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 everybody to the meeting? I remind
people that they can speak in either Welsh or English. Headsets are
available for translation of Welsh to English. There is no need to
turn off mobile phones or other electronic devices, but please
ensure that any devices are in silent mode. We’ve received
apologies from Janet Finch-Saunders, and
we’re ready now to start on new petitions.
|
|
Deisebau Newydd
New Petitions
|
|
[2]
Mike Hedges: The first one is P-05-734, ‘Ban Letting Agent
Fees to Tenants’. I, perhaps, ought to declare an interest,
because I actually put that in to be my idea for individual
Member’s legislation.
|
|
[3]
Gareth Bennett:
It was mine as well, actually, so I
don’t know, but I guess I declare an interest as
well.
|
|
[4]
Mike Hedges: Yes. We received the petition, we sent it to the
Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children on 7 December, and
received a response on 4 January. We’ve had a research
briefing. We’ve had further comments from the petitioners.
Two further petitions have been submitted on the same issue, but
could not be accepted. What’s happened so far? Letting agents
in Scotland are not able to charge fees and the UK Government
announced it would consult on a similar restriction for
England. The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children
has informed the committee he intends to review the evidence in
this area before deciding what action we should take in Wales. Rent
Smart Wales, a licensing scheme for letting agents and a register
of landlords, is currently being implemented following legislation
in the previous Assembly. The petitioners have welcomed the
commitment made by the Welsh Government, but have highlighted
several risks that could arise if Wales does not introduce a ban on
letting fees. They have provided the results of a recent survey of
tenants and examples of poor practice.
|
|
[5]
There are two things we can do, one of
which is that we can write to the Equality, Local Government and
Communities Committee, asking them if they intend to conduct any
work on this issue, and we can go back to the Minister asking if
there is any intention of legislation.
|
|
[6]
Gareth Bennett:
I think there’s a case for doing
both, because the Minister—we did a UKIP debate on this last
time, and he was pretty non-committal, Carl Sargeant, and I’m
on the so-called equalities committee, and I don’t recall
them saying specifically that they’re doing anything on
this.
|
|
[7]
Mike Hedges: It falls within their remit, so at least we could
write to them and ask them, and we can go back to the Minister.
This really is not just a few people’s issue; it’s very
much a live issue amongst a large number of people. Are we happy to
do that?
|
|
[8]
Neil McEvoy: Yes, definitely.
|
|
[9]
Mike Hedges: No. 2 is P-05-735, ‘Make the foundation phase
more effective for our children, provide more teachers and abolish
yr 2 Sats’. That came in with 14 signatures. It was first
considered and sent to the Cabinet Secretary on 7 December. We
received a response from the Minister for lifelong learning. A
research brief has been provided. The petitioner was informed the
petition would be considered by the committee but had not responded
when papers for the committee were finalised. The petition’s
three main points: Wales should follow the Scandinavian model, more
funding should be provided and testing in year 2 should be
abolished. The Minister states that the foundation phase has led to
improvements in attainment and attendance. He also states that the
Government has demonstrated its commitment to the foundation phase.
On testing, the Minister’s response stresses that the
national reading and numeracy tests taken by learners in years 2 to
9 are not the same as SATs tests. The Minister’s letter
acknowledges that there is inconsistency in delivering the
foundation phase and states that the Government’s got a plan
to address this. Do you want to wait for the view of the
petitioners on the Minister’s response, and if they do not
respond by the next meeting, close it? Give them two weeks.
You’ve written to them already, haven’t you?
|
|
[10]
Mr Francis: We’ve written to them already.
|
|
[11]
Neil McEvoy: Just out of interest, what’s the ratio in
Scandinavia? Could we find that out from research?
|
|
[12]
Mr Francis: We can find that out.
|
|
[13]
Neil McEvoy: Thanks.
|
|
[14]
Mike Hedges: Education in Scandinavia is different. Teachers
are held in much higher esteem in Scandinavia than they are in
Britain, and that itself, speaking as one former teacher to a room
with at least one other former teacher in it, has made a big
difference to recruitment, retention and commitment.
|
|
[15]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[16]
Gareth Bennett: It’s not a bad idea to look at these
countries. Finland has been mentioned, hasn’t it? Because
when we discuss these things in the Assembly, it tends to be very
partisan, and I think we need to try and get away from that.
You’re saying about the teachers held in high regard. We need
to look at why that is, don’t we? I don’t know what we
can do on this committee; I’m just saying—
|
|
[17]
Mike Hedges: I don’t think we can do anything. I think
the reason that anybody is held in high regard is often because of
how much they’re paid. If you pay more, you show that you
value them more.
|
|
[18]
Neil McEvoy: It’s a cultural thing as well, though,
isn’t it?
|
|
[19]
Mike Hedges: Yes. ‘To Make Mental Health Services More
Accessible’—the first consideration was on 7 December.
We received a response, had a research briefing, and had further
comments from the petitioner. The petitioner’s called for
improved access to mental health services. The letter from the
Cabinet Secretary states that GPs and other professionals should
use their professional judgment to refer people for support in an
appropriate manner. The additional comments from the petitioner
raise issues with the personal independence payment application
process, and suggests that different forms should be used for
physical and mental health conditions; this is a UK Government
responsibility. Should we write to charities who support people
with mental health problems to seek their views on the issue?
|
|
[20]
Gareth Bennett: That’s a good idea.
|
|
[21]
Mike Hedges: The next one is ‘Save Our Bus’. The
first consideration was on 7 December. A response: 10 January.
We’ve had a research brief. The petitioner was informed that
the petition would be considered by the committee, but has not
responded. Stagecoach has reduced the frequency of bus services
between Gilfach Goch and Porth from four to three per hour, and now
it terminates at Porth. Previously, two services per hour continued
to Pontypridd. Other bus services, which depart from the same bus
stop, offer 11 services per hour between Porth and Pontypridd.
Await the view of the petitioner? We can also raise it with Bus
Users Cymru, if the petitioner wishes us to.
|
|
[22]
Mr Francis: I think the contact or the letter we had from
the Cabinet Secretary suggested that that might be a good course of
action for the petitioner to take, so we could suggest that to the
petitioner. I think they would need to take it forward with Bus
Users Cymru.
|
|
[23]
Mike Hedges: Couldn’t we forward it to them?
|
|
[24]
Mr Francis: We can certainly forward them the petition.
I’m not sure whether they would act. They need to have
contact from the petitioner to act.
|
|
[25]
Mike Hedges: Okay. ‘Save TWF Services/Achub
Gwasanaethau TWF’ by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, collecting
912 signatures—it went to the Cabinet Secretary on 21
December. A response from the Minister for Lifelong Learning and
Welsh Language on 11 January. We’ve had a research brief. The
petitioner was informed that the petition would be considered by
the committee, but had not responded when papers for the committee
were being finalised. Still no response?
|
|
[26]
Mr Francis: No.
|
|
[27]
Mike Hedges: The Twf scheme sought to highlight the value of
the Welsh language and bilingualism to new parents. It ran from
2002 to 2016, when it was replaced by Cymraeg i Blant. Cymraeg i
Blant is run by Mudiad Meithrin. Cymraeg i Blant officers are
reportedly working across 14 local authority areas, compared with
12 under Twf. The letter from the Minister states responsibility
for the national element of the previous Twf scheme now lies with
Welsh Government officials. We could write back to the Minister for
clarification on which local authority areas Cymraeg i Blant is
currently working in, and further details on how the national
element of Twf is now being taken forward by the Welsh Government,
and await the petitioners.
|
|
09:15
|
|
[28]
‘Petition to Protect our High Street’—it was
first considered on 15 December. A response was received on 5
January. A research brief has been received. The petitioner has
submitted further comments, which are in our papers. The petition
calls for enhanced business rates relief for high street shops to
mitigate the impact of the revaluation of premises. The Welsh
Government has announced two mitigation schemes for business rates
affected by rates increases from April. The petitioner’s
comments recognise this action, but reiterate their calls for a
permanent small business rate relief scheme. The petitioner has
posed several questions about how the mitigation scheme will be
implemented and has requested data on the number of Welsh
businesses in different tax bands. The Economy, Infrastructure and
Skills Committee undertook a one-day inquiry into business rates in
October and produced five recommendations, and there have been a
large number of recent Assembly debates on business rates and rate
relief.
|
|
[29]
Can I suggest we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and
Local Government to seek answers to the questions they’ve
raised? And when we get them, we’ll pass that answer back on
to the petitioners directly. Yes.
|
|
[30]
‘Natural Resources Wales (Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru) Needs
Tighter Restriction’—this was first considered on 3
January. A response from the Cabinet Secretary: 17 January. A
research briefing on the petition and related issues has been
prepared for Members’ information. The petitioner has
submitted further comments. All of the above correspondence is
included in the papers of the meeting. The petitioner says that the
policies pursued by NRW are damaging to the livelihood of farmers.
NRW’s functions include protection of the environment and
designation of sites of special scientific interest. The petitioner
has submitted additional comments that outline his personal
experience of dealing with NRW in relation to farming land. Shall
we write to NRW asking for them to respond to the comments raised
and bring it back?
|
|
[31]
Neil McEvoy: I wish they would protect land, actually. They
don’t do it in my constituency—regional
constituency.
|
|
[32]
Mike Hedges: Happy to write to NRW, yes? Okay. Happy with
that.
|
|
09:17
|
|
Y Wybodaeth Ddiweddaraf am Ddeisebau
Blaenorol
Updates to Previous Petitions
|
|
[33]
Mike Hedges: Updates on previous petitions—‘Save
Cardiff Coal Exchange’. This started off in March 2014. So,
the third anniversary is about to come up. The committee last
considered it on 1 November. The petitioner has submitted further
comments asking the committee to address his requests for a public
inquiry. Work on redeveloping the Coal Exchange into a hotel is
currently being progressed. I’ve also had
correspondence—I don’t know whether other people
have—from the petitioner saying that Phil Bale’s reply
includes information that is incorrect.
|
|
[34]
Mr Francis: Right. Okay.
|
|
[35]
Neil McEvoy: That doesn’t surprise me. It happens
frequently, to be honest
|
|
[36]
Mike Hedges: I think that as he’s made that comment,
perhaps we can go back to Phil Bale and ask him if what he said is
correct.
|
|
[37]
Mr Francis: Okay. [Inaudible.]—element of his
letter.
|
|
[38]
Mike Hedges: I thought everybody had had it.
|
|
[39]
Mr Francis: We have had it, but I don’t think
we’ve had the comment that it was incorrect.
|
|
[40]
Mike Hedges: No, I believe everybody had the e-mail from the
petitioner saying there were errors in it.
|
|
[41]
Mr Francis: Okay.
|
|
[42]
Mike Hedges: If somebody says there are errors in that
letter, then we need to go back.
|
|
[43]
Neil McEvoy: I agree. What concerns me with this is the lack
of transparency. It depends who you speak to. Some people think
it’s a really good thing to do. Others think that it’s
disastrous. But I think what is pretty obvious is that there is a
lack of transparency, and I think it does need looking at. So,
I’m glad that we’re taking that action.
|
|
[44]
Mr Francis: In the correspondence from the petitioner that
came in last week, he was drawing the committee’s attention
to the fact that his petition calls for us to request a public
inquiry, and is, I think, seeking a ‘yes’ or
‘no’ answer on that at some point. I mean, that could
be next time.
|
|
[45]
Mike Hedges: Or we could send it on to the Cabinet Secretary
saying we’ve had that request.
|
|
[46]
Mr Francis: Okay. Shall we do that now or—?
|
|
[47]
Mike Hedges: Yes. Might as well do it now.
|
|
[48]
Mr Francis: Do it now. Okay.
|
|
[49]
Mike Hedges: I can understand the frustration of petitioners
who put a petition in almost three years ago, and it just keeps
coming backwards and forwards without anything appearing to happen.
That’s one thing, I think, that we as a committee this year
are very keen on not doing, that they’re—
|
|
[50]
Neil McEvoy: So, are we going to request that
the—?
|
|
[51]
Mike Hedges: We’re going to pass on the request.
|
|
[52]
Neil McEvoy: Okay. Are we going to take a view on it as a
committee, or—?
|
|
[53]
Mike Hedges: I think if the request is granted, then it’s
happened; if it’s in, then we may well take a view on it.
But, at the moment, we haven’t got enough information to take
a view on it, but it’s worth showing that we are taking the
petition seriously.
|
|
[54]
Neil McEvoy: Yes. Thanks.
|
|
[55]
Mike Hedges: ‘Cilmeri Community Council Appeal for the
Prince Llywelyn Monument’—last considered on 29
November and agreed to request and update from the petitioner. The
petitioner has sent further comments, which are included in the
papers. The petitioner has informed the committee that the design
of the signs has been approved, but that he has written to the
Cabinet Secretary to ask who will fund the new signage. The
petitioner has also asked if the committee can agree to progress
the other elements of the petition. Previous correspondence from
the Welsh Government has stated that these areas are the
responsibility of Powys council. Ask the petitioner for an update
and write to Powys County Council to ask what progress has been
made in relation to the maintenance of the Prince Llywelyn
monument? Yes?
|
|
[56]
Gareth Bennett:
Yes.
|
|
[57]
Mike Hedges: ‘The Circuit of Wales’—you’ve
got an update on that, haven’t you?
|
|
[58]
Mr Francis: Yes. Further to publishing the papers on this
petition, we had contact from the petitioner at the end of last
week, stating that, given what was in the public domain last week,
and the question answered by the Cabinet Secretary, the petitioner
is happy for the petition to be withdrawn, if the committee wishes
to do that.
|
|
[59]
Mike Hedges: Okay. The petitioner is happy to have it withdrawn, I
think that—
|
|
[60]
Gareth Bennett:
I think it’s been discussed a
lot—it’s all ongoing, isn’t it, on this
stuff?
|
|
[61]
Mike Hedges: Yes. I don’t think there’s any added
value we can give to it now. It is being discussed, and it’s
making progress. Okay. Happy with that?
|
|
[62]
Gareth Bennett:
Yes.
|
|
[63]
Mike Hedges: ‘Include a Mynachdy and Talybont Station as
part of the Cardiff Metro Proposal’—we received this
and dealt with it on 13 December. We received a response from the
Cabinet Secretary on 18 January. The petitioner has been informed
that the petition will be considered by the committee, but has not
responded. The Cabinet Secretary said they’re looking to
prioritise the list of potential new stations, and has offered to
update the committee when that work has been completed. So, I think
that—and I look to people who know Cardiff better than I
do—what we want with the metro system is one that has regular
but not too frequent stops. But somewhere in that greater area
around there, they’ve got to have a stop. And I think we
should just wait for the Cabinet Secretary to come back to
us.
|
|
[64]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[65]
Mike Hedges: ‘Land & Access Lane Sale at
Abercwmboi’—we had it for the first time on 17 January,
and await the views of the petitioner before deciding what action
to take. The petitioner has now submitted further comments, which
are included in the papers, plus a map. It concerns land and an
access lane currently used by residents to the rear of a
residential street. The Welsh Government owns the land, but it is
in discussions with the local authority regarding access
arrangements. The Cabinet Secretary has also confirmed that the
land will be offered on the open market if not required for this
purpose, as a development site. The petitioner has submitted
background, and copies of previous letters from the Welsh
Government, and has questioned perceived inconsistency between this
correspondence and that received by the Petitions Committee. Shall
we write to the Cabinet Secretary, asking if he will be willing to
consult with the petitioners—
|
|
[66]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[67]
Gareth Bennett:
Yes.
|
|
[68]
Mike Hedges: —and other residents of Park View Terrace over
the future usage of the land once current discussions with the
local authority have concluded, and prior to any sale
process?
|
|
[69]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[70]
Gareth Bennett:
Yes.
|
|
[71]
Mike Hedges: I would also have thought that they would have had a
right of way by usage, if they’d been using it for any length
of time. Can we ask the Welsh Government about that? Because if
people have used a right of way for certain lengths of
time—and it may be seven years, 10 years or 14
years—then you get a right of way, or right of access, over
the land.
|
|
[72]
Mr Francis: Yes.
|
|
[73]
Mike Hedges: If that’s the technical term.
|
|
[74]
Gareth Bennett:
There’s another issue they’re
mentioning about inconsistencies in the correspondence that they
had from the Welsh Government, and from the Petitions Committee.
So, I don’t know if you want to perhaps address that as well
in writing to the Cabinet Secretary.
|
|
[75]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[76]
Mr Francis: I think, in that sort of instance, the inconsistency
referred to is an earlier letter sent by the Cabinet Secretary to
Vikki Howells that suggests that the land—they are in
discussions about selling the land on an open-market basis
and the subsequent letter from the Cabinet Secretary to this
committee stated that they’re in discussions with the local
authority about whether the land is needed for access to a
different site that is adjacent to it and doesn’t mention the
discussions on the open market. So, we could seek clarification on
that.
|
|
[77]
Mike Hedges: If we do get clarification, it might be worth, if the
Minister doesn’t, us sending it on to Vikki Howells as
well.
|
|
[78]
‘Abolition of Park Homes Sales Commission’. Considered
on 29 November. Written to the Cabinet Secretary for communities.
Response on 7 January. The petitioners have submitted further
comments. The Cabinet Secretary responded. He is unable to meet
with the petitioners at this time, but their comments and the views
received as part of the recent research into the park homes
industry are currently being considered by the Welsh Government.
The petitioners again say that they believe that the audited
accounts of park home owners should have been considered as part of
the research. The petitioners informed the committee of an event
taking place in the Senedd on 21 March and asked if Members may be
available to meet with them. We’ve received correspondence
from Andrew R.T. Davies requesting that the committee considers
seeking time for a Plenary debate on this subject.
|
|
[79]
What can we do? We can await the announcement of the Cabinet
Secretary’s decision. Do we wish to either formally or
informally discuss the petition with the petitioners on 21
March?
|
|
[80]
Neil McEvoy: We could do, yes.
|
|
[81]
Gareth Bennett: Does that fit in with—? I suppose we
could meet with them anyway.
|
|
[82]
Mr Francis: We need to discuss with them the logistics.
They’ve said that they’re here for an event around
lunchtime and they’ll be travelling down. So, we could look
to use committee time if they were going to be in the Senedd in
time for that. That’s the discussion that we’d need to
have with the petitioners. The only other thing I would highlight
is that later on in the meeting we’re going to be looking at
a possible schedule for how we take evidence on the disabled
transport petition and that would be one of the meeting dates for
which it is possible to get some witnesses in for that
petition.
|
|
[83]
Mike Hedges: We could also meet with them between 1 p.m. and 1.20
p.m. as ‘receiving petitions’ time.
|
|
[84]
Mr Francis: Yes, that would be a possibility.
|
|
[85]
Mike Hedges: If Members would be happy to do that—just to
let them talk to us.
|
|
[86]
Mr Francis: So, that would be your preference—lunchtime,
just before Plenary, to have an opportunity to meet with
them.
|
|
[87]
Mike Hedges: We do keep 1 p.m. until 1.20 p.m. available,
don’t we, for receiving petitions. So, we could talk to them
if they are available at that time and if people are
happy.
|
|
[88]
Gareth Bennett:
Would that satisfy them, do you think,
that sort of slot? Any discussion is better that none. Is that the
kind of thing they’re looking for—an informal briefing
for 20 minutes? Is that what they want?
|
|
[89]
Mr Francis: We could certainly discuss that with them. Obviously,
it wouldn’t be an opportunity to take formal evidence because
it’s outside of the committee’s slot,
but—
|
|
[90]
Mike Hedges: They can come and talk to us and explain to us what
the problems are and answer questions from us regarding it. We can
ask them why they didn’t push for it to be part of the park
homes legislation that Peter Black brought in in the last
term.
|
|
[91]
The next one is ‘Protect the future
of Funky Dragon, the Children and Young People’s Assembly for
Wales’. This was first considered on 23 September 2014. It
was last considered on 16 June 2015. We agreed to await the
petitioner’s views. The petitioner has been contacted to ask
if they have anything to report on the current situation of their
petition. The petitioner had not responded when papers for the
meeting were finalised.
|
|
[92]
Can I suggest we close the petition? Can
I also say that this is a classic example of waiting a very long
time? I can say this because you weren’t working here when
this happened. It’s waiting a very long time until—. We
need to, really, unless things are happening outside of the
meeting, reach some conclusion within 12 months, I would have
thought. Sometimes there are things happening and we’re
engaging in further correspondence, but just hanging on to it for
two and a half years is not in the best interest of
anybody.
|
|
[93]
‘It is Hard to Conceive What Life
Would Have Become Without my Support Worker’. Petition
received for the first time on 19 January 2016. Await the
petitioner’s views on the Minister’s letter. The
clerking team has sought to contact the petitioner on a number of
occasions to gather these views, but has been unable to secure a
response. Given the protection provided for the budget for the
Supporting People programme since the petition was submitted, and
given the difficulty in contacting the petitioner, shall we close
the petition?
|
|
09:30
|
|
[94]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[95]
Mike Hedges: ‘Antiretroviral Medication in Cardiff’.
First considered on 18 June 2015. On 1 July 2014 we last considered
the petition and agreed to ask the Minister what steps he had taken
to consult HIV patients on guidelines and to seek views from HIV
patient groups on the issues. No responses have been received to
the latest action and, given the length of time that has passed,
the clerking team has contacted the petitioner on several occasions
to ask if they have anything to report on the current situation of
their petition. The petitioner had not responded. Close
it?
|
|
[96]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[97]
Mike Hedges: ‘Restoration of Inpatient Beds, Minor Injuries
Cover and X-Ray Unit to the Ffestiniog Memorial Hospital’.
Last considered 13 December 2016, when we agreed to seek a copy of
Healthcare Inspectorate Wales’s conclusions, and write to
Betsi Cadwaladr to seek an update on the latest situation. Both
responses have been received. The petitioner has also submitted
substantial further comments, which are included in the papers for
the meeting. We’ve had lots of correspondence on the views of
the health board, and we have had the views of the action group.
Have we had the views of the community health council?
|
|
[98]
Mr Francis: We haven’t in recent times. I don’t know
whether, in the long previous history of this petition,
that’s been sought or not.
|
|
[99]
Mike Hedges: But we’re in a situation where the health board
is saying one thing and the petitioner’s saying something
else, and one thing we’ve always been very keen on doing is
getting a sort of refereeing, using a sporting analysis. Could we
write to the community health council asking them for their views?
Yes?
|
|
[100]
Neil McEvoy: Yes. Can I just express—? One thing that came
up on my radar was:
|
|
[101]
‘There is a clear perception that
some individuals are constantly searching for examples…to
generate political ammunition.’
|
|
[102]
I think it’s quite a poor comment
to make, really, about, I think, people who have a genuine concern
that they feel passionate about. And to accuse them of playing
politics is—. I don’t think it’s accurate or
fair, to be honest, because, in that area, they wouldn’t need
to, because it’s not as if the elections are tightly fought
there. So, I think that there’s a real genuine issue, and I
think that’s quite a poor comment to make.
|
|
[103]
Gareth Bennett:
I did meet them on one occasion, and, you
know, they weren’t trying to make politics out of this. This
was an area of concern to them, because of it being quite a remote
area. They have got genuine concerns.
|
|
[104]
Mike Hedges: Thirty miles in rural Wales and 30 miles along the M4
corridor is exactly the same number of miles, but in terms of time,
it’s substantially different.
|
|
[105]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[106]
Mike Hedges: Okay, so we’ll ask the community health council
if they’ve got a view.
|
|
[107]
‘Routine Screening for Type 1
Diabetes in Children and Young People’. Submitted 8 March
2016. Committee last considered it on 15 November and agreed to:
obtain additional evidence from Diabetes UK Cymru; await any
response that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee received
from the Children and Young People’s Wales Diabetes Network;
and to use these as the basis for a further letter to the Cabinet
Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport. Responses from Diabetes
UK and the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
have now been received. The petitioner has also submitted further
comments, which are included in the papers. What do you want to do?
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee have indicated that
they intend to return to the issue
of screening for type 1 diabetes later in 2017 when the results of
a study currently under way in Germany are known. In a letter to
the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Children and Young
People’s Wales Diabetes Network has stated that they are
unable to support any specific proposals raised by the petitioners,
primarily due to a lack of current evidence of the benefit of
widespread testing of unwell children for type 1 diabetes and the
risk of harm from false positives. However, they also state
that work is currently under way in
relation to other recommendations made by the petitioners,
including training for GPs, availability of glucose meters, and for
health boards to report on care pathways. Diabetes UK have also
stated that a screening programme is not supported by current
evidence, but have informed the committee that they are developing
an awareness-raising campaign with the petitioners aimed at primary
care staff, education staff and parents. The petitioners have
expressed their desire for work to be undertaken in Wales before
the conclusion of the German study. The have requested that the
committee considers carrying out the actions discussed by the
previous committee, including writing to all local health boards in
Wales requesting more information on their DKA/type 1 diagnosis
policies and pathways. Before we take any action, if the previous
committee agreed these actions, why did nothing happen?
|
|
[108]
Mr Francis: I think, because of the proximity to dissolution at
the time—obviously, that was before my time on the
committee—that wasn’t undertaken.
|
|
[109]
Mike Hedges: I think we ought to, at the first stage, do what the
previous committee suggested. Yes?
|
|
[110]
Neil McEvoy: I think it would be an idea for the Cabinet Secretary
to meet with the petitioners as well. We should request that, I
think.
|
|
[111]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[112]
Neil McEvoy: Because it’s clearly a very serious issue.
People have turned up today to see us discuss this. So, I think we
should—. I think, out of courtesy, the Minister should
certainly meet with these campaigners. I’m sure he’d
learn a lot as well, by listening to them.
|
|
[113]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[114]
Mr Francis: So, we’ll write to all local health boards on
their diabetes referral pathways and then provide a summary of that
back to the committee for you to decide what to do next.
We’ll also write to the Cabinet Secretary at the same
time.
|
|
[115]
Mike Hedges: Yes, okay. Everybody happy? Yes.
|
|
[116]
‘The Wildlife Warriors’.
First considered on 11 October and last considered on 29 November,
when it was agreed to write to Keep Wales Tidy to ask for their
reflections. A response from Keep Wales Tidy was received. The
petitioner was informed that the petition would be considered by
the committee but had not responded when papers for the committee
were being finalised. Given the
degree of consensus between the petitioners, Keep Wales Tidy and
Welsh Government on the role that Wildlife Warriors clubs can play,
I suggest we close the petition.
|
|
[117]
‘Establish Statutory Public Rights
of Access to Land and Water for Recreational and Other
Purposes’. First considered on 15 November. Response from the
Cabinet Secretary was received on 13 December. Subsequently, the
Cabinet Secretary stated in Plenary on 1 February that she intended
to issue a statement in the coming weeks. The petitioner has also
submitted further comments, which are included in the papers.
We’ve also had correspondence from a large number of angling
clubs and other people interested in using water. The clerk is now
going to tell us about that.
|
|
[118]
Mr Francis: A statement was issued by the Cabinet Secretary
yesterday, which stated—. It was the action, essentially,
that we’d been waiting for on this petition. So, the Welsh
Government intends to consult further on what they describe as
‘proposals to reform the legislative framework’ in this
area. There isn’t a full indication in that statement about
in which direction they’ll look to reform the legislation.
So, it may be that the committee wants to consider whether we need
to write back to the Cabinet Secretary on the back of that
statement and seek clarification about what the options in that
consultation will be, particularly whether they will cover the aim
of the petition around the statutory right of access to land and
water. I suppose we could also ask about the timescales.
|
|
[119]
Mike Hedges: Yes, a time frame would be quite useful, and how
they’re going to advertise it, because there are a lot of
people who are very interested in either allowing or not allowing
full access to water.
|
|
[120]
‘Kick Start The Welsh Language
Curriculum’. Last considered on 4 February 2014. They agreed
then to ask the Minister for his response to the petitioner’s
further views and forward the petitioner a copy of the transcript
of the debate held in Plenary and a copy of the First
Minister’s written statement of 3 February 2014. Given the
length of time that has passed, the clerking team has attempted to
contact the petitioners on a number of occasions to seek their
further views on the current situation with regard to their
petition and has not been able to secure a response. Close
it?
|
|
[121] Neil
McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[122] Mike
Hedges: ‘Rights to Primary Health Care in
Welsh’—Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg have provided it. It
was first considered on 13 December, and we agreed to await the
Welsh Government’s response on the recent public consultation
on the issue and the draft regulations that they are bringing
forward, and, in the meantime, to write to the Welsh Language
Commissioner seeking her views. A response from the Welsh Language
Commissioner was received on 4 January. 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.
|
|
[123] The Welsh
Language Commissioner was fairly unambiguous, wasn’t she,
that
|
|
[124] ‘primary
care service providers must be subject to the Welsh language
standards under the same statutory framework as the health
bodies’
|
|
[125] and that
|
|
[126]
‘additional standards are required in order to facilitate
this’.
|
|
[127] So we await the
publication of the Welsh Government’s response to the
consultation and the draft regulations.
|
|
[128] Neil
McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[129] Mike
Hedges: ‘Give Rate Relief to Local Authorities for
Leisure and Cultural Facilities’, first considered on 13
December 2016: the committee last considered it on 13 December, and
agreed to seek further details from the Cabinet Secretary for
Finance and Local Government about the plans to explore
improvements to non-domestic rates, and whether there will be an
opportunity for the petitioner to contribute views on this. A
response from the Cabinet Secretary was received on 12 January. The
petitioner was informed that the petition would be considered by
the committee but had not responded when the papers were
finalised—still no response?
|
|
[130] Mr
Francis: No.
|
|
[131] Mike
Hedges: Shall we wait to give the petitioner another fortnight
to respond?
|
|
[132] Neil
McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[133] Mike
Hedges: ‘Funding for the Education Workforce Council
Registration (EWC) Fee for Learning Support Workers in
Schools’, received from UNISON on 13 December last year: we
considered it on 13 December and agreed to await the view of the
petitioner and request further information from the Cabinet
Secretary for Education about the process of deciding individual
subsidy levels for 2017-18. A response was received from the
Cabinet Secretary on 6 January. The petitioner also submitted
further comments, which are included in the papers for the meeting.
The petitioners have raised a further response of further concerns.
Shall we write to the Cabinet Secretary to ask for a response to
those concerns?
|
|
[134] Gareth
Bennett: Yes.
|
|
[135] Neil
McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
09:42
|
