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 09:18.
The meeting began at 09:18.
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
[1]
David J. Rowlands: Okay. Well, welcome everyone to the
meeting. I’ll just remind you that you’re able to speak
in Welsh or English and headsets are available for translation.
There’s no need to turn off your mobile phones but they
should be put on silent. The first item on the agenda is apologies
and substitutions. No apologies have been received.
|
Deisebau Newydd
New Petitions
|
[2]
David J. Rowlands: We’ll move straight on to the
petitions. The first petition, which is a new petition, is to
‘Reconsider the closure of the Welsh Independent Living Grant
and support disabled people to live independently’. This
petition was submitted by Nathan Lee Davies, having collected 631
signatures. The background is that the first-consideration letter
was sent to the Minister for Social Services and Public Health on
31 July, and the Minister’s response was received on 21
August. There are a number of points for discussion. The Minister
has stated that providing all social care services through local
authorities will be fairer, particularly given that the independent
living fund has been closed to new entrants since 2010, and help to
ensure that all disabled people receive social care services in the
same way. She states that the stakeholder advisory group, which the
Minister has consulted over decisions around the former ILF, on
balance, favoured the option of future support being provided by
local authorities as part of their social care provision. The
Government has put transitional arrangements into place to enable
ILF recipients to agree support plans with their local authorities
prior to the closure of the fund in 2019. The petitioner has
disputed the assertion that the stakeholder group favoured the
option chosen by the Minister, and has called for the results of
the public consultation and the stakeholder group minutes to be
published. He has also requested a copy of the equality impact
assessment carried out. So, do you have any comments you’d
like to make?
|
[3]
Janet Finch-Saunders: I think we should be tough with the
Government on this, simply because this is probably the most
vulnerable group of members in our society. It’s alright
saying, ‘One size fits all.’ It doesn’t. I know
in my own local authority we’re already massively overspent
on budget and I honestly believe if this goes, these people will
lose out.
|
[4]
David J. Rowlands: I think one of the concerns—
|
[5]
Janet Finch-Saunders: I think the numbers that represented
as well, when they came to the Senedd, you know—. I think
that this would cause a lot of hardship, a lot of demoralisation. I
appreciate the fact that they say there have been no new
recipients. I’m concerned about those people who’ve
received it and it’s really like taking the carpet from under
them. Once we go onto a ‘one size fits all’, sort of
within a general budget, I’m afraid people like that do get
left behind.
|
[6]
David J. Rowlands: I think that’s one of his concerns,
that it’s not going to be ring-fenced, the money that’s
going to the local authorities. Mike, do you have any comments?
|
[7]
Mike Hedges: I’ve got two quick comments. One is that
if you believe in austerity and you’re going to keep on
taking money out of budgets, then you can’t say, ‘You
mustn’t touch these, you mustn’t touch these, you
mustn’t touch these.’ The second point, which is
perhaps much more important, is: shall we wait and see what happens
in the budget this afternoon?
|
[8]
Janet Finch-Saunders: The second point I agree with. We
would look at that.
|
[9]
Mike Hedges: Let’s see what happens in the budget this
afternoon. Can we make some provisions? If it’s dealt with in
the budget this afternoon, then we will send those results on to
the petitioner. If it isn’t dealt with in the budget in the
afternoon, we carry out the actions outlined here.
|
[10]
David J. Rowlands: Okay. The possible actions we’re
looking at, actually, are to write to the Minister for Social
Services and Public Health to share the concerns of the petitioner
and ask whether she will publish the results of the public
consultation and the minutes of the stakeholder group, as requested
by this. Now, I don’t see any reason why she shouldn’t
respond to that and publish those minutes.
|
[11]
Janet Finch-Saunders: On Mike’s second point, I
suppose what you’re saying, Mike, is that you would like to
see—. Obviously, they could increase the budget for social
services, it doesn’t necessarily mean that these
individuals—. It’s about this ring fencing, it’s
keeping that net there. When we talk about safety nets, they should
be for the most vulnerable in our society. So, for me, I want to do
all I can to fight to keep that safety net there for them.
|
[12]
David J. Rowlands: He also makes a comment, Mike, that this
has happened in England and that they are disadvantaged since that
has happened in England, so unless there are specific matters put
in place by the Welsh Government to cover that—
|
[13]
Mike Hedges: There may be specific action. I don’t
know; I haven’t seen what the Welsh Government are bringing
in. There may well be something on the independent living grant.
There are things that are talking about next year’s budget
when we’ve got to deal with it this afternoon. I think we
need to have the two contingencies: one if it’s dealt with
and one if it isn’t. That’s for this or any other
requests for money in next year’s budget. It’s
unfortunate we’re dealing with it this morning, not this
afternoon.
|
[14]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Well, if we write to the Minister,
that gives us time. We’re not closing it; there are still
other avenues we can go down.
|
[15]
David J. Rowlands: But do we write to the Minister on each
of these points?
|
[16]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
[17]
Mike Hedges: I’m happy with that.
|
[18]
David J. Rowlands: You’re happy to do that. Right. So,
the action is as put down here. The next petition is ‘Don't
Fill Landfill!’ This was submitted by Claire Perrin, having
collected 172 signatures. This, of course, is to do with the amount
of waste that is put into—inappropriate items going into
landfill and to try to militate against that. I think that
she’s more or less suggested that on each of the bins, if
there are bins collected, there should be a notice on that bin
telling them that anything that goes into it automatically goes
into landfill.
|
[19]
The Cabinet Secretary has welcomed the ethos of the petition, and
has described recent progress made in reducing the volume of the
waste sent to landfill. In her note, she’s been very specific
about the quantities of landfill, et cetera, and increasing
recycling rates and incineration. She outlines a behaviour change
initiative currently being planned and intended to launch in 2018.
In the Cabinet Secretary’s view, stickers on bins may play a
role in such a campaign, but will only be one aspect of the
solution.
|
[20]
So, possible actions are to await the view of the petitioners on
the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural
Affairs before deciding on future action to take in relation to the
petition. Are we agreed on that?
|
[21]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
[22]
David J. Rowlands: Fine, agreed. The next petition is
‘Pass Wide and Slow Wales’. The petition was submitted
by Jocelle Lovell, having collected 1,755 signatures. This is with
regard to the safety of horses and, of course, cars passing,
particularly in the country lanes, where the petitioner has pointed
out that there’s been a large increase in traffic. In all
fairness, the first-consideration letter was sent to the Cabinet
Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, and a response was
received on 3 September. I think it’s true to say that
he’s answered a lot of the questions raised and has pointed
out that there are campaigns already in place, which are national
campaigns—UK campaigns—such as the ‘Dead? Or Dead
Slow?’ campaign, and that he feels that money is best spent
if they follow those campaigns, which are national, and try to
promote those.
|
[23]
Janet Finch-Saunders: We want—we need—here in
Wales our own model. I support the UK-wide initiative, but, quite
often, when any measures need to be implemented, it’s usually
the Welsh—because it’s devolved. But, I know of
people—. This isn’t just about horses; this is about
the fact that I know people who have been very badly hurt,
I’ve seen horses killed and I really think we have got a
problem. Certainly, in my own constituency, a lot of the roads are
what they call deregistered, so you can drive on a really quiet
country lane at 60 mph. I’ve written in about certain roads,
and they will take action on certain strips of road, but this is
about building up awareness. I grew up being able to horse-ride
quite safely on roads. It is a pastime. When we feed it into health
and well-being, it is like any other sport, really; it keeps people
healthy.
|
[24]
Horses were on the road long before cars. As far as I’m
concerned, I do think that people have forgotten. We tend to think
that there’s only pedestrians, cars and cyclists, and people
do forget about horses. A horse isn’t like a bicycle, which
is always under the control of the owner. Horses can get scared,
and some of these high-rev engines, with big engines and
things—. I’ve seen it so many times. I know, I’m
educated to know that if you’re driving past somebody on a
horse—maybe one, usually they’ll go out in pairs, or
maybe there’ll be three—they always keep to the side,
but the number of times that drivers won’t just overtake,
they’ll rev up.
|
[25]
I think there needs to be an awareness, somehow, that they are an
integral part of our highway. You don’t really see much in
the highway code or when you’re learning to drive, because
both my youngsters have learned to drive and have passed their
tests in recent years. In terms of appreciating that it might not
just be a bicycle, another car or a pedestrian, a horse does fall
into a category where they are using the road, certainly in our
more rural parts, so I think we should be supporting our rural
communities and taking this a little bit further.
|
[26]
David J. Rowlands: Okay. I should declare an interest, in
that my daughter is very much a horse rider herself.
|
[27]
Janet Finch-Saunders: I think there’s someone in any
family.
|
[28]
David J. Rowlands: Mike, do you have any comments on
that?
|
[29]
Mike Hedges: Pardon?
|
09:30
|
[30]
David J. Rowlands: Do you have any comments?
|
[31]
Mike Hedges: I think that the advantage of a British
campaign is it’ll get everybody, because an awful lot of
people, especially in the north, north-east and south-east of
Wales, tend to look for their tv media to England rather than
Wales. But, why don’t we just write to the Cabinet Secretary
to ask if he will consider additional support and—?
|
[32]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Awareness—education in schools,
leaflets, whatever.
|
[33]
Mike Hedges: Something we, as a committee, have always done
is we’ve always gone to the body that represents
horses—so, I think that’s the British Horse Society in
this case—and ask them their views.
|
[34]
David J. Rowlands: Right, fine.
|
[35]
Mike Hedges: And I would hope we would continue to do that:
go and ask for independent views from the people who are the
representatives. I don’t know much about horses on roads. I
don’t travel on roads where there are very many of them, but
I think that it would be helpful if we could find out what the
British Horse Society thinks.
|
[36]
David J. Rowlands: Okay, so the possible actions are to
write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to
ask if he will consider whether additional support should be given
to the British Horse Society’s ‘Dead? Or Dead
Slow?’ campaign, and write to the British Horse Society to
ask for their views. Are we happy with that?
|
[37]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes. If I may come back, Chairman, I
know that, again, in recent years, you would see signs that warned
you, if you were on a quiet road, that there were horses around,
and they seem to have just disappeared over the years. So, then,
when you write to the council and ask for one, they don’t see
it as a priority. So, if there was some kind of guidance from here,
it might just help. If it saves one life, it’s worth it.
|
[38]
David J. Rowlands: So, if we do that as the possible
actions, we do that in the first instance, and once we’ve got
the replies back we can take the matter further. Are we happy with
that? Fine, okay.
|
[39]
The next petition, which is another new petition, is ‘To
recognize the three hundredth anniversary of Williams
Pantycelyn’. This was submitted by Aled Gwyn Job, having
collected 1,114 votes. It’s a very interesting petition, and
he gives the full background as to why we ought to be celebrating
this particular person, and he’s—. I think that
it’s true to say that we should consider, as the—. I
think it’s true to say that the Cabinet Secretary has more or
less said that these matters are governed by the Arts Council of
Wales, and it’s up to them to submit funding requests if they
feel it’s appropriate. So, I think the possible action in
this first instance is to write to the Arts Council of Wales to ask
whether any events or activities have been held during 2017 to
commemorate the three hundredth anniversary of the birth of William
Williams; if not, what consideration was given to marking this
milestone during the year; and for their views on the proposals
made by the petitioner. Are we agreed on that, or—?
|
[40]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
[41]
David J. Rowlands: Yes. Fine. So, those are the actions
we’ll take.
|
[42]
The next petition is a new petition, but I think it’s a
matter that’s been ongoing for some time, to ‘Protect
the Razor Clams on Llanfairfechan Beach’. This was submitted
by Vanessa L. Dye, having collected 459 signatures. There’s
quite a background to this with regard to clam collection on
Llanfairfechan, and the fact that it appears that, particularly in
latter years, there’s been a huge proliferation in the
numbers of clams that are being collected, and it’s thought
that this may also be the result of commercial, rather than
private, collections.
|
[43]
So, that’s basically the background and, of course, the Welsh
Government does have power in this with the 12-mile limit. It does
come under their remit, and we sent a letter to the Cabinet
Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs on 17 August, and a
reply was received on 29 August. The points for discussion are that
due to concerns raised about razor clam stocks at Llanfairfechan,
the Welsh Government temporarily closed the fishery between August
2017 and 1 January 2018. The Cabinet Secretary has informed the
committee that she will then consider whether the fishery should
reopen or if any additional restrictions are required. The
petitioner has provided background information and a press
clipping, which outlines the issue and indicates that harvesting
may have continued since the fishery was closed. The petition calls
for research into the health of the fishery, the introduction of a
closed season and additional regulations including quotas. Now, I
think the truth of the matter is that although it’s
technically been closed, it appears that clam harvesting is still
going on, so it seems to be a matter of whether it can be policed
in an appropriate way. That’s what seems to be apt.
|
[44]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
It’s my constituency and it’s
an issue that’s been going on now. It’s after every
spring tide and the last four years have been horrendous for the
residents, actually, because they get an influx—early hours,
with torches. One hundred and fifty people come from out of the
area and they don’t just take small amounts; they have
trolleys. There have been issues about anti-social behaviour in
terms of some of the behaviours of the people taking them, but,
more importantly, we’re concerned about those beds.
We’re pretty lucky in Llanfairfechan to have a bed of this
size, but they’re taking them through the spawning season.
I’ve had public meetings on this, and there’s this grey
area between what people consider to be ‘for human
consumption’ or not. There have even been concerns whether
there was trafficking going on in the area, given the nature or
some of the ages of some of the children.
|
[45]
The whole thing is something that
definitely needs to be addressed by this Welsh Government because
the local authority say they’re powerless. We have had all
the agencies around a table. They were all saying, ‘Something
needs to be done’. I’ve written to the Cabinet
Secretary. I’m thrilled that the beds have been closed for
now, but, as you say, closing beds is only as good as the
enforcement, and when such large numbers come on, it is really
difficult. So, we are looking for tougher legislation because, in
terms of sustainability, we want those beds to be sustainable for
generations to come, and at the moment they are overharvesting
these beds as far as the—. You know, we have fishermen who
quite often are there, and they give their evidence, and—. We
need to see more protections in place for those beds.
|
[46]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes. I think that each person is allowed
to collect 5 kg, but if you’re talking about hundreds of
people being on the beach—
|
[47]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Oh, absolutely. They’re taking
thousands of kilos.
|
[48]
David J.
Rowlands:—then the
numbers are huge. A possible action is to write to the
Cabinet—. Did you have anything to say on that, Mike, at
all—I’m sorry?
|
[49]
Mike Hedges: I think that what we’ve got to do it make sure
that if we’ve closed it, it’s enforced.
|
[50]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
But we want more than that. We want some
studies on the beds so that we can determine whether—. The
size of them now, there’s a minimum—
|
[51]
David J. Rowlands:
Ten centimetres.
|
[52]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes, and they’re going on there
indiscriminately and just taking anything, and there are concerns
now, as with anything, that the future sustainability of those beds
is at considerable risk. So, I’ve written personally and
asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake some research work.
We’ve got Bangor University a few miles down the road, and
I’m sure that—. It’s one of the finest marine
biology universities in the country. I’m sure that a piece of
work could be undertaken there, at relatively little cost, that
would inform marine fisheries agencies about how severe this
problem really is.
|
[53]
David J. Rowlands:
Okay. The action that we are asked to
take is to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Environment
and Rural Affairs to ask that she provides an update to the
committee when the survey has been completed, and details of any
further actions she intends to take to protect razor clam stocks.
Are we happy with that? When it comes back to us, we’ll see
the response that she has and deal with it.
|
[54]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes, thank you.
|
[55]
David J. Rowlands:
I agree with you. It seems to be a very,
very important matter.
|
[56]
Mike Hedges: Can we also ask what she knows about the allegation
that harvesting has continued since the fishery was
closed?
|
[57]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes. Fine, yes. I agree, Mike.
|
[58]
Mike Hedges: Has it or hasn’t it? If it has, what action has
been taken?
|
[59]
David J. Rowlands:
Right, absolutely.
|
09:39
|
Y Wybodaeth Ddiweddaraf am Ddeisebau Blaenorol
Updates to Previous Petitions
|
[60]
David J. Rowlands:
Now, we have two previous petitions here,
and we agreed at the last committee meeting that we would group two
of these petitions together. The two petitions are
‘Remove the Obligation on Schools to Hold Acts of
Religious Worship’, and that was submitted by Rhiannon
Shipton and Lily McAllister-Sutton. It was first considered on 27
June having collected 1,333 signatures. Then the second one, which
seems to oppose that particular petition is ‘Keeping Current
Guidelines for Religious Assemblies’. It was submitted by
Iraj Irfan, having collected a total of 2,231 signatures, and it
was first considered on 27 June. There’s quite some extensive
reading that we’ve had with regard to these. The current
situation is that there was an Act that was brought in, I think, in
1940, which covered this matter. It’s been challenged in many
ways ever since, and I think that the gist of the petition that
wants that reviewed is that it’s no longer truly applicable
in this day and age and it’s not being administered in a way
that they thought it might first be considered.
|
[61]
So, the Cabinet Secretary has noted that there are strong feelings
both for and against maintaining requirements for collective
worship. She has asked her officials to review this subject in
response to the question asked by the committee. She states that
this has raised a number of complex legal and policy issues that
require detailed consideration, and that she intends to provide a
more substantive response later in the autumn. I think this is with
regard to human rights issues that oppose the issues of having
religion in the schools in this way. The committee’s also
received correspondence from Dr Alison Mawhinney from Bangor
University and a report of an evaluation of law and policy on
collective worship and religious observers in schools. This has
been provided to Members separately. Would any of the committee
like to make any comments on that?
|
[62]
Mike Hedges: We have to wait for the Cabinet Secretary for
Education to respond to us.
|
[63]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
[64]
David J Rowlands: Yes. Are you happy? Fine. So that’s
what we’ll do: we’ll await an update from the Cabinet
Secretary for Education following her consideration of the issues
raised by the petitions.
|
[65]
The next petition is ‘Child and Adolescent Eating Disorder
Service’. This petition was submitted by Helen Missen and was
first considered in July 2012, having collected 246 signatures. The
committee last considered the petition on 11 July, when they
considered correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health,
Well-being and Sport and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary
asking him for more detailed information on how the Welsh
Government intends to improve the provision for child and
adolescent eating disorders. The Cabinet Secretary has outlined the
funding provided for children’s mental health services,
including additional funding of £8 million on an annual
basis. This has included money to expand crisis teams. He has also
stated that child and adolescent mental health services see the
treatment of eating disorders as part of their core business, and
the Welsh Government has invested in additional staff and expansion
of services. He has provided figures for the number of admissions
for under-18s, which comes to 98, but not for the overall number of
children and adults diagnosed. The petitioner has repeated her call
for increased funding for child and adolescent eating disorders,
specifically targeted at early intervention. She has provided
examples of two services being delivered and called for these to be
extended and rolled out across Wales.
|
[66]
Janet Finch-Saunders: And never before have I disagreed more
with a letter from a Cabinet Secretary. I mean, just now, I’m
highlighting it here—let me just give you a quote:
|
[67]
‘As with all other services, it is the responsibility of
health boards to provide health services to meet the needs of their
population according to their clinical need. The vast majority of
people with eating disorders who require inpatient care would be
treated locally within child and adolescent or adult mental health
services.’
|
[68]
He then goes on to mention CAMHS. We haven’t got a
specialist. I know there’s talk now—and I think they
are—of putting some provision near me in the next
constituency in Abergele, but I’ve got constituents’
families who have ended up in
Stafford and in other parts of Wales, and it’s been very, very difficult, traumatic
and actually quite disgraceful, in their ability to be able to
get—. When the problem becomes highlighted, you need to get
in there fast. The pressure on young women and young men now, of
school age, is immense. The pressures are going to be facing us,
actually, as a Government and as an Assembly, and I do think
we’re not doing enough. A million pounds—it’s not
a case of just chucking money at it. We need a strategic review on
how we’re dealing, in Wales, with—. As I say, as yet, I
have yet to see a constituent of mine be able to access the
treatment that they require here locally. CAMHS—it’s a
nightmare. Every single Assembly Member that I know who’s
ever spoken about CAMHS knows the difficulties in access, and so,
for me, we’ve got this huge gap in the net and young people
are falling through it. You’ve got to get in early because
this is a condition that can—well, it can lead to death. The
impact it has on families and other siblings in the
family—it’s horrendous. I’ve witnessed it.
I’ve seen it with constituents.
|
09:45
|
[69]
David J. Rowlands:
Are you talking about mental health
provision in general, or are you talking about this
specific—?
|
[70]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
This particular illness—it’s
a disease, it’s an illness—is like no other, because
obviously it’s self-inflicted. It’s a self-harm
mechanism, and it is definitely, definitely—. The numbers: if
you look at the numbers, it’s scary. It is really
scary.
|
[71]
David J. Rowlands:
Okay. So the possible actions that
we’re considering are—. Mike, do you have anything to
say on that? I’m sorry.
|
[72]
Mike Hedges: I think I’m unable to say anything at the
moment; my voice is going. I think that we just need to see what we
can do. I think we can just write to the Cabinet Secretary and
continue this movement back and fore until we make some progress.
So, I suggest we write to the Cabinet Secretary raising the
problems that the petitioner has raised and talk about increasing
the capacity of specialised eating disorder CAMHS and making sure
that the regional specialist eating disorder team currently
operating in north Wales works in other parts of Wales, so that we
have consistency.
|
[73]
David J. Rowlands:
And await his response on that and see
where we take it. Is that right?
|
[74]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I want to see the Cabinet member involve
himself more with this particular issue. I mean, he
quotes:
|
[75]
‘our Together for Mental Health
Delivery Plan 2016-19 includes a commitment to consider the need to
review the Eating Disorders Framework’.
|
[76]
Then it says,
|
[77]
‘the NICE guidance was
published’
|
[78]
—this year, and,
|
[79]
‘we will consider the need now to
review the Framework’.
|
[80]
It says he’s given £0.5
million, but what we are—. It came up last week, about the
lack of data. It’s all right throwing money at something. I
want the Cabinet Secretary to get himself more involved in this
particular issue.
|
[81]
David J. Rowlands: What we
could do, if we write to the Cabinet Secretary and wait for his
reply—
|
[82]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I think we need to challenge some of the
points he’s made.
|
[83]
David J.
Rowlands:—and we can
always consider the act of calling the Cabinet Secretary in to give
evidence.
|
[84]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Definitely, or even some others—the
people over in England, on some of their models of how they support
people.
|
[85]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine, okay. So, we’ll write to the
Cabinet Secretary for health to ask whether any consideration has
been given to extending the services highlighted by the petitioner,
namely increasing the capacity of the specialised eating disorder
and CAMHS service, which was established using previous Welsh
Government funding to train clinicians across Wales, and replacing
the regional specialist eating disorder team, SPEED, currently
operating in north Wales in other parts of the Welsh
NHS—‘replicating’, sorry, not
‘replacing’.
|
[86]
Right. The next petition deals again with
an eating disorder unit in Wales. It was submitted by Keira Marlow
and was first considered by the committee in October 2013, having
collected 526 signatures. The committee last considered the
petition on 27 June and agreed to await the views of the petitioner
on the information provided by the Cabinet Secretary for Health,
Well-being and Sport before deciding whether to take further action
on this petition. The committee considered the correspondence from
the Cabinet Secretary in June. This stated that a review of
in-patient eating was undertaken in 2015 and concluded there was no
strong case for dedicated eating disorder provision at this time.
He stated that in-patient general mental health services for
children and young people have significant experience of treating
patients with eating disorders. On the wider issue, increased
funding was allocated to eating disorder services in the
2017-18 budget, and the eating disorders framework is being
reviewed in response to recently updated NICE guidelines. The
petitioner has noted the additional funding that’s being
provided and the support available through child and adolescent
mental health services, but stated her belief that an adult
in-patient hospital is needed. So, we have the possible actions.
Did you have any comments to make with regard to that?
|
[87]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes. Much like what I’ve just
said, but I know Bethan Jenkins has done a lot of work as a
colleague here in the Assembly. We’re a devolved nation. Why
is it that it’s fine to send children or middle-aged
people—? We should have our own eating disorder unit in
Wales, and I think that’s very conclusive, really. Again, it
ties in very much with the other. If we’re ever going to make
any difference as a Government or as an Assembly, we’ve got
to listen to these people, and I do find some of the comments in
the response—it’s almost like they’re
desensitised to what’s actually happening. And I think,
again, the Cabinet Secretary—it’s on his watch and
we’re not moving forward. It is hard to access support
for—. And the petitioner makes a valid comment on this one,
Chairman, about the fact that if you relapse it’s really
difficult to get back in that system. We’re talking about
people not eating. It’s one of the primary functions that we
need to stay alive, so with each day that passes, there’s
every chance of people themselves—. You know, we need to be
doing more. If Bethan was here, she’d be—.
|
[88]
We have this committee and it’s a vehicle, it’s a
mechanism with which we can hold Cabinet Secretaries to account,
and we can say to the Welsh Government, ‘Look, there’s
strength of feeling here, it’s not just AMs jumping up and
down and shouting about it; this is coming from the people
themselves.’ I love this committee, and I think to strengthen
its arm, we need to be a bit more robust in our actions, and that
we don’t accept, sometimes, some of the responses we get. And
I’m rejecting this response, on both counts, to do with
eating disorders.
|
[89]
David J. Rowlands: Fine. Mike, do you have anything to
add?
|
[90]
Mike Hedges: Well, ‘What can we do?’ I think is
the question. We’ve got three options, haven’t we? We
can note it and just end it. We can write again to the Cabinet
Secretary, or we can invite the Cabinet Secretary to come here and
answer questions. Those are the three options we’ve got and
we just need to decide which one of those we want to take.
|
[91]
David J. Rowlands: Would the other recommendations that we
had on the last petition cover the same sort of question—
|
[92]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Well, let’s ask the Cabinet
Secretary to come in.
|
[93]
David J. Rowlands: [Inaudible.]—and do we wait
then for the Cabinet Secretary’s response?
|
[94]
Mike Hedges: Well, as we’ve got quite a lot of people
we’re going to see in the near future anyway—and Graeme
will tell you how many we’ve got lined up—we’re
not going to be doing this any time soon, so we might as well get
some further written evidence before we actually see the Cabinet
Secretary. But I would guess that we’re probably timed up
until Christmas already, are we?
|
[95]
Mr Francis: Yes, in terms of sessions for the committee. One
of the things that I would add though is that, at the last meeting,
the committee agreed to look at some petitions around mental health
services and we’re inviting the petitioners in for that.
There may be a way, if we speak to the Cabinet Secretary on that
topic, of linking this issue into that as well.
|
[96]
Janet Finch-Saunders: As long as it doesn’t get lost
within that, because this is a particularly—
|
[97]
David J. Rowlands: And would that cover both of these
petitions that are in front of us at this moment?
|
[98]
Mr Francis: I think if the committee wanted it to, we could
look to—
|
[99]
Mike Hedges: I’d be loath to do that. I think
we’ve got specific things on specific items. I see the
advantage of trying to put everything together in terms of time
management, but if we think this is important enough, then we need
to deal with this as an individual item, rather than an add-on.
|
[100] David J.
Rowlands: Could we deal with the two of these petitions?
|
[101] Mike
Hedges: Yes, they are together.
|
[102] Janet
Finch-Saunders: I think the two do go together, and I think if
you came to take evidence, I think that you’d be surprised by
the quality of the evidence and information that you will get.
|
[103] Mr
Francis: So, would you like us to try and schedule something
with the Cabinet Secretary, or, in the first instance, given that
we’re probably looking at the new year to have a meeting slot
available for that, that we write and express the views that have
been expressed here today and ask for the Cabinet Secretary to
respond?
|
[104] Mike
Hedges: Yes. And if we’re not happy with those, then
we’ll ask him to come along in January.
|
[105] Janet
Finch-Saunders: We could champion a way forward here, with
having some in-patient proper facilities for an illness
that’s affecting so many people, so many families.
|
[106] David J.
Rowlands: Okay. The next petition is ‘Unconventional Oil
and Gas Planning Applications’, submitted by Councillor Arfon
Jones in September 2015 having collected 1,254 signatures. The
committee last considered the petition on 11 July, and agreed to
await further comments from the petitioner on the Cabinet
Secretary’s response, and write to the Cabinet Secretary for
Environment and Rural Affairs asking her to update the committee
once she has determined how the Welsh Government will approach the
handling of existing licences and future policy. A response was
received on 18 August. The petitioner has been informed that the
petition was being considered, but had not responded when papers
were finalised. The Cabinet Secretary has told the committee that
the Welsh Government is in the process of developing evidence to
inform the way forward. She stated that she would be in a position
to provide the committee with an update before Christmas. So, the
possible actions, unless if you have any particular comments on
that—. Mike, are you happy to await—?
|
[107] Mike
Hedges: Yes.
|
[108] David J.
Rowlands: We’ll await the update from the Cabinet
Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs before considering any
further actions on the petition.
|
[109] The next
petition is ‘Trees in Towns’, and was submitted by Coed
Cadw Woodland Trust, having collected 2,258 signatures. We wrote to
the Cabinet Secretary and she has stated that she is content that
there are already sufficient measures in place for local areas to
consider tree canopy cover. The Climate Change, Environment and
Rural Affairs Committee recently recommended that the Welsh
Government commit to 20 per cent urban tree canopy cover. The
Government rejected this recommendation. So, our possible actions,
unless you have any particular comments to make on that—
|
[110] Mike
Hedges: Before we move on to possible actions, has the
petitioner seen the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs
Committee report?
|
[111] Mr
Francis: Yes. I discussed it with them when—
|
[112] Mike
Hedges: Okay. Thank you.
|
[113] David J.
Rowlands: Okay. So, possible actions are to seek the views of
the petitioner on the recent response from the Cabinet Secretary
for Environment and Rural Affairs. Or, given the recent attention
of another Assembly committee, and the detailed information
previously provided by Natural Resources Wales about the support
available to local authorities to encourage them to increase tree
cover, the committee could close the petition at this point.
|
[114] Mike
Hedges: Seek the views of the petitioners first to see if
there’s anything further they think we can do.
|
[115] David J.
Rowlands: Are you happy with that, Janet?
|
[116] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
[117] David J.
Rowlands: Fine. The next petition is ‘End the Exotic Pet
Trade in Wales’. This was submitted by David Sedley, having
collected 222 signatures. The background: the committee last
considered the petition on 27 June, and agreed to await the views
of the petitioner on the information provided by the Cabinet
Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs before deciding what
further action to take on the petition. The petitioner has
submitted further comments, which are available in the public
papers. The points for discussion are: in previous correspondence,
the Cabinet Secretary stated that there are no current plans to
regulate the sale of exotic pets. She stated that further meetings
are planned with the RSPCA over their campaign to ban the practice
of keeping primates and other exotic species as pets, or updated
animal welfare codes of practice. The petitioner has provided
further justification for his call to ban the sale of exotic pets,
and argued that a ban in Wales would enable the Welsh Government to
help protect human health and contribute to the fight against
species decline.
|
[118] So, the possible
actions are that the committee could write to the RSPCA to obtain
their views on the issues raised, and on any progress made through
their meetings with the Welsh Government.
|
[119] Mike
Hedges: That continues our policy of going out to the
overarching body.
|
[120] Janet
Finch-Saunders: I don’t know whether to declare an
interest because I’m the owner of a very exotic macaw.
He’s 24 years old and I’ve had him since he was a baby,
and anyone who owns a parrot or other birds like that—. He
was home-bred in Wales, but he’s still considered as an
exotic. I would hope—. Don’t get me wrong,
there’s a big difference between a macaw, or a
parrot—and then we are talking about some of the exotic
reptiles that have to travel. Anything brought in from
abroad—
|
10:00
|
[121] David J.
Rowlands: This would also cover fish, which is a very difficult
area once you start talking about exotic pets.
|
[122] Janet
Finch-Saunders: I know. I think we should write to the RSPCA.
There are some mechanisms that we could do to help to protect
species that are actually going to be extinct before we know it.
So, I’m all supportive of that.
|
[123] David J.
Rowlands: Fine. Okay. The next petition is ‘Strengthen
the Legislative Regulatory Framework Surrounding Waste Wood
Processing Facilities’. The committee last considered the
petition on 11 July, and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary
for Environment and Rural Affairs, seeking her views. We had a
response from the Cabinet Secretary on 14 August. The points for
discussion raised by the Cabinet Secretary’s response: the
Cabinet Secretary responded to the committee’s previous
letter to state that the further comments raised by the petitioner
would be addressed to the chair of Natural Resources Wales, given
their technical nature. Again, I think this is referring back to
the authority on this, as Mike said earlier, to the chair of
Natural Resources Wales. The possible action then is to write to
Natural Resources Wales to seek their response to the issues raised
in the petitioner’s previous correspondence. Are we in
agreement with that?
|
[124] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
[125] David J.
Rowlands: The next petition is ‘Live Music Protection in
Wales’. The petition was submitted by Richard Vaughan, having
collected 5,383 signatures. The committee considered the petition
on 23 May and agreed to request a debate on the petition. The
debate was held on 12 July. I think that it’s true to say
that the Welsh Government has taken on these matters and is putting
it into legislation. So, the possible action is to close the
petition, given the Plenary debate held in July, and note the
positive response to the petition from the Welsh Government.
|
[126] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes, close.
|
[127] David J.
Rowlands: The next petition is ‘Reopen Cwmcarn Forest
Drive at Easter 2018’. It was submitted by the Friends of
Cwmcarn Forest Drive—1,450 signatures. The committee last
considered the petition on 11 July and wrote to Natural Resources
Wales to ask for more details of the time frame for the study into
commercial feasibility and management of the drive, and seeking
their views on the petitioner’s comments relating to funding
for other facilities for mountain bike users. Natural Resources
Wales’s response was received on 4 September. The petitioner
has also submitted further comments. This is quite an ongoing
petition. We have the points for discussion, which are quite
extensive: the forest drive was closed to enable the removal of
large numbers of infected larch trees to be felled and replaced in
spring 2014. Natural Resources Wales have confirmed that they are
working with Caerphilly council on a feasibility study into the
medium to long-term options, including the reinstatement of the
drive. However, they are currently unable to give a precise
commitment as to when the study will be commissioned. They have
offered to update the committee within two months. NRW’s
current focus is on replanting trees.
|
[128] Now, given the
fact that they are offering to update this committee within two
months, I think it may well be sensible that we write to Natural
Resources Wales to share the latest comments from the petitioner,
and ask them to inform the committee when they are in the position
to provide further information about the feasibility study into
reopening the drive.
|
[129] Janet
Finch-Saunders: There does seem to be some ambiguity,
doesn’t there, on what NRW are doing, and I share some of the
frustration by Mr Southall.
|
[130] David J.
Rowlands: I agree with you, but given that they’ve
actually given us a time here, two months, and that was a month
ago, so they’ve got another month to reply to us—
|
[131] Janet
Finch-Saunders: But they have been apparently promising for the
last 18 months, so—.
|
[132] David J.
Rowlands: I think we may include in the letter the fact that
they’ve got one month to reply, and that this matter has been
extended over a long period of time.
|
[133] The next
petition is ‘Resurfacing of the A40 Raglan-Abergavenny
Road.’ This was submitted by Sara Jones. It was first
considered in September 2016, having collected 22 signatures. The
committee last—
|
[134]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Can I just—?
|
[135]
David J. Rowlands:
—considered the petition
on 9 September and agreed to seek a
response from the petitioner on the latest information from the
Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure before determining
future actions on the petition. The petitioner has now submitted
further comments. The Cabinet Secretary has confirmed that there
are no plans to resurface the A40 in this location because
it’s not life-expired. He has stated that the design of noise
mitigation measures for the priority 1 section on the A40 Usk road
roundabout is being carried out, with implementation anticipated in
2018-19, depending on available funding.
|
[136]
The petitioner has queried the apparent
change in the position since the answer provided by the previous
Minister in 2014, which indicated a resurfacing scheme was being
designed for 2015-16. The committee has previously written to the
Cabinet Secretary to ask why previous commitments were not
delivered but has not received a direct answer to this question.
So, our actions are to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy
and Infrastructure to ask if he can provide the petitioner and the
committee with an explanation for the apparent change in position
since the noise action plan 2013-18 and commitments given by his
predecessor that a resurfacing scheme was being
designed.
|
[137]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
To be honest, I can understand a lot of
the frustration here. It quite clearly states that the noise action
plan states that the road is a priority, and then, when you read
the letter from the Cabinet Secretary: it is
|
[138]
‘not life expired and there are
currently no plans to resurface it.’
|
[139]
Well, if it’s a priority, the work
needs to be done. When you’ve got a situation like this, you
know, the community are going to have very little confidence in the
Welsh Government in particular if they keep moving the goalposts on
this. It’s got a tremendous amount of support politically. I
mean, you’ve got your MP, your AM, councillors, and I’m
a little bit concerned, shall we say, that there’s been a
positioning move on this, and I think we need to lay challenge to
the Cabinet Secretary as to why that is the case.
|
[140]
Mike Hedges: Yes. Ask the question.
|
[141]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes, just ask the question. Okay. So,
we’ll write to the Cabinet Secretary on that.
|
[142]
David J. Rowlands:
Right, the next petition is ‘Give
Rate Relief to Local Authorities for Leisure and Cultural
Facilities’. This was submitted by Ryan Dansie, having
collected 17 signatures.
|
[143]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
How many? What did you say then, sorry?
Did I miss—? How many signatures?
|
[144]
David J. Rowlands:
Seventeen signatures. It goes back some
time.
|
[145]
Mike Hedges: It was under the old system.
|
[146]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes, of course, yes.
|
[147]
David J. Rowlands:
So, the committee last considered the
petition on 19 September and agreed to seek further comments from
the petitioner and to consider closing the petition at the next
meeting if no response was forthcoming. The clerking team contacted
the petitioner but no further comments have been received so we are
invited to close the petition.
|
[148]
Mike Hedges: I vote to close it.
|
[149]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Close.
|
[150]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes, close.
|
[151]
The next petition is ‘Ban Letting
Agent Fees to Tenants’. This was submitted by Shelter Cymru
on 14 February, having collected 328 signatures. I think it’s
true to say that the Welsh Government has taken measures with
regard to this and it is coming through in legislation. So, we
shall close that.
|
[152]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes, close.
|
[153]
David J. Rowlands:
Are you content that we bring the
petitioners straight in? Janet, you happy?
|
[154]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes.
|
[155]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine. Okay.
|
10:19
|
Sesiwn
Dystiolaeth am P-04-472, ‘Gwnewch y Nodyn Cyngor Technegol
Mwynau yn ddeddf’ a P-04-575, ‘Galw i Mewn Pob Cais
Cynllunio ar Gyfer Cloddio Glo Brig’ Evidence
Session for P-04-472, ‘Make the MTAN law’ and P-04-575,
‘Call in All Opencast Mining Planning Applications’
|
[156] David J.
Rowlands: Good morning, gentlemen, and can I thank you for
agreeing to attend, and to perhaps give us some insights into the
two petitions that were placed before us, and your reasons for that
and the background for that?
|
[157] Mr Evans:
I don’t hear very well, so if you could speak a bit
louder—
|
[158] David J.
Rowlands: [Inaudible.] I’m sorry. Are you able
to—?
|
[159] Mr Evans:
Yes, it’s okay now.
|
[160] David J.
Rowlands: —access through the headsets, Terry, if you
want?
|
[161] Mr Evans:
No, I’ve got two hearing aids, you see.
|
[162] David J.
Rowlands: Ah, right. Okay.
|
[163] Mr Evans:
They don’t work.
|
[164] David J.
Rowlands: Right. Well, Terry, all I can say is that if you
don’t hear anything I say, by all means come back to me and I
will repeat that for you. Okay?
|
[165] So, first of
all, as I say, welcome to you. There are headsets, which can be
used. If you want to speak in Welsh, you can, of course, speak in
Welsh. There will be simultaneous translation through the headsets
if that is the case. What we’d like to do in the first
instance, if you’re minded and quite happy—. Can I
invite each of you to give a brief outline of the reasons behind
your petitions and the concerns you have over opencast coal mining
in general? So, any one of you can make the first comments, if you
want.
|
[166] Dr Cox:
Okay. I’m John Cox. I was the lead petitioner on ‘Make
the MTAN law’. For me, this has been a 30-year struggle in
its way. Unlike Chris and Terry, I’m not someone who is
absolutely opposed to opencast. In fact, I came into it at the time
that Torfaen council successfully gave planning permission, which
was for a restoration scheme financed by opencast, which was
inexplicably taken in by the Welsh Government with no explanation
whatsoever. Since then we’ve had dereliction because it was
in the hands of private developers who didn’t do any
development at all, and the place just decayed. I got interested in
the subject there because I live right next to it. From the year
2000 to 2010, the Welsh Government, with Jane Davidson being the
Minister responsible, undertook a consultation about setting up
guidelines for opencasting. I participated in it, as did upwards of
100 organisations and people. Around about 2010, the National
Assembly approved the minerals technical advice note guidelines for
opencasting, which I supported, which did agree to opencasting
under very specific circumstances, which seemed, to me, perfectly
reasonable—one of the conditions being that you didn’t
do opencasting within 500m of neighbourhoods unless there were some
very special circumstances, which, again, I agreed with.
|
[167] We then had an
application at a place called Varteg Hill for opencasting, which
clearly violated the MTAN guidelines, and Torfaen council rejected
it. The coaling would be 200m from the community. In fact, because
they needed a big bund to hide the noise and everything, the works
were actually 0.5m from houses and everything. So, obviously, it
had to be rejected as it violated the guidelines. The company went
to appeal, and I attended the public inquiry, along with other
people. I will always recall the shattering first few words of the
inspector. He said, ‘I’m not interested in the MTAN
guidelines. Those are guidelines. I make the law here.’ And
he then proceeded, for the two weeks that we were in attendance, to
completely ignore the MTAN guidelines, on the grounds that he knew
better.
|
10:15
|
[168] David J.
Rowlands: John, can I just say to you, I want to question you
personally a little bit further on MTAN, so could we go back to the
opening sally from you and I can come back to you, personally, on
asking you specific questions on MTAN, if I can?
|
[169] Dr Cox:
Yes. It’s my statement of why we came up with the petition,
saying, ‘Make the MTAN guidelines law’, because it
seemed to me that, in effect, however many tens of thousands of
pounds were spent on consultation were a complete waste of time if
you then employ inspectors who don’t care a damn what the
Assembly has decided. Okay?
|
[170] David J.
Rowlands: Okay, yes, thank you, John, for that. Terry, would
you like to make some comments now, please?
|
[171] Mr Evans:
My name’s Terry Evans, chair of United Valleys Action Group.
I also live 40m from Ffos-y-fran opencast in Merthyr Tydfil, which
has been working for the last seven years. The reason that this
petition was established by United Valleys Action Group is because
there is an unfairness in the planning system with regard to when
an application goes to the local council. If the local council
approves the opencast, there is no avenue for the public to go to
an appeal, unless you have a legal challenge or something like
that. If it’s refused by the council, the applicant—and
it’s a part of Nant Llesg opencast, now, next to
Ffos-y-fran—can appeal, which they have done. It was refused
by Caerphilly council, but it was appealed six months later. And
then, when they put that appeal in, they amended their application
sufficiently enough for the inspector to say, ‘Hang
on—I can’t verify this, because you’ve changed
things.’ So, instead of it being refused the verification,
they were asked to go away and get more information. Here we are
now, 20 months after that—January last year—and they
still haven’t put that information in. Now, Nant Llesg
started five or six years ago with this application and here we are
now at the stage where there’s possibly still another year or
two left, whereas the three years it was with Caerphilly
council—. I mean, it shouldn’t have happened. It
could’ve gone straight. So, why wasn’t it called
in?
|
[172] The other thing
is, the legacy of opencast in Wales with regard to other sites is
an embarrassment, really. Because, going back to the Margam
opencast in Bridgend, first, where there’s still planning
permission on that for Tata to have coal, which they haven’t
implemented yet. Then you had Parc Slip, which was abandoned and
left with a massive hole full of water. Then you had Ystradowen,
and that was called in by the Government. And then you have Selar
in the Neath valley, which has been mothballed, stopped. Then you
have Tower colliery, now, with opencast, and that’s been
mothballed, but it’s going to close. You have Bryn Defaid in
Aberdare, passed by the local council, but they haven’t
started it for two or three years now, because of the market for
coal, I suppose, because the coal industry is in decline. Then you
had Merthyr, Rhydycar West village—the inspectors were called
in to that and it was refused. You had Ffos-y-fran, which was
called in by the Government, and that was approved, and then you
had the Varteg area. It’s a prime example of how you’d
interpret the MTAN, right? It was refused at local council. It went
to a public inquiry and an inspector passed it, then it went to the
Minister and he refused it.
|
[173] David J.
Rowlands: Terry, I’ll come in there if I can, because
we’re going to ask you specific questions, if we can.
|
[174] Mr Evans:
Right, okay. It’s back around to the embarrassment of
opencast in Wales, and it is of so much national importance, coal,
now, that opencast mining applications should all be looked at by
the Government, no matter what. Okay?
|
[175] David J.
Rowlands: Okay. We’ll come back to you on that, Terry, if
we may. I’m just trying to get a broad idea of your
objections to—
|
[176] Mr Evans:
Can I say one other thing? No, it’s all right I have said it.
Okay.
|
[177] David J.
Rowlands: We will come back to you, specifically, on that.
Chris, could you make a comment?
|
[178] Mr
Austin: Yes. Good morning, all. My name’s Chris Austin,
and I’m a resident in Merthyr Tydfil. And, along with my wife
and family, we live about 300m from the Ffos y Fran opencast
coalmine, which we opposed at the start, and have been fighting
ever since. I’ve got a short presentation here to support and
possibly expand on that. What would be the best time for me to
present that?
|
[179] David J.
Rowlands: You will have another opportunity, Chris, in the same
way—
|
[180] Mr
Austin: I will have another opportunity. Really, then,
I’m here as another member of the United Valleys Action
Group, to support and possibly expand on Terry’s argument in
support of this petition. So, if I leave it at that—
|
[181] David J.
Rowlands: Yes.
|
[182] Mr
Austin: Right. And we’ll come back to it.
|
[183] David J.
Rowlands: Lovely. Okay, fine. John, if I can come back to you
now, more specifically if we can, why would you consider that MTAN
needs to be made mandatory? Perhaps you can expand a little bit on
what you said. And could you provide an update on the key
developments since you last appeared before the
committee—some time ago now, in 2013, wasn’t it, that
you last appeared before us—and whether you consider that
there have been any further examples of inconsistency in MTAN 2
applications since you last appeared before us?
|
[184] Dr Cox:
Well, personally, I was very comfortable with the MTAN guidelines,
because it seemed to me that it did, at the time, provide a balance
between the need for coal, which existed at the time, which I
don’t think does now, and protecting the communities. What
horrified me and shocked me was that, in fact, it proved to be
totally worthless. For all the discussions, we end up with an
individual who is a planning inspector who can simply say whatever
he likes. And, in the report that was produced, where it was
pointed out to him that he was misquoting the MTAN during the
public inquiry, he overcame that in this report by simply stating,
as if it was a fact, that the MTAN referred to 200m from the hole
in the ground, when, in fact, the MTAN speaks of 500m from the site
boundary, which was a huge difference there.
|
[185] So,
there’s no recourse to it. And, in my professional career, I
have taken part in various inquiries as an engineer, as an expert
witness, and, in every instance, there is someone who’s
taking—scribes who are taking notes, as here, and
they’re played back. And, the next day in the public inquiry,
the notes of the previous day are read out, and, if anyone objects
to the accuracy—. There’s no control over an
inspector—he makes his own notes, which he doesn’t read
out to people; there are no checks and balances whatsoever.
You’ve handed over dictatorial powers to a public inspector.
Now, they may be, if they’re very good, no problem, but you
cannot rely upon any individual to be right all the time. And
that’s what this National Assembly has done, or British law
has done, is to hand over dictatorial powers to public inspectors.
And I think you’ve got to look at that, which is the deeper
question behind all of this: how on earth does the planning system
work there?
|
[186] We had further
examples of this. After I’d presented things, this
committee—the previous committee—asked the Minister to
come along. And the Minister said he couldn’t come along
because Varteg was subject to discussion at the time. And then the
thing eventually fell by the ground, and the committee—your
committee—decided again to ask the Minister. And he was
advised—by you people, I suppose—not to turn up,
because there might be an application. Now, if a Minister cannot
give evidence to the Petitions Committee on the grounds that maybe
there’ll be an application, it means the Petitions Committee
isn’t allowed to talk about planning at all, because
there’s not a square yard in the country that might not have
a planning application sometime. So, I think you’ve got to
look in depth at the whole legal system relating to planning, and I
agree with Terry absolutely. I’ve probably spent the
equivalent of a year of my life, unpaid, working on this. And, when
I’m at the public inquiry, there’s a Queen’s
Counsel on £1,000 a day, another QC on £1,000 a day,
council officers all being paid. They’re making tens of
thousands of pounds out of this. The public, however, are having to
have a jumble sale in order to get—. The whole thing is
totally biased against the community, and that is—. If
you’re going to come up with an MTAN, make it law, for
God’s sake, so all this nonsense doesn’t take place.
Sorry, am I getting worked up about this?
|
[187]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
No,
I—[Inaudible.]
|
[188] David J.
Rowlands: No, no, no. Do you have any—?
|
[189] Janet
Finch-Saunders: —you’re just saying what needs to
be said.
|
[190] David J.
Rowlands: Do you have any particular comments about the action,
or inaction, of the Cabinet Secretary since the petitions were last
considered—the opencast coal summit review of MTAN 2 and the
energy statements? Do you have any further comments to make on that
point, John?
|
[191] Dr Cox:
There are a lot of statements that come out of this National
Assembly that I really like as aspirations, but, until you get a
bit of teeth that you can actually do about it, I don’t see
any point. And I’ve got to the age now where I’m fed up
with aspirations; I just want to see reality.
|
[192] David J.
Rowlands: Fine. Thank you very much for that very comprehensive
answer, John. Terry, we’ve got some questions that we’d
like to ask to you. I think Janet is going to lead with those, and
then Mike will be asking questions of both petitioners and to you,
Chris, at the end of that. So, Janet, could you—?
|
[193] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Thank you, and welcome. Thank you for being so
honest and forthright. I know we’re talking about opencast
mining here, but it’s the same with planning inspectors on
speculative planning applications that affect communities in a huge
way. I was saying ‘hear, hear’ to everything you were
saying.
|
[194] Tell me, though,
given what you’ve said and everything, is there likely to be
any acceptable justification for coal workings within the 500m
buffer zone? You know, in planning law, you deal with everything on
its merit. If you think there is any merit in the fact that there
could be—.
|
[195] Dr Cox:
You’re asking me, here.
|
[196] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
[197] Dr Cox:
Well, I think the bigger issue now is whether or not we want to
exploit coal at all, because, throughout the period 2000-2010,
there was this presumption that we would need the fossil fuels and
suchlike. Now, this is a different political point, but I really
don’t see that the case for fossil fuels is made today when
we’re trying to achieve—. You know, we’re party,
as a nation, to the Paris accord, whatever Mr Trump says. We know
that there is a disaster for the environment and the world if we
carry on burning fossil fuels and suchlike. So, I think the case
that was made, and made to me, in 2010, doesn’t exist today,
with the extra knowledge we have about the dangers of burning
fossil fuels.
|
[198] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Thank you. And, then, why do you believe
it’s necessary for all opencast coal applications to be
assessed by the Welsh Government?
|
[199] Dr Cox:
Oh—
|
[200] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Because of the powers of the planning
inspector, do you think? And the fact that they—?
|
[201] Dr Cox:
That wasn’t my submission—
|
[202] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Oh, right. Okay.
|
[203] Dr Cox:
That was—.
|
[204] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Chris, Terry.
|
[205] Mr Evans:
The reason, I explained earlier, that all opencast—large
opencast—applications should be called in is for uniformity
in decision. Because, as I explained, local authorities can pass
and we’ve got no avenue to appeal. The local authority can
refuse but the applicant can appeal, so he’ll get a second
bite of the cherry. We don’t get a second bite of the cherry.
That’s totally unfair.
|
[206] And, because of
the state of the opencast industry—as Dr Cox just said,
there’s no need for coal any more, as well—if
you’ve got four or five abandoned sites here, now who’s
going to put them right? The cost of money to put them right,
who’s going to do it? Whose responsibility—? Who gave
permission in the first place? So, if you’re coming to the
Government to approve opencast, then carry the can when they go
wrong.
|
[207] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes: take responsibility for it.
|
[208] Dr Cox: I
know that Chris wants to come in—
|
[209] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes, I think Chris wants to come in.
|
[210] Dr Cox:
—but could I just answer that part of it? There was a
summit called with Carl Sargeant on opencasting and one of the most
important contributions that was made there was from the planning
officer of Rhondda Cynon Taf. He pointed out that there were, in
all of Wales, all 22 local authorities, only six qualified
inspectors who could actually look at opencast applications. That
is a backing to what Terry is saying, in that maybe the local
authorities are not the place where they should be discussed at
all, given the situation.
|
10:30
|
[211]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
On that—before you respond to that
then—is it fair to say that you believe that they
haven’t got the knowledge or the expertise, the experience,
in local authorities to be able to deal with these
applications?
|
[212]
Dr Cox: Absolutely.
|
[213]
Mr Austin: Yes, and, very much on those lines, that’s why
I wanted to jump in. The technical complexity of these applications
now—and always have been, I suppose—. But the resources
available to the local authority are far less than available when
we come to public hearings. Because we’ve been through this
loop, through the mill, a few times, and we’ve seen it and
we’ve got evidence of this. The complexities of such
operations is far beyond. We find that they defer to the expert
witnesses that are presented by the mining companies themselves.
Obviously, thereby, we’re on a hiding to nothing with that,
and we have to fight on that basis.
|
[214]
Also, to support the called-in side of
things, more resources, a public platform—we get the
opportunity to present our expert witnesses in the same way as
other interested parties do. So, it does get a better hearing; it
gets a proper hearing there. But also the Welsh Government—.
This is coal, at the end of the day. It’s been alluded to by
John here, and events possibly are starting to overtake us, but we
still have the reality of these things in our face at the moment,
with the Nant Llesg extension coming—possibly now; the appeal
may be on us this month. So, we still have to progress this, we
still have to look at this, I’m afraid. It is still a
reality. The future may hold out hope for us, but we are nowhere
near that as yet. But it’s coal and I’m afraid that now
is a global platform issue that really needs to be done justice on
a Welsh Government platform, not on a local thing. Obviously, we
have local issues, but the local authority presents their case to
the Welsh Government anyway when we come to this platform, so local
issues will be heard, even if it came straight to the Welsh
Government, and, obviously, we will present our case. So, local
issues will get a platform.
|
[215]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
And then my final point: you genuinely
believe there’s capacity within the Welsh Government for them
to be able to do this.
|
[216]
Mr Austin: Better capacity. Obviously, your capacity is better
known to you than it is to us. But, from experience, we’ve
seen better capacity for it to be dealt with at this level than it
was at—. I’ve got an example, if you’d like to
hear it. I’m sorry, it’s a bit pat, but we had a
problem with the Nant Llesg extension, a water problem. It’s
a watershed where they’re going to be digging and there are
very flooded tunnels as well. The hydrology and hydrogeology was
extremely complex—very, very complex. I’m quite a
technical person and I do the technical responses for our group and
I was struggling desperately. We were going to universities, trying
to find experts who could look at this for us, and they were doing
the scrutiny of the application I sent: ‘This is too much for
us to take on; we’d have to do this full time.’ I took
this back to the local authority representative in planning and I
said, ‘How on earth are you going to deal with this
hydrology/hydrogeology problem? We are struggling desperately with
this. It’s a fraught, dangerous, risky process and highly,
highly technical.’ And they said, ‘Oh, it’s okay,
we’re already on it; our drains department is working on
it’, and my heart sank. I’ll leave it at
that.
|
[217]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I’ll hand over to Mike.
|
[218]
Mike Hedges: I have a question for John: has anybody given you any
reason why they don’t want MTAN to be put into
law?
|
[219] Dr Cox: No. They say, ‘It’s
not the way we do things.’
|
[220] Mike
Hedges: I have a lower opinion of inspectors than Janet does.
I’ve seen inspectors make horrendous decisions, not in
opencast but a whole range of other areas, and their lack of local
knowledge and their ignorance of the situation can quite often lead
to disasters. So, I would never have inspectors—. So, if it
was up to me, there would not be inspectors; you would have a
choice of either being accepted by the local authority or going to
judicial review. It would be averaged out for both sides, but it
isn’t up to me. So, that was the first question. The second
one is, we also know that when they do opencast, they don’t
have to put sufficient money upfront for restoration. I’m
going to ask you a question on that. Would life be a lot easier if,
before they started making a hole in the ground, they’d
already set up a fund for restoration, which avoids the fact that
sometimes companies go bankrupt or go out of business at the end of
taking the coal out?
|
[221] Mr Evans:
We’ve got a fear in Merthyr Tydfil of Ffos-y-fran. The
company doing the opencast, Miller Argent South Wales Ltd, was
formed by a company called Miller and a company called Argent,
multinational companies who gave a guarantee for a £15
million bond to put it back if things went wrong. It’s been
proven since then that that is grossly undervalued because the
Welsh Government themselves have done a survey a couple of years
ago on restoration and they estimated that in the worst scenario,
Ffos-y-fran would need £50 million to put back. Anyway, the
fear we’ve got is that Miller and Argent have sold the
company to a company called Gwent financials limited.
|
[222] Mr
Austin: Gwent Investments.
|
[223] Mr Evans:
Gwent Investments Ltd, sorry, who’ve got no money at all.
They actually borrowed the money to buy the company off Argent.
Now, this is the company that’s running Ffos-y-fran. Our fear
would be that Gwent financials limited has got a background of
bankruptcies to their favour. I think Miller and Argent have done a
runner in the light of the coal scenario in the world and they
don’t want to be involved in it anymore. They want to keep
their hands clean like a good company, whereas Gwent financials
don’t really care. As long as they make a bit of money,
‘We’re alright.’ So, our fear now is that there
are four years of coal left in Ffos-y-fran and it’s the same
company that’s applied for opencast at Nant Llesg. If Nant
Llesg is refused, there’s a possibility that the company may
not be viable anymore at Ffos-y-fran. So, that is the fear
we’ve got in Merthyr Tydfil at the moment, that we could lose
it and be left with a massive hole, the same as the other five
sites that I told you about here.
|
[224] Mr
Austin: A legal precedent has already been sent with the
Margam/Parc Slip issue. All these have done is jump on the
bandwagon with that. They’ve got precedent enough.
|
[225] Dr Cox:
The responsibility rests still with the authority that grants
permission. Now, again at that coal summit, the speaker from
Rhondda Cynon Taf described how they’d gone through one
application, in which they had in fact extracted the full sum of
money, which was paid over to them in advance to make sure that if
the company did a runner, then Rhondda Cynon Taf had the money
available to deal with all restitution. The legal remedy exists.
The problem is that it’s not being applied and because you
have relatively ignorant people in charge of these things all
around the country, including, I fear, inside this building,
they’re not applying the legal remedies that do exist to
ensure that all the money is paid upfront in the event of danger.
That’s the reason we’ve got potential destitution all
around south Wales, because this hasn’t been done though it
could have been done.
|
[226] David J.
Rowlands: Of course, it’s not possible in retrospect with
regard to Ffos-y-fran. It’s too late for that.
|
[227] Dr Cox:
It’s too late.
|
[228] David J.
Rowlands: Absolutely.
|
[229] Mike
Hedges: Just one last question on this. We’ve got sites
where local authorities refuse permission, but the planning
inspector gives permission, for whatever reason. Are you saying
that the local authority becomes responsible for putting right a
decision it didn’t make and was made by somebody else?
Surely, the responsibility should rest with the planning inspector,
either personally or via whoever appointed him.
|
[230] Mr
Austin: Do you mind if I answer that? I think the issue will
always rest with the Welsh Government. We’re talking about
opencast schemes here that, as I say, the minimum to put back would
be £50 million and more, anyway. It would bankrupt any local
authority—maybe not Cardiff. Well, no, it would break
everybody. So, ultimately, when we’re left with a restoration
problem, it is a Welsh Government problem anyway, which adds
strength, I think, to our argument that it should be dealt with on
its platform, not on a local authority platform.
|
[231] David J.
Rowlands: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Could we just ask,
very briefly, if you could describe what changes you would hope to
see to the aspects of ‘Planning Policy Wales’ that
could deal with coal, in particular? Do you have any specific
requests?
|
[232] Mr Evans:
All opencast applications, large applications, should be called in
by the Government and the Government be responsible for them.
|
[233] David J.
Rowlands: Fine.
|
[234] Mr
Austin: Obviously we don’t want opencast at all, but if
we have to talk about the fact that they’re still alive and
they may happen, our issues have been that the protection
that’s been put in place for us has not been, how can I say,
policed in any way whatsoever and not been enforced. We have
section 106 agreements in planning—they are things that have
been thrashed out between planning and the company—that have
to be put in place that haven’t been implemented from day
one. We have transgressions that we report on a daily
basis—and I mean daily—when we’re having issues
that are never dealt with by the local authority and they abrogate
responsibility to the mining company themselves and say,
‘They are self-regulating’ and, ‘Deal with the
company.’ We have nobody to support us. If anything has to
change, I would say that there has to be a mandatory local
authority responsibility for these schemes, not the opportunity to
hand over responsibility to mining companies themselves, who
obviously have their own interests at heart, not ours.
|
[235] David J.
Rowlands: Okay, and John.
|
[236] Dr Cox: I
would say no applications should be accepted unless there is a
deposit equivalent to the full restitution costs.
|
[237] David J.
Rowlands: Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Well, thank you very
much, gentlemen, for coming in. I think we’ve found it very
helpful in our inquiry into this, and you’ve all given full
and very frank explanations about your positions with regard to
this, so I thank you for that.
|
[238] Dr Cox:
I’m good at the frank bit. [Laughter.]
|
[239] Mr Evans:
Thank you very much.
|
[240] David J.
Rowlands: Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Terry.
|
[241] Mr Evans:
And I hope that this committee will recommend that the petition be
debated in the Plenary, because it’s of national importance,
this issue is, now—national importance—and it should go
to the Plenary. Thank you very much.
|
[242]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Thank you.
|
[243] David J.
Rowlands: Thank you very much.
|
10:43
|
Cynnig o dan Reol
Sefydlog 17.42(ix) i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o Weddill y
Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order 17.42(ix) to Resolve to Exclude the
Public from the Meeting for the Remainder of the Meeting
|
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o
weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog
17.42(ix).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in
accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix).
|
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig. Motion
moved.
|
|
|
[244] David J.
Rowlands: I propose, in accordance with Standing Order
17.42(ix), that the committee resolves to meet in private for the
remainder of this meeting. Are the Members content? Fine.
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
10:44.
The public part of the meeting ended at 10:44.
|