National Assembly for Wales

Bore da. Good morning. Rhun is not here at this moment in time, but we're hoping he will join us a little later on. He's, at the moment, in the Business Committee.

We have three new petitions this morning, the first being 'Specialist prosthetics for child amputees'. This petition was submitted by Rebecca Roberts, having collected 116 signatures. An initial response to the petition was received from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on 10 May. We have, obviously, the papers to hand for the committee. Do you have any comments that you would like to make?

I'd like to support this. I've had some issues with an adult with prosthetics. Certainly in north Wales, I do think that there's something going on there that's not—. It's quite a difficult service, I appreciate that. In fact, I tell a lie; I had a constituent with me on Friday who is also experiencing problems. So, I think we ought to be supporting this because the one thing that gives back some quality of life is the availability of prosthetic limbs. I know they're very tailored and that it's an individual thing, but that service should be available, particularly so to children.

Mike, do you—?

I don't disagree with anything that Janet said. I think we do need to take it up with the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, specifically about why they can't use 3D printing in order to get the specialised limbs that are necessary. It's not, anymore, that you have to go and buy one off the shelf, with 3D printing, and there's—a bit of a plug for Swansea—a firm in Swansea that actually does produce 3D-printed prosthetic limbs, so I think we ought to be asking them why they're not doing this, because it's not something that is incredibly difficult anymore. It was when you had to go and buy them off the shelf, and you had to wait for somebody to be the right size for them, but now you can make what you need.

Yes, absolutely. Neil.

Yes. I fully support this—echo what Mike and Janet have said, really. 

I agree. It seems a very strange thing that they have a provision for recreational upper limbs only, which seems very strange to me, and I'm fully supportive of this petition as well.

So, the possible actions are that the committee could write directly to the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, because it appears that the Cabinet Secretary has transferred her thoughts on the matter to these people. So, we should write to those to seek further detail about the current policy for providing prosthetic services and ask why there appears to be a distinction between upper and lower limbs within it. The committee could also ask questions relating to the volume of applications received for recreational lower limb prosthetics under the individual patient funding request process and an indication of the proportion that are approved, and the details on the average additional cost of providing recreational lower limb prosthetics to a child or young person. It seems that there would be a very limited number of children, and so the overall costs would be quite minimal, I would have thought. 

Can I suggest, as a third question, that we ask them about the use of 3D printing?

Yes. Okay. Fine. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much for that.

We move on to the next new petition, which is 'Welsh Place Names—Protection & Promotion Bill'. This petition was submitted by Dr Dafydd Williams, having collected 431 signatures. It appears that we had a response from the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport on 23 May, and I think that within that he says that there is a requirement for Welsh Ministers to maintain a list of historic place names, and this responsibility is carried out by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales. But he only speaks, of course, of encouraging their continued use in daily life, and it seems that he's against making this a legal requirement. One of the reasons that he's said in his response is the enforcement and burdens on local authorities to actually police this matter. Do you have any comments on that?

It's quite a detailed response from the Cabinet Minister. He does say that:

'During 2018, further best-practice guidance on historic place names...will be developed.'

And then it says these 

'stop short of providing formal protection for historic place names',

but then it says that the recent inquiry into the historic environment stated that the matter would be kept under 

'active review and should be willing to introduce further protection for historic place names if the current list does not prove effective.'

So, I suppose we've got to give that a chance to work and then maybe go back to it if it's, you know—.

The problem is with that it's going to take four or five years, they say, for sufficient evidence to come about.

All the names will be changed by then. I think it's an obvious case for statutory provision, but I think we probably need to wait for the view of the petitioner, see what they think.

Okay. Mike.

Yes, I agree.

Yes. I think this is one where we go back as an intermediary for some time until, hopefully, we can get some meeting of minds.

Yes. Fine. So, the committee could await further views from the petitioner in response to the letter from the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport before considering whether to take any action. Are we happy with that? Okay, fine. 

The third new petition before us is 'Don't take Neath off the main railway-line'. This petition was submitted by Bethan Phillips, having collected 10,472 signatures. I think we ought to mention the fact that the Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates, has made a statement in Plenary saying that this is definitely not going to happen, they're not going to take it off the main line. I'm sure you've got some comments on that. 

I should probably declare an interest, because the petitioner works for me—Bethan Phillips. I'm not sure with what authority the Cabinet Secretary can say that, because he doesn't have responsibility for the main lines. 

No, but I would have thought before he said that he probably was in touch with the Secretary of State, Alun Cairns, and Network Rail as well before making such a categorical statement. 

He didn't actually reference that. We've had the same categorical statements off other Cabinet Secretaries—you know, the track in Blaenau Gwent was going to go ahead and so on, and that was nonsense. Just to defend the petitioners, really, because I think—. This is a democratic process. It's good that young people get involved in issues. This was a really popular petition—10,000 people—and there were reasons for the petition, and to simply dismiss the petition as fake news is actually very, very disrespectful and not in keeping with, I think, the codes of conduct we should all observe. 

There was a study done, commissioned by an arm's-length Government body. Mark Barry, he is an eminent transport consultant behind the metros and so on, so, if he's recommending it, I think it needs to be taken seriously. It was also mentioned in the Welsh Affairs Committee as well, and there was support for it there. A Labour MP also supported the proposal—or Labour MPs, plural. Also, the group of Swansea councillors also supported the proposal. So, whether or not we support the petition or don't support the petition, I think it was wrong to denigrate the need for the petition, because these are people simply standing up for their community, and 10,000 people signing it I think says a lot. The whole purpose of doing petitions and campaigning is to make sure that these kinds of things don't happen, and I think the petitioners have done a good job, and, rather than be criticised, they should be praised, really. So, that's my take on it.

I'm much more practical. I'd like to get a further assurance from the Cabinet Secretary in writing that we can pass on to the petitioners and others, because I think we've got in there that the Government's view is that Neath station and others in the area should be protected and enhanced. I think that I'd like to ask the Cabinet Secretary to confirm that he and the Welsh Government have no intention of supporting any removal of Neath station from the south Wales main line, and, if such a proposal did come up, they would actively work against it. 

Fine. I'd just like to formally welcome Rhun to the committee.

Thank you.

Rhun, we are at this moment considering the third new petition, which is 'Don't take Neath off the main railway-line'.  

Okay. 

Chairman, in addition, I think it might be nice to write to our Welsh Secretary just to seek some assurances from that office that they would support this. 

I think we ought to point out that the Cabinet Secretary has also stressed, regarding this, that it was a non-governmental proposal by Professor Mark Barry—so it was a non-governmental proposal by Mark Barry, and he's stated quite categorically, 

'This...is not supported by the Welsh Government.'

I realise the concerns on that, Neil. 

If we write to the Welsh Secretary—

That's not the point about Neath, though, is it?  

That's why I want to get them—. That's why my recommendation was that we write to them and say, 'Will you actively oppose any suggestion of removing Neath from the main line?' 

Yes. Fine. Are you happy with that? 

Could we—? In terms of a matter of detail, could we ask him to confirm when he took the matter up with the Secretary of State and Network Rail? 

Okay. 

Because he made a statement. It would be good to know what was was behind that statement. 

Neil says that because I made the response that he would have spoken to those—to Network Rail and the Secretary of State—before he made the categorical statement in Plenary. Okay. Fine. 

Okay, can we move on now? We're moving on to the updates to previous petitions. The first of these is 'Hi speed broadband to Llangenny village'. This petition was submitted by Llangenny village residents and was first considered by the committee in January 2018, having collected 72 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 1 May 2018, and agreed to write to the leader of the house and BT Openreach to ask them to expedite the installation of high-speed broadband to the village, which was given previous assurances that it had been done. A response from Openreach was received on 31 May and a response from the leader of the house was received on 7 June. And, actually, it appears that there has been no connection and that it would not be done under the present Superfast Cymru scheme. 

She's provided us—. I think the Cabinet Secretary has been quite fair. We've all got areas, pockets, in our constituencies that, hopefully, in the next roll-out, whenever that's going to materialise—. But we've all got similar issues to this and I hugely sympathise with them, but I think we'll have to wait and see what the next roll-out is and just hope they get it. 

It's clearly an issue that has to remain live until they have a connection in Llangenny. It's as simple as that. There's nothing that we can do to push for it, but we keep it there, wait for the announcement on the successor scheme, and, hopefully, as a committee, make a new inquiry, if you like, to the successor scheme to make sure that Llangenny is included. 

Yes. Okay. Are we happy with that? Yes. So, in light of the information—. So, the committee could agree to await a response from the petitioners to the latest information received, but also we're basically keeping a watching brief on this. Yes. Okay. The committee could await an announcement in relation to the successor scheme to Superfast Cymru and seek details at that point as to whether Llangenny can expect to be connected to superfast broadband through the ensuing programme. Are we happy with that? Yes. Fine. 

Okay. The next petition is the 'Abolition of Park Homes Sales Commission'. This was submitted by Caerwnon Park Residents Association and was first considered as long ago as December 2013. We last considered the petition on 17 April, and agreed to await an announcement from the Minister for Housing and Regeneration. That statement has been made, where it's been said that, over a period of five years, they will be reducing the current rate of 10 per cent down to 5 per cent. 

I think the petition has been pretty successful. They haven't got what they wanted, which is abolition, but they've got it down from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, or will by the time the graduation process finishes. Because Government has dealt with it, albeit not to the complete satisfaction of the petitioner, I think it's very unlikely that there will be further time allocated to it by Government. So, I would suggest that, whilst we might want to respectfully await the response of the petitioner, we need to move towards closing the petition. 

I think so. 

I agree. 

Yes. So, are we awaiting the response prior to closing, or are we closing at this moment?

We've got a response, haven't we? It's going to go down to 5 per cent. 

From the petitioner, I think, is—. As soon as we receive a response—

Because we've received a response and the petitioner is keeping it going, but, at some stage, you reach a stage where you've made progress and you're not going to go any further. And I think that this is one of those where we've made progress and we're not going to get any further. It's a half success. 

Okay. So, do we await the—?

Yes.

We await the—

But close—we don't need to discuss it again. 

When did we send the statement to them?

Sorry?

When did we send it?

They would have had it around a week and a half ago. We give petitioners a week to comment when we've set an agenda for a meeting. 

Okay. So, are we closing it?

I think we should give them a fortnight to see if they want to say anything. 

The standard, typical process, if we kept it open and awaited the views of the petitioner, is that we should bring that back, bring that back to committee, because that's our means of publishing that response and competing the process. I think if you don't want the petition to come back to a meeting again, then the time is to close it now and provide those views to the petitioners. 

I think we ought to—. We've asked the petitioners for their views. I think it would be wrong to close it before we've had their views. We'll see what they say, but I would hope they'd accept it as half success. 

Okay. We'll close the petition, then. 

Maybe we could write to the petitioners along those lines and let them know that that's the process we're following. 

Fine.

We're grouping the following items together for consideration, because they are aligned with each other. The first is 'Remove the Obligation on Schools to Hold Acts of Religious Worship.' The petition was submitted by Rhiannon Shipton and Lily McAllister-Sutton, and was first considered in June 2017, having collected 1,333 signatures. The second petition, which I suppose one could look at as the opposition to the previous petition, is 'Keeping Current Guidelines for Religious Assemblies.' This petition was submitted by Iraj Irfan, and was first considered by the committee in June 2017, having collected a total of 2,231 signatures. I think the Cabinet Secretary has indicated that this is rather a complex question, and it's still under consideration as to how they will apply the rules with regard to this. So, do you have any comments on this? 

We are talking about a human rights issue and we have limited powers as regards that. I think the Cabinet Secretary makes a valid point; there are competing interests here and—.  

It is being reviewed. The petitioners may not be happy with the pace, but actually it's not the kind of review that's likely to come to a rapid conclusion, really. 

No, and we can't—. I think the Cabinet Secretary's response has been fair. It's not going to happen before the summer, and I don't know whether we close this petition now or—.

Well, the possible actions that are suggested are— 

You could keep this open for the next five years. 

—that the committee could agree to await an update from the Cabinet Secretary for Education following the completion of the review by her officials into the subject, or we could indeed have our own investigations into the issue, either by seeking further written evidence from a range of sources on the subject matter of the petitions or through evidence sessions. Would we want to do that? 

We can't close it, because we've not reached a conclusion. I think maybe the delay is that the Government may be faced with really uncomfortable results. That's my view on it. I'd like to take more evidence. I think maybe the committee could write to— 

In all fairness to the Government, it's a pretty complex issue. There's no doubt about that. 

It's a legal issue. We could seek advice from human rights lawyers, perhaps. 

I don't disagree with what Neil is saying. It's an interesting topic. The question that strikes me is: who on earth do you take evidence from? 

Can I just say that we await the review? The Government's undertaking a review. Whatever we do, if we have an investigation, all that will do is feed into the review. So, we just might as well await the review and then send the result of the review on. 

Can we come back to this in September?

That's a good idea. 

Sounds like an eminently sensible—. 

Because I think if there's no result, we can maybe highlight—. We can headhunt some human rights lawyers and ask them. 

I think perhaps the best thing is that we await the outcome of the review, because we can't do anything until we actually know the content of that review. I think that's true to say, and we will have a look at it. We will review it ourselves in that regard. Fine. 

The next petition is 'Protecting Class Sizes in Design and Technology Classrooms and Workshops'. The petition was submitted by Aled Dafis and was first considered by the committee in March 2018, having collected 338 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 1 May and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education to ask if her commitment to remind headteachers, and others, of their duties in this area will take the form of an advice note as requested by the petitioner, and for her to provide a copy of this to the committee once it has been produced. A response came from the Cabinet Secretary on 4 June, where she says that there is advice to schools through the Dysg newsletter, which she considers to be more effective than ad hoc mailshots to schools. Do you have an comments?

And she says that her officials are going to publish a note in the Dysg newsletter to remind—. I mean, from what I understand, it would be a breach of the code of practice. It says here,

'In England and Wales, there should be a maximum of 20 learners with one competent, qualified teacher in any one work area.'

I think the petitioner should be quite pleased that this is an issue that has been looked at by Government. I'd like to know what the petitioner thinks of the Government's promise to put it in the Dysg newsletter and so on. Because they are taking action. Again, it might not be enough, but—.

And the Cabinet Secretary has committed to provide a copy to the Petitions Committee when this has been done, which is likely to be in the near future.

Can we share that with the petitioner? If we get a copy of the Dysg newsletter, can we share it with the petitioner to see what they think of it?

Yes. Exactly.

Yes, we would, at that point when when we receive it, and that would give the petitioner an opportunity to tell us whether they think that was sufficient action from the Government.

Okay. So, the committee could await a further update from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and views from the petitioner before considering whether any further action on the petition is required. Are we happy with that? Fine. 

The next petition is 'Strengthening the Legislative and Regulatory Framework Surrounding Waste Wood Processing Facilities'. The petition was submitted by Alexander Williams and was first considered by the committee in May 2017, having collected 232 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 6 February and agreed to ask Natural Resources Wales for further details of the processes they undertake when operators breach their licence conditions, and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Planning and Rural Affairs to ask for information about plans for future public consultation on environmental permitting regulations, as referred to by NRW. A response from the Minister for Environment was received on 16 March and a response from Natural Resources Wales was received on 16 May. The petitioner also provided further comments. Do you have any—?

I'm not sure where we go with it, to be honest.

I think the Cabinet Secretary has said that responses to breaches are site specific and assessed according to their severity, which is a normal intervention on these matters. So, the initial approach is to work with legitimate operators to bring them into compliance. I think it seems a fairly robust regime that's in place at this moment.

I think the problem is, probably, capacity of enforcement, and that's a tough one to crack, really.

There's an increase on these, because we've had one in my constituency—I think they've withdrawn again now. But, certainly, one of their justifications is, 'Well, it would be well regulated.' And if you see here, they're saying here now that

'Unfortunately, the current regulatory regime fails to ensure the compliance of operators with their terms of operation and as a result, is not fit for purpose. Regrettably, my constituents continue to be subjected to breaches of South Wales Wood Recycling's operating hours on a daily basis without any visible enforcement of their permit'.

The petitioner asks for a strengthening of regulations around permitting, but I can't see that we can ask for that. This is a matter for—

I would have thought that that local authority needs to be pressed harder to carry out enforcement. And if they don't, there's always procedures that members can take. 

Basically, is the committee satisfied with the responses and can we close this petition?

I don't see where else we can go. You can increase it and put lots more rules in, but if they're not being enforced, they're of no use whatsoever. I think, really, success will be getting the current rules enforced. I'd like to close it, but I'd like to write to NRW or the enforcement body, saying that, as a committee, we expect the rules to be enforced.

Yes, we could do that. We could thank the petitioner for bringing this matter to light and for bringing it into focus with the authorities with regard to how they do the licensing. Are we happy with that response?

I think so.

Neil, are you—?

Yes, it's just that with the issue of compliance—whether or not we could write to the Cabinet Secretary to ask for that to be mandatory.

It is mandatory, isn't it? It's just not being done—it's like planning enforcement or something, isn't it? 

It's like a lot of these things. You say it should be monitored; is monitoring doing it once every five years, once a year or once a week?

If a breach is reported, it's incumbent on NRW and the local authority to—.

Does it have to be that day, next week or in a month's time? It's really the sort of latitude that they've got in when they investigate breaches.

It's like the planning process, isn't it? If you do something you're not meant to—. How many extensions are actually knocked down?

I think, in fairness, they're trying to be proactive in this, in that they're saying here, or the Cabinet Secretary is saying, that they'll work with legitimate operators to bring them into compliance. So, they're obviously trying to be proactive in what they're doing to make sure the incidents don't happen in the first place, and not just to have the regulations come in once an incident has happened. So, are we happy to close this petition? Fine. 

The next petition is 'Application of the Automatic Fire Suppression Systems Legislation within the current Building Regulations for Wales'. This was submitted by Nick Harding and was first considered by the committee in December 2017, having collected 62 signatures. We have had responses. We considered it last on 9 January. We've had a response from the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, which was received on 30 May. We've also had responses from the Cabinet Secretary, who more or less says that the regulations that are in place at the moment will remain in place. Whether we can do anything in regard to that, I'm not sure.

I'll kick off. We've made tremendous progress, thanks to Ann Jones, in having sprinklers in new builds, and I think that is something that we can all be very proud of. I think that, also, action is being taken amongst high-rise blocks of flats. I'm not sure we can take this any further.

Because we have it in black and white, and we have assurances that there are no plans, either from the Welsh Government directly or from Members generally, to push for it, I think that that assurance should be enough, really.

I think we should have certain sympathies with the petitioner with regard to this, because of the costs with regard to retrospective fitting, but I think that apart from expressing that to the petitioner, perhaps, as a committee, I don't see, given that they're adamant that there are not going to be changes to the current situation, that we can take this matter any further. Are we agreed on that? Okay. We'll close the petition.

The next petition is 'Urgent Appeal for a Welsh Veterans Commissioner for the Health & Wellbeing of Wounded, Injured, Sick and Homeless veterans'. This was submitted by Nicola Hester and was first considered by the committee in February 2018, having collected 50 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 1 May and agreed to await the views of the petitioner on a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and his written statement of 23 April before considering whether we can take any further action. A response was received from the petitioner on 4 June.

Have we got a copy?

No, the copies of the letter and the written statement were published the last time the committee considered this petition.

I know, I just thought maybe the Members' pack would have had it in, so we could have cross-referenced what she—.

Right.

Okay. Yes. I mean, if you want to see a copy, we can bring it up on the committee iPad. We can access the papers from previous meetings, if you wanted to look at a copy before making a decision.

It's pretty awkward for us to do it now.

Yes, I take that point.

Okay, so, should we—

In the brief for Members, there's a high-level summary of what was contained within that letter and statement. Essentially, the point is that he'd reviewed whether there should be an armed forces commissioner for Wales, and reached the conclusion that there shouldn't, and that, in doing so, he'd had discussions with the armed forces expert group and the cross-party group on armed forces, who have also published their own report, I believe.

Is there a Minister responsible for the armed forces?

Yes, Alun Davies.

Who is it?

Alun Davies.

Can I make the suggestion, before we go any further, that we ask that the petitioner have a meeting arranged with the armed forces expert group? We've got two groups of people, both of whom we're corresponding with. If we can get them to talk to each other, they might be happy.

Yes, that's a good idea.

If the petitioner isn't happy, we can still come back to it, but let the petitioner go and talk to the armed forces expert group. Can we ask whoever co-ordinates that to try and get them to meet together? 

Yes, I think that's a very sensible suggestion.

I mean, I do agree with the petitioner. I was disappointed with the Cabinet Secretary's statement. We've had many debates in the Chamber about the need for an armed forces commissioner.

Let the petitioner go and talk to the armed forces expert group. If the petitioner's still of the same mind, that we do need a commissioner, then we can ask further questions and take it forward. If the petitioner is happy with what they hear from the armed forces expert group, we'll close it. Our success always is getting people talking to each other.

Okay. Rhun, do you agree with that?

Yes. I have great sympathy with the notion of having a champion for the armed forces and veterans. I think that a meeting of the sort Mike is proposing is a very good idea as a way forward.

Are you agreed with that, Neil, as well?

Yes.

Okay, fine. Thank you.

The next petition: 'Build a Chepstow Bypass to Remove the Bottle Neck from the M48 onto the A48'. The petition was submitted by Jez Becker and was first considered by the committee in November 2017, having collected 201 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 7 November, and we agreed to await the views of the petitioner on the response received from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure before considering further action on the petition. The clerking team has contacted the petitioner on a number of occasions between November and April, and in advance of today's meeting, but no response has been received. 

Well, if they've not responded, we have to close it.

We'll have to close—

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. We'll have to close it.

We then have just a paper to note, which is a letter from Natural Resources Wales in relation to P-05-785 'Suspend Marine Licence 12/45/ML to dump radioactive marine sediments from the Hinkley Point nuclear site into Wales coastal waters off Cardiff'. It's just a matter to note. Okay.

I just wanted to flag up one question that I did put several times about the lack of rigour, with the Ministers, about the testing. For example, I quoted Kosovo; they test it at least three ways there to look for plutonium—all the types of plutonium. And yet, they've only tested this mud using one method, and nobody's ever given me a response to that. I'll probably take that up myself, whether or not there is plutonium—

I think that is the way you would have to do it, because we've closed this petition now. This is simply a letter to note.

I just wanted to say that, Chair, on the record, really, because it's been quite unsatisfactory—very unsatisfactory.

Okay. Right, we move on now—

Can I just raise—

I'm sorry, Rhun, of course. 

Can I just also raise an issue that was raised by the petitioner about the timing of when licences were allocated, and whether that was done before the completion of work by this committee?

Well, I understand that the actual note that you saw that was issued during this time was not the licence itself. It was about something to do with conditions of the licence. The licence had actually been issued, I think, in 2014, so way ahead of us. I think the timing of that, actually, was a little after we closed it as well—very, very close to closing. Is it right to say that?

Yes, I think you're right. The licence was granted quite a while ago. The issue arose in relation to—. The issue when the petition reached the committee arose in relation to certain conditions of the licence—the sampling and monitoring plans. So, I think NRW has been following that process, and it has given its approval at different points to different aspects of that licence that it issued in 2014. My understanding is that the letter in front of us now from 6 June, which was after the debate in the Chamber, is the final step from that process. 

It's just that I sympathise with petitioners who perhaps would have expected the whole process to have been frozen for a while whilst we were going through our processes, but okay—

Just to add to that, the clerking team did receive an assurance from EDF that it had put everything on hold in relation to the dredging until this process was completed. We didn't discuss that directly with NRW, but—.

Okay. Thank you.

We move on to item 5, a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public for items 6 and 8 of today's meeting. I propose in accordance with Standing Order 17.42 that the committee resolves to meet in private for items 6 and 8 of today's agenda, reconvening in public with the evidence session with the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care at 10:15. Are Members content?

Well, bore da. Good morning. Can I ask you, if I can, for you to—for the Record—introduce yourself and your colleague, please?

Yes, indeed. Thank you, Chair. Lovely to be with you. Huw Irranca-Davies, Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care. To my right is Gareth Griffiths. Gareth, would you like to describe your role, please?

It's an ever-changing one, but it's currently head of paying for care within the social services and integration directorate in the Welsh Government.

Okay. Well, thank you. Minister, you'll be aware that the committee has been considering this petition since October 2017. The petition relates to the Welsh Government’s decision to end the Welsh independent living grant and for recipients to be supported in future by their local authorities. The committee has previously considered detailed correspondence from both the petitioner and the Welsh Government. Due to the level of support for the petition, and the evidence we heard from the petitioner himself, we have invited you here today to discuss these issues and to answer questions about the decision and the current processes being undertaken.

So, if we can go on to the questioning, of the four options that were set out in the consultation document, why did the Welsh Government decide to opt for the local authority provision to replace the independent living fund and the Welsh independent living grant?

Thank you, Chair. It may be helpful, in answering that, to go through some of the chronology that took us to this place. 

Yes, that's fine.

As the committee will know, it was back in 2010 that the UK Government then closed the existing ILF to new claimants on that fund, and it ceased the fund altogether in 2015, and it did that at the drop of a hat. So, as a result, we and others were left with very short notice, having to support disabled people in Wales affected by the closure. There were around 1,600 people at that time. So, consequently, we introduced the Welsh independent living grant. Now, this was very much made clear at the time—and it was always made clear by my predecessor Ministers as well—that the WILG was an interim measure whilst further consideration took place.

The way that we took forward that consideration, under my predecessor-but-one, was with a stakeholder advisory group. That stakeholder advisory group was made up of a range of people right across the piste of the disability sector within Wales—very prominent, very vocal, very independent individuals. On balance, the conclusion they came to in that stakeholder advisory group was that the right way forward was to move forward with what we now have, which is the transition to payments through our statutorily underpinned local authority provision for the assessment of care and independent living. Because, on balance, the stakeholder advisory group felt that it removed the inequity that they saw with the two-tier system, where some could actually claim the old ILF—the WILG, as it then was—and others couldn't. They weren't within that group. It had been closed five years before. So, it removed that inequity of a two-tier system, but also it avoided the issue of costs because there were other options on the table. Amongst those four options was the option of looking at whether we should set up our own model, whether we should look at buying into the Scottish model, as they did within Northern Ireland. Those were looked at, but the costs were looked at, and they were considered and, as a result, were rejected. It was an on-balance decision, but it was the consensus position as well of the advisory group.

Well, actually, the petitioner has questioned that conclusion that you've come to from the stakeholders. Do you want to make a comment on that?

Yes, it's absolutely clear that this was a consensus position. It was an on-balance decision. There wasn't unanimity, Chair, and we accept that. We always did, because there were different views around the table. But the clear consensus—and that actually filtered through, then, in the advice that came to my predecessor Ministers—was: here is the consensus position—the clear consensus position, I have to say—of that stakeholder advisory group, made up of representatives and disability organisations from across Wales, that the right way to remove the inequity of the two tiers, and also to avoid the costs that would come with setting up a whole administrative system or buying into an agency like the Scottish ILF, to avoid those, this was the right way forward.

Okay. As you know, I will ask my committee to ask questions of you. I think you've just eluded to the Scottish one. Janet, perhaps you'd like to—.

Yes. Good morning. What consideration was given to taking the approach adopted by Scotland, including the option of partnering with them, as Northern Ireland has, to reduce administration costs, and why was this option rejected? 

We did look at that, Janet. We did look at that, Chair. It was one of the four options that were on the table, and, as I say, I'm absolutely crystal clear on this: whilst there wasn't unanimity, the consensus position of that group was very, very clear in what it came down to. But the Scottish option was one that was looked at. There are a number of reasons why, on balance, it was rejected, and it was also rejected when the advice from the stakeholder advisory group was put up to Ministers. Bear in mind, that stakeholder advisory group had come up with their own opinions and views on this.

So, when looking at the ILF Scotland, and using it, in effect, as an agent to deliver an ongoing Welsh independent living fund or Welsh independent living grant, whatever it would be, like Northern Ireland, there were a couple of things that we asked, and we did investigate, while the stakeholder advisory committee was going on. One is: were they in a position to actually take in on? Now, they were already in discussions with Northern Ireland, and the feedback we got at that time was, 'No, we don't have the capacity to take this on for you at this time.' Now, it could have changed over time, it could have changed a year, two years down the line, we don't know, but at that time when we had a two-year transition that we have built in to consider which way the issue of capacity, and they weren't able—. The feedback we had from ILF Scotland—they weren't in a position to take on the responsibility. In any event, by the way, interestingly as well, I'm not saying it would've been a hurdle, but it would have also have been subject to Scottish Ministers' consent. I'm not saying that that would have been problem, but there would have been that as well.

The other aspect that is really pertinent to this is the sums of money involved—and it was fed into the advisory group discussions—what would be the cost of this? So, the initial set-up costs—they were estimates that were based on discussions with ILF Scotland—were around £200,000 for setting-up costs. So, that would be one element of funding. And the other thing was the annual running cost. The annual running cost was estimated at around £800,000 a year. Now, bear in mind we're talking about a scheme that closed in 2010 with a sum of money of £27 million that is not index linked et cetera, et cetera, that had a two-tier element to it, so not everybody could claim into it—in fact, it was closed to new entrants in 2010—and them saying, out of that—not out of that £27 million, but, 'Here's the £27 million; we're going to have to find in the first year £1 million to set up and run it in the first year, and £800,000 every year after.' This is one of the reasons why the advisory group, then, in their advice to Minister said, 'Actually, we've looked at that and it's not the option we want to take forward.'

Thank you. That provides some clarification, actually. [Interruption.] Go on.

Just as a supplementary, how much does your preferred method cost to run? Not for Welsh Government, but across the board.

It's a really good question. The additional costs of this is marginal because it's based on the legislation that all of you, before I was here, took forward. So, under what our social services started to underpin in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014—that need to independently assess every member of the disabled community and to sit down with them and assess what their needs are for independent living—had been put in place as this was going through. And some of those, by the way—in fact, the majority of those—were already on that, even if they didn't get independent living funds. So, the majority of people had already been worked through that system.

So, under this system, Rhun, what happens is, everybody now goes through that same statutory protection, right to an assessment, right to an advocate, should they need it, so it's a marginal difference, because the system provided by local authorities to do this is already in place and is already working. There's no new administration. I suspect there might be a marginal cost, but only in the sense that all of these people now who were previously being assessed under a separate agency system are now being assessed, as many of them already were for the other part of their funding under the local authority provision.

Couldn't that kind of assessment have fed into the Scottish-type system in order to cut down on the running costs? It wouldn't have to be separate assessments, for example.

The interesting thing is that all of these individuals, regardless of whether they were having ILF or not, would still be entitled to be assessed under our legislation for a package of care for independent living. So, they were already being assessed for that, so, actually, the difference in the cost of saying, 'We're not simply assessing you for the package through local authority, we're assessing you now in the round, as it will now be, going forward, for all your independent living needs'—it's going to be marginal. We're not even going to be talking—. Did we do a figure on that?

I'm not sure. All I would say is that the costs were provided by Scotland; they were not worked out by us. They are what—they said to us, 'If you join our scheme, this is what it'll cost you for us to set up our systems to be able to make payments and assess people in Wales, and this is what we will need annually.' Obviously, remember, this would mean that the majority of people in Wales are getting their care and support from the local authority with the assessment, and then a slightly different arrangement for these sorts of people who would have to have that for part of their care and support and then a separate assessment for the ILF-type stuff, which authorities would not have the experience of doing, and hence, the experts to do that would've been in Scotland. So, it is quite a substantial amount of money, and, obviously, the group weren't that keen on spending that amount of money for a small group of people.

Okay. Neil, you wanted to come in, but I don't want you pre-empting other questions that are coming or inviting them to pre-empt those questions.

Okay. Is there a cost one later? 

I'm sorry?

I was just going to mention cost. Is there a cost question? There's not, is there? This was given to us this morning in terms of cost, and some of the councils, according to the freedom of information requests that were put in and have been answered—. The costs seem to be substantial, because Gwynedd are saying that they need £100,000 extra and it has already cost £100,000 as it is. Cardiff is quoting £100,000 as well. That would seem to indicate that there's substantial extra cost involved.

Could I clarify, Neil, whether they're talking about that being the additional money that they're distributing within the area, as opposed to the additional costs? Because they're already, under the social services and well-being Act, doing this job.

The Gwynedd one—they've quoted £100,000 for the present cost and they're saying that it'll be £100,000 extra.

I suspect that that's for the care and support you're providing to individuals and not for the admin costs.

It is to administer.

Because, remember, local authorities are under a duty, under our legislation, to assess people's care and support needs annually anyway, so a lot of authorities, in doing their assessments for ILF, are combining the two.

Okay. It just says, 'How much additional funding will be required for the Welsh Assembly Government in order to administer the WILF?', and they've said £100,000.

Across the piste? Across Wales?

Gwynedd. That's one authority.

We'd be interested in—

We're not going to make progress on this today, so what I suggest is that we provide a copy of this to the Minister— 

Yes, that would be really helpful.

—and ask the Minister to write to us and give his views on it. We're mentioned figures that he doesn't recognise, so if he gets a copy, that might take us forward.

Yes, fine. Mike.

Last week, we were told that one of the great strengths of the Welsh independent living grant model was that it comprised a triangle of service users, local authorities and Welsh Government, which does give you the checks and balances, as opposed to the new system, which is the local authority and service user, which doesn't have the checks and balances and can lead to tensions.

I appreciate the argument, and I've met Nathan on two occasions to discuss this in detail with him and others. I get the general point, but I don't agree with the thrust of the argument, because what it ignores is the different approach in Wales that we've put in place in this two-year period. So, at the moment, under our legislation—the social services and well-being Act—every individual already has a right to request a reassessment of their needs at any time. They have a right, in the law that we passed, that you passed before I got here, and local authorities are under a duty to develop and publish a formal process to respond to such a request, and it includes considering whether a different practitioner should undertake the reassessment. But, in addition to that, Mike, if there are disagreements about a person's eligibility for care, they can be addressed, in addition, through that local authority's social services complaints process, or beyond that, you can ask for independent scrutiny that goes beyond that local authority with a formal investigation of the complaint. Beyond that, we can go to the public services ombudsman.

But in addition to that, and I know I've had this discussion with Nathan as well,  one of the things that's clear not only within the guidance that accompanies the legislation, but also in the letters that have gone out by officials, and from me as Minister subsequently, is the right to advocacy as well within this. So, all of those give a very, very different and much more rigorous underpinning to that ability of a person with themselves or with somebody else alongside them to represent, to challenge, to disagree, to ask for a reassessment. It's all there within our legislation—wholly different from England.

I think what Nathan and the people who came with him last week would have said, of course, is that to go through all those processes is long, tedious, and you have to do each process before you can move on to the next one, whereas in the old system you just had the three bodies and you had the honest broker of the Welsh Government between the local authority and the user.

It may be helpful for the committee if I—. I don't want to bore you, right, but in the clarity of the guidance, and also the subsequent letters and so on that have gone out, it says in this, for example—so, I pull in some clear guidance to heads of social services to put on to their front-line professional social care workers. The purpose of these, the codes and the good practice guidance, is to work with the recipient—this is different from England—work with the recipient, their carer, their family and any other relevant individuals to understand their needs, their capacity, their resources, the outcomes they wish to achieve, and identify how they can be best supported to achieve this. It's essential that recipients are able to identify their own personal outcomes and how they can be achieved. Now, I can go on with this, and on the advocacy as well: if recipients wish to be accompanied by a family member of a friend to help them explain their wishes or help them understand the choices, and so on and so forth—expressing their views to the local authority. Our legislation is so different from what exists in—. Now, I think the question here—and I get this with Nathan, I really do, because from what he tells us, some of the communications that he's had with his local authority have not been helpful—I'm being diplomatic—and we've taken that up with the local authority involved. Our guidance for local authorities is based on the statutory underpinning, not wishful thinking. It's absolutely clear, and Nathan and everybody else should be engaged in co-producing their package, and should have to ability to advocacy, to challenge and so on.

So, I get the thrust of what Nathan is saying but our point of difference is that, to the credit of this Assembly, we've put in place the statutory safeguards—we can point at a local authority and say, 'Here's your job.'

The only thing that I could comment on that is, obviously, if this is one individual experiencing that, how are you going to monitor with a number of individuals who might come up against the same problems?

Well, this is the real positive that has come out of the two meetings I've had with Nathan, and subsequent discussions, because we haven't been immune to the worries, the real worries, that he has, albeit recognising that some of the individuals in a lot of the campaign have not been through the process yet, so what they're looking at is their fears based on what they've heard, perhaps from their own local authority.

So, we've done a number of things. One is: we were already evaluating the process of this transition. We have 400 people by March of this year who'd already transitioned. No significant problems. Some of them ended up with—it's not a question of better or worse, but an improved package of support for independent living. The feedback was good on the process and the outcomes. But based on Nathan's concerns, we've also commissioned the all-Wales forum, involving Disability Wales as well, to go off and do their own piece of research. I took the liberty, if you haven't had it, of bringing along a small package here for the committee that includes the questionnaire that is now going out to individuals who are going through the process, and it's asking them—and it's an easy-to-read version as well—'How do you feel you've gone through this? Are you happy? Are you content? How were you engaged with? Do you feel you were meaningfully engaged with?' I've got copies of those with me.

Now, that's being done independently. We've commissioned it, but it's independent from us, and if that comes back and it shows there are issues, even within individual local authorities, you bet your bottom dollar we'll be going back and revisiting, not the overall scheme, because the overall scheme we know is working—400 people have transitioned, and maybe 1,200, are in the process at the moment. And we know that the vast majority of local authorities are doing this really well, because we're getting the feedback. But if we pick up from that additional piece of research that has flown from the discussions with Nathan, we will come back and look at this and if we have to go—

Isn't it true that a lot of Nathan's concerns come from the anecdotal evidence that's coming back from the London authorities that put in this—?

Yes. Yes, and that reflects the discussions I've had with Nathan as well. And, of course, the situation in England where they made a snap decision to stop it—no transition period of two years, no guidance, no social care and well-being Act to underpin it, no rights to advocacy, no rights to co-producing of a package—that's why it was different in England. And, in fact, in our correspondence with front-line people who are delivering this, we've actually drawn their attention to the analysis that took place of the England offer to avoid making the same mistakes.  

Okay, thank you. Rhun, of course, yes. 

Just a quick question. I realise this is more to do with party politics than your role as a Minister, but it is clear that there are members of the Labour Party who are very, very strongly in support of Nathan here, including a certain Jeremy Corbyn, who's been keen to campaign for the preservation of the Welsh independent living grant. How do you account for that, given that your explanation is so clear and—?

Chair, can I stray slightly? 

Yes. I'm mindful of the time, actually, Huw, so if you could be as brief as you can, because we've got some other questions that we'd like to bring to your attention. 

I think, as I said already in my response to the last question, we're showing that we're actually responding to some of the concerns around that anecdotal feedback and the perceptions within individual local authorities. We're not immune to that. But I am—and I've said this to Nathan as well—ultimately, a Labour Minister but I'm also a Welsh Government Minister. I'm also a Minister that follows the evidence. I always do. My long history as a UK Minister as well suggests the same. It's my hallmark. 

On the basis of the evidence, we tweak and adjust and we go forward. The Labour Party process, just as an aside, is a separate one, like with your own: it flows from conference, there's a procedure to go through. It's not tied into Welsh Government directly, and I think some of the campaigners have struggled to see why the two are totally disconnected. Well, there's a good reason: Welsh Government is the Welsh Government; Labour Party process will go on. But in that Labour Party process, as well as Welsh Government process, we are already not only engaging with the concerns of Nathan, but, as I've just said in terms of the additional survey work, we're trying to address some of those concerns and find out if they're real, and I go with the evidence.   

Okay. Mike, did you want to come in? 

I was going to say that, after discussions, that will probably come out over the next few months anyway. 

It probably will. 

But one of the arguments that you and your predecessor have made was that if we carry on the Welsh independent living grant, we have a continual two-tier system. The argument that was put forward, I thought eloquently, by the campaigners and the petitioners is that if you open the Welsh independent living grant up again to new applicants, you wouldn't have the two-tier system. And if it's the cost of it that will stop that happening, how does that cost compare with the amount of money that's being spent on other items such as care provision, et cetera?  

Well, there are two aspects to that answer, Mike. One is to reiterate that what we were passported by the UK Government in their generosity was a flat rate £27 million—'That's your lot, get on with it'. They shut it to new entrants, so what the heck was going to happen then? However, the second part of the answer is this: we have a system in place that is more robust in terms of statutory protections for individuals with a range of disabilities that promotes independent living. And let me just clarify that, because it's within our guidance as well: that isn't old-style simply care at home; it's independent living. It's hobbies, it's pastimes, it's an independent life. It's described within the guidance and the codes of practice.

So, whereas he's saying, 'Well, put everybody into it. Set up a WILG with whatever the administrative costs are of that, or buy into the Scottish one—push everybody into that'. What we're saying is, 'Hold on now, we actually have in Wales a better way of doing this'. It does mean, Mike, that, in Swansea, in Cardiff, in Wrexham and elsewhere, we have to hold local authorities to account to deliver it in accordance not only with the spirit of the law, but the actual letter of the law, and what I'm saying here today as well is pertinent to that. So, what we're saying is we have the package set up to do this. This hasn't come out of the blue. In that two-year transition, on balance, the stakeholder advisory group said, 'Actually, in your way going forward, put it under the protections that you have. That is a good way—the social care and well-being, looking after those independent living needs, that right to advocacy, that right to co-determination of package, not do unto people but do it with them, where they have the ability to disagree and challenge and so on.' Now, that is far more robust than in England.

So, our argument to Nathan would be, whilst respecting his argument that he'd want to see WILG Wales branded, or a WILG agency Scotland, buying into them, with £800,000 a year costs, we say 'Look, not just with the money that we have, but recognising the rising demands of this population as well, we actually need a statute underpinning what we've got' and then I need to walk in to Mark Drakeford every now and then and say 'Well, here's what our population needs assessment is saying, and here's the money we need to do it.' Because that's the other thing within our legislation—sorry, Chair, but often we forget what we've done already—part of the legislation says we need to do a population needs assessment. We produced the first ones last year. That makes clear the scale of the challenge and how you need to fill that in terms of the Welsh Treasury. So, that would be my counterargument to Nathan. I get his point, but we've got a way to do it already. 

Okay. Neil. 

Thanks. I wanted to pick up on the consensus and the assertion on balance that the disability groups agreed with the former Minister. I understand your loyalty to a former Minister, but there is certainly not a consensus from the campaigners. A consensus means agreement, harmony, concord, like-mindedness, concurrence, consent, common consent, accord, unison, unanimity, and oneness, and what we don't have with this is that. [Laughter.]

You don't have unanimity, no. 

So, what I would maybe ask is: would you revisit the consultation? Would you reconsult with people like Nathan, because they don't feel that their voices have been heard?

I don't think it's necessary to reconsult because, in that two-year transition—. And it isn't out of blind loyalty to predecessors; I go with the evidence. And this was very intensive, not only the stakeholder advisory group, but the consultation that flowed from it, and most of those stakeholder organisations, including all of the significant disability rights organisations, because I know—I've read the transcripts and I know from the evidence—that Nathan suggested that not everybody was to have their put-in, but I think there were 280—

Two hundred and eighty. 

There were 280 individual submissions in addition to the stakeholder advisory group wider consultation. And you're right—it didn't come down to a unanimity position, but sometimes consensus is not unanimity. These are difficult choices and people had seen the chaos that had happened in England and said, 'How do we avoid that?' But then, when confronted with the costs of setting up a Welsh version of that, but also the alternative because we'd put a statutory underpinning through the social care and well-being Act, the consensus, and it was a clear consensus, was that we should proceed, on balance—and I'm being very fair with my words here—with this option. It wasn't unanimity, Neil; it wasn't. Significantly though, none of those participants within that stakeholder advisory group have come back to me now to say, 'Change your mind.' None of the representative organisations—. The disability rights organisations have not come back to me to say, 'Go and consult again, go and change your mind.' And meanwhile, of course, Neil, we are in a situation where we're a long way advanced into transition, and we have 400 people through and 1,200 by September. 

There was a question about the minutes, which the campaigner flagged up. I'd just like to know why weren't the minutes circulated to people. 

Now, my understanding was, and Gareth might be helpful in this because he was there—

I sat on every meeting. 

It wasn't the meeting minutes circulated; it was meeting action points—points that were agreed and what we need to do next rather than a committee-style meeting. It was a stakeholder advisory group, but I understand that the action points that flowed from each meeting, as this went on, were then circulated to everybody, and then it led to the next meeting. 

Yes. There weren't formal minutes produced. 

Finally, just to be clear, do you think there's a case for further consultation with differently abled people or disabled people on this?

Not on the principal policy issue. I hope I tried to explain why we already have the good underpinning here that allows us to go forward in a way that the stakeholder group came to a conclusion that, on balance, was right. However, I think there is a case for keeping a very close eye on this as it goes forward, as we are doing, and the additional scrutiny that we've added as a result of our discussions with Nathan—commissioning the all-Wales forum, Disability Wales and others to go out and do their own research on this—I think will help us if we need to tweak—. If we find, Neil, that there is a local authority or individual areas that are not applying the legislation in the way that this place has clearly described, then, rest assured, I will be going back as Minister to anything that I see is not delivering this in the way that it should be. But not the overall policy, because that's already been determined—we took two years to do this.

Thank you very much. Rhun.

Just drilling down to something that you said on 23 May, in your statement then:

'authorities are reporting that most people are receiving support similar to that they received using their ILF payments, with no significant issues being raised.'

If you don't have the number now, how many of the 1,300 former ILF recipients, people, does that refer to?

So, that would have been reflective—. Would that be reflective of the 400 who have transitioned?

As of the end of March, we had 1,300 recipients, of which, at that time, 75 per cent had been through a review process—

Seventy-five.

Seventy-five per cent had either been through or were in the process of being reviewed. And then, at the end point, 400 had already transitioned over to receiving their current support from their local authority.

Yes, but what about,

'receiving support similar to that they received using ILF payments'?

Is the level of support the same for them all?

We do a quarterly monitoring with authorities, and that's why we have that figure. What authorities told us at that point, that the vast majority were getting care and support at a similar level to what they had under their WILG payment, with some getting some additionality. And only in a very minor number of cases have people got slightly less, but, in quite a few cases, that was because people were using their payments for healthcare as opposed to social care, which is inappropriate for a local authority to be supporting.

Will you be publishing those figures in detail? Because, obviously, especially in the early days of transition, we'll probably need reassurance and as much detail as we can have.

Those figures were in the Minister's written statement.

Yes, and we'll keep it updated.

We have kept the stakeholder group informed, so they will have had that information as well.

Okay. The concern, of course, from the petitioner is that there is a postcode lottery, and you've recognised that, certainly in one authority, you've had to perhaps keep a very close eye that they're doing what they should do. Are you able to monitor whether, in those, albeit a minority of cases, they might relate to specific local authorities that perhaps aren't delivering what you want?

I think the existing monitoring we were already doing, plus the additional monitoring that we have now commissioned from the all-Wales forum, will be able to flag up not just broad issues, but also geographically specific issues. And we would want to reflect on that, consider it, and act on it where appropriate.

And that will be public, will it? Will we know—

In terms of geographics?

Yes. Because it's not a geographic thing; it's a local authority thing. It's a subtle difference. [Laughter.]

It may be. Yes, it may be. I should be in the diplomatic corps.

The questionnaire that is being developed by the all-Wales forum and Disability Wales does have a local authority identifier. So, all the people who respond, you will know what authority they're in, although we will not have their personal information, for obvious reasons.

Can we take that away and consider that?

Yes. We just need to identify what's happening, where, and, if there is a postcode lottery, of any sort, we need to—

Exactly. And I think it's the difference between picking up in a local authority—. Let's be frank on this, there will always be individuals who are unhappy, and challenge, and whatever. But it's the difference between having one or two of those in an authority, which are then eventually resolved, and having 50 or 60 or 70—or even a dozen, frankly. And if there are disparities, there are questions then of whether we go back and work with and support that authority, or whether there's something more significant that we have to do.

Is there a case for ring-fencing the £27 million received from the UK Government?

No. I would strongly argue that there isn't, based on all of our discussions so far. That frozen £27 million that was passported across in some ways will be insignificant compared to the overall support for independent living and care that we have within our statutory underpinning. So, actually, the argument is not, anymore, going forward, over the £27 million, which will go into this overall care; it's actually to do with can we actually meet the needs of the population assessments that we're doing. That's the big ongoing challenge that we have.

Well, the petitioner has told the committee that he did not hear from the social worker for several months—we've said about the concerns of the petitioner—and that he was contacted only after he had related his concerns on a radio programme. These are absolute observations from the petitioner. So, can you make comments on that?

I was concerned to hear that and to read that in the transcript. In fact, when I met with Nathan a couple of weeks ago, he said the same to me. I'm writing to Nathan to ask him, because he suggested he might have some more information he could share with us, or with me as the Minister, on that. So, I've written to him to ask him for that information. That should not be the approach, and if what we're hearing anecdotally from Nathan is true, we would want that rectified. I think, in fact, some of the other things that Nathan has suggested about his own experience and things that he's been told—that does worry me as Minister, but I'd then have to go back and establish is it anecdotal, is it real, or alternatively, does the authority come back and say, 'Well, actually'—

But, in light of that, are you content that the local authorities have the resources and the facilities in order to undertake these very, very important functions?

Yes, absolutely, because they're already doing this process in line with the social care and well-being Act. So, this isn't new to local authorities. It sort of comes back to the point you were raising before about the additional money. They're already doing this process and they have the resource and capability to do it.

Okay. Thank you very much. Was there anything else that anybody—? Can I just thank you, Minister, for your very comprehensive answers to our questions? I thank you for that. I don't think you're going to make a good politician because you're answering the questions so directly.

I try to.

I do thank you and your official for attending today. Can I say, obviously, that you'll get a copy of the transcript, which will be sent to you to check any factual inaccuracies? Of course, the Members will now consider all your comments and decide on the way forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. We'll leave these with you, if that's okay—it's got the correspondence I referred to. 

Okay. Fine. And there is that report—do you have a copy of that now?

Yes, indeed. Thank you.

Okay. Fine. The meeting will now return to private session.