Y Pwyllgor Deisebau - Y Bumed Senedd

Petitions Committee - Fifth Senedd

29/01/2019

Aelodau'r Pwyllgor a oedd yn bresennol

Committee Members in Attendance

David J. Rowlands Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor
Committee Chair
Janet Finch-Saunders
Leanne Wood
Mike Hedges
Neil McEvoy

Swyddogion y Senedd a oedd yn bresennol

Senedd Officials in Attendance

Graeme Francis Clerc
Clerk
Kayleigh Imperato Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk
Ross Davies Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk
Samiwel Davies Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Legal Adviser

Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle 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 09:17.

The meeting began at 09:17.

1. Cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau, dirprwyon a datganiadau o fuddiant
1. Introduction, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest

Bore da, good morning, and welcome to the Petitions Committee. Item 1 is apologies and substitutions. We don't have any apologies this morning. Leanne Wood is delayed a little with other business, but I'm sure she'll join us a little later. 

2. Deisebau newydd
2. New petitions

The second item on the agenda is new petitions, and the first of these is 'Small Business Rates Relief Review'. This petition was submitted by Endaf Cooke and Gavin Owen, having collected 310 signatures. I think the basis of the petition is that there are differences between the way the rates relief system is administered in Wales as opposed to the way it's administered in England. We've had a response to the petition from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on 11 December. Do the Members have any comments they'd like to make?

We're still waiting for the petitioner to come back to us, aren't we?

Shall we keep on waiting for the petitioner to come back, to give them an opportunity to respond?

Yes, if we're happy with that, the committee will await the response from the petitioner to the correspondence received.

The next petition is 'Ban the sale of puppies by pet shops and all commercial 3rd party dealers in Wales (Lucy’s Law)', otherwise know as Lucy's law. The petition was submitted by C.A.R.I.A.D., Care And Respect Includes All Dogs, group, having collected 11,195 signatures. The basis of the petition is that the regulation of commercial third party puppy selling is ineffective in preventing harm to breeding dogs, and a third party ban on puppy selling is therefore necessary for the welfare of breeding dogs. We've had an initial response from the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on 15 January, where it was pointed out that the Welsh Government is committed to launching a 12-week consultation on banning third party puppy and kitten sales, which will start on 22 February 2019. Do you have any comments?

09:20

I was going to suggest that we await, obviously, the result of the consultation, but we hold the petition until such time as we get a response to it.

Yes, I agree with that. We want to get a timescale, though, as well. I think that's suggested.

If we could write to the Minister for a timescale.

Welcome, Leanne, to the petition. We're just debating now the petition with regard to the sale of puppies. Janet, do you have any comments to make?

I mean, certainly, in the United Kingdom Parliament, they're taking steps. I think it's something—. Maybe I should declare an interest, because, previously—. There are third party sales of puppies where they're quite responsibly carried out, but the bigger issue these days is puppy farming and people selling from lay-bys. Dogs, basically, have several deformities and quite poor health. And so, not only is it very cruel to the animal, but it's not fair on an intended buyer where they're buying dogs with splayed hips and quite serious issues going on. Things aren't as they used to be, where there was more integrity in it. It's become—especially with a lot of these mixed breeds now, you know, the designer breeds—very, very worrying indeed. So, I think we should be doing all we can to push the Minister here and, indeed, the Welsh Government and all Assembly Members to get behind this. 

I'd just pointed out, Leanne, before you came in, that the Welsh Government has committed to launching a 12-week consultation, which will start on 22 February.

I've got nothing to add until I see the results of that consultation.

Chair, I first suggested that we hold the petition until we have the results of that.

Yes, that's right. So, in light of the Welsh Government's commitment to launch a consultation on this subject in February 2019, and the previous debate held on the subject, the committee could agree to await the outcome of the consultation before considering the petition further, and I think we're all agreed on that. Neil, do you have anything to add to that? Are you happy with that?

Chair, Neil, did you want us to write to the Government to ask for a bit more detail on their intended timescales following the consultation?

Yes. I don't want to see it kicked into the long grass. I think the fact that there have been so many—this petition in particular—but so many questions asked in the Chamber over the years, and I think we know, before we get the consultation responses, that it would be good to see some more enforcement in this area—

Well, because we've had far more than 5,000 signatures, we will, of course, at some future date, be discussing whether we take it to debate in the Chamber. But we're in agreement that we should wait for the consultation to end before that. Okay?

Thank you.

The third new petition is 'Create a national task force for children's mental health'. The petition was submitted by The National Organisation for Children's Mental Health, having collected 91 signatures. An initial response to the petition was received from the Minister for Health and Social Services on 12 December, and I think it's true that he is pointing out a number of priorities in 'Prosperity for All' and there are a number of initiatives that the Welsh Government has taken forward with regard to mental health.

Well, they could make a start by making sure that child and adolescent mental health services—. Again, I've been raising concerns about CAMHS for many years now, and, certainly, in my own consistency, access for youngsters with mental health issues is very difficult and it's not helped by the fact that if you contact the local authority they say, 'Contact the health board because CAMHS is led by them.' We're meant to have statutory partnerships here, and they're just not working. The access times are 18 months to two years. The child is then developing with those issues, and it's just wrong.

09:25

I had a case last week, similar to what Janet said. The child just seems to have fallen through all the cracks and, as a result of the issues, the child is marooned in the house and has been there for the last two years and nothing's being done. It's not uncommon.

I think I should point out that the petitioners welcomed the commitment by the Minister but argue that the task and finish group should be built upon to become the national taskforce.

Is there further information we could receive in terms of the effectiveness of the legislation that's in place? My understanding is that part of that legislation, for example, says that there should be a mental health professional accessible by every secondary school in Wales. Now, that means different things in different places, as I understand it. And a good starting point, I think, for this would be to have more information as to how effectively that Act is being implemented at present, where the gaps are and if the duties under the Act are actually being fulfilled, because I'm not entirely convinced that they are in all areas.

We can certainly ask for a brief to be prepared for the committee by the Research Service here to talk about the current work around that legislation and how it's rolled out in different areas.

I'd be interested to know what percentage of teachers are trained in mental health issues, because very often these children are described as 'naughty', when actually they're suffering certain conditions or are living with conditions, rather, and there's a lot of ignorance amongst professionals.

And in addition to those comments from the committee members, the committee could write back to the Minister for Health and Social Services to provide the additional comments received from the petitioners and to ask for his response, in particular in relation to the observations and proposals made in relation to the role of the ministerial task and finish group. Also, the committee could write to the Children, Young People and Education Committee to make them aware of the petition in the context of their ongoing work on this subject, following the 'Mind over matter' report, and to ask for any reflections that the committee have in relation to the role and scope of the ministerial task and finish group. I think that would—. Quite happy to—

Fine. Okay.

The next new petition is 'Make curriculum for life lessons compulsory'. The petition was submitted by Emily Jones, having collected 286 signatures. An initial response to the petition was received from the Minister for Education on 19 December. I think the Minister has pointed out the four purposes—there is a new curriculum, obviously, which will actually not come into force until 2022. But within the four purposes of the new curriculum is development as

'Ethical, informed citizens of Wales and the world'.

I've said this in a previous committee elsewhere. I think 2022 is way too late to be implementing this. We've got serious issues in our classrooms around the whole sexual harassment agenda. There's the rise in hate crime. All of this could be addressed by proper citizenship education—or basic living skills, politics, relationships, as this petition has put forward. So, I think that there's a job of work for this committee to do in terms of urging the Cabinet Secretary to move faster on these curriculum changes. We're going to lose too many years between now and the implementation of this. And bear in mind that, if it's not going to start to be implemented until 2022 then there are going to be a further number of years before we see an effect. So, if there's anything we can do in terms of pressing the urgency button on this, then I think that's what we should do, Chair.

I was disappointed in the response, which said something like 'these could be taught through personal and social education'. I'd have preferred the words 'should be taught through PSE' in there, and perhaps we could write back to the Minister asking if she would reconsider turning 'could' into 'should'.

09:30

So, the next petition is linked to the other one, isn't it, as well?

I think we should probably treat them together, if possible.

We may do at some future date. We wanted to keep them separate at this point because there are some discrepancies between the one and the other, Leanne. But, yes, I would think that in the future we'll probably link the two. So, the actions—. We've had the comments, obviously, from the committee members, but the committee could await a response from the petitioners to the correspondence received from the Welsh Government before considering whether to take further action on the petition. Are we happy?

I'd also like to write to the Minister asking if they will turn the word 'could' into 'should'.

Okay. And in the same letter, we can stress the committee feels the urgency around the implementation of making the changes to the current curriculum or the new curriculum. Fine. Okay.

Okay. We move onto the next petition, which is 'Make political education a compulsory element of the new national curriculum'. This petition was submitted by Kaiesha Ceryn Page, having collected 117 signatures. And as Leanne has pointed out, there is a link between this and the previous petition, but we are considering this petition on its own merits. But at a future date, I'm sure that we'll probably bring these two petitions together.

Can I just say, Chair, the reason why I thought that these two go together very well is because I have some awareness of the citizenship programme that is running in Scotland, which includes—? It's a rounded programme teaching young people how to become well-rounded citizens in Scotland. And part of that is sex and relationships education and basic living skills. But also part of that is political awareness, understanding where decisions are made, who the key personnel are and so on. My understanding is that there is a much greater level of awareness of politics and how to change things in Scotland because this has been in place since the beginning of devolution. So, that's why I thought that the two were linked. I understand that they are separate issues, but in terms of thinking about how we create well-rounded, fully functioning citizens in a democracy, then both of these elements need to be in our curriculum much sooner than 2022.

If we are looking at it holistically, you are absolutely right: these should come as elements in that. We've had a response from the Minister for Education on 18 December, which, I think, is pointing out, very similarly, the actions being taken for 2022—the humanities area will incorporate learning regarding citizenship and politics. But we'll note the comments made, Leanne, with regard to the late date of that, that it will not come into place until 2022. And then it may take some time after that, as well, for it to be embedded in the actual teaching practices.

So, the possible actions are: the committee could consider seeking further information from the petitioner about the way in which she believes political education should be included within the new national curriculum before deciding what further action it could take in relation to the petition. Or the committee could await the publication of the statement relating to how work in this area will be taken forward, referred to by the Minister for Education, which she states will be issued in 2019.

What are the timescales involved in actually bringing this—? Because I thought a previous Minister had actually delayed the bringing forward of this till the end of the year—the new local government electoral reform.

Well, it was meant to be the new year, but then I asked a question and I'm sure that this has been put back now to the end of the year. We could do with some clarification over that. The draft—when is that coming forward?

The local government reform legislation—I don't know precisely.

In relation to this petition, the Minister is referring to various reforms, including the Assembly's electoral reform programme as well, and I think she intends to respond to consider political education in the round with all of the reforms taking place. So, I'm not sure that this is expressly linked to local government.

09:35

New year—you tend to think it's the beginning of the year, when, in real terms, if you're right in going forward, it could be any time of the year. I think we need to have some timescales attached to this, really, as to when this Bill—for other reasons, really, as well.

Again, I just need to emphasise this point about urgency. If the changes are in place by the next Assembly elections, we're going to have 16-year-olds voting. Every time I speak to young people about voting, they tell me that they want to be fully informed when they do that, so if they're not having any input in school at all until after the next Assembly elections, then there are going to be many young people engaged in that election and it may put them off for life from voting if they don't feel that they're fully informed in that process. So, I think there's a lot of awaiting statements in these papers and I think we need to press ahead with the urgency of the situation, because otherwise, we're going to have votes at 16 without an informed population.

Yes, I think that's a very good point—absolutely. I'm not sure how we can influence the Minister on that basis. Do we write a letter and just point out that—?

The committee have talked about the links between the two petitions and you've agreed that we would write on the previous one, which I think has a broader focus but includes politics and political education. If you did want to link these two petitions together and we write one letter to the Minister stressing that the committee sees the importance of the various aspects of this, including the link to votes at 16, we could write a single letter to the Minister. If you wanted to keep them separate—

Could we ask why it's going to take till 2022 before any of this is in place and what are the barriers to making it happen quicker?

Sure, okay.

I think it should be done a lot quicker, as everyone is saying, but I think there's a responsibility on all of us here who are elected as well, not to just remain in this building, but to campaign out there with campaigns to educate people, generally. Nuclear mud, for example.

3. Y wybodaeth ddiweddaraf am ddeisebau blaenorol
3. Updates to previous petitions

The next item is item 3, which is updates to previous petitions. We open with our beloved 'Protect the Razor Clams on Llanfairfechan Beach', which, of course, we've discussed at length.

Yes, we have. On this one, I think, to be fair, this is where the Government Minister, Lesley Griffiths, has listened to the petition and to us as committee members. Clearly, I'd like to see the petition stay open until they've had the completion of the work. So, if we can keep this going, because I think we're going to be asking more questions once we get the findings of the actual review.

Okay. Well, the background is that we last considered the petition on 11 December and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, and a response from the Minister was received on 8 January. I think it's been made clear that they will keep Llanfairfechan beach closed for a further 12 months. Now, if we're keeping a watching brief on this, the only thing I will say is that, obviously, it's another 12 months before we will come back to this petition again. Now, if we close this petition at this moment in time, it would give the opportunity and the time—if what happens doesn't suit the petitioners, they could bring a new petition back to the committee.

No, I think the fundamentals around this petition all the way along—. All the residents have complained about this—we need the results of that assessment. So, if the Minister is saying to us that there's more to it than what there was, we definitely need to keep this petition open. It's not really fair to the residents to have to say, 'Go off and collect more', to find out the results of the assessments afterwards. The petitioners are entitled to hear the results of the assessments, but it's just that it's been put off now until the end of the year, so we definitely need to keep this petition open. You could bring it back, perhaps, in, say, June, just to see if we've had any more findings from—. But I cannot see any harm with keeping a watching brief on this. It's just with the ecology and everything—this particular review that they're doing, the assessments are fairly complex, if you know what I mean.

09:40

Okay. Well, in the light of the comments made by the committee members, we shall keep a watching brief on Llanfairfechan beach—

Well, it helps the ones who've got the petition to actually get that information from the Minister. To be fair, she has listened, and the signs are working as well now—at times they are. Okay, thank you.

Okay. The next petition is 'Control Rapidly Expanding Intensive Poultry Industry in Wales'. The petition was submitted by the Brecon and Radnor branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and was first considered in June 2018, having collected 4,567 signatures. I think basically what they're saying is that the present regime for controlling the planning on these does not recognise the fact of clusters that may build up, and that there may be a situation where people are keeping under the present rules, which say that 40,000 chickens are kept before they have to ask for an expanded planning permission on it. So, they believe that perhaps people are deliberately keeping under that number, but it's also the fact that, if they have clusters of these chickens, they can go well over 40,000 in a particular area. So, we last considered the petition on 25 September and wrote back to the Cabinet Secretary for the environment to ask a number of different questions. A response was received from the Cabinet Secretary on 13 December. The petitioners request an opportunity to provide further evidence to the committee in person. Do we feel that that may—?

I think before that happens, and I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, we do need to have a picture of the cumulative impact on these developments, and also to reconsider whether or not these thresholds are adequate. It does seem to me that there are ways around some of the protections that were designed to be in place to stop some of this happening, so if we could get further information as to that cumulative impact, and an understanding from the Minister, really, that they've got a handle on the issues around that cumulative impact.

And you don't think that perhaps having the people in front of us, the petitioners in front of us, to ask the questions with regard to that, and for them to give their—

Well, it may well be—. They're very clear in what they raise as the problems, and the questions, I would suggest, need to be put to the Minister rather than to the petitioners. It's pretty obvious what the impact of this over-intensive poultry farming will have on biodiversity and the soil—ammonia, nitrogen and all of that. That's detailed in the petition. I'm not sure we're going to get much more information from the petitioners other than to agree it's a problem. We need to focus on the solutions, I would suggest.

Okay. So, we're suggesting writing again to the Cabinet Minister and asking for further information with regard to—

Can we also make this petition available to the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, which at the moment are about to start on a biodiversity investigation? So, if we make that available to them—.

Okay, fine.

I mean, I think we're all aware of our environmental health units. They don't have the resources, and nor do Natural Resources Wales, to actually fully monitor now and enforce. That's a big worry.

And if I can add, Chair, on the cumulative impact issue, the petitioners, earlier in the consideration of this petition, provided a breakdown—they had pulled together a summary of planning applications in Powys over the last few years. It focuses on a specific area of Wales, but possibly the area most affected by this development. We could make that information available to committee again and you can see the sort of scale that the petitioners are highlighting, anyway. Previously, the committee has also written to Natural Resources Wales and got their views, and I think they express some concern as well over the cumulative impact of this. So, we can make that available again.

09:45

Perhaps it would be useful to pass that information on to the environment committee as well, if they're looking into this. 

Absolutely. We'll write with a summary of the evidence.

And, in the meantime, we'll write back to the Minister to ask the additional questions. 

Fine. Okay, we move on to the next petition, which is 'Green Energy for the Wellbeing of Future Generations in Wales'. The petition was submitted by the Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance and was first considered in October 2018, having collected 1,316 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 27 November and agreed to provide the petitioners’ further comments to the Cabinet Secretary for energy, and ask the Cabinet Secretary, in light of these comments and the recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to consider scheduling a Government debate on the development of, and support for, green energy. A response was received from the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on 14 January.

Now, given that I think one of the main concerns with regard to these petitioners was the fact of nuclear energy being used as a green energy option, and, in view of what's happened with regard to the Wylfa Newydd project, I think we could see how we feel with regard to the petition now, that having being postponed. 

I think the danger with closing this petition, particularly in the light of the news as to what's happened with Wylfa Newydd—to me that would suggest that ramping up green energy opportunities would be even more pertinent now, given the news that Wylfa Newydd is not going to go ahead. There are thousands of people who will require jobs in the future, and that energy still needs to be produced. Now, I'm not going to get into the whole debate about what type of energy and why, but it would suggest to me that, given the latest developments with nuclear, we've put all our eggs in one basket there. We need to make sure now that we invest in a range of renewable energy sources so that we have energy security in the future. So, I would caution against closing this petition at this point, though I don't have a suggestion as to where to take it next, given the debates that have already taken place in Plenary, and so on. 

That's true, but our remit is if we can see a possibility of us actually influencing either the Ministers or other third parties by keeping this petition open. I'm—

—the decisions around nuclear are made in Westminster, aren't they, and the money that was allocated to that project came from Westminster, and the petition asks for the money that's been allocated to that project to be transferred into renewable energy sources. One thing we could perhaps do is to write to the Minister in Westminster to say, 'There was investment planned in this area—can it now be diverted into renewable sources?' 

Right, but Wylfa hasn't been actually stopped as such, has it? It's paused. I think that's the word—

Well, what does that mean? That sounds like kicking something into the long grass to me. 

Yes, I mean, as the only AM who voted against nuclear power in this Assembly in those debates, I'd like to keep it there for a while and revisit it in the future. And just to reiterate that nuclear is not low carbon—that's a myth. So, I think it would be valuable to keep the petition here and return to it at a later date. 

Just to be technical, nuclear fusion would be low carbon, if you could you get a working fusion reactor. It's nuclear fission that isn't. But, having said that, I think that we've really got to look at what we can achieve. I've got no problem with holding this petition, but what we do hope to achieve afterwards? And I agree with Leanne about writing to the Westminster Government, asking for that money. But, after that, what can we achieve after that? 

Well, I'm guessing they're not going to say 'yes', so we'd have to put up a bit of a battle on it, wouldn't we, and, you know, potentially get involved in some campaign. But you start these things with a request and then see what comes back, I guess. 

I see no harm in actually writing that letter in the first instance, and we'll see what happens with regard to what their response is. It will open up a debate on it, if nothing else. 

09:50

Okay. The next petition is 'Adopt WHO Guidelines and Introduce a Clean Air Act for Wales'. The petition was submitted by the British Heart Foundation Cymru and was first considered in November 2018, having collected 688 signatures. The committee first considered the petition in November and agreed to write back to the Minister for Environment to ask her to respond to further comments made by the petitioners. A response was received from the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on 18 December. 

Does the committee have any comments to make? 

I guess we need to wait and see the draft clean air plan, don't we?

That appears to be the situation. So, the possible action is that the committee could provide the latest comments from the petitioners to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs in the context of the offers made to support work in this area, and the committee could agree to await the publication of a draft clean air plan for Wales and consider whether there is any further action that it can take on the petition at that point. Are you happy with that? Fine. 

The next petition is 'Ensuring Equality of Curriculum for Welsh Medium Schools e.g. GCSE Psychology'. The petition was submitted by Chris Evans and was first considered by the committee in November 2017, having collected 652 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 13 November and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary, and responses from the Minister for Education and Welsh Language Commission have both been received. I think the comments from the commission are very relevant, in that he supports the petition and he's calling—. The Welsh Language Commission's desired long-term solution is to place an absolute requirement on exam boards to offer qualifications through Welsh and English. This should have—. The only downside of that is that it could mean that there are number of English examining boards who will refuse to get engaged with any of the or some of the qualifications checks. 

Going back a few years, one of the things that I think Leighton Andrews was pushing was the fact that it should only be WJEC qualifications that were taught in Welsh schools. As you may remember, a number of schools caught a cold over having English GCSEs from English boards, which, when we had the remarking and the change, meant that some schools were disadvantaged. We can only have any influence over Qualifications Wales, and we can only have some influence over the WJEC. But I think that, to make it a fair playing field for children going through Welsh-medium education, they must have the opportunity to take exams in the language in which they're being taught. A number of children going through Welsh-medium education will know technical words only in Welsh, in the same way as we tend to know technical words only in—. Even though people speak Welsh, they often know technical words only in the medium of English. It's the language in which you come across these technical words. So, I think that we should keep on pushing that Qualifications Wales should ensure that qualifications that are put out by the WJEC give equal validity to both languages, and that the WJEC, via Qualifications Wales, actually covers a wide variety of subjects. 

That's how I see it—they're falling foul of actually making Welsh an equal language with English. 

Well, it disadvantages children who are learning other subjects through the medium of Welsh. This is not—. You could make an argument for certain things, like foreign languages, where, in fact, it's a foreign language you're learning, but, in general, with something like this, which is a technical subject—some of the technical words, children will be disadvantaged, because they don't know the English versions of them.

09:55

And, of course, it would mean that there would be far fewer people able to administer psychology in the language of Welsh at some future date, because, if we're not training in it at this point in time, then we're going to have a shortage in the future.

Chair, I'm aware that there have been other subjects in the past where there have been disadvantages if pupils are studying through the medium of Welsh, and it just shouldn't be the case when we've got two official languages, and every pupil should have equal access to all subjects, all textbooks, all exams through both languages. So, I do think we do need to take some action on this, and I would suggest that we write to Qualifications Wales and to the Minister for Education to seek their specific solutions. I'm not even sure whether this is within the law, given that we've got two official languages, so it may be useful asking whether or not this is a breach of the law in any way, and, of course, if it is, then that gives us added punch to deal with this issue.

Yes. I think we're all in agreement with that, are we? Did you want to make another comment?

Rwy'n cytuno 100 y cant. Mae beth sy'n digwydd yn annerbyniol, yn fy marn i.

I agree 100 per cent. What's happening is unacceptable in my view.

Fine. Okay. So, the committee could write to Qualifications Wales and the Minister for Education to share the analysis and information provided by the Welsh language commission—is that 'commissioner' or 'commission'—and to seek their response to specific solutions proposed.

Okay, the next petition is 'Hi speed broadband to Llangenny village'. The 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 19 June and agreed to await an announcement in relation to the successor scheme to Superfast Cymru, and a response from the then leader of the house was received on 3 December.

We now know, obviously, that we have got a successor to Superfast Cymru and a statement was issued by the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport on 18 January, which confirmed that BT plc has been awarded that contract until March 2021. 

Now, we still don't know whether they are connected at this particular time, but we could ask—the committee could write to the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport, following his statement on 18 January, to ask him to provide the committee with an update about coverage for premises in Llangenny when he is in a position to do so. Are we happy to do that? Should we actually be pushing for a timeline on that, given the fact that they've been waiting for some time and it would be nice to have some sort of commitment on that? Do you agree?

Yes. Okay.

We move on to the next petition, 'Newtown Brimmon Oak Bypass'. This was submitted by Mervyn Lloyd Jones and Rob McBride. The committee first considered it in July 2018, and it's collected 402 signatures. We agreed at the last time to write to Powys County Council to ask for their response to the petition and it seems as if they've come back quite strongly with the fact that they will not countenance any naming of any structure. As far as they're concerned, they will not be giving names to it.

It's a matter for them, isn't it? They get to name the road and, if they're so categorical, I'm not sure where else we can take this.

There's nowhere else we can take it. Can I give some advice to the petitioners? Keep on calling it 'Brimmon Oak Road'. I've seen roads have their names changed, because, after a period of time, they're called by everybody by a certain name, and it actually leads to that name becoming the common name. I would urge them to, if they can't have it done officially, do it unofficially—keep on calling it that until such time as it comes into common usage.

10:00

It worked near where I live with a place called Park Road. It wasn't used to be called Park Road, it was called Ynys Allan Road, but people called it 'Park Road' so often that they actually changed it to Park Road.

Well, I'm not sure that that would be an official response from the committee, but I think it's a very—

No, I think all we can do is close it. I was just trying to confer some advice to the petitioners: keep on using the name.

I think it's a very positive comment, but I'm not sure that we can officially take that point of view.

In light of the definitive answer provided by the Welsh Government and Powys County Council that they would not support recognising Brimmon Oak in this way as part of the new bypass, there appears to be nothing further that the committee can do, so the suggestion is that we close the petition at this point.

The next petition is 'Ensure access to the cystic fibrosis medicine, Orkambi, as a matter of urgency'. The petition was submitted by Rhian Barrance and was first considered by the committee in January 2018, having collected 5,717 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 27 November when Members agreed to write to Vertex Pharmaceuticals to urge them to make a submission to NHS Wales. We had a response from Vertex, and that was on 14 January. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust have also provided comments on behalf of the petition. I'd like to point out that Vertex states it has provided Orkambi at no cost to 25 patients in Wales because of serious medical need. Does anybody have any comments?

I think the suggestion is we write to the Minister for health to consider if there's an appropriate method for providing interim access.

Yes, I think we need to be looking at that. I know one of the big stumbling factors has been that Orkambi isn't suitable for everyone and they need this wider range. But, now, I think it's been established, hasn't it, that they're all going to be identified on an individual basis and given merit, appropriately so. But, as regards Orkambi, where we've got children in particular whose lives could be significantly impacted by this, if they qualify for it, then I do think that we shouldn't be waiting around just for Government to get its act together. I think that there should be some kind of interim access. 

There are people suffering out there, suffering a lot, and this could be life changing—could be life changing. Give it a crack. Give it a try on an interim basis. Why not?

So, we could write to the Minister for Health and Social Services to ask him to consider whether there is an appropriate method for providing interim access to patients who would benefit from Orkambi, in light of the resumption of discussions with the company. I think the committee ought to congratulate Orkambi on the fact that it's actually given this help to patients.

Sorry, Vertex, for actually doing that. 

The next petition is 'Give young people a voice when commissioning local services in Wales'. The petition was submitted by the Changing Minds campaign group and was first considered in October 2018, having collected 4,252 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 11 December and agreed to write to the Children's Commissioner for Wales to ask for her views on a number of points. A response was received from the Children's Commissioner for Wales on 10 January. There is a legal note included in the meeting papers. The petitioners have also provided further comments. 

It's good to hear this morning the children's commissioner actually now wanting to ramp up the fact that children do have rights and how they're entitled to so much but might not be aware of those rights. She wants to make that far more focused. So, I think she's moving in the right direction where that's concerned. Taking this forward—it's a very comprehensive response. We don't get ministerial responses as detailed as this, so I think she's well aware of—. And she's more than happy, as far as I'm concerned, to press the Government where there are inadequacies.

10:05

I'm a little bit confused by this point that the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 places a duty on Welsh Ministers to have due regard to children's rights when making decisions, but does not apply to the commissioning of local health services, as Welsh Ministers are not directly responsible for this. Well, who is democratically responsible for raising questions, scrutinising around the question of commissioning of local health services? Welsh Ministers appoint the people to the health boards, so surely the Minister should be responsible to be scrutinised on that? And, given what the children's commissioner has said with regard to the incorporation of children's rights, I don't think we should let this go. 

That legislation from 2011—the Measure from 2011—is largely meaningless if people can't directly influence the commissioning of services in this way. What was the point of that legislation? 

Just to reference what Leanne has said there, I think the legislation or the Measure about children's rights has been largely meaningless in lots of ways. It reminds me of the future generations legislation. In so many areas, children or people under 16 just don't have a voice and they're not listened to. 

Yes, that happens with the implementation of a lot of the legislation. Mike, do you have a comment before we— 

So, the committee could write back to the Welsh Government and ask for a response to the latest evidence received, in particular the commissioner's call for new duties to be placed on public bodies to ensure that they are required to follow the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, including to engage with young people in decision making and commissioning. Do you think that's strong enough or—? 

Why do we need new duties to be places on public bodies to ensure that they are following the requirements of law that we've already passed? Surely, those requirements should already be in place. Why are they not?

They are, it's whether the implementation is taking place, and all we can do is bring this to the Government's notice—that we believe that they're not, and as indeed the commissioner believes that they're not being implemented in the way that they should be. 

—we need to actually get the Welsh Government, and the Minister in particular, to prove to us that it's happening. I don't think they'll be able to. 

I'm not sure new duties are going to deliver, because they'll just ignore the new duties like they're ignoring the current duties. 

Yes, I agree. But that's the whole idea though of getting the Minister to tell us why this is not happening, why they're not being implemented, isn't it? And to come back to us and tell us where she feels they're falling down and why it's happening, and perhaps what interventions she will be making to make sure that they are implemented.  

Yes, and I think we need to go back on this point about who's responsible for commissioning services, and whether or not this falls within the 2011 Measure.  

I can't understand why it doesn't, to be quite honest with you, but obviously not.  

I think there might be a couple of different things going on here. So, the 2011 Measure applies directly to Welsh Ministers to have due regard to the UN convention for the rights of children. Commissioning of health services was passed as a statutory responsibility to local health boards,  prior to that Measure, in 2009. So, whilst Ministers oversee the health service overall, local health boards have statutory responsibility for commissioning of services within their areas. Therefore, when the Measure here was passed in 2011, the way it was written meant it couldn't apply to— 

But then who are health boards responsible to and accountable to? Surely, it's the Minister who appoints them. 

It's the Minister, ultimately, but the Measure applies to Welsh ministerial decision making around delivery of services. 

And doesn't include decisions that have been deferred to others then, does it?

Presumably not, no. 

Could we ask that the Measure be made compulsory for all the bodies funded by the Welsh Government? That would solve the problem of making sure that everybody picks it up. 

It's worth noting as well that the legal note available to Members does say 'since then'. So, a couple of examples of legislation—the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018—are examples of where the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child do have to be taken into account by public bodies, but only within the remit of those pieces of legislation. So, it is possible to do that under the Assembly's law-making powers. It hasn't been done in that wide sense.

10:10

Can I ask a question then about a different area of policy? Say there was an issue in education where children and young people wanted to have an influence in the decisions that were being taken by a Minister, say on school uniform policy—would that be something that falls within the Act? Because the Minister's making a direct decision, even though it's implemented by the local education authority, potentially?

I wouldn't be able to give you a strict legal opinion on that. I'm sure—

I could provide a note as to whether it's the same basis as this or whether it's different for education. We'd have to come back to you with a note on whether that's different.

I don't know if we need to pass laws on all these things. A ministerial letter out to all public bodies, from the appropriate Minister, saying that it is the Minister's expectation that this would be taken into account is all that's needed. I know we're talking about legislation all the time, and some people think we're obsessed by it, but remember comprehensive education came in following a Department of Education and Science circular.

And I think some of the points made by the children's commissioner in her correspondence are that there is good practice out there, there's guidance out there that leads that, and she and her office are working directly with a number of public bodies on how this should be implemented. But there is no duty or statutory requirement within commissioning services, so, whilst there might be pockets of good practice, it's not necessarily shared. 

I think that's why she feels that it should be put on a statutory basis.

Okay. So, possible actions: the committee could write back to the Welsh Government and ask for a response to the latest evidence received, in particular, the commissioner’s call for new duties to be placed on public bodies to ensure that they are required to follow the requirements of the UNCRC, including to engage with young people in decision making and commissioning. Do we feel that that goes far enough, or do you want to add anything?

Just one final question. Couldn't that be done then without changing the legislation, as Mike said about issuing guidance? You don't have to change the initial legislation so that it doesn't just apply to Ministers—that it does apply to all public bodies as well. 

I don't know. I think we'd need to look into the powers.

We could look into whether guidance could be issued that authorities, when issuing it, had to take into consideration as well. We could look into whether they could do that.

[Inaudible.]—which is a legal thing, you could be 'expected to', which means you don't have to pass legislation to do it, but because they're expected to, in any appeal, et cetera, the fact that they haven't done the 'expected to' could be used against them.

Right, okay, I see what you're saying. We could look, yes.

So, should we add Mike's comments that we ask every Minister to write out to the public bodies?

Fine. Okay.

Okay, we move on to the next petition, which is 'We call for all premises in Wales to be awarded an Access Certificate number similar to the Food Hygiene Certificate'. The petition was submitted by Bridgend Coalition of Disabled People and was first considered in April 2018, having collected a total of 3,040 signatures.

The background is that on 9 October the committee took oral evidence from the petitioners and agreed to write to the Leader of the House and Chief Whip to provide information about the issues heard during the evidence session. The leader of the house indicated that she supported the principles behind the proposal and that officials would consider how to consult and engage with disabled people, including the petitioners, over how such a scheme could be taken forward. She also pledged to consider whether funding could be made available for the pilot.

I think that's encouraging and I think we probably need to establish that that offer still stands. 

I think it's such a good idea, really. It would be great if we could see this.

Absolutely. You know, we're not talking about—. Sometimes, we know that Welsh Government won't implement something because of costs and complications. We're doing it for food safety, why can we not do it for, you know—? And if you look at my own constituency of Aberconwy, and the numbers of people disabled there—this would make such a difference to their lives, and the evidence we took was fantastic.

10:15

Yes, I agree. I agree entirely. Going back to the evidence, they don't want numbers from nought to five; they want it to be specific, and I think that's where the difficulty comes in. I'm very, very supportive of doing this. Take hearing loss for example. I declare an interest as my sister is profoundly deaf. But, for hearing loss, you would have to have indication of a loop system and also that sign language is available, for example. That's just to deal with one—. I think it's a really good idea. I think we need to work out what can be achieved. Wheelchair access is easy, though, in itself, I go to a pub that would pass when you went there at 11 o'clock or 10 o'clock when it was opening, and wouldn't pass at 11 or 10 o'clock at night when people have moved all the chairs around, so the way you would have the wheelchair access coming through is now blocked by chairs. I think that is something—. I don't think any of this is not achievable. I think we really do need to keep on pushing on this, but if it was just nought to five, it would be very simple, but it needs to be done for each disability, and I think that's where the difficulty comes in, and I think that is something we need to push the Government on. A pilot, I think, is an excellent idea, to see what can and can't be achieved, and to ensure it's available at all times. Because, you might say, for example, you've got sign language facilities, but that might be just one person working there, and that person might not be working there at that time. So, I think that it's more complicated than the food, which is nought to five and you get tick boxes for different things, but I think we need to push for a pilot, and we need then to have a response from that pilot. So, I think we should keep the petition open until we've had a response from the pilot, see what they say, what worked and what didn't, but it's not as simple as nought to five, unfortunately.

No, I think, Leanne, the petitioner's actually moved away from the possibility of marking each premises one to five or something. I think they've gone on to the idea that you actually put up a sign on there that indicates what you comply with, on a sign on the door. But also, they mentioned the fact of getting this out onto social media, so that someone could look on social media and then immediately see what access is available at any particular premises before they actually turn up. Because the problem is, if you turn up at a premises just to look at the sign on the door and find out it excludes you, they were saying that that's a particular problem that they might have. So, it's essential the Welsh Government helps them get that out on social media as well, in a format that people can access.

Isn't there a precedent for this in the tourism industry, where various establishments are graded on their accessibility, because people wouldn't be able to book holidays otherwise, would they?

No, no, absolutely. I think it's out there, if you ask for it, but this is actually for every premises to have this and to have it visibly displayed outside, and also wherever they are advertising on whatever media they use—that it's indicated on there, and it's a symbol that everybody understands. I think that's—.

My comments before—. There will be a cost to business, but there will be a benefit to business as well, because people will then know they can get a taxi and they can frequent certain businesses. I might raise this at the small shops and convenience stores group, which I chair.

There can't be anything worse than a disabled person turning up with friends to a particular restaurant, or whatever it is, to a facility, and finding out that they are excluded from going in.

So, the committee could write to the Welsh Government to welcome the consideration of actions referred to by the previous Minister and request an update on the timescales for further consideration of work in this area. In fact, we want to be quite strong with that, I think, Graeme, in making sure that they are interacting now, and how far the consultation has gone—how far down the line the consultation with the petitioners has gone.

And we also want to see what happens with the pilot. I think we'd like to have a report back on what happens with the pilot, from both the petitioners and the Minister.

10:20

Okay. Fine.

The next petition is 'More third party rights in planning appeals'. The petition was submitted by Emma Eynon and was first considered in October 2018, having collected 59 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 23 October and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to ask her to respond to the detailed concerns of the petitioners. 

I think we should receive more information from the petitioner in terms of the legal reasoning. 

I mean, this is a big issue. You can have—. We're waiting for one at the moment in Aberconwy where the democratic processes have been completely undermined by the fact there's a local planning—. There was a hearing last September; the ministerial deadline has been missed for the determination. So, you've got a lot of members of the public who—. You know, I get it all the time from where someone's appealed to a planning objective, and they've got fundamental rights for appealing and objecting, but there is no appeal process. The developers have—. You know, those who want to, and retrospective applications put through with no appeal process for those that they impact on—. I think this is a big, big issue. 

So, how do we get the further information from the petitioner? Should we invite the petitioner to give us evidence or would we have it by written documentation?

I think we should have evidence in documentation first and we can decide if we want to take it further. Can I just, again, express my own personal view? I don't think there's a role for planning appeals. The planning committee should come to a decision. If anybody wants to appeal, they can go to judicial review. This idea of giving the applicant a second opportunity, I think, is fundamentally wrong. 

—with regard to writing to the Minister, we'll delay that as well until we've had further information. Are you happy with that?

Well, thank you very much for attending. Just to inform you that there is a petition handover today, 'Make political education a compulsory element', which is something we've discussed. There is a petition at 12:30 today—a handover. Okay. Fine. Thank you. The next committee meeting will be held on 12 February and will include an evidence session on 'Save our hospital at Prince Philip, Llanelli'. That should be interesting. Thank you very much. 

Daeth y cyfarfod i ben am 10:22.

The meeting ended at 10:22.