelworker, by the way, and I know his sons are actually also current steelworkers in the works—for the petition? In light of the—. Partly in light of the response, because that's only £8 million of the £18 million, the Welsh Government has announced its budget, which included £30 million for the power plant. So, in a sense, we've been superseded by actions of the Welsh Government, and I think, now, that there is clear evidence that funding has been made available to the development of the power plant, and therefore this petition actually has achieved its aim in one sense, in that the funding has now been achieved. On those grounds, I think we've gone as far as we can with this particular petition, but I think we should write to express our thanks—I would like to express our thanks—to the petitioner for raising this important issue for what is a foundation industry within Wales.

Fine. Thank you, David. Would anybody else like to make a comment on that?

Yes. I think we're not at the stage of closing it yet. I think we're probably nearing that point, but writing to them certainly is what should happen at this stage.

Fine. Janet, are you happy with that situation?

Yes, close it.

And Neil?

Yes.

I think, at this point, given the evidence before us, we should consider closing the petition. Are we happy with that?

Well, we'll write to them, and, presumably, next time, after we get their response, we—

You want to have a response first, is it?

I think that's—. Yes.

Yes. Right.

[Inaudible.]—agree as a committee.

Yes. We're all agreed on that. Fine.

Right. The next petition before us is the 'Public Petition for the Dinas Powys By-Pass', submitted by V.P. Driscoll and A.R. Robertson and R.T. Harrod. It was first considered in April 2017, having collected 3,305 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 9 September, when it considered correspondence from the leader of Vale of Glamorgan Council and the petitioner and agreed to write a further letter to the Vale of Glamorgan Council to ask for an update when a decision is reached on whether to proceed with the WelTAG Stage 2 report. A response from the Vale of Glamorgan Council was received on 11 October.

So, the possible action with regard to this is to request that Vale of Glamorgan Council provide an update to the committee once the results of the WelTAG stage 2 report have been considered by the authority’s Cabinet. The other option is that, given that detailed consideration is being given to transport issues in Dinas Powys, including the possibility of a bypass, by Vale of Glamorgan Council, the committee may wish to consider closing this petition. The first option is, really, that the committee will be simply awaiting a response and putting this matter aside until we get that response, which may be some time. So, it's a sort of watching brief that we'll be keeping on the matter.

I'd certainly be happy to go along with that. It keeps the issue alive in the eyes of the petitioners, which is only right.

Yes. Fine. David, do you have any comments?

No problem.

You are happy with that. Janet, are you happy with that?

Yes.

Right. Fine. So, we'll request the Vale of Glamorgan Council to provide us an update.

We'll deal with the petition now on school buses for schoolchildren. This was submitted by Lynne Chick and considered in April 2017, having collected 1,239 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 27 June and agreed to write to the Welsh Local Government Association to seek their views on the petition. The clerking team wrote to the Welsh Local Government Association on 24 July and 14 September, but no response has been received. I think that we ought to write the same tone of letter to the WLGA as we've asked prior to that. David.

I totally agree, but I think we should go further. This the second one. I'm not sure how many there are, but I think we should write to the leader of the WLGA, expressing our disappointment that, on at least two occasions here now, we are still awaiting responses from the WLGA. I don't think it would be just as easy—write to the leader.

There's been a reminder on this one already.

Yes.

Yes. I'd like to write to the chief executive as well, and ask him how he justifies his salary, really. I wouldn't imagine it's a small one.

And we need to check that we've got the right address for them.

Well, this is a public body, and, if public bodies don't respond to committees of the Welsh Government, I think that that is a very, very poor showing by them. So, we will write again to the WLGA with regard to that.

The next petition is 'Statue to Honour Billy Boston'. It was submitted by Cardiff Internationals Athletic Club's rugby football club, and was first considered in June 2017, having collected 151 signatures. The committee considered the petition for the first time on 13 June and agreed to write to the petitioners to share the information received about possible options for funding a statue. It appears that the petitioners now understand the situation with regard to funding, so actions are possibly to close the petition, given that the petitioners are proceeding with a fundraising campaign for the statue and it is unclear what further value the Petitions Committee could add. Does any of the committee have any comments on that?

Yes. I'd like to keep it open, really, just to—we can close it at any time, but just to maybe get a further update on the project in the future, just out of respect to Billy Boston, really, I think. That's why I'd like it to be kept open.

We're asking the petitioners to give us a further update on that. It appears, from other petitions that we've had in front of us with regard to statues being funded by the Welsh Government through one of its agencies, that the funding doesn't seem to be there, in general, for these types of projects. So, shall we ask the petitioner to provide a further update? Are you happy to do that?

Yes. I think I'm in the same place as Neil. I'm genuinely interested to know how the project proceeds from now on, and how they manage to raise the funds. It would be nice to have feedback to the commitee.  

Exactly, and it shows our interest. 

And the only way to do that is to ask them to let us know when it happens and that means keeping it alive.  

And it does show that we have an interest in what's going on, doesn't it? 

Yes, it's great. 

Janet, are you happy?  

Yes. [Inaudible.]

And is there such a procedure whereby we genuinely put it on ice and go back to them in a year's time to ask, 'How did you get on?' Has that ever been done? 

We do tend to keep a watching brief on some petitions. Is that right? 

Yes, depending on the circumstances. You can request that we write for an update at whatever point. We will write to the petitioner now following the meeting to say that's what the committee has decided to do and request an update when he feels there's something to add. 

It would be nice to have a sort of a sunset in 18 months—you know, we write to them just to see how they got on, and, unless there's something, we're minded to close the petition at that point or wherever, because we have to put it to bed at some point. 

Yes. Okay. Happy with that. 

Right. The next petition is 'To recognize the three hundredth anniversary of Williams Pantycelyn'. It was submitted by Aled Gwyn Job and was first considered in October 2017, having collected 1,114 signatures. I must admit Aled gave a wonderful presentation to us as to why we should have this recognition of Williams Pantycelyn. The answer from the Arts Council of Wales is that it really doesn't fall in their remit. I think the possible actions that we should consider are to write to the petitioner and share information about the recent event in the Senedd—there was an event held in the Senedd to commemorate it—and the answers given by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure and ask if he knows of any suitable organisations or individuals who could bring forward concrete proposals, because it's been pointed out to us that, with the other commemorations such as Roald Dahl and Dylan Thomas, they were matters that had been considered some years in advance, so that the whole thing could be sorted before it came about. So, this one was such short notice it would be very interesting to see what the petitioner would like to propose to us. 

Yes. 

Are you okay there? 

Oh, cheers. Thank you. 

I realise Janet you weren't party to that conversation but I think that, basically, Rhun, although he put a bigger background to it, is agreeing that this is an action that we ought to take. So, unless you have any particular reason why we shouldn't take that possible action—. Or do you have any comments on it? 

No, I'm happy. I'm okay with that.  

You're happy with that. And Neil? 

Yes. 

Okay. That's fine. Thank you.

The next petition is 'Stop Forsythia Closing'. This was submitted by Forsythia Youth Centre, and was first considered in March 2017, having collected 74 signatures. The petition also collected 533 signatures on another e-petition website. The committee considered the petition on 27 June and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to ask for an update on the development of the Welsh Government’s new approach to building resilient communities. This particular youth club was in fact funded under the communities scheme, so apparently that funding is not now available and a number of the people who are involved in this particular project are no longer working there. Is that right, Graeme? Would you like to just give us some insight into that for just a second?

I think the previous information we’ve received indicates that, because of the phasing out of Communities First funding, there’s quite a significant impact upon the organisation that runs the particular Communities First cluster in north Merthyr that Forsythia is part of. So, they have retained, as far as we understand, for the remainder of the year, a small number of the previous posts, focusing them on youth work. But it’s unclear from the information we’ve got exactly what the level of provision currently is in Forsythia youth centre, and the local authority, when they previously wrote to us, had indicated that all services provided under Communities First in that area would cease at the end of March next year.

Fine. So, the possible actions are to write to Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and the 3Gs Development Trust to ask for an update on the current and future provision of services for young people at Forsythia youth centre. Does the committee have any comments on that? Quite happy to let that—? Fine. Okay.

The next petition to be considered is ‘A Ban on the Manufacture, Sale and Use of Snares in Wales’. The petition was submitted by the League Against Cruel Sports and was first considered in September 2016 having collected 1,400 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 29 November 2016 and noted that the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee was holding a scrutiny session on the use of snares on 30 November. The Petitions Committee agreed to await an update following this before considering the petition again. Janet.

Is it 30 November now?

No, 30 November last year.

I thought there might have been a—. Why has it been so late coming back?

Following that scrutiny session, the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee produced a full report on the issue around snares, including taking evidence from the Government as well. It published that in June and we awaited the Welsh Government’s response to those recommendations in September before bringing it back to Members.

I'm with you. I've got you. 

So, that process was completed, and more recently, we’ve had some comments from the petitioners in response to the recommendations that that committee had made.

Yes, and that’s what we’ve got here, isn’t it?

Yes.

So, possible actions: given this issue has recently been the subject of detailed attention by the CCERA committee, and the Welsh Government’s acceptance of that committee’s recommendations, the committee could close the petition at this point.        

Well, it does say here that the Government are now going to publish a report of the findings on the website from September, although the petitioners are saying the Welsh Government shouldn’t be relying solely on information provided by snare operators. There’s a recommendation:

‘The Committee recommends that if the annual review of the Code shows that it is not working then the Welsh Government should tighten the law on the use of snares in Wales, including the introduction of sanctions for non-compliance with the Code.’

That’s quite detailed, isn’t it?

Well, the other alternative for us is that the committee could write to the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to ask for confirmation of her decisions in relation to the use and control of snares following the Welsh Government’s recent consultation exercise.

Yes. I think closing it before we do that would be wrong.

Are we in agreement with that? Rhun.

The key thing for me is that the petitioners have welcomed the acceptance of the committee's recommendations. So, by that, I read that they think their work here is nearly done, if not completely. So, whether we close it now or await another piece of correspondence from them, I'm quite relaxed about.

Neil, are you in favour?

I think write to the Cabinet Secretary just to be sure, really.

Right, okay. And David.

We've got to focus on the issue. I would assume that CCERA would actually hold the Government to account if they fail to deliver on the committee's recommendations. I think, as far as we are concerned, if the petitioner's happy, we should say, 'We've done our job as a Petitions Committee'. The point has been discussed, the Government's accepted recommendations, it's for CCERA to actually now hold them to account.

Nothing else is going to—[Inaudible.]

No. From our point of view, nothing's going to happen. So, I think we should close it now.

I'm actually in agreement with closing it as well, because I feel that our committee can't take it any further than the CCERA committee has taken it. So, I would prefer to close the petition at this moment in time. Okay? Fine.

The next petition is 'Don't Fill Landfill!' It has been submitted by Claire Perrin and was first considered in October 2017, having collected 172 signatures. The committee first considered the petition on 3 October and we agreed to await the views of the petitioners on the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs before deciding what future action to take. A response was received from the petitioner on 19 October. The petitioner actually has offered herself for any committee that they might set up with regard to this and to give advice on it. Would you like to expand on that at all, Graeme?

I think the petitioner has written under separate cover to the Cabinet Secretary in relation to the information previously provided to this committee to offer support. I think there's a group between Welsh Government and local authorities in Wales looking at a future behaviour-change initiative to encourage more refuse to be recycled rather than put it in black bins or black bags. So, one of the things that we could do is reiterate that offer to the Cabinet Secretary at this stage, or we could await an update from the petitioner in relation to what she hears back from the Cabinet Secretary.

Does anybody have any comments on that?

I don't think necessarily reiterating to the Cabinet Secretary is going to gain anything, but I do think that writing to Cardiff council to encourage perhaps a pilot scheme of this approach—. It's an innovative approach to reflection of how to encourage people to appropriately recycle. It might be worth writing to councils to say, 'Here are some comments, have you considered looking at a pilot scheme somewhere, to see if it works or not?' But I don't see how we can—. If we write to convey the petitioner's offer of support, we're just reiterating what she's already offered.

So, where are we—? What do you think is the action we ought to take? Are there any other comments with regard to that?

I think writing to Cardiff council makes sense.

Yes. Are you happy to do that?

Yes.

The next item on our agenda is the evidence session with the energy, planning and rural affairs Cabinet Secretary. We do have a few minutes if you did want to take a break now for five minutes. We will see about the availability, given the time factor, of the Cabinet Secretary, if she's able to come in a little earlier, or maybe we can start absolutely on time.

Bore da. Good morning to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs. Welcome also to your two colleagues. Perhaps you'd like to introduce them to us, Cabinet Secretary. 

On my left I have Neil Hemington, who's the chief planner for Wales, and on my right I have Jo Smith, who's a senior planner. 

Thank you very much. We're here in an evidence session to consider two petitions this morning that are very related. Briefly, the first is that the MTAN guidance notes should be made mandatory. This was submitted some time ago in April 2013. The second petition was that all opencast planning applications should be called in by the Welsh Government. So, if we could ask first, Cabinet Secretary, could you provide an update on any developments since you last wrote to the committee in May of this year?

Thank you, Chair. I think the first thing to say is that you mentioned these two petitions that have been submitted—one in 2013 and one in 2014—and I think times have changed a great deal since that, and colleagues will be aware of the two statements I've done in the past 12 months around energy and moving the decarbonisation agenda forward. You're right that I wrote to your predecessor back in May and, since that time, I have commenced a review of 'Planning Policy Wales'. That absolutely needs to fit in with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. That's one reason for doing that. And, again, it needs to support the progress that we need to make in terms of our decarbonisation agenda and us moving to a low-carbon economy.

I also have written recently to chief planning officers right across Wales informing them of my intentions to consult on the appropriateness or otherwise of amendments to planning policy and whether planning policy should no longer be supportive of the extraction of coal. I think we need to be moving away from any new opencast developments in Wales.

I referred before to the statement I made in October around renewable energy. Again, that will help us decarbonise our energy system. Moving towards clean energy as a foundation for a prosperous economy requires appropriate action to move away from continued fossil fuel extraction. Currently, as it stands, 'Planning Policy Wales' is supportive of fossil fuels—coal, gas—so we need to review the planning policy. As I say, I will be going out to consultation probably in spring of next year.

Fine. Thank you. I would like to point out that, although these petitions are 2013 and 2014, we did take evidence from the two petitioners on 3 October of this year. Therefore, we felt it necessary to have your updates on it, if we could, Cabinet Secretary. Janet, would you like to—?

What action have you taken, then, to limit the opportunities for new coal development as set out in your December 2016 energy—?

Well, as I say, I want to move away from all fossil fuels. So, part of the revision of 'Planning Policy Wales', which I'll be undertaking—well, currently; we have started looking at it, but I will be going out to consultation next spring—is to strengthen planning policy in relation to the extraction of opencast coal. I want to take a much more integrated approach towards policy making, and that means looking at all these policy decisions in the round.

Fine. Thank you. David.

Thanks, Chair. Before I move on to my question, can I ask just a quick one on that? Whilst I appreciate you're moving away from carbon-based fuels and I fully accept and agree with you on that movement, other areas and other nations may not be, and therefore development may not necessarily be for usage in Wales but usage outside, and therefore there is a business opportunity, an economic opportunity. Are you therefore also saying that you're going to look at planning applications in those scenarios as well, not just for coal being used in Wales but for coal being used outside Wales, which is an economic issue rather than one of carbon?

I think, in the UK—. Obviously, the development of coal is a reserved issue, but the UK Government have made it very clear that it's moving away from coal, so there's going to be no market for coal. You know, they've said they're going to get rid of coal by 2025. We haven't looked specifically at that. I don't know whether you've had any discussions with the UK Government—

No.

—but I think they've made their position very clear, and I'm making our position very clear.

I would hope, therefore, that you're not going to be driven by an economic argument rather than just pure planning issues here. I'll leave that to you to think about, okay? 

My question is basically on the site restoration. In 2014, you actually published a report, undertaken on your behalf, about the potential risks of site restoration. I suppose, I have an example in my constituency of Parc Slip, where we've seen some difficulties on that matter, so what are you doing to actually ensure that if any application is submitted and accepted between now and whenever you make a final decision, you are putting in place sufficient measures to ensure that site restoration is completed and will not be underfunded?

Restoration is a key issue and it's been a very contentious issue. I know my predecessor did some significant lobbying of the UK Government. My view is that the UK Government have absolutely washed their hands of this issue, and if you think about it, most of the current restoration shortfalls are due to the privatisation that went on in John Major's Government—we're talking a long time ago. But I think, certainly, regarding my predecessor, I know that there was a significant amount of correspondence between Ministers to try and make sure that these concerns were addressed, but there has been no funding coming forward. I don't have the funding, unfortunately.

Certainly, the UK Government, I think, have always thought that the market is the solution and that, you know, you have a development on these, and that hasn't happened. So, as I say, I don't want to see any new applications coming forward for opencast development and that's what—. Obviously, we're going out to consultation on the planning policy, but that's what I would want to see coming forward.

So, are you expecting all such applications, if one arises, to be called in to the Welsh Government?

I think there's only one.

We have one case at the moment, which is at appeal, so that will be covered for the Welsh Ministers to determine. Let's go back, if there were to be a future opencast site, to how we would deal with restoration issues. We have done some work with the Coal Authority, looking at practice guidance around helping to ensure that restoration takes place, and that guidance aims to ensure that there is sufficient money in the budget to meet, if you like, the key restoration costs before the project gets to that stage. So, we are trying to ensure that we move away from a situation, which we've seen in the past, where there are unfunded restoration liabilities and, in some cases, further extensions have been suggested to sites to pay for the restoration of the first phase of the site. So, we're fully aware of that issue, and hopefully we have, by working with local authorities and the Coal Authority, plugged that gap, if we should see a further application.

So, are you thinking of strengthening the guidance, or maybe making some changes to rules and laws to ensure that, first of all, there will be a bond applied to cover the full cost and maybe, at some point, you will take a view as to whether progress is being made to deliver that funding or that if you're going to exceed that, you're going to say, 'Hang on. Stop now'?

The practice guidance is there at the moment. So, whether there are elements of that practice guidance that we would need to incorporate into policy or into the minerals technical advice note, we will have to look at, but there is guidance there now.

It would be great to be incorporated, because it would make sure that it's very clear.

That's certainly something we can consult on.

Rhun, perhaps you'd like to make some comments on David's first observations before you go on to your question yourself.

Slightly off on a tangent, if you'll forgive me, and maybe there are two issues here that shouldn't be confused: the future of coal and the future of opencast, which could be different, and you're saying you want to turn away from coal. We'll still need coking coal in the steel industry. There's a huge amount of coal, we believe, underneath the Port Talbot steelworks. It's still coal, it's still dirty, but necessary. If a financial package was put together to dig that out of the ground, would you block that?

That's a hypothetical question. I'd have to look at that very carefully.

Well, it's not hypothetical; it's there.

Well, it hasn't come before me yet.

[Inaudible.] opencast.

That's why I draw the distinction; it's not opencast, it's a deep mine, but it's still coal.

One of the arguments put forward by the petitioners for the calling in of all opencast was that they believed that there wasn't the depth of skills in local authorities to deal with such complex planning applications. Would you agree with that?

Yes, I would agree with that. I have concerns about the capability and the skills of all planning authorities. I think that's fair to say. I mean, there are some planning authorities where we've seen—. In my own constituency, we've seen the number of planning officers reduce, for instance. I know Carmarthenshire has done a piece of work around this—around mineral planning—and I know that they’re sharing their outcomes and their research with the other south Wales authorities. But I think, generally, we are very concerned about the capability of planning authorities. This is the reason why I’m going to have a look at this within the local government reform, and I’ll be having ongoing discussions with Alun Davies now. It’s one of the reasons why we wanted to move to strategic development plans, because we know there isn’t the capability in the local authorities. So, yes, I think, generally, I would be concerned.

Just to supplement that, prior to 1996, minerals planning was a function undertaken by the former county councils. Since 1996, we’ve seen, in unitary authorities, over time, that the dedicated resource has reduced. We have, essentially, two centres of excellence now: one in north Wales, focused on Flintshire County Council, and one in south Wales, focused on Carmarthenshire County Council. They do share that resource and they do have service-level agreements with local authorities, but even that resource is being stretched now. So, there isn’t the capacity and the capability there that there was prior to 1996, and that has gone down over time. So, we need to look at it in relation to minerals planning, but we need to look at it much more widely than that as well, so that’s why it comes into the local government reform agenda as well.

Okay. Diolch.

Neil.

I just wonder whether you agree with the former Minister for Natural Resources that local authorities and planning inspectors’ views hold equal weight.

I’m not sure if that’s exactly what he said, but I think the issue is, obviously, a planning application goes firstly to the local planning authority and then, if it goes to appeal, it goes to the planning inspector. So, I suppose you’ve got two different bodies looking at the same application afresh, and they could have different views. It’s important that they look at those planning applications in that way, but I think that’s the process, isn’t it? They don’t look at it the same time. It’s two different bodies, so I think you’re always going to get a different view.

Can I just check that that was the statement from the Cabinet Secretary at the time—or the former Minister?

I think that’s probably a summary of the wider point he made.

Okay. I’m not sure if that’s what he said, but that’s my view, anyway.

Okay, so how do you respond to concerns expressed about the planning process in terms of the inspectorate?

Sorry, in what way?

In terms of an inspector being able to completely ride roughshod over the democratic process, really.

As I say, the first port of call is obviously the local planning authority. If it then goes to appeal, that planning inspector has to look at it. I think it’s really important that the planning policy has flexibility, because, obviously, each local area is different. So, I don’t think they ride roughshod; they look at the planning application with fresh eyes and they come up with their decision in the way that they see fit.

The inspector in one application was quoted as saying, ‘I’m not interested in the MTAN guidelines. Those are guidelines. I make the law here.’

Well, I’m afraid my policy is the MTAN and in this case we’re talking about MTAN 2. All the TANs are obviously guidance and they should be taken into consideration at all times.

But the issue not only with these matters but with local development plans, for example, is that it doesn’t really matter who you vote for—it doesn’t matter at all—as one individual, or a panel of three individuals, who are inspectors, can come in and completely—completely—alter a democratic decision. Can you not see that that is the case?

Well, the planning policy, as it stands now, should be interpreted. I don’t know what you’re quoting there, but if that’s what a planning inspector said, I would completely disagree with that.

Just for the purpose of the people viewing, actually, where is the planning inspectorate based?

Cathays Park.

Okay, so who are they answerable to—the inspectorate?

The inspectorate are answerable to the Cabinet Secretary.

So, they are not answerable to Westminster in any way.

No, in no way whatsoever. We have a dedicated team of Welsh planning inspectors who base their decisions on the local development plan, prepared by the local planning authority, and national planning policy, prepared here in Wales, and, increasingly, in terms of Welsh legislation. Obviously, we put through a planning Act in 2015 and we are looking at the moment at working with the Law Commission in terms of consolidation of Welsh planning law.

Who appoints the inspectors?

Who appoints the inspectors? They are appointed here in Wales.

By?

By the inspectorate. So, we have a chief planning inspector in Wales.

Who appoints the chief planning inspector?

The chief planning inspector is appointed by the Welsh Government.

Okay. By the Minister, or First Minister? 

No, by officials. 

By officials.

Yes.

Okay. But I think, you know, we're in situation—. Not 'I think'; I know we're in a situation—. I'm labouring the point here. I'm just asking you to concede that that is the case. It doesn't matter what people vote in terms of Assembly Members and it doesn't matter what people vote in terms of local authority because if a planning inspector decides something is going to happen, that is going to happen, and the only way you can challenge it is through judicial review. So, there's a huge democratic gap. Would you not concede that?

No.

Okay. So you don't concede there's a democratic gap—

No, because local authority has the decision-making process. The decisions that the inspectorate take are made in the name of the Welsh Government. So, there are certain decisions that the inspectorate make directly and which were delegated to them, and there are other decisions that will come to the Minister to make a decision. In the case of opencast sites—we've just talked about one application a minute ago—that will be recovered for the Welsh Ministers to determine if it goes to appeal or if it goes to the appeal process. 

Okay, so, in terms of local development plans—slight digression, but it's the principle of planning—you're saying that a planning inspector does not have the final say in any LDP.

There is a binding report and that report is based on evidence brought forward by the planning authorities.

Yes, I know, but who has the final say? Is it the council, or is it the Minister or is it the inspector?

So, the inspector produces a binding report that the authority then has to take to its committee—to the council.

In effect, it's the inspector then.

No, it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the inspector looks at all the evidence and produces a report. That's the process. 

I think that we've probably explored that now. Somewhat related to it, there were comments made about the now defunct application with regard to development at Torfaen by a planning officer, where he actually stated that he was the law with regard to that planning application and that he felt he had the power to overrule the local authority with regard to that. Now, can we have a definitive answer as to whether that is the case or whether—? Because the former Minister for Natural Resources said that local authorities and planning inspectors' views hold equal weight. Now, is that the case or is it—?

Well, Neil just asked that question—

That question, basically.

—and came up with that statement that you have, and I think that question's been answered. 

What happens if the local authority doesn't accept the report from the inspector? 

Do you mean on an application?

I'm probably digressing into—

Yes, I think so. I think we are talking about other coal developments. 

[Inaudible.] So, if the local authority decided not to go ahead with what the inspector recommended, what would happen then? Because my information—when I was over there making decisions—was that it would cost the city millions upon millions in legal action.

In the context of a planning application, if an application is decided by a planning inspector, that means that application has gone to appeal. So, in that scenario, the planning inspector has the final word on that application.

Okay, fine. So, it's the planning—. In that sort of area, okay.

In that appeal situation. The Minister has powers to be able to recover that appeal if she so wishes, subject to certain criteria, and then it would be the Welsh Ministers who would make that decision.

But all those decisions are made in the name of the Welsh Ministers.

Yes.

They are the appointed persons to determine the appeal.

Can I just ask one question, Chair? I understand the arguments on this point, but just for clarification, because it helps me in my other constituency work, does anybody assess planning inspectors' outcomes as they make a decision? Does anyone assess those to see if there's consistency across the decision making, because it would be—[Inaudible.]—opencast planning, as to whether there is consistency to ensure that they are following the proper approaches?

So, that process takes place internally within the inspectorate. So, the chief inspector for Wales looks at the decisions. 

So, they are checked and monitored.

They are checked, yes. 

Yes. Neil.

Just to come back to the inspector who said that he was the law in relation to the application—you're shaking your head, which is a good thing—what is going to be done about this individual who seems to be completely—[Inaudible.]

Well, obviously, it's the first time I've heard this. I think, obviously—. Do you know where it was—when it was, sorry, not where?

It was an application with regard to Torfaen County Borough Council. It was an area called the Big Pit area in Torfaen. It's been withdrawn now for other reasons, but that is reported to have been the comments of the planning officer at that time. 

Okay, well, if Members—. What I could do is I'll look into this and obviously I'll write to the Chair and you can share it with the Members. 

Fine, thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Well, Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much for your attendance before the committee this morning, and thank you also for your comprehensive answers to our questions. And, obviously, there will be a transcript of this meeting available to you should you want it. 

Okay, thank you very much. 

Thank you very much.

Just one point: the next scheduled meeting is on 21 November, and there is a petition to be handed over at 12.30 p.m. today, if anybody wants to—. That's the—you know which one it is. [Interruption.] Mind you, I always say Cardiff are having everything; they might as well have that as well. [Laughter.] Thank you.