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 09:06.
The meeting began at 09:06.
|
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
|
[1]
Mike Hedges: Bore da. Good morning. Can I welcome everyone to the
meeting? I remind participants they are welcome to speak in Welsh
or English. Headsets are available for the translation of Welsh to
English. There’s no need to turn off mobile phones or other
electronic devices, but please ensure that any devices are on
silent mode. We’ve got one substitution—Simon Thomas is
substituting for Neil McEvoy. And we’ve got one apology from
Janet Finch-Saunders, who’s unable to make it.
|
|
Deisebau Newydd
New Petitions
|
|
[2]
Mike Hedges: That takes us on to item 2: new petitions. The first
one we’ve got is ‘Stop Forsythia Closing’. This
petition was submitted by Forsythia Youth Centre, having collected
74 signatures and also collected 533 signatures on an alternative
e-petition. A first consideration letter was sent to the Cabinet
Secretary for Communities and Children on 24 January, with a
response on 9 February. We’ve had a research briefing on the
petition and related issues, which has been prepared for
Members’ information. The petitioner was informed the
petition would be considered by the committee, but had not
responded when papers for the committee were being
finalised.
|
|
[3]
What do we want to do? The Cabinet
Secretary states that a consultation on the future of Communities
First closed on 15 January. Consequently, on 14 February, the
Cabinet Secretary announced that Communities First will be phased
out. The Government has stated that it will adopt a careful
approach going forward, seeking to preserve some of the most
effective aspects of the work Communities First has done.
Transitional funding of 70 per cent of the Communities First budget
will be provided in 2017-18, with a legacy fund of £6 million
introduced from 2018.
|
|
[4]
In the light of the statement confirming
that Communities First will be phased out, things we could do is:
write to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to ask
how he intends that successful Communities First schemes and
projects will be supported in the future, and whether the continued
investment in the Flying Start and Families First programmes will
support the sustainability of youth centres, such as Forsythia. Are
we happy to do that? Yes. And we’ve got a statement coming
from the Minister for lifelong learning on the future of youth work
delivery, which will inform us when it comes back.
|
|
[5]
Simon Thomas: You might have a lot of these petitions. I’m
aware of a lot of organisations, in my region, that are looking to
protest about the effect of Communities First facilities
closing.
|
|
[6]
Mike Hedges: I’ve got a number in my constituency as well.
They just haven’t been very good at doing it up until
now.
|
|
[7]
‘End the Exotic Pet Trade in
Wales’—a first consideration letter was sent to the
Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs on 31 January,
with a response on 8 February. A research briefing on the petition
and related issues has been prepared for Members’
information. The petitioner has also submitted further comments,
which are included in the papers for the meeting.
|
|
[8]
What do we want to do? A letter from the
Cabinet Secretary states that officials are set to discuss the
RSPCA Cymru campaign for a ban on keeping primates as pets in the
coming months, and the Welsh Government is awaiting the findings of
a review being carried out in Scotland on the trade of exotic pets.
The Welsh Government’s Wales animal health and welfare
framework group will also discuss the issue at a future meeting.
The petitioner has welcomed the actions referred to by the Cabinet
Secretary and asked a number of further questions. The petitioner
has also shared some findings from an information request from
local authorities, and asked for the Assembly to consider both a
total end to the trade in exotic pets or, as a minimum, the
introduction of a positive list system. I suggest that we send the
further questions on to the Cabinet Secretary.
|
|
[9]
Simon Thomas: I thought the response of the Cabinet Secretary was
quite weak, actually. I thought the petitioner had asked
some very good questions that were reasonable to ask of the Welsh
Government about their proposals. And it just so happens that I met
with the RSPCA over the weekend to discuss this, so I’m sort
of across it, but waiting for reviews to happen elsewhere
doesn’t really take Welsh Government off the hook for
responding on what they intend to do. So, I think it would be
useful to press more on this.
|
|
[10]
Mike Hedges: Which is what their questions do, so we can
just forward on their questions. I’ve got to be careful; I
hold very strong views on this, but I’m not supposed to have
them at the moment.
|
|
[11]
Simon Thomas: No, no, and I’m only here for one
meeting.
|
|
[12]
Mike Hedges: Possibly.
|
|
[13]
Simon Thomas: Possibly, yes. [Laughter.]
|
|
[14]
Mike Hedges: ‘Stop Gazumping: Follow Scotland’s
Buying Process’. We sent a letter to the Cabinet Secretary on
31 January and received a response on 15 February. We’ve had
a research briefing. The petitioner has not responded. Do you want
to explain the current position on this?
|
|
[15]
Mr Francis: Yes, certainly. It posed some unusual
admissibility questions when this petition came in, based upon the
fact that housing is a devolved area, but things like consumer
protection are not. Because the petition called for a review of the
house buying process in Wales, the petition was deemed admissible.
They didn’t ask the Government to change the law, and the
rules about petitions’ admissibility state that petitions are
admissible unless it covers something that the Welsh Government
clearly does not have the power to do. And we didn’t think
that applied in this case at the time. The Government has written
back to say that it doesn’t believe it has the power to
change the process for buying and selling houses in Wales, and,
since the petition was accepted, the Royal Assent received for the
Wales Act 2017 I think makes that position clearer, in that
regulation of estate agents is a specific exemption under that new
Act even though that Schedule hasn’t commenced yet. So, I
think we may view the petition differently if it was submitted
today to the time when it was submitted.
|
|
[16]
Mike Hedges: As this is not a devolved matter, I can hold a
view on it. I think the petitioners are raising a very important
point. I would hate to see this lost completely. We have to close
the petition because we can’t do anything with it, but can we
write to the petitioner, explaining the change of circumstances and
the further clarity over the reservation of powers in this area,
and suggest they contact the UK Parliament?
|
|
09:13
|
|
Y Wybodaeth Ddiweddaraf am Ddeisebau Blaenorol
Updates to Previous Petitions
|
|
[17]
Three long-standing bus ones: ‘Buses for Meirionnydd’,
from April 2013, Wrexham/Barmouth, November 2013, and funding for
Welsh bus services, 26 November 2013. These have been around a long
time. What’s happened so far is the X94 between Wrexham and
Barmouth has been replaced by the T3 service, operated by a
different provider. Therefore, that petition has been successful.
We can’t make any further progress on the others, and
we’ve had difficulty contacting the petitioners. The three
petitions were considered as part of the Enterprise and Business
Committee inquiry into bus and community transport in the fourth
Assembly. Can I suggest we close the other two, and can I suggest
that this is a lesson to the Petitions Committee to make sure that
things are dealt with promptly, because when you leave things
hanging around for well over three years, then it gets overtaken by
events?
|
|
[18]
Simon Thomas: And it’s certainly been overtaken now by
the statement on bus services that the Minister made, and the
proposals the Welsh Government have to regulate more in this area,
so that will, perhaps for future petitions, give a clearer steer as
to what should be done.
|
|
[19]
Mike Hedges: ‘Install a Traffic Lights System at Cross
Hands Roundabout.’ We had this, I think, in July last year.
It was considered on 13 September. The clerking team has since
sought to contact the petitioners on a number of occasions to
gather their views on the response from the Cabinet Secretary but
have been unable to secure a response. The response received from
the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure stated that
improvements to street furniture and signing at the roundabout had
been identified and planned for the financial year. Shall we close
the petition?
|
|
[20]
Simon Thomas: Agree.
|
|
[21]
Mike Hedges: There is a problem on Cross Hands roundabout,
which does need addressing at a further stage.
|
|
[22]
Simon Thomas: I’m very familiar with it.
[Laughter.]
|
|
09:15
|
|
[23]
Mike Hedges: ‘Removal of M4 Speed Restrictions at the
Brynglas Tunnels’. This was received on 17 January this year,
with 15 signatures. It was considered on 17 January. A response was
received on 18 February. The petitioner was informed that the
petition would be considered by the committee, but had not
responded when papers to the committee were being finalised. Still
not responded?
|
|
[24]
Mr Francis: No.
|
|
[25]
Mike Hedges: The committee enquired whether an assessment of
the impact of the variable speed limit had been carried out on the
basis of the response given by the First Minister in 2013. The
Cabinet Secretary’s letter to the committee states that no
such assessment has been conducted, but that the Government plans
to conduct a review when it has collected 12 months-worth of data
from the enforcement of the variable speed limit, which commenced
in September 2016.
|
|
[26]
Simon Thomas: So, you could say that the petitioner’s
concerns will be met in due course.
|
|
[27]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[28]
Simon Thomas: It’s reasonable to—
|
|
[29]
Mike Hedges: Yes. Just tell them they will have a response
sometime towards the end of this year. I’m not sure, but when
we close a petition, which I hope we will with this one, when we
get further information relating to the petition, is there any way
of actually telling them that this has now happened?
|
|
[30]
Mr Francis: Yes, we can certainly do that behind the scenes. We
would, I think, in that case, probably prompt the Cabinet Secretary
to write to us about the petition.
|
|
[31]
Mike Hedges: And then we can send it on.
|
|
[32]
Simon Thomas: I think there would be wider interest to know, you
know, about the review, but maybe not—. People will have
different perspectives on it, but they might be interested to know
that this review is going on.
|
|
[33]
Mr Francis: Okay. Just to clarify, did you want to close
that—
|
|
[34]
Mike Hedges: Close it, but we’ll write to them and tell them
what is happening, and tell them we’ll write to them again
when we get the final information.
|
|
[35]
‘No Further Actions on Nitrate
Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) In Wales At All’. The petition was
received on 17 January. It was considered for the first time on 17
January and the committee agreed
to await the view of the petitioner on the Welsh Government’s
response before deciding whether to take further action.
The petitioner has now submitted further
comments, which are included in the papers for the meeting.
A Welsh Government consultation on the
implementation of the EU nitrates directive closed at the end of
2016. Options in the consultation included the designation of new
zones, or applying the measures across the whole of Wales. The
Welsh Government is currently considering the responses. The
petitioner is primarily concerned with a proposed Milford Haven
zone. Send on the comments to the Cabinet Secretary? And when we
get an announcement of the Welsh Government’s chosen course
of action, send it on to the petitioner?
|
|
[36]
Simon Thomas: I think so, Chair. I think I was the one that asked
the question that refers to when she was unhappy with the response
of the Minister on the construction industry, instead of the
contractors industry. But this is still under active consideration
by Welsh Government, isn’t it?
|
|
[37]
Mike Hedges: I was sat next to you when you did it.
[Laughter.]
|
|
[38]
‘Improving specialised
neuromuscular services in Wales’. This petition was submitted
by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and was first considered on 4
February 2014—another one that hits its third anniversary. We
last considered it on 15 November and agreed to ask the Health,
Social Care and Sport Committee to share a copy of the Cabinet
Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport’s response when
received, and seek further views from the petitioner at that point.
A response from the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport
Committee was received on 17 January. The petitioner has also
submitted further comments, which are included in the papers for
the meeting. The Cabinet
Secretary’s letter to the Health, Social Care and Sport
Committee states that a refreshed neurological conditions delivery
plan is due to be published this summer. Third sector organisations
are represented on a group informing the refresh of the plan via
the Wales Neurological Alliance. The Cabinet Secretary has also
outlined details of funding provided for neurological conditions
and further longer term plans. The Health, Social Care and Sport
Committee has not currently allocated time in its forward work
programme on this issue. The petitioners have welcomed the progress
being made and urged health boards to adopt the service
requirements for neuromuscular services, including investing in
specialist multidisciplinary care. We could write to the Cabinet Secretary to ask if the
petitioners can be provided with the assurances they are seeking
regarding that a national decision-making forum with resources is
sufficiently aware of the service risks and assigns an informed
priority to the situation, and that neuromuscular services are
included within the scope of the national review of neurosciences
in Wales being led by the Welsh
Health Specialised Services Committee. Everybody happy?
|
|
[39]
Simon Thomas: I’d be happy with that. I just want to ask a
question—I don’t know if it’s usual in
this—
|
|
[40]
Mike Hedges: It is, yes; please do.
|
|
[41]
Simon Thomas: Is this committee in a position to write to the
health boards themselves just to draw their attention to
the—because I think the petitioner is particularly concerned
about local delivery—just to bring their attention to the
correspondence.
|
|
[42]
Mike Hedges: Yes. We’ll send it to the health
boards.
|
|
[43]
Simon Thomas: That would be
a useful addition as well.
|
|
[44]
Mike Hedges: The next one is ‘Inequitable Access to
Treatments That Have Not Been Nationally Appraised in NHS
Wales’. It was first considered on 15 July 2014 and last
considered on 3 February 2015. That is a long time. A research
briefing on the petition and related issues has been prepared to
assist Members in determining an appropriate future course of
action. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be
considered by the committee and provided with a copy of the
research brief, but had not responded when papers for the committee
were being received.
|
|
[45]
Mr Francis: If I could say,
Chair, we’re not sure that they received that original e-mail
due to a member of staff being on maternity leave. So, they have
since received that, but it may not be the usual length of time
that petitioners have had.
|
|
[46]
Mike Hedges: Shall we give them until the next meeting to respond,
then? Give them further time to respond.
|
|
[47]
Mr Francis: Yes, and I think on this petition, the Cabinet
Secretary has stated that they’ll be making a decision and an
announcement shortly as well. I think that that potentially impacts
directly upon the issue in the petition, so we can await that as
well.
|
|
[48]
Mike Hedges: Happy with
that?
|
|
[49]
Gareth Bennett:
Yes.
|
|
[50]
Mike Hedges: ‘A Treatment Fund for Wales—There Must be
an End to the Healthcare Postcode Lottery’. This was first
considered on 13 September 2016. We agreed to seek the views of the
petitioner, given that the announcement of a new treatment fund
might address the issues raised by the petition. You attempted to
contact the petitioner on a number of occasions to gather their
views, but have been unable to secure a response.
|
|
[51]
Simon Thomas: Is it more
appropriate to close it, then?
|
|
[52]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[53]
Mr Francis: I think, again, the subject matter for this
petition—we put them next to each other on the agenda because
it’s quite similar to the previous one we discussed. So,
again, the Cabinet Secretary’s announcement may shed light on
it. This one’s in a slightly different situation given our
difficulty in contacting the petitioner.
|
|
[54]
Mike Hedges: I think that, if we close it now, and we also send a
copy of the Cabinet Secretary’s response when it comes in, so
that we keep them informed.
|
|
[55]
Mr Francis: We’ll do that.
|
|
[56]
Mike Hedges: ‘Give Every Child in Wales the Meningitis B
Vaccine for Free’. This was last considered on 11 October
2016, when we agreed to write to Meningitis Now and the
Meningitis Research Foundation to seek their views on extending the
existing vaccination programme. A joint response from both
organisations was received on 12 January. The petitioner was
informed the petition would be considered by the committee but had
not responded when the papers for the committee were being
finalised. Meningitis Now and the Meningitis Research Foundation
are supportive of the aims of the petition. It says lots of things
about the benefits of that. I suggest that we send on their
comments to the health Secretary for his view. Are we happy with
that?
|
|
[57]
Simon Thomas: Yes.
|
|
[58]
Gareth Bennett: Yes.
|
|
[59]
Mike Hedges: ‘Close
the Gap for deaf pupils in Wales’. This petition was
submitted by the National Deaf Children’s Society Cymru and
was first considered on 15 May 2013. It was last considered on 29
November 2016 and we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for
Education to set out some of the background to the petition and ask
for the Welsh Government’s views. A response was received
from the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language on 11
January. The petitioners have also submitted further comments,
which are included in the papers. The Minister attempted to provide
reassurance. The petitioners have highlighted a reduction in
funding, and call for Welsh Government to strengthen the law. In
relation to teacher training, the Minister’s letter refers to
the additional learning needs Bill and the additional learning
needs transformation programme. The petitioners have asked further
questions in relation to the coverage of deaf awareness and
deaf-specific provision. Shall we write with their further
questions to the Minister?
|
|
[60]
Gareth Bennett: Yes.
|
|
[61]
Mike Hedges: ‘Bring Back January Exams for AS/A level
Students’. This was submitted on 11 October 2016, having
collected 88 signatures. The committee considered the petition on
11 October 2016 and considered responses from the Cabinet Secretary
for Education and Qualifications Wales on the petition.
Qualifications Wales stated their regulatory view that the policy
of ending January assessments was in the best interests of
learners. The committee agreed to await the views of petitioners
before deciding whether to take any further action. The clerking
team have attempted to contact the petitioner on a number of
occasions to gather their views, but were unable to secure a
response.
|
|
[62]
Simon Thomas: The petition should be closed, then.
|
|
[63]
Mike Hedges: So, I have an 18-year-old at home with a number of
friends who would have really liked to have had an opportunity to
resit in January.
|
|
[64]
Simon Thomas: It’s a bit difficult, though, when the
responsibility is, in effect, in the hands of an independent
organisation from Welsh Government now, which has been approved by
the Assembly. So, taking forward a petition like this, you do come
up against a situation where it’s a question
of—you’ve got to build the evidence to change policy.
But a petition, in itself, doesn’t do that.
|
|
[65]
Mike Hedges: I think the reason it was brought in was to stop
people building grades. You could have four goes at an AS-level or
A-level exam, and you’d keep the best grade from any of
those. You’d have an opportunity to build
grades—
|
|
[66]
Simon Thomas: You could use your best—you could use your best
element.
|
|
[67]
Mike Hedges: There are good reasons for it; there was a lot of
grade building taking place.
|
|
[68]
Simon Thomas: I think there was a story in the press of somebody
who took five resits.
|
|
[69]
Mike Hedges: But the opportunity was there to do AS-levels.
Instead of doing four, doing two at a time, so you’d end up
only having to study for two exams. There are good reasons, but,
anyway, we decided to note it, haven’t we? Close
it.
|
|
[70]
‘Protect Special Educational
Needs’, from 13 December 2016. Last considered on 13
December, I agreed to write to the Minister for Lifelong Learning
and Welsh Language to ask how the Welsh Government monitors the
effectiveness of services and support for children with autism and
their parents, and the outcomes achieved from the funding provided;
and to Neath Port Talbot council to seek their response to the
specific experiences related by the petitioner. Responses from both
have now been received. The petitioner was informed that the
petition would be considered by the committee, but had not
responded when the papers for the committee were being finalised.
Still not responding?
|
|
[71]
Mr Francis: No.
|
|
[72]
Mike Hedges: And they’ve had plenty of time?
|
|
[73]
Mr Francis: Just the usual—they have a week between when we
send them the papers and when we publish the papers, so
there’s only a period of a week.
|
|
[74]
Mike Hedges: Shall we give them another two weeks, then? Are you
happy to give another fortnight to respond?
|
|
[75]
Simon Thomas: It was quite a comprehensive response from the local
authority, so it might be worth waiting to see whether
they’ve got something specific to raise.
|
|
[76]
Mike Hedges: Yes, I think the point you raise is very pertinent,
because, as they’ve had such a substantial response, then,
obviously, it may take them some time to produce their response to
the response. But, in the meantime, we could press for a response
from Neath Port Talbot council to the specific comments made by the
petitioner about their experiences in trying to access support
services in their area. Are you happy with that?
|
|
[77]
Simon Thomas: Yes.
|
|
[78]
Mike Hedges: ‘Ancient
veteran and heritage trees of Wales to be given greater
protection’, first considered on 4 December 2012. The
previous committee last considered it on 13 May 2014, noted that
Coed Cadw are now members of the task and finish group and agreed
to await the Minister informing the committee of the outcome of the
group’s meetings. The clerking team have requested updates
from the Welsh Government at regular intervals and have recently
been informed that several options contained in the report remain
under consideration.
|
|
[79]
On 23 February, the petitioners sent an update, which is included
in the papers. The petitioners are members of the task and finish
group, which has reported to the Welsh Government. Their update
states that the Cabinet Secretary had confirmed in November 2016
that officials would respond to the group’s recommendations
‘as soon as possible’.
|
|
[80]
Shall we write and ask for an update from the Cabinet
Secretary?
|
|
[81]
Simon Thomas: I just wondered if, because the petitioners
are now actually part of the process around meeting the demands of
the petition, which is, presumably, a positive outcome of the whole
process—
|
|
[82]
Mike Hedges: It’s very positive, I would have
thought.
|
|
[83]
Simon Thomas: —and it’s been going for nearly
five—well, four and a half years—whether the committee
would want to consider that this aspect should be closed now,
because there are very obvious alternative routes for them to go
down.
|
|
[84]
Mike Hedges: Yes, if they’re talking to the Minister,
talking to us to talk to the Minister does seem to add an extra
step.
|
|
[85]
Simon Thomas: Exactly, and there’s an extra process
there that doesn’t need to happen because they’ve got
this direct—.
|
|
[86]
Mike Hedges: Are you happy to close it?
|
|
[87]
Gareth Bennett: Yes, on that basis; yes, fine.
|
|
[88]
Mike Hedges: ‘Allow Public Recording of Local
Government Meetings’ from 8 March 2016. Last considered 17
January, we agreed to seek further information from the Cabinet
Secretary for Finance and Local Government on how he intends to
implement proposals for compulsory recording of local government
proceedings. We had a response on 17 February. The petitioner was
informed that the petition would be considered by the committee,
but had not responded when the papers for the committee were being
finalised.
|
|
09:30
|
|
[89]
The Cabinet Secretary’s letter confirms an intention to make
broadcasting of council meetings a statutory requirement,
following the current consultation
exercise on the reforming local government White Paper. I would
have thought that had achieved—
|
|
[90]
Simon Thomas: Achieved the aims of the petition.
|
|
[91]
Mike Hedges: Yes. ‘Local Government Finance and
Funding’, this petition was submitted by Unison. It was first
considered on 17 January 2017, with 2,192 signatures. It was
considered on 17 January, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet
Secretary for Finance and Local Government to ask whether, and how,
the petitioners will be able to engage in the development of
proposals on local government reform.
|
|
[92]
There was a response on 7 February and
the petitioner was informed that the petition would be considered
by the committee, but had not responded when the papers for the
committee were being finalised.
|
|
[93]
We know that a White Paper on reforming
local government was published on 31 January. As previously
welcomed by the petitioners, the Cabinet Secretary has also
confirmed that the final local government settlement for 2017-18
ensures that no local authority will see a reduction in funding of
more than 0.5 per cent in cash terms.
|
|
[94]
So, we could close the petition because
there is now an opportunity for the petitioner to be involved in
the discussion. Are we happy with that?
|
|
[95]
Simon Thomas: Yes.
|
|
09:31
|
|
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 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
|
|
[96]
Mike Hedges: Can I move a motion under Standing Order 17.42, to
resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting? I
propose. Are Members content?
|
|
[97]
Gareth Bennett:
Yes.
|
|
[98]
Simon Thomas: Yes.
|
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig
Motion
agreed
|
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
09:31.
The public part of the meeting ended at
09:31.
|
