Pwyllgor Diwylliant, y Gymraeg a Chyfathrebu - Y Bumed Senedd

Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee - Fifth Senedd

22/11/2017

Aelodau'r Pwyllgor a oedd yn bresennol

Committee Members in Attendance

Dawn Bowden
Mick Antoniw Yn dirprwyo ar ran Lee Waters
Substitute for Lee Waters
Sian Gwenllian

Y rhai eraill a oedd yn bresennol

Others in Attendance

Alex Glanville Pennaeth Gwasanaethau Eiddo, Yr Eglwys yng Nghymru
Head of Property Services, The Church in Wales
Dr Christian Williams Cydlynydd Corfforaeth Undeb Bedyddwyr Cymru
Co-ordinator of the Baptist Union of Wales Corporation
Gethin Rhys Swyddog Polisi’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol, Cytûn
National Assembly Policy Officer, Cytûn
Jonathan Thompson Uwch Gynghorwr Treftadaeth, Y Gymdeithas Tir a Busnesau Cefn Gwlad
Senior Heritage Adviser, Country Land and Business Association
Judith Morris Ysgrifennydd Cyffredinol, Undeb Bedyddwyr Cymru
General Secretary, Baptist Union of Wales
Kate Geary Pennaeth Ymarfer a Datblygiad Proffesiynol, Sefydliad Siartredig yr Archaeolegwyr
Head of Professional Practice and Development, Chartered Institute for Archaeologists
Rhianne Jones Swyddog Polisi, y Gymdeithas Tir a Busnesau Cefn Gwlad
Policy Officer, Country Land and Business Association
Rob Lennox Cynghorwr Polisi, Sefydliad Siartredig yr Archaeolegwyr
Policy Advisor, Chartered Institute for Archaeologists

Swyddogion y Senedd a oedd yn bresennol

Senedd Officials in Attendance

Adam Vaughan Ail Glerc
Second Clerk
Manon Huws Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Legal Adviser
Robin Wilkinson Ymchwilydd
Researcher
Steve George Clerc
Clerk

Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle y mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.

The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:47.

The meeting began at 09:47.

1. Cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau, dirprwyon a datgan buddiannau
1. Introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest

Bore da a chroeso i gyfarfod y Pwyllgor Diwylliant, y Gymraeg a Chyfathrebu. Rydych chi angen yr headsets, efallai.

Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee. You may need the headsets.

You need translation, because I'll be—.

Iawn. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Ardderchog. 

Croeso i'r panel a chroeso i'r Aelodau, hefyd. A oes yna unrhyw ddatgan buddiant gan yr Aelodau yn unol â Rheolau Sefydlog? Na.

Rydym ni wedi cael ymddiheuriadau gan Bethan Jenkins, Jeremy Miles, Hannah Blythyn a Suzy Davies. Mae Mick Antoniw yn dirprwyo yn lle Lee Waters. Bydd Neil Hamilton yn hwyr yn cyrraedd y cyfarfod ac mae wedi anfon ymddiheuriadau am hynny.

Thank you very much, that's excellent.

Welcome to the panel and welcome to my fellow Members. Are there any declarations of interest by Members in accordance with Standing Orders? I see there are none.

We've received apologies from Bethan Jenkins, Jeremy Miles, Hannah Blythyn and Suzy Davies. Mick Antoniw is substituting for Lee Waters, and Neil Hamilton will be late joining us and has sent apologies for that.

2. Yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol: Sesiwn dystiolaeth 3
2. Historic Environment: Evidence Session 3

Felly, gwnawn ni symud ymlaen yn syth i'r ymchwiliad sydd wedi bod yn cael ei gynnal yn barod gan y pwyllgor yma ar yr amgylchedd hanesyddol. Mae gennym ni sesiwn dystiolaeth 3. Felly, croeso cynnes i chi, gynrychiolwyr. A wnewch chi gyflwyno eich hunain, yn dechrau efo Christian yn fan hyn?

So, we will proceed immediately to our inquiry, which has begun already, as a committee, into the historic environment. We have evidence session 3. So, I'd like to extend a warm welcome to you as representatives. Could you introduce yourselves, starting with Christian here?

Iawn. A oes eisiau i fi wasgu hwn?

Do I need to press the button?

Christian Williams, o Undeb Bedyddwyr Cymru.

I'm Christian Williams, from the Baptist Union of Wales.

Judith Morris, Undeb Bedyddwyr Cymru.

Judith Morris, Baptist Union of Wales.

Alex Glanville, head of property for the Church in Wales.

A Gethin Rhys, swyddog polisi Cytûn—Eglwysi Ynghyd yng Nghymru, ac ar ryw ystyr, felly, yn cynrychioli'r enwadau sydd ddim yma.

And Gethin Rhys, Cytûn—Churches Together in Wales policy officer, and in some sense, therefore, I represent the denominations that are not here.

Iawn. Diolch yn fawr. Cychwynnwn ni felly efo Deddf yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol (Cymru) 2016, a gafodd ei phasio ym Mawrth 2016. Mae gan y pwyllgor ddiddordeb mewn gweld sut mae'r ymgynghori ynghylch y Ddeddf yna'n digwydd ac effaith gyffredinol y Ddeddf. Gwnaf i ddechrau efo—nid oes ots. Felly—

Thank you very much. We will begin, therefore, with the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016, which was passed in March 2016. The committee has an interest in seeing how the consultation in relation to that Act is taking and has taken place and the overall impact of the Act. So, I will begin—well, it doesn't matter who. So—

I can lead on that one, if that's okay.

As far as the consultation on the Act was concerned, I think we were very pleased to be very closely involved in all of that, and I think the recognition that the places of worship sector was an important one we very much appreciated. As far as the impact of the Act goes, certainly speaking for the Church in Wales, I'm not sure that it's had a very significant impact. That's not to say it's not significant as an Act. It's just, because of the ecclesiastical exemption, most of our work with regard to listed buildings tends to happen through a faculty system, rather than the secular system. So, therefore, the detailed implications of the Act haven't really had that direct impact.

Where I think the Act has been significant is really setting a tone. I think lots of the guidance, the background information that’s come out of the Act, is really helping to set a tone for us in the way that we need to behave, the way we need to think, the approach to significance, et cetera et cetera. So, from our point of view I think it’s been very helpful to have gone through that exercise, to really enable the denominations to think about how we do things going forward.

09:50

I think, for me, it’s around the conservation principles established by Cadw becoming really central to everybody’s thinking. I think that’s the tone, if you like, and I think particularly linking that to understanding significance, and that being the whole basis on which one thinks about change to important historic assets—I think those are the fundamentals that we’re seeing come through. So, it’s a new way of thinking, a new way of talking, and I think the Act has really enshrined that, which I think is very helpful.

A gaf i droi at Cytûn, felly, a gofyn yr un cwestiwn? Yr ymgynghori, i ddechrau—a ydy hynny wedi bod yn effeithiol?

May I turn to Cytûn, therefore, and ask the same question? In terms of the consultation, to begin with—has that been effective?

Ydy, mae wedi bod yn effeithiol iawn, ac un o ganlyniadau hynny oedd sefydlu’r fforwm addoldai hanesyddol i Gymru, sydd wedi parhau, fel bod yna ymgynghoriad nid yn unig o gwmpas geiriad y Ddeddf—ac roedd hynny’n bwysig, ac roeddem ni’n gwerthfawrogi hynny—ond ei fod yn parhau ynglŷn â'r materion sy'n parhau sydd angen eu trafod. Mae hynny wedi dyfnhau’r berthynas rhyngom ni a Chadw, ac rŷm ni’n falch iawn o hynny.

Yes, it’s been very effective, and one of the upshots of that was to establish the forum of places of worship for Wales, which has continued, so there is consultation not just around the wording of the Act—and that was very important, and we appreciated that—but that it is ongoing in terms of the issues that still need to be discussed. That has deepened the relationship between ourselves and Cadw, and we’re very pleased about that.

A beth am effaith cyffredinol y Ddeddf?

And what about the overall impact of that Act?

Rwy'n cytuno ag Alex. Mae’n anodd rhoi bys arno, mewn gwirionedd, o ran bod yna ryw wahaniaeth mawr wedi bod heblaw'r gwahaniaeth yna mewn meddylfryd. Ond i’r enwadau sy’n defnyddio’r system seciwlar, a’r rhai sydd yn defnyddio’r system exempt—rydw i’n cael yr argraff nad ydyn nhw wedi gorfod newid eu ffyrdd o weithredu oherwydd y cymal yma neu’r cymal yna yn y Ddeddf. Ond mae’r gwelliant yn y berthynas, a’r gwell dealltwriaeth, rydw i’n credu, ynglŷn ag anghenion addoldai, wedi cynhyrchu gwell awyrgylch o ran gwneud y penderfyniadau ynglŷn ag adeiladau unigol.

I agree with Alex. It’s difficult to put one’s finger on it in terms of any major difference apart from that difference in mindset and thinking. But the denominations using the secular system and those using the exempt system—I get the impression that they haven’t had to change their modus operandi because of such and such a clause in the Act. But the improvements in relationships and the improved understanding of the needs of places of worship has, I believe, brought about a better environment and decision making on these individual buildings.

A ydy undeb y Bedyddwyr yn cytuno â hynny?

And the Baptist union? Do you agree with that?

Buaswn i’n cytuno'n union â beth mae Alex a Gethin wedi dweud, a bod cyfle i gydweithio yn agosach—mae hynny’n sicr yn brofiad braf.

Yes, we would agree with what Alex and Gethin have said, and that there is an opportunity for us to collaborate more closely, and that is certainly a pleasant experience.

Diolch. Mae yna farn, efallai, fod angen Bil i ddod â’r materion yma ynghyd—consolidation Bill. Beth ydy’ch barn chi am hynny? Fe wnaf i ddechrau efo Alex, efallai.

Thank you. There is a view out there that there may be a need for consolidation Bill to bring these things together. What is your view about that suggestion? I’ll begin with Alex, perhaps.

I don’t think we have a strong view about it. A consolidation Act is simply a sort of tidying-up exercise that puts everything in one place. Well, that’s quite nice for lawyers, to be able to find things quite easily, but on the whole we don’t see it as a screaming need, to spend lots of time and Government money on trying to pull together a consolidating Act when one can find out what one needs to find out. In many ways the supporting documentation, the guidance that backs up the Act is where we would go. We don’t actually go to the legislation to read the details of what the thing says.

No, I think it’s just a point about having the legislation in one place. There is a policy within the Assembly now about looking at consolidation. It is a long, long project, but the idea is not just about persons such as yourselves having access, but members of the general public having one place in the legislation, as simple and clear as possible. I suppose what you’re really saying is, ‘It sounds like a good idea, and we’ve got no problem with it.’

I think that’s correct, yes. It’s a perfectly good idea, but not something we’re screaming for, and saying, ‘We’re all held back because there’s not a consolidating Act.’

Felly, rydych chi'n rhoi'r pwyslais ar y canllawiau yn fwy na chynnwys y Ddeddf. Beth ydy’ch barn chi am y canllawiau sydd wedi cael eu cyhoeddi yn barod?

So, you would put the emphasis on the guidance rather than the content of the legislation. What is your view of the guidance that has been published already?

Rydw i'n credu eu bod nhw’n welliant sylweddol. Unwaith eto, mae Cadw wedi achub ar y cyfle i ymgynghori yn eang iawn ynglŷn â phob canllaw newydd, ac rŷm ni wedi rhoi mewnbwn, rydw i’n credu, i bob un o’r ymgynghoriadau yna. Mae llawer o’n sylwadau ni wedi effeithio ar y geiriad terfynol. Unwaith eto, mae’r berthynas adeiladol a pharhaus yma gyda Cadw yn hynod o bwysig i sicrhau bod hynny’n parhau. Ond rydw i wir yn credu bod y dogfennau sydd ar gael nawr yn llawer iawn rhwyddach i bobl ar lawr gwlad sy’n gorfod gwneud penderfyniadau ynglŷn ag addoldai hanesyddol i'w darllen a'u deall, heb eu bod nhw'n arbenigwyr mewn pensaernïaeth. Rŷm ni yn mawrygu'r gwaith mae Cadw wedi'i wneud yn y maes yma. Mae'n welliant sylweddol iawn. 

I believe that they are a significant improvement. Once again, Cadw has taken the opportunity to consult very broadly on all new pieces of guidance, and we’ve had an input to all of those consultations, I think. Many of our comments were taken on board and had an impact on the final wording. Once again, that constructive and ongoing relationship with Cadw is extremely important in ensuring that that continues. But I truly believe that the documentation available now is far easier for people on the ground to have to make decisions on historic places of worship to understand and read them without them being experts in architecture. We do greatly priase the work undertaken by Cadw in this area. It's a significant improvement. 

09:55

Cyn i ni fynd i fanylder, a oes yna unrhyw beth cyffredinol ddylai'r pwyllgor yma wybod amdano fo, ynteu a ydych chi'n hapus efo fel mae'r drefn wedi digwydd ac fel mae'r Ddeddf yn gweithredu erbyn hyn? Ardderchog.

Fe drown ni at ddiogelu adeiladau rhestredig a henebion cofrestredig, a'r Gorchymyn Eithriad Eglwysig (Adeiladau Rhestredig ac Ardaloedd Cadwraeth) 1994, sydd yn eithriad pwysig. Mae yna fwriad i adolygu'r Gorchymyn eithriad eglwysig a'r canllawiau sy'n gysylltiedig ag o. Beth ydy oblygiadau hynny?  

Before we move on into greater detail, is there something general that this committee should be informed about, or are you content with how things have been arranged in terms of the implementation of the Act by now? Excellent.

We will move to the protection for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, and the Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994, which is an important exemption. There's an intention to review the ecclesiastical exemption Order and the guidance associated with it. What are the implications of that? 

I think we've already had very constructive meetings with Cadw over some draft guidance that they're starting to put together, and it really is the guidance that answers all of this, because that really gives us the lead on how we should be operating our exempt system. So far, we're really encouraged by it, and I think one of the things we all agreed when we saw the first guidance was how helpful it was and clear it all is to help us to move forward. So, we're really encouraged by that. 

I suppose in the early stages it would have been really nice if all of this happened together so that you could have looked at all the guidance that was coming with the Act, with ecclesiastical exemption guidance, but, of course, things have to happen in an order—you can't do everything together. But it's really encouraging to see, as that guidance is coming together, how it is picking up on the other guidance and, in fact, putting it all together. So, we're quite encouraged in terms of the emerging guidance really giving us the steer and framework to operate our exempt systems. 

A oes gennych chi farn ar hynny? 

Do you have a view on that? 

Byddwn i'n cytuno'n llwyr â hynny, ac, wrth gwrs, gan mai is-ddeddfwriaeth yw'r drefn exempt, roedd rhaid i'r brif Ddeddf gael ei phasio gyntaf. Fe fuodd yna ymgais i roi rhai pethau ynglŷn ag adeiladau eglwysig yn y brif Ddeddf, ond fe fethodd y gwelliannau hynny. Petaent wedi pasio, byddai'r is-ddeddfwriaeth yn wahanol, yn naturiol. Ond unwaith eto, fe fuom ni'n rhan o'r ymgynghori ynglŷn â hynny ar y pryd, ac rydym yn deall, er ei fod ychydig bach yn rhwystredig, yr oedi sydd wedi bod. Rydym yn deall, am resymau ymarferol, na allai fod yn wahanol, mewn gwirionedd. 

I would agree entirely with that and, of course, because the exemption is in subordinate legislation, the main legislation had to be passed first. There was an effort to place some issues surrounding places of worship in the main Act, but those amendments failed. If they had passed, the subordinate legislation would be different, quite naturally. But once again, we were part of the consultation on that at the time, and we do understand, although it is slightly frustrating, the delay that has been. We do understand that, for practical reasons, it couldn't be any different, if truth be told. 

Byddai'r rhan fwyaf o bobl ddim yn ymwybodol bod yr eithriad eglwysig yma yn bodoli, mae'n debyg. A ydy o'n fanteisiol ei fod o'n parhau, neu a fyddai o'n fwy manteisiol petai o'n diflannu a bod y cyrff eglwysig yn cael eu trin fel pawb arall, mewn ffordd? Beth ydy manteision cynnal yr eithriad? 

The majority of people wouldn't be aware that this ecclesiastical exemption was in existence, probably. So, is it advantageous for it to continue, or would it be better if it were to disappear and for the church bodies to be treated like everyone else, in a way? What are the advantages of continuing with this exemption? 

Yn sicr, mae yna fantais, onid oes, i'r trethdalwr fod hyn yn cael ei ddelio ag e? O ran y Bedyddwyr, mae yna bwyllgor sy'n cael ei weinyddu gan Undeb Bedyddwyr Prydain, a nhw wedyn sy'n ei weinyddu fe ar ran yr eglwysi hynny. Ond mae ond yn effeithio ar ganran fechan iawn o'r eglwysi gydag undeb y Bedyddwyr, oherwydd mae'n rhaid eu bod nhw wedi cael eu rhestru. Mae'n rhaid bod yr undeb hefyd yn gweithredu fel ymddiriedolwr, ac felly dim ond i ryw 20 allan o ryw 350 o eglwysi y mae'n berthnasol. 

Certainly, there is a benefit for the taxpayer, isn't there, that this is dealt with? In terms of the Baptists, there is a committee administered by the Baptist Union of Great Britain, and they administrate it on behalf of those churches. But it only impacts on a small percentage of churches, because they have to have been listed. The union must also act as a trustee, and it only relates to around 20 of 350 churches.  

Ond mae'n system sydd yn ddibynnol ar wirfoddolwyr i raddau helaeth, ac a oes ganddyn nhw ddigon o sgiliau a digon o hyfforddiant tu ôl iddyn nhw a'r gallu i wneud y penderfyniadau? 

But it is a system that depends on volunteers to a large extent, and therefore do they have the right skills and sufficient training supporting them and the capacity to make decisions? 

Wel, fel rwy'n deall, mae'r pwyllgorau'n cael eu sefydlu ac maen nhw’n sicrhau bod yr arbenigwyr priodol ganddyn nhw, ac rwy'n gwybod bod yna gynrychiolydd o Undeb y Bedyddwyr Cymru yn mynd i wasanaethu ar y pwyllgor yn Didcot. 

Well, as I understand it, these committees are established and they do ensure that they have the expertise required, and I know that there is a representative of the Baptist Union of Wales on the committee in Didcot. 

A ydych chi'n credu hynny—bod yna ddigon o hyfforddiant a digon o allu o fewn y pwyllgorau yma i wneud y penderfyniadau cywir? 

Do you agree with that—do you think that there's enough training and enough capacity within these committees to make the right decisions? 

Certainly, I think the evidence is—. Well, we operate six committees across Wales because we deal with about 400 proposals a year, split up between each of our six dioceses. So, there are six advisory committees that look at all the proposals and advise on them. I'm amazed by the quality and the standing of the people who do volunteer to get involved from all different spheres of professional expertise. We set out—there are rules around who goes on each of these committees, and there are then consultative arrangements about who comes on to the committees, so it's not just a free-for-all that you just take anybody you can get. So, a lot of care goes into the thinking about who we get. So far, we're able to find really very good-quality people. And I think that very close scrutiny that goes on to each of these applications is a real strength. As I say, for us, there are six committees looking at all of these things, but the actual decision is not made by those committees—they are advisory. So, the decision maker who gives the permission is independent, both of the congregation and of the advisory group. So, I think that again is a strength, because it means there is somebody looking at the evidence, if you like, of what's being presented and what's proposed and being able to balance that, and I think that's a very big strength to the system. 

The other thing to say is that it's not just about permissions. So, the ecclesiastical exemption obliges all the denominations to ensure there's an inspection system of their buildings. So, that's very different from the secular system. So, one of the big advantages, it seems to me, is that every single one of their exempt churches or chapels has to have an architect inspection every five years, or an appropriate system. So, that again is a big advantage. At least it means that there is knowledge about what state these buildings are in. 

10:00

A faint o gysylltiad sydd yna wedyn efo'r awdurdodau lleol a'r swyddogion o fewn yr awdurdodau lleol? Ydyn nhw'n meddu ar y sgiliau cywir i ddeall y sector eglwysig a'r ffordd mae hynny i gyd yn gweithio?

And how much linkage is there with the local authorities and the officials within those local authorities? Do they have the right skills to be able to comprehend the ecclesiastical sector and how that operates?

Mae hwnnw'n gwestiwn, mae'n debyg, i'r enwadau sydd ddim yn exempt, onid e? Byddai'r enwadau exempt, wrth gwrs, ddim yn ymwneud yn yr un ffordd â'r awdurdodau lleol. A'r hyn rwy'n ei glywed gan yr enwadau hynny, ac o'm mhrofiad i, yw mai cymysg iawn yw hynny. Hynny yw, mae awdurdodau lleol, wrth gwrs, o dan bwysau ariannol aruthrol. Mae yna doriadau wedi bod yn y swyddi yma yn y blynyddoedd diwethaf. Ac felly, os yw swyddog cadwraeth awdurdod lleol yn digwydd bod yn rhywun sydd â diddordeb ac yn hyddysg mewn addoldai, mae hynny'n help mawr, wrth gwrs, ac mi fydd yr unigolyn yma yn ymddiddori'n fawr, ond mae yna bob math o arbenigedd o fewn y sector cadwraeth, ac os oes gyda chi fel awdurdod un neu ddau, ar y mwyaf rwy'n credu—bron y cyfan ohonyn nhw—swyddog cadwraeth, gallan nhw ddim bod yn arbenigwyr ym mhob math o adeilad, ymhob oes. Nid yw hynny'n bosibl. Ac felly mae'n amrywio’n fawr faint o ddealltwriaeth sydd o anghenion addoldy sydd yn mynd i barhau i fod yn addoldy. Ac mae rhai yn wych, ac mae rhai, heb unrhyw amarch iddyn nhw, sydd ddim yn deall. 

That, I suppose, is a question for the denominations that aren't exempt, isn't it? The exempt denominations wouldn't have the same kind of dealings with local authorities. And what I hear from those denominations, and from my own experience, is that the experience is very mixed. That is, local authorities, of course, are under huge financial pressures. There have been cuts in these posts over the past few years. And so, if a local authority conservation officer happens to be one who has an understanding of places of worship, that's of huge assistance, and these individuals would take a great interest, but there is all sorts of expertise within the conservation sector, and if, as a local authority, you have one, maybe two, conservation officers, at the most, they can't be experts in all sorts of buildings and architecture in all ages. That's simply not possible. And therefore it varies a great deal in terms of the understanding that exists of the needs of a place of worship that will continue to be a place of worship. Some are excellent, and some, with no disrespect to them, simply don't understand. 

Mae e'n digwydd. Roedd enghraifft, rwy'n meddwl, yn ddiweddar. Os oes yna eglwys yn dymuno gwneud newidiadau sydd wedi cael eu rhestru, maen nhw'n mynd at yr awdurdod lleol ac mae'r awdurdod lleol yn meddwl yn syth, am eu bod nhw'n gapel neu'n eglwys, 'Wel, maen nhw o dan yr exemption.' Ond efallai nad oes gwerthfawrogiad a dealltwriaeth bod rhaid sicrhau bod yr undeb yn ymddiriedolwr cyn eu bod nhw'n gallu mynd at y pwyllgor hynny. 

It does happen. I think there was a recent example. If there is a church that wants to make changes that have been listed, they will go to the local authority and the local authority will immediately think, because they're a church or a chapel, 'Well, they're under the exemption.' But there may not be an appreciation or an understanding that there is a need to ensure that there are trustees involved before going to that stage. 

Ac wrth i'r Gorchymyn yma gael ei adolygu rŵan, a chanllawiau newydd ddod i mewn, beth ydych chi'n chwilio amdano fo? Beth fyddech chi'n hoffi ei weld yn digwydd fel rhan o'r broses?

And as this Order is reviewed, and new guidance is introduced, what would you be seeking? What would you like to see happening as part of that process?

I think that the only significant difficulty, in a way, with the exemption is around what we would call 'dual control', so the occasions when both the denominational procedure and listed building consent procedure are required, and these fall really into two categories. One is: if you have a building within the curtilage of a listed building that's separately listed, that is outside the exemption. So, you get strange things where a lichgate, or a bier house, or a separately listed ruin, or something like that, which is clearly part of the church grounds, and part of the church's responsibility, has to go off and get the secular consent, but, actually, in our rules, it's covered by our procedures anyway. So, a tidying up of that, I think, would be very helpful, just because it's clarity then that everything within the church grounds is in the exempt system, and then the congregations know what they're dealing with. 

The other category of dual control is where work is undertaken on a building not for the purposes of the denomination. So, the classic example is a mobile phone mast that gets put on a listed building. Okay, it is for the benefit of the denomination because they get a rent from it, but that's a case where you go and get a denominational consent, and you have to go and get listed building consent as well. So, that just seems a little bit untidy and imposes quite a lot of extra work on a volunteer congregation. So, I think that's the main area where we'd like to see some adjustments, I think. 

10:05

Ocê. Mae Cytûn ac undeb y Bedyddwyr yn cytuno â hynny. Dyna ni. Gwnaf i ofyn i Mick Antoniw ddod i mewn efo cwestiynau.

Okay. So, Cytûn and the Baptist Union of Wales would agree with that. Very good. Then I'll ask Mick Antoniw to come in with questions.

I'd really like to ask a few questions around the scale of this problem, because it seems to me that we have systems in place to obviously protect buildings, to protect our historic environment and so on, but the actual scale of change, whether it be demographic, whether it be attendances, whether it be use, seems to me potentially far exceeding what we're trying to protect in terms of what we realistically can do. Can you say something about how you actually see that challenge, that broad challenge, the fact that—I think it is, what, 3,000; the enormous number that are listed and the issues that that presents, really?

It is a huge challenge. Many of our congregations are ageing, are diminishing in number, and sometimes the listing—. Sometimes chapels will make amendments, adaptations, to the church and sometimes they've just done it at a stage that is just too late, and they will be dependent on maybe one or two of the congregation who are really able to get to grips with the processes, make the necessary applications for grant support. Sometimes they'll achieve that to a point, but then the congregation will have dwindled and the church will inevitably have to close.

There's the other side, of course—that there will be a numerous congregation and they will continue. You have some then in the middle who are on the border—are they going to be able to survive, essentially? Sometimes, you'll have churches that are listed, who are ageing and who think, 'This listing—we have to go through the ecclesiastical exemption or we have to go through the local authority', and they just think, 'Well, is it worth it?', and it's just too much for them.

What do you think is the—? The immediate conclusion from what you said there is, really, that we are listing too much; we've not evaluated what is viable and what isn't viable. How do you see the issue of viability and sustainability then? What do you see as the way forward?

Something that we have been discussing, like you said, is the fact that there is no way that we can continue, and the congregations can continue, to maintain this exhaustive list of listed buildings, and are there too many realistically to be maintained and would there be a possibility of identifying the most important, on which we could work with the congregations to try and ensure that they are preserved. But, at the moment, we can't deal with all of them.

Is there a—? We'll get on in a minute to this issue of, I suppose, a programme of delisting or evaluations of purpose and so on, but is there, collectively, a strategy on this or is this a problem that is escalating, because we have so many listed and are being listed, and so many that are increasingly becoming, I suppose, defunct in terms of usage? Is there a collective strategy as to what you think should happen? What is it that you want to see happen or what do you think is the way forward? Because the logic is that, if something doesn't change, we just end up with enormous numbers of buildings that we can't afford to maintain, which will deteriorate in any event.

I don't know whether it's as straightforward as whether it's listed or delisted, but I think certainly maybe what would be helpful is if there were a conversation that were to take place with the denominations and the other interested parties to look at the issue. I think that a conversation and engagement would be good rather than saying—. Because sometimes we think, 'Is it possible to delist?' Well, I'm not quite sure how possible, how practicable, that is, but, if there were a conversation to take place, with engagement, I think possibly that would be helpful in looking to the way forward.

I think it's fair to say that the churches and chapels and places of worship of Wales staying the same is not an option. So, the only options are that you adapt and develop what you're doing in those buildings, which means change, and that adaption is typically loos, kitchens, and all those kinds of things. Because, fundamentally, having big spaces for lots of people to stand in a ceremony or at worship is not where the future lies; the future often lies in much more small-scale work, community work, working with small groups, that sort of thing. That means big, open buildings are not what people need any more; they need smaller spaces they can break out. So, if churches and chapels are staying in use, they will have to adapt, and they are adapting. If they're not staying in use, they will have to adapt, because they cannot stay, and nobody wants them, as big, barn-like spaces.

So, I think what I'm saying is that we face a really significant time for places of worship, both now and in the future, in terms of that adaptation, and I think we've got to be willing to be ready for that, flexible enough to allow that, because, otherwise, if you—. It's adapt or die, really. If congregations don't adapt, they won't survive. If the buildings don't adapt, they will sit there and enter ruination, and we've seen plenty of examples of it, and I'm sure everyone of you has examples in your areas of chapels and churches that are in a poor state, have been abandoned. That can't be the right solution. So, freeing up the ability to adapt these buildings is going to be critical.

10:10

Those are conversations I'm sure every Assembly Member is having in their constituencies. I had one last night, and I've got others. There are some good examples of where chapels and churches have adapted and played very important community roles, and they've been assisted with grants and so on. But it seems to me that those are very dependent on the dynamism of the community within those particular churches. I suppose the point I'm really getting to is that, if it is the case that we have an enormous number of these buildings that are unsustainable in the format they are in at the moment, but one of the things that contributes to their unsustainability or the ability to dispose of them for other purposes is the fact that they are listed—who wants to take on a listed building, et cetera, if there are all sorts of things that have to be done. And your ability to actually dispose of them—you have obligations towards them whilst they are on your books, even though they are not in use. They are blighted, to some extent, because of the system.

What is your view on the way the system is actually operating? Is there a need for radical change to enable us to, effectively, say that a large number of these we have to find an alternative use for, make them sustainable, or we have to get rid of them or do something with them in one way or another?

I think, if I just go back to delisting—which is kind of what everybody runs to: 'We need to delist these buildings in order to move forward with them'—I'm not sure that's true, because one of the implications of delisting is that, effectively, you're saying that that building can be demolished, and I don't think that in most cases that's what people are looking to do. So, it almost needs a kind of—this is slightly the thing you're talking about here; it almost needs a sort of grade III listing, which is almost saying that these buildings are kind of important and need to remain as features, but, actually, it's really freeing up a lot more flexibility to adapt and change them. I just think that's where we're hitting the problem, both in terms of closed buildings, yes, but also those that are still in use.

Do you think we are tackling the problem quickly enough? I mean, it's there, it's been there for quite some time; it is still there. It's almost as though no-one quite wants to bite the bullet or, you know, to—.

Well, certainly for us, I think we've—. I'm not sure what the statistics exactly say, but I think that, probably, with the nonconformist denominations, there's been a significant closure of chapels over the last 10 to 20 years, and churches perhaps have lagged behind that. I can't sit here and say that's not going to continue. I worry a lot about the future and the increasing rate of closure of churches in the coming years. I currently look after 72 closed buildings across Wales that I'm trying to dispose of and move on, and that's just a point in time, and that isn't going to change. So, for me, it's the most significant issue of our age in terms of these buildings and what happens to these closed buildings.

Can I, Chair, have just two very quick questions relating to Cadw? I know I've taken up quite a bit of time, but I think that this is an important area. Cadw, of course, have a survey, and they have a register of at-risk buildings, although that isn't published. I'd appreciate your comments on that and what the significance of that is and why that may be, but also the way in which Cadw is now actually restricting the funding that is available, the way funding has taken use into perhaps a more commercial direction and whether that has an impact and whether those are things that you think have affected your ability to deal with some of these issues.

10:15

Nid ydw i'n credu bod amheuaeth fod diffyg grantiau yn broblem enfawr i gynulleidfaoedd bychain, nid yn unig yn ariannol—wrth gwrs, mae problemau ariannol—ond hefyd yn seicolegol. Mae'r teimlad yma, 'Does neb yn fodlon ein helpu ni; rŷm ni ar ein pen ein hunain fan hyn gyda chyfrifoldeb mawr sy'n pwyso'n drwm arnom ni' ac mae'n rhwyddach wedyn i roi'r ffidil yn y to, tra byddai grant sy'n fach yn ariannol yn ddigon i gyfleu'r syniad, 'Mae'r gymdeithas ehangach yn eich cefnogi chi yn eich awydd i gadw'r adeilad yma' ac, fel y mae Alex yn ei ddweud, efallai ei addasu fe at well defnydd.

Os caf i ddweud hefyd, mae'r Ddeddf ar hyn o bryd—fe geisiom ni gyflwyno gwelliant ar hyn, ond fe fethodd; roedd hi'n bleidlais gyfartal ac fe gollwyd y gwelliant—yn mynnu mai'r unig griterion ar gyfer rhoi caniatâd i adeilad rhestredig yw cadw gwerth hanesyddol yr adeilad. Nid yw'r ystyriaethau y mae Alex newydd fod yn sôn amdanyn nhw yn ystyriaethau o fewn y gyfraith wrth wneud penderfyniad. Dyna yw'r broblem gyfreithiol i ni fel eglwysi. Wrth gwrs, mae gyda ni ystyriaeth arall, sef yr awydd i ddefnyddio'r adeilad yna er addoli Duw ac er gwasanaethu'r gymuned. Efallai y byddai hynny'n golygu newid rhai o'r pethau hanesyddol—rhai o'r pethau hansyddol—o fewn yr adeilad i wneud hynny'n bosibl mewn oes pan fo pobl eisiau bod yn gyfforddus ac yn dwym ac yn y blaen. Codwyd yr adeiladau yma pan nad oedd y disgwyliadau yna yno.

Fel rydw i'n ei ddweud, fe geisiom ni gael gwelliant o'r fath i'r Ddeddf ei hunan. Nid yw yno, ac felly bydd yr is-ddeddfwriaeth esemptiad o hyd, wrth gwrs, o fewn y ffiniau yna yn y Ddeddf. Dyna yw'n problem ni fel enwadau. Rŷm ni'n deall bod pob penderfyniad yn gorfod cael ei wneud yn gyfreithlon, wrth gwrs, ond jest weithiau mae yna brosiectau gwych yn cael eu colli oherwydd y gellid colli rhywbeth hanesyddol. Fel y mae Alex yn ei ddweud, beth sy'n digwydd wedyn yw mae'r adeilad yn cael ei werthu ac, wrth gwrs, mae rhywun yn ei brynu fe ac yn ei addasu fe llawer tu hwnt i beth roeddem ni wedi dymuno gwneud yn y lle cyntaf, gan wneud pob math o addasiadau eraill. Mae'n rhwystredig iawn i gynulleidfa weld nad oeddem ni'n cael newid y math o do, er enghraifft, neu ddim yn cael rhoi tŷ bach i mewn, ond mae'r rhain yn gallu troi'r peth yn dŷ, sy'n golygu newid holl strwythur yr adeilad. Mae yna deimlad o annhegwch weithiau ymysg cymunedau ynglŷn â hynny.

I don't think that there is any doubt that a lack of grants is a huge problem for small congregations, not just financially—of course, there are problems in terms of finance—but also psychologically. There is the sense of, 'No-one is willing to help us; we're alone in this situation with this large responsibility that weighs heavily upon us' and then it's easier to give up, whereas a small financial grant would be enough just to convey the idea, 'Society, speaking more broadly, does support you in your desire to keep this building open'—and perhaps to adapt it for better use, as Alex mentioned.

If I may also say, the Act at present—we did seek to introduce an amendment on this, but it fell; it was a balanced vote and the amendment fell—insists that the only criterion for giving permission to a listed building is to preserve the historical value of the building. The considerations that Alex just mentioned are not considerations within the law when a decision is made. That is the legal problem for us as churches. Of course, we have other considerations, which is the desire to use these buildings to worship God and to serve the community. It may be that that means changing some of the historical aspects—just some of the historical aspects—of these buildings to make that possible in an age when people want to be comfortable and warm and so forth. When these buildings were built, those expectations were not in place.

As I said, we sought to have such an amendment to the Act, but it did not pass, so the subordinate legislation in terms of the exemption will still fall within those boundaries of the Act. That is our problem as denominations. We do understand that all decisions have to be taken legally, of course, but occasionally there are excellent projects that are lost because a historical feature could be lost. Then, as Alex said, what happens is that the building is sold and someone will buy it and will adapt it far beyond anything that we would have wished to do in the first place, making all kinds of other adaptations. It is very frustrating for a congregation to see that we weren't able to do something such as change the roof, for example, or we couldn't put in any toilets, but they can turn this into a house, which means restructuring the building in its entirety. There is a sense of unfairness amongst communities with regard to that.

O ran y Bedyddwyr, beth yr ydym ni wedi ei ddweud—. Mae'r cynulleidfaoedd unigol yn gyfrifol am yr adeiladau eu hunain, ac felly maen nhw'n teimlo'n unig iawn. So, efallai fod rhyw fath o waith sydd eisiau cael ei wneud, ac ychydig o arian sydd ei eisiau, ond nid yw'r gefnogaeth yna, ac fel undeb nid yw'r arbenigedd gyda ni. Mae'r cyfrifoldeb ar y gynulleidfa i wneud y gwaith, ac maen nhw'n edrych ar y gwaith cymharol fach sydd o'i blaen ac yn dweud bod hwnnw'n ormod iddyn nhw, ac efallai fod capeli yn cau wedyn yn gynt nag y dylen nhw oherwydd hynny.

In terms of the Baptists, what we have said—. The individual congregations are responsible for the buildings themselves, and so they can feel isolated. So, perhaps there is some work that needs to be done, and only a small amount of money that's needed, but the support isn't necessarily there, and as a union we don't have the expertise available. It's the responsibility of the congregation to do that work, and they look at the relatively minor works facing them and decide it's just too much for them, and chapels can then close more quickly than they should perhaps because of that.

I think the issue of money is obviously critical. I haven't done the analysis, but a lot of our churches, the reason that they've been able to do work is that they've sold some other property asset to do it, which probably isn't a very sustainable way of going about life, but that's where they've got most of their money from. I think the other important thing—the National Churches Trust did a survey earlier this year asking congregations what were their challenges. Money was there, but I think equal to that if not more so was people. They do not have the people who can make the grant applications, run projects of this nature, undertake the applications that need to be made. I think that probably is the biggest and probably the hardest challenge—how do we engage new people to get involved in this and assist with what we're trying to do? It's exactly the same in the Church in Wales: every single congregation is responsible for its building. They get some support from church structures, but, effectively, they're on their own and they're volunteers looking after a very significant part of the nation's heritage.

10:20

Diolch yn fawr. Mi ddof i â Dawn i mewn efo'r set olaf o gwestiynau.

Thank you very much. I will bring Dawn in with the final set of questions.

Thank you, Chair. I wanted to ask you a little bit about something that's actually not in your evidence. This might be something you've thought about or something you haven't thought about. You'll be aware—or you may be aware—that, in 2014, there was the report from Baroness Andrews around how we can use the arts, culture and heritage to promote social justice in Wales. Following on from that, the Government introduced the Fusion programme, which was about using the arts and culture and heritage to try to address some issues around inclusion and poverty, probably in some of our most deprived areas. Can you provide us with any examples of things that you have been involved in—projects or any work that you have been involved in—that kind of links in to the recommendations around the Andrews report?

I'm not sure I can give any specific examples in direct relation to the Baroness Andrews report, but the whole principle of using heritage to tackle poverty is central to what many of our congregations are doing. Food banks, for example, are consistently based around places of worship. We have a number of night shelters. Helping those in need is what we do. I think there's a danger of thinking that what we do is sing hymns and do things on Sundays. That, of course, is part of what we do but, actually, our congregations are fundamentally engaged in helping people in need. So, I think all that report was revealing is what we do. That's what our heritage gets used for, and increasingly so.

So, it's a question of utilising the access to facilities that you have, to enable these things to happen.

Absolutely. Fundamentally, our facilities can be used for those kinds of events, and I'm sure that happens across all of those activities. I'm sure that happens across all denominations. Equally, it's not all about the buildings. It's visiting people in need. It's knowing in communities who has got issues and problems and needs support and needs help to access services. All that is going on completely under the radar. I can't sit here and give you statistics about what's going on, but it's absolutely fundamental to what we do. It's an untapped resource, really—or an unknown resource. So, I'm sure the two absolutely chime.

With regard to what you said there about community engagement and help, we have got one example in a Communities First area, where the Communities First project was a tremendous support to the chapel. They have now gone at it to renovate their building, and it's now used for Communities First activities—the food bank and a whole range of activities—but it was through the help of Communities First. And, we go back to three ladies, in particular, who really took that on and have really made their chapel into a wonderful community facility that's used several days of the week. It's wonderful to see that, but they needed the support to do that, and it is down to those individuals, really.  

Can I add another specific example, perhaps, around affordable housing? We've developed a very clear policy that we will really try to use our assets to provide sites or buildings for affordable housing. We've had a number of successes in the last year, and there are a lot of projects in the pipeline. Sometimes, that's involving not going to the market and asking housing associations to bid. That's actually saying to housing associations, 'We'll sit together, and we'll work out a deal here, and we'll find a way to make this happen.' We work very closely with Housing Justice Cymru, which is a Christian-based organisation dedicated to trying to solve issues. I know that the Welsh Government has supported them with a project officer to try and make some progress on homelessness. So, those are very specific examples where we are using our buildings and property to try and tackle the very critical issue of homelessness and affordable housing.

Okay. If I can just move on to just a couple of other quick questions around heritage tourism and how you've been able to utilise some of your buildings. I know that you have said that, to an extent, that hasn't been a high priority. I'm kind of paraphrasing a little bit what's been said in your evidence. But, can I ask whether you've seen a mix of people now visiting your faith sites? Have you been able to draw people in of different faiths, of no faith, just to kind of take in the buildings and so forth? Or do you not have data about that sort of information?

10:25

Mae pob enwad yn gweinyddu adeiladau'n wahanol, wrth gwrs, felly, mae cael un set o ddata wastad yn dipyn o beth. Mae hynny'n anffodus, ond fel yna y mae hi. Mae yna lot o enghreifftiau lleol, unigol da. Rydym ni'n cyfeirio yn ein tystiolaeth ni at y Cistercian Way, ac mae nifer o eglwysi—rhai yn hanesyddol a rhai, fel yr un ym Mhenrhys, yn adeilad modern—yn croesawu ymwelwyr sydd yn pererindota ar hyd y ffordd yna. Rwy'n credu mai un o'r pethau mawr—roedd Alex a minnau'n trafod hyn pa ddiwrnod—sydd angen eu goresgyn yw ofn cynulleidfaoedd ynglŷn â chadw'r adeilad ar agor heb neb i'w oruchwylio. Mae yna ofn gan bobl y daw rhywun i mewn ar berwyl nad yw'n bereindota, ond o ran fandaliaeth neu ddwgyd. Ac felly mae yna ryw deimlad, os ydych chi'n agor adeilad, bod rhaid cael rhywun yno i'w staffio.

Wel, wrth gwrs, mae hynny yn creu cwestiwn o adnoddau difrifol i gynulledifa fach, ac mae rhai o'r capeli ac eglwysi mwyaf deniadol yn rhai mewn ardaloedd diarffordd, lle wrth gwrs mae gennych chi niferoedd bach o bobl ar gael i wirfoddoli i wneud hynny. Nawr, mae cwmnïau yswiriant yn dweud—mae'r cwmnïau yswiriant eglwysig i gyd yn dweud, rwy'n credu—bod adeilad yn fwy diogel os yw e ar agor, yn rhyfedd iawn, nag os yw e ar glo. Dyna mae'r ystadegau'n dangos. Ond mae perswadio cynulleidfa leol i gymryd y risg yn fater arall.

Felly, mae yna botensial enfawr yma, ac rydym ni yn sylweddoli hynny. Ond mae mynd y cam nesaf i bersawdio'r bobl leol—achos eu hadeilad nhw yw e a'u cymuned nhw yw e, beth bynnag yw'r sefyllfa gyfreithiol—i gymryd y risg yna er mwyn cael y lles mawr a fyddai'n deillio o hynny yn profi'n dalcen reit galed ar adegau.

All denominations administer the buildings differently, so having a single set of data is quite a task; that's unfortunate, but that happens to be the case. There are numerous individual, local examples. We refer in our evidence to the Cistercian Way, and many churches—some of them historical and some, such as the one in Penrhys, which are modern buildings—do welcome visitors on a pilgirmage along that way. I think one of the major issues—Alex and I were discussing the other day—that need to be overcome is the fear of congregations in terms of keeping a building open without anyone to oversee it. People are fearful that someone will enter the building for purposes other than a pilgrimage, such as vandalism or theft. Therefore, there's a feeling that, if you are opening the building, then someone needs to staff it.

That then raises a serious question of resources for a small congregation, and some of the most attractive chapels and churches are often in very remote areas, where you have very small numbers of volunteers available already. Now, I think that all the church insurance companies say that a building is safer if it's open, quite strangely, than if it's locked. That's what the statistics seem to show. But persuading a congregation to take that risk is another matter altogether.

So, there is huge potential here, and we understand that. But taking that next step and persuading local people—because it's their building at the end of the day and it's their community, whatever the legal position is—to take that risk in order to get the great benefits that would emerge from that is proving to be quite a difficult task.

It may surprise you to learn that—we survey our churches every year on this very question—the latest statistics for Church in Wales churches is that about two thirds of them are open every day, sometimes with a sign saying, 'You can get a key from the pub next door' or something, but nevertheless two thirds are available for viewing every day. The thing I always say to that is, two thirds of them may be open every day, but virtually all of them don't look open because the nature of these buildings means big oak doors and imposing porches. It's quite a big thing to actually go there and feel the thing and open the thing. So, in a way, certainly for us, an awful lot are open already, and so the agenda is not so much about getting more to open; in a way it's making sure that those that are get the best from the visitors that go there. One of my little jobs is, every Wednesday and Thursday, to lock up my local church, and the bit I enjoy most is reading the visitors book. It fascinates me to see where people have come from and found that building—from Australia, from America, from wherever. So, we shouldn't underestimate how significant that is.

I think for us as Baptists is it's definitely underestimated, isn't it? How congregations do underestimate the attraction that their buildings might have. But, again, it falls on the local congregation. There's one example that receives possibly hundreds of visitors every year. It depends on a very small team of elderly people, and how long that's sustainable for is questionable. And it would be such a shame if that building wasn't open only because the people didn't have the support to keep those doors open.

Sure. And that's not peculiar to this country, of course. I was on holiday in France recently and we saw a sign saying 'eleventh century crypt' in this little church, and we went down and it was locked up, so we couldn't get in.

Okay, have you got any examples of partnerships that you've forged to promote any of your historic buildings? So, outside of the church forums, if you like.

I think, very significantly, Visit Wales put together a faith tourism action plan a few years ago, which we were certainly quite involved in. I think that was a very significant moment, if only demonstrating that everybody's acknowledging that faith tourism is significant and important, and worth pursuing. We did, until recently, have an organisation called Churches Tourism Network Wales, which tried to bring the sector together. But, frankly, that was one person trying to operate such a system with that desperate game of trying to find money to be paid, and quite often not paid. If you really want to take this sector seriously, we have to find a way of investing in it and bringing people together and developing best practice and promoting good opportunities. There are lots of examples of churches and chapels joining together to form local walking routes or linking together to make a network. There's one in Wrexham. There's a good one in Cardiganshire. You know, these kinds of things, which are brilliant initiatives, to try and get people to go to one place, 'Oh, look, there's another place I can go to,' and link things together. So, those are all very effective partnerships, I think, in promoting the idea of visiting these places of worship.

10:30

Ac mae nifer o eglwysi yn cymryd rhan yn y cynllun Drysau Agored, sydd yn cael ei gynnal bob mis Medi, ac rydw i'n credu bod eglwysi yn aml iawn—. Tua hanner yr adeiladu sydd ar agor yw eglwysi o wahanol fathau. Felly, mae yna ymwybyddiaeth o'r potensial yma, ond mae yna lawer mwy. Mae Croeso Cymru wedi rhoi ar eu gwefan nhw adnodd defnyddiol ac arbennig o dda ynglŷn ag ymweld â chapeli yn benodol, oherwydd mae'r rheini yn llai tebygol o fod ar agor, ac yn rhoi cyngor i berchnogion capeli ac i ymwelwyr ynglŷn â hynny. Maen nhw wedi ei roi ar y wefan, ond, unwaith eto, nid oes unrhyw adnodd wedi mynd i mewn i'w hybu fe. Ac felly rŷm ni wedi'i drafod yn y fforwm, rŷm ni wedi cyfrannu at greu'r adnodd, mae e yna ar y wefan, ond nid ydw i'n ymwybodol o dystiolaeth ei fod e'n cael ei ddefnyddio rhyw lawer, ac felly mae yna angen—. Mae lot o waith wedi cael ei wneud, ac rŷm ni'n mawrygi'r gwaith sydd wedi cael ei wneud, ond mae angen mynd un cam ymhellach er mwyn i hynny arwain at bobl yn curo ar ddrysau capeli ac eisiau mynd i mewn.

And a number of churches do take part in the Open Doors scheme, which is held every September, and I think that churches, quite often are—. About half of the buildings that are open are churches of different types. So, there is an awareness of this potential, but there is much more that could be done. Visit Wales has put on its website a very useful resource, which is very good, about visiting chapels specifically, because they're less likely to be open, and it gives advice to chapel owners and to visitors about how to do so. They've put it on the website, but, again, there's been no resource at all to promote it. And so we have discussed it in the forum, we've contributed to the creation of that resource, it's up on the website, but I'm not aware of any evidence that it's used very much. There's a great deal of work that has taken place, and we would praise that work, but it needs to go a further step to lead to people knocking at the doors of our chapels and seeking to enter.

I understand that. I just want to—and thank you, all of you. Just one final question from me. You did touch on it earlier on, about your relationships with Cadw, with Welsh Government and so on, and you seem to be quite satisfied with that. We know now that the Welsh Government have decided to keep Cadw inside of Government as opposed to making it an arm's-length body. Do you have any thoughts and views on that?

Rŷm ni'n gefnogol i hynny am y rheswm syml fod ein perthynas ni wedi gwella gymaint â Chadw ac y byddai unrhyw ad-drefnu yn peryglu'r rhwydwaith sydd wedi'i adeiladu o amgylch y drefn bresennol. Nid yw hynny'n golygu ein bod ni yn erbyn pob newid. Yn achos ein hadeiladau ni, rŷm ni o blaid newid, ond yn yr achos penodol yma, ar y cyfan, rydym ni'n croesawu hynny. Ond nid oes gan yr eglwysi safbwynt ffurfiol ynglŷn â beth ddylai strwythur cyfreithiol Cadw fod. Nid yw hwnnw'n fater i ni, ond rŷm ni'n falch fod y berthynas rŷm ni wedi'i hadeiladu yn mynd i barhau.

We're generally supportive of that for the simple reason that our relationship with Cadw has improved so much and any reorganisation would put the current system at risk. That doesn't mean to say that we are against change per se. In the case of our buildings, we are in favour of change, but in this specific case, generally speaking, we welcome that. But the churches don't have a formal position as to what the legal structure of Cadw should be. That's not a matter for us, but we're pleased that the relationship that we built is going to remain in place.

A ydych chi'n cytuno efo'r farn yna? 

Do you agree with that view? 

Yes.

Dyna ni. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Wel, dyna ddiwedd y sesiwn hon. A gaf i ddiolch yn fawr i chi fel tystion am ddod i mewn atom ni y bore yma?

Excellent. Thank you very much. That brings this session to a close. May I thank you very much for your evidence and for joining us this morning?

Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Fe gymerwn ni doriad byr—ychydig funudau o doriad. 

We'll take a short break, now—a few minutes, perhaps.

10:35

Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:33 a 10:38.

The meeting adjourned between 10:33 and 10:38.

3. Yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol: Sesiwn dystiolaeth 4
3. Historic Environment: Evidence Session 4

[Anghlywadwy.]—Sefydliad Siartredig yr Archaeolegwyr. Os gwnewch chi gyflwyno'ch hunain, os gwelwch yn dda, a theitlau eich swyddi.

[Inaudible.]—Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. If you could introduce yourselves, please, and give us your job titles.

Diolch. Bore da. My name is Kate Geary. I am head of professional development and practice at the chartered institute.

And I'm Rob Lennox. I am the policy adviser for the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.

Iawn. Rydw i am gychwyn efo ychydig o gwestiynau cyffredinol ynglŷn â gweithredu Deddf yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol (Cymru) 2016. Rydw i'n cymryd yr oeddech chi'n rhan o'r ymgynghoriad ynglŷn â'r Ddeddf cyn iddi gael ei phasio—ac wedyn, buaswn i'n tybio. Beth yw eich barn chi am y ffordd y mae hynny i gyd wedi gweithio, gan ddechrau efo Rob, efallai?

Fine. I'd like to open with a few general questions about the implementation of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016. I take it that you were part of the consultation in relation to the Act before it was enacted—and also afterwards, I would have thought. So, what is your view about how all of that has worked? We'll start with Rob, perhaps.

The first thing is to say that we are, I think, incredibly happy with the Act. As it has emerged, it has brought a number of advancements to the protection of the historic environment in Wales. Frankly, we're touting it around the UK in various aspects and saying that Wales is now ahead of other UK nations in many of the regards that the Act has sought to treat. We've been very pleased with the level of consultation that Cadw and the Welsh Government have kept up throughout the process, including the aspects of secondary legislation and policy, which are being worked on at the moment—many of which are still in the process of coming through. We have no doubt that that will continue, and whilst there may be things to work through in the secondary legislation and guidance documents, we're quite happy with how the process is going so far, in general terms.

10:40

A ydych chi'n gweld effaith y Ddeddf ar lawr gwlad?

Do you see the impact of the Act on the ground?

I think it will be a test to see, in time, what the impact on the ground will be. We're just starting to learn about some of the first uses of the Act. I think I'd like to hold judgment on whether we've seen anything in terms of huge progresses made yet. I think that will be to decide in the next couple of years. I believe that Cadw will be assessing these things over that period.

A ydych chi'n meddwl bod angen Bil cydgrynhoi er mwyn dod â gwahanol ddarnau o ddeddfwriaeth at ei gilydd?

Do you think there's a need for a consolidation Bill in order to bring the various pieces of legislation together?

There is a strong argument to be made, I think, that the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 has been amended a few too many times now, and that there would be something to be gained by seeking a consolidation Act. There are a number of ideas that have been brought forward. For instance, in the Law Commission review, I believe last year, which looked at the historic environment, there are more changes that could be made that could be part of that consolidation Bill. I think CIFA would support that, if Wales did decide to go down that line. But that being said, it is a further legislative undertaking—there's likely to be a point of legislative fatigue. So, it may not be that now is necessarily the time that we need to pursue that Act.

Ocê. Rydych chi wedi dweud yn eich tystiolaeth:

 Okay. You have stated in your evidence:

'Given current threats to the historic environment, a more radical reappraisal of designation mechanisms may be necessary.' 

What do you mean by that?

Do you want to answer that, Rob?

Yes. We were very happy with a number of the changes that the Act was able to bring forward, but there were further things that we would've hoped to see. So, there are small changes that we could have asked for further, including the introduction of concepts that do exist in England and Scotland that don't exist in Welsh policy, for example a greater emphasis on archaeological interest and strengthening the definition of that principle, which is essentially a precautionary principle. We do not know where archaeology exists until it's been investigated. There are principles like that that were missing and that could've gone in at the stage when we were dealing with the Act, and the parallel revisions of the technical advice notes, but weren't.

Then, there are other forms of designation that we would like to see investigated. So, one of the ones that we mention in our evidence, I think, is the use in Scotland of historic marine protected areas. Elsewhere in the UK, we use marine conservation zones to designate natural elements of the marine environment. Historic marine protected areas use those mechanisms to enhance protection for cultural heritage at sea, and those are the kinds of things that we would be very keen to talk about expanding to use in Wales.

Mae'r comisiwn brenhinol wedi dweud—

The royal commission has stated—

Sorry, just on that, can you give me a couple of examples as to precisely what you mean? I read your evidence, and you're concerned about the impact of things like dredging and the way things are impacted upon, but I didn't have a great understanding of where there have been significant impacts; where things have happened or opportunities missed. Can you give an example on that so I can better my understanding of it?

Yes—where, had there been a capacity to protect certain areas, certain things wouldn't have happened. What sort of examples are we talking about?

There are threats with, as you say, things like dredging, things like fishing, and how that can damage heritage on the seabed. There are issues with salvage and how you issue licences for salvage operations that are not necessarily well covered by the range of instruments that currently exist in Wales for designating or, indeed, just managing cultural heritage underwater. So, it's not quite as bad a situation in Wales as it is in England, where the only mechanism that exists is the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. In Wales, there is a history of scheduling sites at sea below the low-water mark. I don't know precisely how positive Cadw is about making those decisions to schedule at sea. But it's about getting a nuanced range of tools for the range of issues that exist. So, there won't be the same management requirements for all things, but if you know that there is an area where commercial fishing rights are in operation, having a designation regime that is flexible enough to react to those individual pressures is really valuable. Certainly, in Scotland, the evidence from the way they're using historic marine protected areas is that they are able to deal with the pressures of a variety of situations better than elsewhere in the UK.

10:45

Underwater cultural heritage is one of the, I would say, most threatened parts of our cultural heritage, and that's because whilst it has an in-principle parity with terrestrial heritage, the systems that go along with protecting that are not as advanced. The monitoring regimes are not as advanced. It's easier not to see; it's easier to ignore. We are dealing with cases of harm to marine cultural heritage with regularity.

I think it would be fair to say that our level of knowledge and understanding of underwater heritage is obviously that much less, for very practical reasons. So, actually predicting the presence or absence of underwater heritage—whether that's wrecks, whether it's underwater landscapes—is quite difficult, and quite often these sites and remains are only identified at the point at which there's a potential for damage to occur. So, that forward thinking and forward planning is more difficult.

Or, indeed, not identified at all. You don't know what you're losing.

Diolch. O ran y system gynllunio, a oes angen newidiadau yn fanna hefyd? Rydych chi wedi sôn am y cysyniad yma o ddiddordeb archeolegol posib. Sut fyddai hynny'n gweithio? Onid ydy hynny jest yn creu mwy o fwrdwn ar y gwasanaeth cynllunio ac yn gweithio yn erbyn unrhyw ddatblygu ar diroedd?

Thank you. In terms of the planning system, is there a need for changes there, as well? You have talked about this concept of potential archaeological interest. How would that work? Isn't that just something that would create a further burden on the planning system and militate against any developments?

What do you think, Kate? Do you want to answer this, or shall I?

I think, generally speaking, the potential to recognise potential archaeological interest is a really important one, because we don't always know—. Although our historic environment records contain large amounts of information, and that's growing all the time and being maintained all the time, there is always the potential for unexpected discoveries, and the process of identifying potential is a really important one. Where our concerns touch on the planning process in terms of extending permitted development rights, the process then takes away that opportunity to assess the potential for archaeological remains before decisions are made, because permission in principle is already given. I think what we would like to see is an opportunity to explore what mechanisms could be brought in to protect archaeologically sensitive areas where we might not know in detail what remains may be present, but where the area is considered to be a sensitive one.

So, this would only apply to areas where there is previous knowledge about archaeology. You wouldn't want this applied for every kind of process in the planning system, I presume, otherwise we would get nowhere. It would grind to a halt—

No, it would be unrealistic.

We're defining areas of particular interest, so we understand where there are landscapes that have been highly settled in various periods of the past, and we are able to accurately, or fairly accurately, judge that there is a high likelihood that you'll find more archeology in those areas. You could adopt an approach to designating risk maps for where there is high archeological potential, and that would be one potential way for you to narrow that scope, as you say, that may be going against the stream of trying to simplify and trying to remove some of these issues. But our core concern is that, if you take away the opportunity to investigate, you will never know what you're losing. I don't necessarily agree that it would be significant extra time to bring in these precautionary principles, but what we are saying is that, if you're pursuing as a nation a more streamlined system, you are inadvertently either taking away your opportunity to discover what archeology may be under your feet, or indeed—.

10:50

But you can imagine that there would be a tension from one particular lobby—or not just one particular lobby, but there could be a tension there where there's an urgency, for example, for social housing, and then if there's a further stalling in the system because there may be archeology there—.

What we say is that we do not believe that archeology significantly delays the planning process, and moreover, in many cases, it is a valuable aspect of risk management for a development. What you do not want to find is that you start going ahead with a development that is perhaps a permitted development where there has not been an application process or an opportunity for prior investigation of the site, and then you find that you've stumbled across some important archeology, because that delays the process and causes delay to the developer. Actually, in the long run, it is better to do that work early in the process and have the opportunity to do it early in the process, than to have that happen later in the process. There are a number of examples over the last 25 years, or, indeed, before the system that we currently have of investigating archeology, that show that that is a much bigger risk.

Ocê. Diolch. Rydych chi wedi sôn yn eich tystiolaeth hefyd ynglŷn â difrod i olion archeolegol drwy weithgaredd amaethyddol. Beth ydy'r ateb i hynny? A ydych chi'n disgwyl i ffermwyr beidio â mynd a gweithio ar y caeau?

Thank you. You also mentioned in your evidence about damage to archeological remains through agricultural activity. What are the solutions to this? Do you expect farmers to cease working on the fields?

I think it's fair to say that, in Wales, the agricultural pressure is much less than in other parts of the UK because it's a pastoral system and not an arable system, so the damage from ploughing is not considered to be as much of a risk as it is in other parts of the UK. That said, there have been some fantastic examples through the Glastir scheme where historic environment conservation and natural environment conservation interests have worked alongside farmers and landowners to ensure conservation and preservation of archeological remains. And also to bring greater awareness to them, and the benefits that that awareness might bring to the local economy and to knowledge and education in that area. So, I think the systems are in place to accommodate that. 

The comments that we made in the evidence about class consents, particularly in relation to ploughing, as I say, that's much more of an issue in other parts of the UK, but we do feel that it's a loophole in the legislation, that through the 1979 Act you have this opportunity to identify sites that are considered to be of national importance and of huge public benefit, to preserve and to promote information about and to generate knowledge about the local historic environment, and yet there is still that risk in the legislation that they can be damaged and even destroyed through ploughing. So, not so much of a concern in Wales in terms of scale, but still, for individual sites, very much a threat.

We're absolutely not saying that farmers aren't going to be able to go and plough their fields. What we're talking about here is a relatively small number of monuments that have already been scheduled as being of national importance. Due to this quirk of the 1979 Act that allows continued cultivation of sites that have been in cultivation for a number of years—six years, I believe, is the term and then you're allowed to continue—actually, what we're essentially saying there is whilst we've said that this site is protected, it is not subject to those protections in those instances.

We're not aware that Cadw has done extensive research into what the impacts would be in Wales of closing that loophole. In England, they have done a lot of work into it; as Kate says, it's a much bigger issue in England where that type of cultivation is much more common, but we're not talking about a huge number of sites. Most scheduled sites are very small in terms of area and, indeed, common agricultural policy and agri-environment schemes brought forward under Glastir have succeeded in taking quite a lot of these sites out of cultivation already. But this would just be to close the loophole on class consents for plough damage. 

10:55

Okay, thank you. I'll bring Mick in now. Thank you. 

I'd like to really—. As archaeologists, obviously, the whole aspect of historic sites, buildings and monuments, and so on, all of it is all inter-connected in many ways. One of the concerns we've obviously been looking at is the actual scale of the challenge—the scale of the number of buildings or premises in areas that are either listed or under threat, and whether, effectively, we're doing too much or trying to achieve too much and failing, rather than focusing. So, I'm interested in a little bit about some of the evidence we've had coming in about the scale of the challenge that's affecting us within the context of limited resources, and how you see the big picture at the moment.

I think the first thing to say is that, yes, the scale and the resources are huge issues, but really to note in very general terms the value of the historic environment to the people of Wales, and to the economy of Wales in terms of heritage tourism and in terms of education and skills. All of the work that's done by Cadw, the royal commission, the Welsh archaeological trusts and others is done for public benefit. I think we need to keep that in the back of our minds when we're talking about resources, and particularly in the climate of competing pressures.

We're very aware that resources are an issue and we picked up on that in the evidence, and that the provisions in the Act are progressive and we are, as Rob said, very supportive of them, but there is always the danger that without the appropriate resources to support implementation and the embedding of those provisions in practice, then that opportunity is lost to more effectively manage the historic environment.

In terms of doing too much, I think we're probably not best placed to comment on that because we're not operationally involved in that management process, whether that's listed buildings or archaeological sites and landscapes, but I think it is a situation that will need to be monitored over the next few years as the Act is embedded and enacted in practice, to see how that process can be best managed with the resources that are available.   

I think it's a great question. Agreeing with everything that Kate said, we understand that when we're talking about historic buildings, you cannot save everything. There has to be some process by which you decide what is of such value that you want to save it and some things that you're just not going to have the resources for ever. When you're talking about archaeology, which is coming largely through the development control process, there is a question of whether you need to excavate every potsherd and carefully archive it. That can be a costly process. It's about how you prioritise information and knowledge gained from that activity, and indeed, as Kate says, public benefit from doing that activity. I think there are certainly ways that you can focus that activity and that we should be thinking, indeed, we are thinking about it in the historic environment sector, very much so, about why we do the things that we do, and what is the outcome and the benefit. And, yes, we're constantly thinking about how we can do that better. 

11:00

Okay. Perhaps I can just explore that a little bit further. There are major challenges ahead, and we know there are major challenges in respect of finance, whatever happens, and that's going to be with us for the foreseeable future. I suppose it comes down to this: are we, by trying to do too much, effectively not doing enough by not being sufficiently focused? You started on the point of focusing. We've already seen, for example, in terms of historic buildings—we've just been talking about the numbers of churches and chapels there are. And the question is whether our regimes are insufficiently flexible to actually look at how we deal with buildings that need to be sustained: you need someone to sustain them, which means they have to have a sustainable purpose, which means there has to be some financial viability to that sustainable purpose, which means you need some flexibility over the sorts of restrictions that there may be over them as historic buildings.

Do we have systems that are sufficiently flexible? Are we being sufficiently focused? How would you develop a system that is far more focused? We talk about being focused. We might actually be talking about saying, 'Well let's recognise that we've got whole areas that are going to fall down unless we can do something about them, and if we can't do something about them, let's at least recognise the reality of the situation.' Is part of our problem that we're not facing up to the reality of the situation we're in?

I'm not sure I agree that we're not facing up to the reality of the situation, and I'm also not sure I agree that the system is not flexible enough. I think it absolutely usually is. And I think where there are cases where the system has not been flexible enough to allow a creative use to keep a building, that's a failure of individuals involved in making that decision. The system does allow. If you're talking about your historic church, yes, there are principles that you have to observe about what is significant about that building that you want to preserve, and that may be not putting in three floors in a non-conformist chapel because the whole feeling of that building is based around the openness to the galleries, and we want to find a route that preserves what is of special interest. But the system is flexible. The system recognises that without that sustainable use, that building will not have a future. Absolutely, that already exists. 

So, what do you think should happen to those buildings where we're unable to develop a sustainable future?

Obviously, there are other opportunities to save buildings and to bring them into community uses. We're exploring those types of issues in Wales, and in England, and in Scotland. And some buildings will be able to be saved in that way, and some won't. Some buildings will be able to get Heritage Lottery Fund funding for what they want to do, and some won't. We understand that. And it is about, as you say, prioritising and deciding what heritage you want to save and what you know you can't.

Thank you for that. I'm perhaps being a bit unfair almost asking you to solve the problem in a couple of sentences. But, I just want to move on to a couple of final things I want to ask you about with regard to Cadw, because, of course, they do carry out risk surveys, but they are not for public disclosure and so on. I'm just wondering what your thinking about that is. Is that something that's advantageous or disadvantageous? Would it not be more helpful to actually know what is at risk and what isn't? What's your thinking around that? Do you have a view?

I'm not sure that this is something that we've particularly discussed previously. I think my instinct would always be towards making as much information as publicly accessible as possible in order to aid decision making, and also to involve communities in the conversation about what happens to those buildings, because I think a very important part of finding sustainable use for buildings is that they're actually valued by the community. On the other hand, I can see that publishing that sort of information has the potential to raise expectations that may not be capable of being fulfilled, and may have resource issues in themselves. So, I think I can understand why there might be issues about making that information publicly accessible. 

And, just finally, on Cadw, in terms of the system of grant funding and the changes to that—the kind of operating, moving more towards, I suppose, support for projects and developments with commercial basis and so on. Is that something that you've thought about, which impacts in terms of the areas that you're concerned with?

11:05

I think it's absolutely right and proper that Cadw, like every organisation, should be looking at how they can maximise their income generation and mitigate the resource cost that they have. What we would suggest is that that's absolutely fine up to the point that it begins to compromise the heritage protection management responsibilities. So, an example is that, 20-odd years ago, I think, the Royal Commission in England started doing building surveys and entering the commercial market. We have a concern about that because it disrupts the thriving private market for those services. I don't necessarily think that that's the right approach for Cadw to be taking, and also we don't want to see the position where they are taking resources away from protecting the historic asset in order to meet a pressure to balance their budget sheets.

Again, you can look across to the newly split English Heritage and Historic England. Historic England are putting a lot of resource into trying to get their commercial services up to scratch. At the same time, the charity arm, English Heritage, is trying to balance its budget so that it's no longer receiving any subsidy from Government in five years' time. They're putting an awful lot of effort into that and some would say at the cost to the preservation and conservation that those organisations are charged to keep.

So, you have a concern. Do you have any practical examples of where those concerns might be focused at the moment?

I wouldn't want to go into specifics about cases that I don't necessarily have all the information on. There are cases that crop up that our members are concerned about, certainly. Not necessarily—. I don't think I have one to call on in Wales, particularly, but this is something that, in other parts of the UK, we would not want to see spread.

Thank you, Chair. You haven't mentioned this in your evidence and perhaps for good reason—it may not be in your area of work—but one of the terms of reference that the committee has had in this review has been to take into consideration the recommendations of Baroness Andrews's report on harnessing the power of arts, culture and heritage to promote social justice.

As I say, you don't touch on it specifically in your evidence, but you do talk about:

'Consideration should also be given to how Welsh Government can maximise
the delivery of public benefit from the historic environment.'

So, I don't know if that's kind of what you're alluding to in that, but do you have any thoughts, any views, about how we could be harnessing that more effectively, particularly in the area of work that you're involved in, and maybe how you have to work in partnership and collaboration with other groups to deliver those objectives, really?

Yes, I think public benefit is very much what we're thinking of in terms of—. And it ties in very neatly with the recommendations in the 'Culture and Poverty' report. Public benefit covers—in the way that we use the phrase; we tend to throw it out there quite regularly in our responses—a whole range of different things, from, at one end of the scale, involving schoolchildren in investigating their heritage, right through to academic knowledge creation at the other end of the scale and all sorts of combinations in between—not that those things should ever be seen as separate.

So, we do see that archeology and the historic environment have a huge role to play in tackling poverty and poverty of aspiration, I think, as a mechanism for involving communities, and particularly disadvantaged communities, in their own heritage and their own communities. Developing that understanding is a really powerful tool for learning and for developing skills. We've seen that in a number of cases that I can think of, just very small-scale examples where an interest in heritage, in the historic environment—it might be a visit to a museum, it might be a visit to a site—has just tweaked somebody's interest to go on to study further. There are some really good examples of where that's happened. The MORTARIA project that Cadw were involved with, working with young offenders in Cardiff, was a really good example of that. Because it's something that's very different, because it's something that perhaps children won't necessarily have had to sit down and learn at school in that slightly stifling environment, it's a very effective tool to generate interest in learning. Obviously, once you involve the community in caring for its historic environment, then, in terms of the issues that you were raising about preservation, it becomes a much easier conversation to have. So, I think there is a lot of scope for organisations to work together to look at using the historic environment as a vehicle for developing skills and for upskilling communities.

11:10

Do you have any sort of fora that you work with, with other historic organisations and heritage organisations, to develop programmes around that kind of work?

We do. A lot of work is co-ordinated through the archaeology training forum, which has representatives from organisations across the UK, and we work very closely with the Council for British Archaeology on community-based initiatives, which is the area that they lead on. We started a conversation very recently, as in this week, with the Welsh archaeological trusts about supporting them on some of the work that they're doing in terms of education and skills. Not a core function of the chartered institute, but something that we do, is to run an NVQ assessment centre. So, we work with candidates who are studying for an NVQ in archaeological practice, and that's provided some really good examples of where we can use the historic environment to provide a level of skills and training that perhaps wouldn't otherwise have been there.

And would that be tapping in directly to schools, to community organisations, to colleges, or all of those?

All of those things, but through the organisations who are involved on the ground. So, we would work with, for example, the relevant Welsh archaeological trusts to reach those communities. We wouldn't necessarily do that directly ourselves.

Okay. One final question from me, just around Cadw: you've talked about your positive experience of working with Cadw, and you know the Government has now announced that it's staying within the remit of Welsh Government. Do you have any thoughts and views on that? Do you welcome that particular view, that announcement?

I think we do welcome that. Our key concern was that the functions and the provisions are protected, but the relationship that Cadw has within Welsh Government seems to be a very positive one, and we'd be very pleased to see that continue, I think.

I think it's fair to say that, without that close collaboration and influence that Cadw has with Welsh Ministers, the Act would not have passed in the form that it did. I think it was very important to that. And that's not to say that this is the model that works best in other places, but, in Wales, we're very satisfied with the position that Cadw has and the relationship that we are able to have with Cadw, even inside Government.

Diolch. Mae adran olaf eich tystiolaeth chi'n sôn am y bygythiadau i'r dyfodol wrth symud ymlaen. Ar gyfer y record, mewn ffordd, a fedrwch chi ymhelaethu ar beth yr ydych chi'n meddwl ydy'r bygythiad oherwydd gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd ac absenoldeb y directives Ewropeaidd? A oes gennych chi unrhyw syniadau ynglŷn â sut yr ydym ni'n mynd i oresgyn hynny yng Nghymru?

Thank you. The final section of your evidence talks about the threats in moving to the future, looking ahead. For the record, in a way, can you expand on what you think the threat may be as a result of exiting the EU and the lack of European directives? Do you have any ideas about how we will overcome those things in Wales?

Right, where to start? [Laughter.] Yes. We've got various issues that will need careful work going forward with regard to exiting the EU. So, for example, we are concerned with how access to labour is going to work after we've left the EU. At the moment—we don't have Wales-specific figures, I should say, but the archaeological commercial workforce is made up of about 15 per cent EU citizens. There is a boom expected in infrastructure spending and, indeed, a pressure for housebuilding that's just going to last a long time. There will be pressure on our archeological workforce and there's a skills gap that we believe there will need to be continued access to the labour forces for.

Other concerns that we have are with how the common agricultural policy is going to be replaced. Obviously, agri-environment schemes are absolutely vital for the historic environment. It's a great opportunity to try and see how we might better integrate the natural and historic environment in these schemes and build them more efficiently than we've been able to do through the EU. But, nonetheless, that is a big issue that is going to have to be dealt with in the devolved administrations—and it's a costly one. 

We've also, just last week in the debate on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, had amendments rejected that would have solidified the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, as well as a variety of environmental principles in the Bill. We would like to see those principles committed to across the UK—a number of ways that could be done, but that would be a concern if we lost those protections. Yes, there are certainly lots of ongoing issues with regard to Brexit.

11:15

Okay. Any other threats on the horizon? You've mentioned the resources, the financial situation, but are there any other imminent threats we should be aware of as a committee?

Immediate threats—perhaps not. But what we would like to see recognised is that, whilst we've seen significant progress through the historic environment Act and significant political will to make heritage protection better in Wales, we don't lose sight of the fact that heritage is very closely tied up with the planning system—and that's interesting; in planning reform, there is always a scope for unintentional consequences to damage heritage protections—and that we're involved in those conversations. Making sure that that doesn't happen is going to be important.

Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi am ddod atom ni y bore yma ac am rannu y syniadau yna efo ni. Diolch yn fawr. Fe gawn ni doriad byr.

Thank you very much for joining us this morning and sharing those ideas with us. Thank you. We'll have a short break.

Thank you very much. Diolch.

11:20

Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 11:17 ac 11:22.

The meeting adjourned between 11:17 and 11:22.

4. Yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol: Sesiwn dystiolaeth 5
4. Historic Environment: Evidence Session 5

Croeso atom ni i bwyllgor y Gymraeg. Y Gymdeithas Tir a Busnesau Cefn Gwlad sy'n rhoi tystiolaeth inni y tro yma. A fedrwch chi gyflwyno eich hunain, os gwelwch yn dda?

A very warm welcome to the committee. We welcome the Country Land and Business Association, who will be providing evidence to us at this next session. Could you introduce yourselves for the record, please?

Yes. My name is Rhianne Jones. I work for the Country Land and Business Association in Wales as a policy adviser. This is my colleague. 

Jonathan Thompson. I am the CLA heritage adviser. 

Diolch yn fawr. Ychydig o gwestiynau cyffredinol ynglŷn â'r Ddeddf sydd wedi'i chyflwyno a'r ymgynghori o gwmpas y Ddeddf. A ydych yn hapus efo'r ffordd y digwyddodd yr ymgynghoriad? Rwy'n cymryd bod yr ymgynghori hwnnw'n parhau. Beth yw'ch barn chi am yr effaith y mae'r Ddeddf yn ei chael ar lawr gwlad?

Thank you very much. Just a few general questions first on the historic environment Act and the consultation around that Act. Are you content with the way that consultation took place. I assume that that consultation is ongoing. What's your view on the impact that the Act is having on the ground?

May I start on that? I think that the consultation was, in general, pretty good and pretty impressive. The process of putting it all together, not simply in terms of consultation but also in terms of things like the external review group, all worked very well. I think that led, in general, to a fairly successful outcome. The impact of the Act—I think it's probably incremental more than revolutionary, but that's not meant to be a criticism. I think that's meant to be praise. In several respects, it's taken Wales ahead of England and Scotland in many areas. Having said that, I think that people can get too excited about legislation, and it's not a cure-all. It certainly can't achieve everything. The policy and what happens on the ground are actually far more important than the legislation. So, I think that one of the main gains of this, really, has been much better policy. I think we'll see that roll-out in practice, but I think that's probably the main gain.

And you were part of the external review group that advised Welsh Government. 

11:25

Yes, I was.

So, you were closely involved in all of this, obviously, and I think you did have concerns at the beginning.

We had a number of concerns. I think one of the issues with heritage legislation is that it possibly has to be draconian and it has to have severe penalties, and that can be problematic if it's not applied effectively. I'll say it once again: the policy is really important. We had concerns, and the Minister I think addressed those concerns, and they have been reflected in the policy. So, I hope that the sort of dire consequences that you're worried about won't actually happen in practice, but we'll see.

Ond mi ydych chi'n sôn y byddech chi'n hoffi gweld ychydig o newid i'r derminoleg—y gair 'preservation', a 'conservation'. A wnewch chi egluro ychydig bach ynglŷn â hynny?

But you do mention that you would like to see some change in terminology—that the words 'preservation' and 'conservation' should be changed. Could you just explain that?

Yes. I mean, this may not be the most important issue, but the thinking on heritage and heritage conservation has moved on since the legislation was put together quite a lot of years ago in 1990 and 1979, and in particular, terms like 'special interest' and 'national importance', which are used in those Acts, have really been now replaced by 'significance'. And the term 'preservation', which is used in those Acts, has now been replaced in international good practice by the term 'conservation'. It would be a good idea, I think, if we were tweaking the Act, to make those changes. The other thing about 'preservation' is that it tends to imply that things must stay exactly as they are. I know lawyers say it doesn't mean that, but that tends to be the implication from the word 'preservation', whereas 'conservation' is defined as the management, the effective management, of change, which is much more helpful in terms of heritage, and its resilience, and its ability to adapt to change and its ability to be maintained in the long term. If you freeze something, then it's quite likely to fall out of use and inevitably not be maintained, and that's threatening and dangerous, whereas conservation, with its emphasis on things being used and producing a flow of income from which the maintenance cost can be paid, is much more effective. That's really how heritage is looked after. So, conservation is a much more effective approach than 'preservation'.

But that would fundamentally change the legislation.

I don't think it does, actually. I think, as we said in the evidence, the legislation is not perfect but it's broadly satisfactory. I think it would be clearer if we made one or two changes of terminology. It's not vital, but I think it would make life a bit clearer. I don't think there's an incompatibility between the legislation and the policy. It's just a bit unclear because of the differences in terminology.

Okay, but the tone, maybe, would change with the use of 'conservation' rather than 'preservation'.

Yes, but I think, to a great extent, we've moved away from preservation and, certainly, the Cadw guidance produced this year is very much about conservation and not about preservation. I know international conservation charters and so on are all about conservation rather than preservation, so I think it's really reflecting a change that's already happened—at least on paper. It doesn't always work in practice, but on paper I think it's a change that's already happened.

Not always in practice. Often, in practice it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'd say it's important that everybody involved—people preparing applications and people advising people preparing applications, but also, particularly, decision takers—is applying Welsh Government policy and Cadw guidance at all times. So, it's really to make sure that decisions are as consistent and unsubjective as they can be.

So, your argument is that because it is changing anyway, slowly, this would accelerate the speed of the change that you would like to see happening.

I think changing the terminology in the legislation would help. It's not of critical importance, but if the legislation is being changed, then that would be a logical, and I think not particularly controversial, change.

You said it wasn't the most important issue, so what are the most important issues?

Well, probably some of the issues that I think we may come on to today are probably more urgent and more important. But I think the historic environment review has achieved a great deal and the legislation is improved, but I think the changes to policy and guidance, which do reflect this—I won't say 'new'—but this international philosophy of conservation, I think, are really helpful. So, I think that the review has had some really positive consequences. It's a bit early to judge, of course, because in practice it's relatively new, but I would expect there to be positive consequences.

11:30

Okay, thank you. I'll bring Mick Antoniw in here, please.

Just a few questions: could I just perhaps start by going back to your paper, because I thought it was very robust? One of the things we're trying to look at is the scale of the challenges and the issues that actually face us in terms of whether we're trying to do too much, whether we'll have the capacity to do what we want to do, how we can do it, what the issues are with resources and to what extent our system, based on all the desires to protect, may sometimes actually be working against actually achieving that. You refer in your paper to, really, in the past, there being a lot of misdiagnosis in it of actually what the problems are and what the challenges are to the extra protection of buildings. I mean, perhaps we could start off with the actual scale of the problem as you see it because there's an enormous number of buildings, monuments and so on that we're concerned with. The desire is there, but the capacity—. What is your general overview of the scale of the challenge?

I mean, there clearly are problems out there and there's a limit to what public heritage protection can achieve. The really important thing is that people who actually look after and/or own heritage are doing the right things and they know what the right things are and that they're being incentivised to do the right things, which goes back to the point I was making about legislation not being enough. We need legislation to pick up the problem cases, but what we really need to try and do is to minimise and, ideally, illuminate the problem cases and get to a situation where, really, everyone is incentivised to look after heritage and take care of it, and our members overwhelmingly want to do that, and I'm sure some other owners and managers of heritage who are not members of the CLA also want to do that, so the job really is to make that as easy as possible. So, the legislation and policy that help to achieve that are really helpful.

If I can, perhaps, just take some of the points you raised because I thought they really were posing some of the—identifying some of the key issues. You say, for example, even if a building is repaired,

'without a viable use it would inevitably fall back into disrepair. Either failure to act or poorly-targeted action damage individual historic assets and the whole heritage protection system.'

You know, that's almost a sort of tautology, isn't it? It must be absolutely right. We want to do things, but if we don't target it properly—. And getting something up to scratch—say, getting something maintained—if it doesn't have a purpose afterwards, then it becomes self-defeating. Do you think that is part of the past legacy that we're trying to move away from?

I think you've got the fundamental point there, which is that, in general, a heritage historic asset will not survive if it doesn't have a use. Some assets, of course, are not capable of a use. An obelisk, for example, can't perhaps be used in the sense of being occupied, but in general it is possible to use particularly buildings, and if they're not used they will almost inevitably crumble. So, the vital thing is to keep them in use: it may sometimes be the same use, it may sometimes be a new use, and so it's really important that policy and also what happens on the ground, importantly, are encouraging that as much as possible all the time, because you really can't protect heritage with legislation. It's just not enough; you've got to keep it in use because its maintenance costs are so high.

What should happen, then? I mean, perhaps it's an unfair question to put—but I'll put it anyway—is: where we're in a situation where we do have things that we want to keep, but, quite frankly, we can't find a use for them, for a whole variety of reasons—what should happen in those circumstances? 

11:35

Well, I suppose the first point is that sometimes it may not be obvious that there's a use, but with perseverance it can sometimes find the use. In cases where that's not possible, you've already only got two options, and one is to find some alternative source of funding, which sometimes you can with cross-subsidy in agri-environment schemes and so on. The other possibility is that it really does crumble away, which is not something that, as a heritage person, I'd like the thought of at all, and it's not something that I'm keen on, but there are, of course, lots of cases in the past where that's happened, and maybe it still has to happen in future, but it's very much a second-best solution.

Well, it takes us on, actually, because further on in your paper you do actually say that the solutions is just two parts, and you put two particular points. The first one is when you refer very much positively to 'Managing Listed Buildings at Risk in Wales', where you say that that has the opportunity, over time, to make a significant difference. I think you referred to the incremental point. But you then refer to a minority of cases where there is a use—there is a potential for use—but the issue of ownership may be an issue. I wonder if you'd like to just expand upon that, because that's quite a sensitive point there, isn't it?

It is. I think it's actually really helpful to distinguish those two cases, and I think you usually can distinguish them—maybe not in five minutes—but usually it becomes apparent which is which. This issue of owners is one that we, and lots of other people, feel strongly about. In the past we've been insufficiently good at dealing with the problem of the bad owner. But the usual problem is not bad owners; it's economics. Primarily, that means the lack of a viable use. Most buildings at risk are redundant—not all, but most of them are redundant. They're either not in use at all, or they're in some sort of light use that doesn't produce the flow of income that is needed to fund their maintenance. Many of them have conservation deficits. In other words, if you fully repair them, you'd lose a huge amount of money: in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds, or even millions of pounds, which is clearly not a very attractive proposition. Usually, or often, there is a solution, as we've discussed, and the answer is to work with the owner, and that's what the Cadw guidance now says. It's what the Welsh Government policy is, and very often you can get to the solution that way. Where the problem is economics, bashing the owner really isn't going to help. At best, it's a diversion from the job of getting a building a use and getting it fixed, but it can actually be extremely counter-productive. We've expressed a real concern about the idea of preservation notices for that reason, as just the existence of preservation notices could be very damaging.

I should say that I have not seen the Hyder report in the attached recommendations, which are not yet in the public domain, so I don't know what's being proposed. So, I'm speaking slightly in the dark. It could be that there's some formulation of a preservation notice that works. I can't quite imagine what that might be, but, pending seeing what the proposals might be, I can't really comment on that. But, in principle, the idea of a preservation notice seems really very dangerous.

I have, myself, made an offer for a building at risk in Wales. The offer wasn't accepted, and that building is still on the buildings-at-risk list, but I very much doubt that I would have made that offer if there had been a system of preservation notices in place, because it gives the local authority the ability to hit you incredibly hard, with very tight timescales attached. Now, you might take the view that they wouldn't do that, but can you really be confident? Once you've bought a building at risk, it's pretty hard to sell it on again. And if, suddenly, you're told by the local authority that you've got 31 days to spend £0.5 million on this building, that's not a very appealing proposition, and it seems to me unlikely that anyone—hardly anyone—is likely to purchase a building at risk in those sorts of circumstances. Most buildings at risk are repaired and rescued by repairing purchasers, and if you get rid of the market of repairing purchasers, that's really bad news for buildings at risk.

11:40

Can I just check on that, becasue Cadw told us that they were working with you and that the concerns around the preservation notices had been sorted? You're saying something different.

Well, I don't know what the proposals are because, as I said, they're not yet in the public domain. Certainly, I've had discussions with this, and I've had discussions with the Hyder team who were preparing the report. I'm sure they've taken note of what we said and what lots of other people have said along the same lines. But what the outcome is, I don't yet know. When we do know, then I'm sure we'll comment on it one way or the other. But at the moment, we don't know. So, I'm not quite sure what Cadw mean when they say they've solved the problem. But until we've seen what they've come up with, I can't really comment further.

I suppose the crux of where it takes us is that viable use is fundamental. Certain buildings may be relatively straightforward, but, at the end of the day, the ambition to preserve a building cannot be extracted in isolation from the actual need to use a building to actually create viability. It can become self-defeating to have just one factor that is overriding, really. On the preservation notice, the point you're making, I suppose, is that it can actually kill off the issue of viable usage.

That's all true. I have a bit of a background in this, in that I've been handling this now for 10 or 11 years at the CLA, but, before that, I ran the Architectural Heritage Fund, which is a charity that Cadw supports, and also the Landmark Trust, and they're both charitable bodies that are very much concerned with the rescue of buildings at risk.

When I was at the Architectural Heritage Fund, people would come to us and say,'We've got this building in our community and we'd like to rescue it and we'd like to use it as a heritage centre or something like that,' and we would always have to ask them questions: 'It's all very well saying you want to use this as a heritage centre and it sounds a really nice idea, but how are you going to pay for its long-term maintenance costs? Can you really make it work financially as a heritage centre, not simply in the sense of using it in that way and having people in and so on, which is good, but how are you going to pay for the long-term maintenance costs of this building? And without that, also, you're not going to be able to raise the funding to do the initial rescue.' So, if you haven't got that long-term use lined up and it's not credible, then you're not going to be able to do it.

Chair, if I might, it's just two very short questions to complete points I've asked of others as well. You mentioned, actually, buildings, heritage at risk et cetera. As to Cadw's own survey, which is not disclosed, do you have a view on that? And secondly, do you have a view on the way in which Cadw's taken decisions to restrict grant funding to owners of buildings and monuments? Do you have a view on that?

Yes. Actually, I'm not sure I was aware that the Cadw survey wasn't disclosed. There are other reports that are produced every year, or five years, or whatever it is, which are really helpful, and they pick out trends, which is helpful. I think the results are available to local authorities. There certainly seems to be a case for making them publicly available, but I think I'd really want to know what Cadw's reasons for not making it available are before pronouncing on that. It may be that they're not designed to go into that level of detail and not supposed to be building-by-building surveys. Maybe they're meant to gather evidence for producing these reports. That may be the reason, I'm not sure, but, on the face of it, it would seem a good idea to make this publicly available.

And the other point on the funding changes. I think I know the answer.

Well, I could give you the obvious answer, and to some extent I will. But the points here really are that for—. Speaking for our members, who are private or commercial owners, and by no means all our members fall into that category, but those who do have very few other sources of funding, because things like, in general, the Heritage Lottery Fund and other sources of funding don't fund private owners or commercial ventures in general, but there are some exceptions. So, Cadw may be the main or almost only source of funding—'public' funding—and so withdrawing that is quite damaging. And that Cadw funding may make the difference between something happening and not happening. So, a relatively low proportion—I think it's always less than 50 per cent, at 30 per cent-ish—of Cadw funding may unlock private or other funding so the project happens. Whereas if Cadw doesn't do that, then it doesn't happen. So, that's a problem. Clearly, Cadw has financial pressures, but where it is giving grants, it probably makes sense for it to focus on applicants who don't have access to other sources of funding and cases where Cadw funding would lever in funding from elsewhere.

11:45

Iawn, diolch. Rydw i'n mynd i neidio nôl i drafod y Ddeddf eto. Mae'n ddrwg gen i, dylwn i fod wedi gofyn a ydych chi'n teimlo bod angen Bil i ddod â'r cwbl at ei gilydd, Bil cydgrynhoi, oherwydd bod yna ddarnau eraill o ddeddfwriaeth. Rydw i'n meddwl bod gennych chi farn gref ac rydw i eisiau ichi gael cyfle i ddweud beth rydych chi'n ei feddwl.

Thank you. I'm just going to go back to the Act again. I'm sorry, I should have asked whether you feel there is a need for a consolidation Bill so that all of these issues can be brought together into one piece of legislation. I think you have a strong view on that, and I want to give you an opportunity to express it.

We certainly have a view. I think, certainly some months ago, when I looked at this, it was not possible to get online a kind of consolidated version of the legislation as it applies in Wales. I relooked at this yesterday, and maybe somebody's been listening, because now, on legislation.gov.uk or whatever it is, there is a consolidated version of the Bill. It's not Wales specific, but at least it covers Wales so you can actually get a completely up-to-date version of the 1990 Act and, I assume, the 1979 Act. So, that's a step forward.

I think that that's quite confusing still, even though you can get it, at least. It's still a bit confusing, because a lot of it relates to England and doesn't apply in Wales, so there would be a case for, as a minimum, perhaps, almost as a sort of editorial exercise—maybe Cadw can do this—putting together a version of both of the Acts as they stand in Wales, i.e. essentially with the English stuff cut out. That would be helpful.

It might be helpful to go on from that, actually, to have a specific Welsh Act, which, essentially, would be a copy of the editorial exercise that I've just been talking about. Ideally, perhaps, you'd also make a few other changes—the sort of changes needed to get it in line with the policy and guidance, like the use of 'significance' and 'preservation' that we were talking about earlier. What I don't think is that we should—. Having already been through the great historic environment review and made some changes to the legislation, I don't think it's a good idea to suddenly throw up the whole lot of it into the air and have completely new heritage legislation for Wales. There might be some gains from that, but I think that the amount of time that that would take up—. The heritage sector has a very limited resource, and it would really occupy practically everyone in the heritage sector for years, potentially. I'm not sure that would be very productive, so I don't think that we would favour that.

But some kind of consolidation Bill would be useful, although it's probably not going to be a priority for the Welsh Government.

It would, and I think it doesn't necessarily need to be very complicated or take up much time. It could, as I said, be almost an editorial exercise. You simply, essentially, extract the English stuff so that you are left with the legislation as it stands in Wales. As I said, you could do that informally, so it would just be something on a piece of paper, or you could put it through the legislative process as primary legislation, which would, on paper, be better, but I don't know how vital it is. But even if you did do that, it would be relatively straightforward and uncontroversial, I think, so there wouldn't be that much resource involved.

I think this is actually quite an important issue that we are starting to look at across the piece in legislation in Wales, because, increasingly, as we introduce changes that make us different from England, we need to remember that a lot of the professional bodies that help private individuals understand and do applications and things in Wales are still based in England. You are using outside resources, and, often, those companies and businesses don't have adequate knowledge or access to suitable enough guidance on what's different in Wales for them to understand those implications on the ground. So, you do find, certainly in other areas, a lot of confusion where people are looking at a piece of legislation and not realising it's different in Wales or not understanding that something's changed. So, consolidation and knowing that there's one port of call to go to to understand what's happening here is very useful, but, obviously, with the slightly larger issues going around in legislation at the moment, the time to be able to do this is tricky. But certainly, in the long term, that would be very beneficial.

So, not necessarily legislation, that at least some way of pulling everything together in an understandable way.

11:50

Yes, just to indicate that, if you're talking about a heritage building in Wales, or heritage issues in Wales, this is a single point of call you can go to to understand exactly what's different and exactly what needs to be done here. That would be beneficial. 

Thank you. And in your evidence, you talk about the enforcement paradox. What do you mean by that?

I think the first point I want to make is that this is not about letting evil owners off the hook. Actually, we care very much about dealing with evil owners. There are two sides to this equation. Firstly, it does seem to be the case that there are cases where egregious things happen, and nothing is done. I don't have evidence for that, other than anecdotal. Secondly, however, there are also cases where enforcement and sometimes even prosecution action is being taken where this really doesn't seem appropriate. It also seems to break the rules that are set out in 'Planning Policy Wales' 3.6 and in the other guidance on that. There do seem to be cases where local authorities just seem to be determined to prosecute, and something happens and they won't talk: 'We are going to prosecute you'; 'No, we are not interested in meeting on site'; 'No, we are not going to discuss this'; 'No, we're not interested in talking about how this could be put right on site, we're going to prosecute'. Quite often in those cases—and I don't know how many of those cases there are; we're aware of some, but it's very hard to know the scale of this—quite often in these prosecution cases the prosecution fails. In some cases, costs get awarded against the local authority because it's readily apparent that what it's doing is not justified and not necessary, and it's handling it in the wrong way. Courts don't necessarily like that. 

But what evidence is there that this is happening, other than anecdotal?

Well, I think the evidence on this is anecdotal. I'm not sure how much concrete evidence there is. One of the problems in heritage is that hardly anyone has a research budget. My research budget is zero. Cadw's research budget is not enormous. There aren't many other bodies that do research. So, quite often we're working from anecdote, and sometimes you just have to ask yourself whether this feels right—whether something feels as though it's a problem or not. I think this is a problem. It's difficult to work out the scale of it, but it's certainly happening to some extent. And of course it tends to get talked about—so, one case gets talked around—and that's quite destructive. The main problem is that there isn't enough enforcement. That's the main problem. But this problem of enforcement being mistargeted—one can quite understand how and why that happens, because the really egregious cases where, in my view, anyway, enforcement is really important tend to be rather difficult: dealing with slippery developers who might be based in the Cayman Islands or whatever, and they have sharp solicitors and so on. They are quite difficult to deal with, whereas somebody who's just made a straightforward mistake is much easier to deal with, and you can probably chalk it up as a success at the end. It's much more difficult to bring the egregious cases to easy ends.

So, naturally, being human, people perhaps tend to move towards the 'easy' cases. But that's really quite damaging. If the owner of listed building 1 wants to do something to it, plays by the rules and then goes through the process of getting consent to do things, and they take quite a long time, sometimes months of years, and then is pursued on some sort of technical question, which might be justified—but if, down the road, they can see that the owner of listed building 2, a developer, perhaps, is trashing it and has made no effort to get consent at all for what he's doing, and absolutely nothing is done to enforce that, that's really disruptive. Our members, who tend to be very law abiding, really hate that. Quite often they write letters to the local authority, and they're often ignored, and that's a big problem. Again, it's hard to judge the scale of it, but it doesn't have to happen on a huge scale to be destructive to heritage protection and the heritage protection system. So, whether it's on a big scale or not, it's quite damaging. So, the lack of enforcement in the egregious cases, and the cases where enforcement happens in the technical breach cases, are really quite damaging. 

I think the solution to this—. Sorry, just to continue with that, it tends to become a systemic problem if it gets around that the wicked developer can basically do as he pleases with listed buildings, and nothing bad is going to happen to him. But when listed buildings come on the market they are more likely to be bought by that sort of person, so you then end up with a systemic problem because they can outbid the people who are going to play by the rules. That then creates a kind of systemic problem. It is difficult, given resource constraints, to come up with a perfect answer to this, but I do think that some guidance, presumably from Cadw, as to when local authorities should take action and when they shouldn't—the kind of things, the pointers, that might lead them to take action in one case, and in the other case to be ready to talk to the owner onsite and sort it out there, rather than enforcing or prosecuting—I think that would be really helpful, and it would help to deal also with the systemic problem. If local authorities were really able to work out what the egregious cases were and were being encouraged by guidance to pursue those cases, even if they take a long time and have a cost, then I think they're more likely to pursue those cases than they are at the moment in the absence of guidance.     

11:55

Okay, thank you. Just one more from me before bringing Dawn in. This idea of having a land management contract post Brexit, and the idea that tourism heritage could be something that is part of that contract. Can you just explain a bit more about that? 

It's probably much better if Rhianne does that, because I think that's more her field than mine. 

The basic premise of a land management contract is the idea that there are a lot of public benefits we can get from our land and our culture, heritage and environment. For public benefit, we want to preserve it. Eighty per cent of the land in Wales is in private ownership, so a lot of these benefits are with private individuals, and delivering things like our climate change targets or our environmental obligations can't be done just on public land; you are going to have to work with the private sector to deliver some of this. So, post Brexit we will want to look to design a replacement for the common agricultural policy. The best way to do that is taking the ethos of the environment Act and the idea that we want to pursue the sustainable management of natural resources. The easiest, simplest way to do that is through a contract between private individuals and Government by which we can define the public benefits that they can provide on behalf of society, and the Government can effectively purchase them from them. We very much see heritage as the four pillars of sustainable development and very much culturally involved; we see it as very key to the identity of Wales. So, we see heritage as a public benefit that could be purchased from a private individual through a land management contract as a replacement to the current system we've got through the common agricultural policy. 

Okay, but maybe for most people that wouldn't be a particularly useful public benefit. 

Yes. This is the conversation that's going on at the moment, and it actually comes down to an issue of how much we value things. So, whilst we've got international obligations around, as I said, climate change, and we've got duties for things like biodiversity—. At its core, it comes down to how much do we actually value our standing stones, our heritage landscapes, our old buildings. Is that something that Government wants to see preserved in the future? Going back to Jonathan's point about enforcement and things, there just aren't enough people or resources on the ground to ensure that we look after all our heritage, but there is a will out there from the people that have these assets that they want to see them looked after and taken care of, and have benefits for a wider use in the future. And this then is where you can tie it into—. There are opportunities out there, going back to the use issue, of tying it into things like tourism and economic opportunities like that. It's just about how, in the future—. You know, is it more valuable to have a standing stone or an abandoned heritage building in a field, or is there more value, actually, for climate change targets, to plant that up with trees, and pursue that? So, it's very much in the gift of Government to decide what they value more and what they want to purchase from private individuals through a contract.   

Thank you, Chair. I want to cover something completely different. One of the sections of this committee's terms of reference for this review was the Baroness Andrews report of 2014, which focused on harnessing the power of our arts, culture and heritage to promote social justice. I know you've said in your evidence that that's outside of your area of expertise, but I did note in paragraph 1 of your evidence that your members manage a quarter of the Welsh heritage, and that you're one of half a dozen key stakeholders. So, it seems self-evident to me that your members do have a very important role to play—and you've just talked about public benefit. If we look at the Andrews report itself, it makes recommendations on widening access and breaking down barriers, anchoring culture in communities, and the role of place in developing skills and helping with education. Surely, your members are in a key position to help achieve these recommendations, aren't they?

12:00

Shall I start on that? You may want to come in.

I think these are all things that we support and agree with. I'll give you a slightly unhelpful initial answer to this, I think, which is that we are terribly short of resource and we work quite closely on these things with other bodies, particularly the Historic Houses Association, and we tend to leave things like education and public access to heritage and so on to them. Unfortunately, they're not sitting beside us, because I think they would probably have things to say on this. So, it's not something on which we have a lot of expertise, because they tend to deal with that, and we tend to focus more on things like planning, on which we've been talking today. So, I'm rather at a disadvantage in answering that question, other than saying that we are, of course, very supportive of all these things. Now, perhaps I can pass over to Rhianne, having said that as an introduction. 

I think a lot of the points that have been brought up there are actually behind the ethos of what we've termed the land management contract. But I think the important thing to remember is that, obviously, a quarter of heritage assets are in private ownership with our members. What is key to all of this is, actually, those are private businesses that have to make an economic livelihood, and in doing so, if they can encompass a benefit of what they can get from their heritage asset, it's all very well and good, and that's when you come back to more of Jonathan's field about how you use these in the future. But, as I said, it does come to the earlier point that Siân brought up: how much then do we value them? As the public and society, how much do we value individual assets? And that very much comes down to—. With very big, large-scale historic buildings and things, we might want to focus more of our attention on those, and then working with private individuals to gain access to those for the public who want to visit them, or use them, and educate people about what our history is. There are some very, very good examples, but those are very much on a case-by-case basis.

I farm in the Brecon Beacons, where, under our agri-environment scheme, Tir Gofal, a few years ago we were paid to open up access to a standing stone in the field for five years. There was not a single visitor, but it was deemed valuable enough for Government to want to do that, to which we're not going to say no, certainly. But it comes down to then, very much, a case-by-case basis of looking at, with our limited resources, and perhaps limited expertise or desire to do something on this, what are the key things we want to see preserved for the future, or conserved for the future, but actually, in what other places are there other multiple benefits we can deliver through some of these sites where kind of slightly less important heritage assets exist. It's a very careful balance, and it comes back again to the question about value, I think. 

And, presumably, about working in collaboration with other organisations, because part of what the Baroness Andrews report was talking about was opening up the kinds of things that you are responsible for to a whole generation of people that have never taken an interest. They, potentially, are the people that will keep this going in the future. So, that was the kind of—.

Collaboration is certainly something we see as potentially a big shift in Wales in the future. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 has got it as a key working theme for public bodies, but certainly, that's going to have a knock-on effect onto the private sector. And if we look, as we move towards this world of land management contracts and payments for ecosystem services, that's very much based on working at a landscape scale and looking at wider than just kind of an individual business, or an individual agricultural holding. And I think there are some very positive examples out there already.

So, certainly, we've been involved with a group of moorland owners in partnership in Powys, who have applied to the nature fund and the sustainable management scheme to gain funding to manage the moorlands. It's a very key, historic, heritage landscape for us in Wales. One of the things that has been most successful about that is that they've done a lot of work with the local community, getting groups of schoolchildren and local ramblers associations up to come and visit that site so that they can have a better understanding of what the landowners and grazers up there are doing in terms of the purpose of doing it, and educating them about this very valuable ecosystem and this historic landscape that is our moorlands in Wales.

There are some very, very good examples of that, but a lot of the time, there is, certainly in that example, an economic activity underpinning it—a purpose for doing it and for working with the wider community to understand the reasons why we're doing this particular activity. That's key, but again, it comes back to a case-by-case basis, I think.

12:05

Sure. I think we were talking generally—moving towards a social inclusion agenda, I think, is part of the thing. But can I just pick up on the point of collaboration and your final point, I think, about the traditional public sector view that private sector owners are wholly different? That is what you put in your evidence. By that, do you mean that there is a view that private sector owners are in a better position? What do you mean by that?

I don't think 'better'. I think there's a public sector view that the private sector is completely different and is a completely different silo or box—. I mean, there are differences, of course. I think I picked out that, in general, private sector owners are not eligible for grant funding, so that's a disadvantage. I think that if the Historic Houses Association were here, they would probably be making a point about how their members, opening a house to the public, are disadvantaged relatively because they don't have charitable status in most cases and they're liable for taxes that Cadw and the National Trust and so on are not liable for and so on.

So, there are a number of differences. But I think that the point that I was making was that if you own and look after heritage, then, to a great extent, you have the same issues and problems whoever you are—it might be central Government or local government or another public body or a private owner or a commercial owner or a charitable owner. We have members in probably just about all of those categories. Really, the problems that you face are the same: that, again, heritage is really expensive to look after and you've got to find some way of paying for that.

So, are you advocating that private sector owners should be treated the same as public sector owners in terms of access to grants and so on?

In an ideal world, I probably would be advocating that, but I think it's more difficult for charitable bodies to give grants to private sector owners, so I think that may not be totally realistic. It's encouraging that the Heritage Lottery Fund does, to some extent, now give grants to private owners and there may be scope to develop that. But I don't think we'll ever get them on a level playing field because I think that's probably a little bit difficult.

It's really, I think, a matter of reducing the division line between private and public sector boxes and recognising that, actually, the problems are very often the same. That also helps us to work together to solve the problems. Working together is really, really important because you can work much more efficiently if some people do one thing and somebody else—. As I was saying, with us and the Historic Houses Association, we can work much more effectively, if they deal with education and public access and opening questions, and we deal with planning. It's much more efficient than both of us trying to cover the ground independently and possibly even fighting each other, if we weren't working in co-operation. That goes for all heritage sector bodies. The more we can sit down and discuss things and sort them out, the better.

I think the external review group, which has already been mentioned, was a very good example of that. It was relatively small bodies, with 10 or 15 people meeting, coming from very different viewpoints and with very different stakeholder interests, but we could discuss things and work out solutions. I think we always, or virtually always, reached consensus on what the right answer was and, very often, that was what actually happened in practice. So, I think that was a very successful exercise and perhaps it's a model, to some extent, that can be followed in future.

12:10

Okay. Thank you. Just one final question, Chair, if I may.

You mentioned in your evidence about your relationship with Cadw, which has been a good one, and that you wouldn't want to see anything necessarily changing too dramatically. So, can I ask you for your comments on the Government's announcement that it's staying within Welsh Government and not moving to become an arm's-length organisation?

I don't think we have strong views on that. I think, as you say, our main thought about Cadw is that, actually, it's really quite an effective organisation that thinks about things and listens to other people and doesn't think it has a monopoly on knowledge and is interested in working with other people in order to find effective solutions. I think the historic environment review has been a very good example of how these things can be done and should be done. So, I think that, in general, we're quite keen on Cadw. I'm not saying that every local decision made by Cadw is 100 per cent perfect—they probably aren't. We used to get a lot of complaints from members about Cadw being impossible to deal with and slow and so on, and maybe people have got fed up with complaining, I don't know, but we don't seem to get those complaints nearly as much.

So, I think that, in many ways, Cadw is a much more effective organisation, and therefore that may be a reason not to make major changes. I think it needs to have some independence from Government, but it seems to have that at the moment. I'm not sure that dragging it apart from Government would make it more effective; it might make it less effective. It's very hard to say without trying it. In general, we like Cadw and, probably, that might be a reason not to make radical change.

Yn iawn. Wel, dyna ni wedi cyrraedd diwedd y sesiwn yma. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi am ddod atom ni'r bore yma. Diolch yn fawr. 

Okay. Well, that concludes this session. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Thank you.

5. Papurau i’w nodi
5. Papers to note

Ymlaen at eitem 5, papurau i'w nodi. Mae yna bapur o'ch blaen chi, gohebiaeth gan S4C: cytundeb partneriaeth rhwng S4C a'r BBC. A ydych chi'n hapus i nodi'r papurau? Unrhyw sylwadau penodol arnyn nhw? Na, iawn. 

We will move on now to item 5, papers to note. There is a paper, correspondence from S4C: a partnership agreement between S4C and the BBC. Are you content to note that paper? Any specific comments? No.

6. Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.22 i benodi Cadeirydd dros dro
6. Motion under Standing Order 17.22 to appoint a temporary Chair

Cynnig:

bod y pwyllgor, yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.22, yn penodi Siân Gwenllian yn Gadeirydd dros dro ar gyfer tri cyfarfod nesaf y pwyllgor.

Motion:

that the committee, in accordance with Standing Order 17.22, appoints Siân Gwenllian as temporary Chair for the next three meetings of the committee.

Cynigiwyd y cynnig.

Motion moved.

Ymlaen at eitem 6. Rydych chi'n ymwybodol bod Bethan yn absennol o hyd. Felly, hoffwn eich caniatâd chi i gario ymlaen yn y Gadair dros dro am dri chyfarfod nesaf y pwyllgor, ond, os ydy Bethan yn ôl cyn y Nadolig, yna bydd hi'n cymryd y Gadair yn ôl. A ydych chi'n hapus i hynny ddigwydd? Iawn, diolch.

We’ll move on to item 6. You will be aware that Bethan is still absent, so I would seek your permission to remain in the Chair, temporarily, for the next three meetings of the committee. But, of course, if Bethan does return before Christmas, then she will retake the Chair. Are you content for that to happen? Thank you very much.

Derbyniwyd y cynnig.

Motion agreed.

7. Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i benderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o'r cyfarfod
7. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting

Cynnig:

bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42.

Motion:

that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42.

Cynigiwyd y cynnig.

Motion moved.

Felly, eitem 7: cynnig i benderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod. A ydych chi'n hapus i wneud hynny? Iawn. Diolch yn fawr.

Item 7, therefore: motion to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are you happy? Thank you. 

Derbyniwyd y cynnig.

Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 12:13.

Motion agreed.

The public part of the meeting ended at 12:13.