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 09:01.
The meeting began at 09:01.
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
[1]
David J. Rowlands: Welcome, all. I hope that we’re all
suitably refreshed after the summer recess. We welcome everyone to
the meeting. Participants are welcome to speak in Welsh or English.
Headsets are available for translation of Welsh to English, and
there is no need to turn off mobile phones. Item 1 is apologies and
substitutions: no apologies have been received.
|
Deisebau Newydd
New Petitions
|
[2]
David J. Rowlands: There are three new petitions, so
we’ll move on to the first of those. This petition was
submitted by Hywel ap John Griffiths, having collected 69
signatures. We looked at it on 21 August and we agreed to ask for
the Cabinet Secretary to make comments on it. He has done that and
the petitioner was offered the opportunity to provide further
comments, but none have been received at this point.
|
[3]
The Cabinet Secretary said that the NHS Wales Health Collaborative
is looking into this matter and the collaborative intends to make
recommendations to the health board in early autumn. So, the
possible action on this is to await further views from the
petitioner before deciding whether the committee can take any
further action on the petition.
|
[4]
Mike Hedges: Can I move we do that?
|
[5]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes. I second that.
|
[6]
David J. Rowlands: Okay, yes. We’re all agreed then.
The next petition is to reopen Crumlin railway station. This
petition was submitted by Michael Davies, having collected 208
signatures. An initial response to the petition was received from
the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on 21 August.
The petitioner has submitted further comments that are included in
the papers for this meeting. It seems, obviously, that the Welsh
Government are in the process of drawing up lists for stations that
they believe should be looked at, and this—Crumlin
station—will be looked at in the second tranche of these
lists. So, the possible action is to share the detailed information
provided by the petitioner to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and
Infrastructure and ask (a), whether this can be fed into the future
assessment as potential for a new station in the area, and (b),
whether there will be an opportunity for local views to be
considered during this assessment.
|
[7]
Mike Hedges: I move that we do that.
|
[8]
David J. Rowlands: Yes.
|
[9]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes.
|
[10]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine. Yes, we’re all agreed that
that is what we will do. The next petition was submitted by Gerwyn
David Evans, having collected 11,091 signatures, so this is quite a
significant number of signatures. But it appears that what was
being asked for has now more or less been granted by the Welsh
Government in that it does not intend to proceed with the proposed
design. We have not had a formal response from the Government on
this matter, so it may be worth while us asking for a formal
response from the Government. Obviously, the possible action is
that, as this petition has collected in excess of 5,000
signatures, committee should consider whether to request time for a
Plenary debate on the subject. However, given that the issue
appears to have been resolved, there is maybe little value in this.
And the committee could await a formal response from the Cabinet
Secretary and seek the views of the petitioner on it, with a view
to closing the petition and congratulating the petitioner on the
success of the campaign at that point.
|
[11]
Mike Hedges: Can we wait until we get a formal response
saying it’s been cancelled? And I think if we get a formal
response saying it’s been cancelled, we can send that to the
petitioner, and I move that we close the petition at that stage. If
we don’t get a formal response, then we bring this back to a
future meeting.
|
[12]
David J. Rowlands: Okay. Are we all agreed on that?
|
[13]
Neil McEvoy: Almost—I’d almost like the Minister
to come in and explain how it could happen in the first place, to
be honest. I think there’s a huge ignorance of Welsh history,
but, you know, we see this—. I agree with Mike, yes.
|
[14]
David J. Rowlands: So, are we agreed that the committee
should await a formal response from the Cabinet Secretary and then
seek the views of the petitioners?
|
09:06
|
|
Y Wybodaeth Ddiweddaraf am Ddeisebau Blaenorol
Updates to Previous Petitions
|
|
[15]
David J. Rowlands: We come to the petitions that have been
submitted earlier, and the one by Mohammed Sarul Islam is to build
an international mother language monument at Cardiff Bay. It had
collected 16 signatures. Now, it appears that the Cabinet Secretary
said there is no funding available for this to go ahead, so if we
note that and close the petition, drawing the petitioner’s
attention to the research brief, which identifies organisations and
charities who may be able to help—. Do we all agree on
that?
|
|
[16]
Neil McEvoy: I’d agree with that. It’s just that
I would outline one area of concern that it’s a replica of a
Bangladeshi nationalist monument, which members of other
communities have pointed out. So, I think I’m glad the
petition will be closed.
|
|
[17]
David J. Rowlands: Okay, so we’re all agreed on that
action. Fine, thank you.
|
|
[18]
The next petition was ‘Save Our Bus’. It was submitted
by Patricia Threadgill and was first considered on 14 February,
having collected 60 signatures. Now, there’s been a very full
explanation of the services available that came from Stagecoach,
pointing out quite comprehensively the sort of arrangements that
are made. So, given that the committee could take little further
action on this, the possible action then is to close this
petition.
|
|
[19]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes, I propose we close it.
|
|
[20]
David J. Rowlands:
Would we all agree with that?
Yes—just close that petition.
|
|
[21]
This is something that’s been
ongoing for a little while. It’s the train transport for
school pupils with Arriva Trains Wales. The petition was submitted
by Elin Tuckwood and was first considered on 1 November 2016,
having collected 937 signatures. There seem to be two threads to
this particular petition. One is whether children would be allowed
an allowance and their transport would be paid, and the other is
with regard to the safety of the platform that is being used. I
think that we’ve had quite comprehensive answers from Arriva
Trains with regard to the matter of the safety of that particular
station, and they’ve confirmed that all reasonable measures
have been taken in order to make sure that the safety that’s
on all other platforms is in place.
|
|
[22]
The other thing is that there
doesn’t seem to be any movement with regard to the council
with regard to actually paying for pupils on this. So, the possible
actions again are to write again to Arriva Trains to see if they
have any possible further comments with regard to this,
particularly the safety concerns, and/or write to Rhondda Cynon
Taff County Borough Council to seek their views on transport
provision for pupils to Treorchy Comprehensive School, and whether
they have had any discussions about the safety of pupils using the
station.
|
|
[23]
Mike Hedges: I suggest we do both.
|
|
[24]
David J. Rowlands:
We do both—
|
|
[25]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
|
[26]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes, okay. Yes, we’ll take both
those actions.
|
|
[27]
The next petition is ‘TATA Steel Port Talbot Power
Plant’. This was submitted by Peter Bamsey and was first
considered on 13 September 2016, having collected 531 signatures.
We have had a response from the First Minister, indicating that the
Welsh Government could offer help with the power plant as part of a
£60 million funding package. Having said that, the options
open are that we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and
Infrastructure to ask if there have been any recent discussions
involving the Welsh Government over a new power plant at Port
Talbot before considering what further action the committee could
take. We also note at this point that there has been further
correspondence from Mr Bamsey with regard to the fact that perhaps
Tata’s pension scheme responsibilities and liabilities may
have impacted on their ability to put money into this plant
themselves. But you’d have to very carefully consider whether
that should be included in this particular petition or not.
|
[28]
Mike Hedges: I don’t think it should because it
wasn’t part of it. I still think that we should go back to
the Cabinet Secretary and ask for an update on what’s
actually happening.
|
[29]
David J. Rowlands: Yes, fine. Thank you. So, the action
we’ll take is that.
|
[30]
The next item is ‘Resurfacing of the A40 Raglan-Abergavenny
Road’. The petition was submitted by Sara Jones and was first
considered on 13 September 2016 and collected 164 signatures. There
has been a response from the Cabinet Secretary, and he says that
the road will be looked at, but it’s not a priority as at
this time. So, the possible action is to seek a response from the
petitioner to the latest information before determining future
action on the petition.
|
[31]
Mike Hedges: I move we do that.
|
[32]
David J. Rowlands: Yes, fine. That’s the action
we’ll take. Thank you.
|
[33]
‘Petition to Protect our High Street’—this
petition was submitted by Sally Stephenson, and was first
considered on 14 February 2017, having collected 1,668 signatures.
There have been responses from the Cabinet Secretary, and one of
those responses is the proposal for a new, permanent small business
rate relief. This runs until 13 October. So, possible actions are
to probably write to the petitioner to seek views on the proposals
contained in the current consultation, and encourage them to also
respond directly to the Government as part of that
consultation.
|
[34]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
[35]
David J. Rowlands: Yes. Are we all agreed on that? Right. So
that’s the action we will take.
|
[36]
The next petition is ‘Give Rate Relief to Local Authorities
for Leisure and Cultural Facilities’. This petition was
submitted by Ryan Dansie, and was first considered on 13 December
2016, having collected 17 signatures. The committee last considered
the petition on 9 May and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary
for Finance and Local Government to seek his response. The Cabinet
Secretary’s response was received on 14 June. The petitioner
has been sent this response and been offered the opportunity to
comment but had not done so when the papers were finished. The
possible action on this is to await further comments from the
petitioner before deciding whether to take any further action on
the petition, or the other alternative is to close this
petition.
|
[37]
Mike Hedges: How long did the petitioner have to
respond?
|
[38]
Mr Francis: In this case, because this petition was deferred
from before the summer, quite a period of time, though we
didn’t chase for a period of time during the summer
break.
|
[39]
Mike Hedges: Can I suggest we chase now, and if they
don’t reply by the next meeting we close it?
|
[40]
Janet Finch-Saunders: I agree.
|
[41]
David J. Rowlands: Right. Neil, do you have anything to
add?
|
[42]
Neil McEvoy: No.
|
[43]
David J. Rowlands: Fine. So, we’ll await further
comments from the petitioner.
|
[44]
The next item is ‘Ban Letting Agent Fees to Tenants’.
This petition was submitted by Shelter Cymru and was first
considered on 14 February 2017, having collected 328
signatures.
|
09:15
|
[45]
The committee last considered the petition on 21 March, and agreed
to await a response from the Equalities, Local Government and
Communities Committee as to whether they intend to conduct further
work on the issue, and ask the Cabinet Secretary for Communities
and Children when he intends to make a statement on the issue. The
Cabinet Secretary did respond on 20 June. The petitioner was given
the opportunity to provide a response, but had not done so when the
papers were finalised. But apparently there is currently running a
consultation exercise to inform future actions, including
legislative proposals. So, our possible actions are to await
further comments from the petitioner, before deciding what further
action the committee can take.
|
[46]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes.
|
[47]
David J. Rowlands: Are we all in agreement with that? Neil?
Mike?
|
[48]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
[49]
Mike Hedges: Sorry. I think we need a response on paper,
that’s all.
|
[50]
David J. Rowlands: Okay. We’ll await further comments
from the petitioner on that matter.
|
[51]
The next petition is ‘Recognition of Parental
Alienation’. This petition was submitted by Families Need
Fathers Both Parents Matter Cymru, and was first considered on 9
May 2017, having collected 2,058 signatures. The committee last
considered the petition on 9 May, and agreed to write to the
Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to ask the specific
questions raised by the petitioners. The Cabinet Secretary’s
response was received on 23 June. The petitioner was offered the
opportunity to respond to this, but hadn’t done so when the
papers were finalised.
|
[52]
Neil McEvoy: I think I need to declare an interest here,
17.24A, with my interactions with the Children and Family Court
Advisory and Support Service, which are actually very informative,
rather than prejudicial, I could say.
|
[53]
David J. Rowlands: Right, okay. So, we have possible actions
to await further comments from the petitioner before deciding what
further action to take or—
|
[54]
Neil McEvoy: I’d be inclined to invite the petitioner
in, and the Minister in as well. There seems to be a contradiction
on what is really the reality. I note from the Minister’s
response that there is no data; so, if there’s no data,
I’m not sure how he can actually reach a conclusion. In terms
of the charity not responding, it’s probably because of
workload. It’s actually a real charity, where they do things
for free, and they do a lot of good work. And I think that it would
be good to bring them in to get their view, and the Minister as
well, I would say.
|
[55]
David J. Rowlands: Because that was one of the other
actions: to invite the petitioner to give oral evidence to a future
committee meeting, and write to the Children, Young People and
Education Committee to ask whether they have done any work on this
issue or are planning to consider it as part of their work
programme.
|
[56]
Mike Hedges: Can I move an amendment to what Neil said? Yes,
I’m all for inviting them in, and the Minister, but can we
check first that the children’s committee aren’t going
to do exactly the same thing? So, if the children’s committee
aren’t going to do it, can we do it, but, if the
children’s committee are going to do it, can we let them do
it?
|
[57]
Neil McEvoy: I don’t know; I’d like him to come
in.
|
[58]
Mike Hedges: But if he’s going in to the children’s
committee, if the children’s committee are going to do it and
going to invite him in, then it’s pointless us duplicating
it.
|
[59]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
But we’ve received the petition,
haven’t we? I think we should invite him in. Sorry, Mike, but
I do; I agree with Neil. Because it is a big issue—certainly
I’ve come across this in my own constituency.
|
[60]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes, it’s obviously a large issue,
with 2,000-odd signatures to the petition, so I think that we ought
to give it due consideration.
|
[61]
Mike Hedges: I don’t want to fight anybody over it, but I
just thought that it could be easier to make sure that we
weren’t duplicating another committee.
|
[62]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Well, it’s been put on our agenda,
hasn’t it, with the petition?
|
[63]
Neil McEvoy: It’s one of the major things that walks through
my office door continuously.
|
[64]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine. So, we’re agreed that we will
invite the petitioner to give oral evidence. Is
that—?
|
[65]
Mike Hedges: And we’ll have the Minister to respond, then,
at some other stage.
|
[66]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes, fine.
|
[67]
The next petition is ‘Ensure
Disabled People’s Housing Adaptation Needs are Adequately
Met’. This was submitted by Whizz-Kidz Cardiff Ambassador
Club, and first considered on 11 October 2016, having collected 125
signatures. Now, it appears that what’s been asked for in
this petition has been agreed by the Welsh Government and
therefore—. And the Cabinet Secretary has responded on this
matter. So, the possible actions are to close the petition in the
light of the positive response received from the petitioners
themselves.
|
[68]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Can I just say on this one—?
We’ve done three committee inquiries by the Assembly now on
how people access equipment and support, and I think it’s
fair to say that, with each report going forward, the
recommendations are largely the same, and I haven’t seen any
improvement at all in the speed at which people get—. And
when you read this, where a seven-year-old is unable to live with
their parents, I’m not so sure we should be closing this one.
I think that we perhaps ought to be putting more pressure on the
Government. We have used Assembly resources in the past and found
the weaknesses on three occasions as to the length of time it takes
people to get support and the equipment they need.
|
[69]
David J. Rowlands:
The only thing I will say is that we are
dealing just with the petition itself. That may be for further
Government intervention in some way, but, with regard to this
particular petition, the petitioners have stated that they are
satisfied with the policies implemented by the Government and
that’s why we’re proposing to close this particular
petition.
|
[70]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
All right. Okay.
|
[71]
David J. Rowlands:
Neil, do you have any comments, and Mike
on this?
|
[72]
Mike Hedges: Happy to close it.
|
[73]
David J. Rowlands:
You’re happy to close the petition.
Thank you.
|
[74]
The next petition, ‘A Welsh
Government Department for Europe would ensure a clear, strategic
and accountable voice for Wales in ongoing negotiations’: the
petition was submitted by Tegid
Roberts and was first considered on 11 October 2016, having
collected 22 signatures. The committee last considered the petition
on 9 May and agreed to forward the petitioner’s comments to
the First Minister and ask for answers to the questions raised. A
response from the First Minister was received on 3 July. The
petitioner was informed that the petition would be considered but
had not provided further comments when papers were
finalised.
|
[75]
The First Minister has provided a
detailed response to the questions previously raised by the
petitioner. So, the possible actions are that we offer the
petitioner a further opportunity to comment on the information
provided by the First Minister and/or consider closing the petition
given that the organisation of Welsh Government is a matter for the
First Minister and the fact that regular updates on the Welsh
Government’s response to Brexit are provided during other
Assembly proceedings.
|
[76]
Mr Francis: And, since the papers were published, we have had a
comment from the petitioner on this, which was circulated prior to
the meeting, which is a comment about the length of time the
process has taken to get to this point in terms of getting the
answers through the petitions process, but also appears to be a
kind of recognition that we’ve maybe reached the point with
the petition where the petition’s been answered by the First
Minister, even if it’s not gone exactly down the line that
the petitioner was originally seeking.
|
[77]
Mike Hedges: Yes, fine. I suggest we close it.
|
[78]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes.
|
[79]
David J. Rowlands:
Neil, do you have any
comments?
|
[80]
Neil McEvoy: We could write to him, possibly. I’d prefer to
write to him, really.
|
[81]
Mr Francis: To the petitioner?
|
[82]
Neil McEvoy: To the petitioner, yes.
|
[83]
David J. Rowlands:
Write to the petitioner.
|
[84]
Mr Francis: So, we’ve had the comments on the fourteenth,
at the end of last week—some basic comments from him. There
should’ve been a sheet on your table when you came in. But we
can ask and get some more specific reaction, perhaps.
|
[85]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes. What does the committee think? Are
you happy to close or—? Where are we at?
|
[86]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I’m happy to close it.
|
[87]
David J. Rowlands:
Mike?
|
[88]
Mike Hedges: Happy to close it.
|
[89]
Neil McEvoy: Okay.
|
[90]
David J. Rowlands:
I’m of that opinion as well,
Neil.
|
[91]
Neil McEvoy: Yes, it’s fine.
|
[92]
David J. Rowlands:
I don’t think it’s going any
further. Okay, we’re closing the petition.
|
[93]
The next petition was with regard to
‘A Roundabout for the A477/A4075 Junction’. The
petition was submitted by Pembroke
Town Council, and was first considered on 19 January 2016,
having collected 597 signatures. The committee last considered the
petition on 15 November 2016 and agreed to await the results of a
road safety audit and the petitioners’ reaction to these
before deciding on any further action. An update was received from
the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on 21 July.
Further comments from the petitioners are also included in the
papers for the meeting. The Cabinet Secretary has informed the
committee that the stage 4 safety audit report has been received,
but some further details need to be discussed with the designer
before the audit is completed. So, the possible actions are to
provide the further comments from the petitioners to the Cabinet
Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure for his information,
and/or request whether the petitioners can be provided with a copy
of the stage 4 road safety audit when the process is completed.
|
[94]
Mike Hedges: I suggest we do that, but do both.
|
[95]
David J Rowlands: Yes, both; I think we take both those
actions. All agreed? Yes. Fine. Thank you.
|
[96]
The next petition is, again, another matter to do with road
improvements, ‘Road Safety Improvements Along the A487 Trunk
Road between Cardigan and Aberystwyth, to Include Passing
Places’. The petition was submitted by Maldwyn Lewis and was
first considered on 13 September 2016, having collected 849
signatures. The committee considered the petition on 13 June and
agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and
Infrastructure for an update on the outcome of discussions with
Ceredigion County Council about further improvement measures that
may be possible on the A487. The Cabinet Secretary responded on 14
July. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be
considered but had not submitted comments when the papers were
finalised. The possible actions are to await the views of the
petitioner on the latest information received from the Cabinet
Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure.
|
[97]
Mike Hedges: Yes, I’d suggest we do that.
|
[98]
David J Rowlands: Yes. We’re all agreed. That’s
the action we will take, then.
|
[99]
The next petition is to ‘Include a Mynachdy and Talybont
Station as Part of the Cardiff Metro Proposal’. The petition
was submitted by Dr Ashley Wood and was first considered on 1
November 2016, having collected 137 signatures. The committee last
considered the petition on 13 June and agreed to write to the
Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to request details
on the consideration that was given to a new station at Gabalfa as
part of the stage 1 assessment. The Cabinet Secretary responded on
12 July. The Cabinet Secretary states that a new station at Gabalfa
scored well and will be looked at in the further considerations for
stations. So, the possible actions are to close the petition, given
that this area is included in the detailed assessment process for
potential new stations, and, in doing so, provide the
petitioner’s views on the location of a station to the
Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure and ask for this
to be taken into account in any future consideration.
|
[100] Mike
Hedges: Can I move that?
|
[101] David J
Rowlands: Yes. Are we all agreed? [Inaudible.]
|
[102] The next
matter’s ‘Public Petition for the Dinas Powys
By-Pass’. This petition was submitted by V.P. Driscoll, A.R.
Robertson and R.T. Harrod, having collected 3,305 signatures. The
committee last considered the petition on 13 June and agreed to
write to the Vale of Glamorgan Council to seek its views on the
subject of the petition and ask for further information about the
review of transport infrastructure in the vale. A response from the
leader of the Vale of Glamorgan was received on 10 July. The leader
of the Vale of Glamorgan states that a proposal was due to go to a
Cabinet meeting in July to approve stage 2. The council has
highlighted the potential for a bypass. The petitioner has updated
that the Cabinet subsequently agreed to refer the issue to the
council’s scrutiny committee for environment and
regeneration. Our possible actions are to write to the Vale of
Glamorgan to ask for an update when a decision is reached on
whether to proceed with a stage 2 report. Are we agreed on that?
That’s the action we will
take.
|
[103] The next petition is ‘Call on Welsh Government
to make the A48 safe for all road users and pedestrians at
Laleston, Broadlands and Merthyr Mawr’. The petition was
submitted by Ian Spiller, having collected 997
signatures.
|
09:30
|
[104] The committee
considered the petition for the first time on 23 May, and agreed to
write to Bridgend County Borough Council to inform them of the
petition and the response of the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and
Infrastructure. The response from the petitioner was received on 1
June and is included in papers for the meeting. The possible
actions: as previously advised, this stretch of road is the
responsibility of Bridgend County Borough Council and, therefore,
the committee has limited options for progressing the petition. The
committee could, therefore, write to the relevant scrutiny
committee at Bridgend council to ask if they will consider
investigating the issues raised by the petition. In doing so, the
committee could consider closing the petition with an explanation
letter to the petitioner that the responsibility for this lies with
the borough council.
|
[105]
Mike Hedges: I would just send it to Bridgend council and let them
decide where they think is more suitable, whether it should go to
their cabinet or whether it should go to their scrutiny committee.
So, just send it to Bridgend and let them sort it out, rather than
try and second-guess what they’re doing. But, apart from
that, I’m happy.
|
[106]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes? Fine.
|
[107] The next
petition for consideration is ‘Unacceptable Waiting Times for
NHS patients in A&E Wrecsam/Wrexham Maelor Hospital’.
This was submitted by Charles Dodman and it was first considered on
17 January, having collected 14 signatures. We agreed to write to
the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport to ask
whether the A&E waiting times have continued to improve at
Wrexham Maelor Hospital and what steps are being taken nationally
to improve emergency waiting times. A response was received from
the Cabinet Secretary on 21 July. The Cabinet Secretary stated
that
|
[108]
‘we have not seen the sustained
improvement against emergency care access targets we had hoped for
at Wrexham Maelor Hospital’.
|
[109]
So, possible actions are to ask the
Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport to update the
committee when the outcome of the current six-month targeted
intervention, and the impact it has on emergency waiting times, is
known.
|
[110]
Mike Hedges: I move that.
|
[111]
David J. Rowlands:
Neil, are you happy
that—?
|
[112]
Neil McEvoy: Yes.
|
[113]
David J. Rowlands:
That’s the action we’ll
take,
|
[114] ‘To Make
Mental Health Services More Accessible’. This is the next
petition. It was submitted by Laura Williams, having collected 73
signatures. We should point out that Laura has been in regular
contact with the committee clerks. The committee considered the
petition on 23 May and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for
Health, Well-being and Sport to highlight the concerns and
proposals for improvements made by the petitioner and Hafal, and
seek further information about plans to improve the responsiveness
of services. A response from the Cabinet Secretary was received on
6 July. The Cabinet Secretary has reiterated that mental health is
a priority and spending is ring-fenced. The petitioner has
expressed disappointment with the response, which she doesn’t
feel addresses the points raised and how services could be
improved. The possible actions for us are: to write to the Cabinet
Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport to ask for further
information about how the actions contained in the ‘Together
for Mental Health’ delivery plan are providing improved
access to services, and any available evidence for this; or, if the
committee wishes to do further work on this issue, it could invite
the petitioner to attend a committee meeting to provide further
evidence on her petition. The committee is also considering another
petition on mental health services, ‘Better Mental Health
Services for Adults’, and could invite both petitioners to
attend the same session.
|
[115]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I think mental health is a huge issue in
Wales and we know from work we’ve done here and
elsewhere—. The Cabinet Secretary’s response skirts
around a lot of the issues that certainly many of my constituents
are facing. I’ve raised it in the Chamber. Somebody can walk
into my office and trying to get them help in an emergency—in
a crisis—is nigh on impossible, and I think we should be
holding the feet of the Cabinet Secretary to the fire on just how
bad mental health service support is in Wales. They mention
‘there’s always extra money’. I’m talking
about the fundamental principles of people being able to access
help.
|
[116]
David J. Rowlands:
Fine—
|
[117] Janet Finch-Saunders: If you look at the number of male suicides in north
Wales, it’s a really big issue for us, and it’s
when we get petitions like this that we know that these issues
exist. And it’s not just in south Wales, it’s across
Wales, across the board, and I think we should be challenging the
Cabinet Secretary more on this.
|
[118] David J.
Rowlands: Okay, so are we agreed that we call the two
petitioners in at the same time?
|
[119] Neil
McEvoy: Yes. I’d like to invite Hafal in as
well—
|
[120] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
[121] David J.
Rowlands: And Hafal.
|
[122] Neil
McEvoy: —but I do want to say on the record, really, that
I find the dismissive response of the Minister—
|
[123] Janet
Finch-Saunders: It’s unbelievable.
|
[124] Neil
McEvoy: —absolutely disrespectful to this committee and
to the petitioner and people who are suffering out there. You
cannot access, very often, the appropriate mental health care in
Wales. That’s just the reality. I’ve had complaints
about people not being diagnosed and the reality is that
they’re seeing doctors who are actually not qualified to give
a diagnosis. It’s a huge area. And if there was a response
from the Minister that maybe gave the detail of the delivery plan
or if there was some kind of effort with this letter to us and to
the petitioner, then I wouldn’t feel so strongly, but I think
we should write back to the Minister and just say that this kind of
response just isn’t good enough.
|
[125] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes, I think I endorse that 100 per cent.
|
[126] David J.
Rowlands: We’ll reiterate the fact the petitioner has
expressed disappointment with the response as well. So, we ought to
write to the Cabinet Secretary and ask for—
|
[127] Mike
Hedges: Echoing the disappointment of the petitioner.
|
[128] David J.
Rowlands: Yes, fine. Okay. And then do we go on and invite the
people together and possibly—?
|
[129] Mr
Francis: Yes.
|
[130] David J.
Rowlands: Yes. Fine, thank you.
|
[131] The next
petition is the ‘Lack of support for children with
disabilities at crisis’. The petition was submitted by
Rebecca Weale, having collected 200 paper signatures. This may in
fact coincide a little with the previous one because we are talking
again about a certain degree of mental health problems with this
child. So, we may in fact be covering much of what this lady is
worrying about with the previous petition. However, the committee
considered the petition for the first time on 13 June and agreed to
write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport. A
response from the Cabinet Secretary was received on 25 July. The
Cabinet Secretary has confirmed that CAMHS crisis care teams are
for acute mental illnesses and that if they have this, children
with learning difficulties should be seen. So, our possible actions
are to await the views of the petitioner on the response received
from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport before
considering what further action to take in relation to the
petition. Are we happy with that?
|
[132] Neil
McEvoy: Just a comment on CAMHS: in this area, the
service—I’ll declare an interest because I used to work
in the area—but the service, when I was there, was
non-existent. I’d want to refer children and it was
impossible. You’d refer them and I was told that there was
one professional in the whole borough to deal with these kinds of
issues, so therefore I ended up counselling the children rather
than the professionals, to be frank.
|
[133] David J.
Rowlands: Fine. Okay, so we take that action then.
|
[134] The next
petition: ‘Make a Vegan Option Compulsory in Public
Canteens’. It was submitted by Rachel Turnbull, having
collected 118 signatures. The committee considered the petition for
the first time on 11 July and agreed to await a response from the
Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport before
considering the petition again in the autumn. The Cabinet Secretary
has given a response on 18 July. Possible actions here are to await
the views of the petitioner on the response received from the
Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs.
|
[135] Mike
Hedges: That’s all we can do.
|
[136] David J.
Rowlands: Are we agreed on that action, Neil?
|
[137] Neil
McEvoy: Yes.
|
[138] David J.
Rowlands: Fine. Thank you.
|
[139] The next
petition is quite an interesting one from the point of view that it
has been brought by the Marine Conservation Society, and it’s
‘For single use items: introduce a Deposit Return System for
drink containers and make fast food containers and utensils
compostable’. The petition was submitted by Marine
Conservation Society, having collected 1,993 signatures. The
committee last considered the petition on 13 June and agreed to
write to the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to
seek the clarifications requested by the petitioners, including
whether the planned reviews will include an evaluation of prospects
of introducing a deposit return system. The committee also agreed
to consider holding an inquiry into the proposal once a response
was received from the Cabinet Secretary. A response was received
from the Cabinet Secretary on 4 July. The Cabinet Secretary has
stated that the evaluation and refresh of the waste strategy will
seek to identify opportunities for changes to waste practices. This
will include research on deposit return systems for food and drink
packaging. So, the possible actions are to await the views of the
petitioners on the information provided by the Cabinet Secretary
for Environment and Rural Affairs, and/or agree to take forward a
piece of more detailed work on this issue, as previously
discussed.
|
[140]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I think we should do a more detailed
piece of work on this issue. I don’t think the Cabinet
Secretary’s response actually—. It’s a huge issue
now with marine pollution, and I know that it’s gaining
momentum here within this establishment. Politically, I honestly
think this would be a really—. I’d like to see this as
a debate in the Chamber as well.
|
[141]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes. It has been raised in the Chamber,
but not as a debate, so I think I would agree with the fact that we
should give more scrutiny to this.
|
[142]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Definitely.
|
[143]
David J. Rowlands:
Any other Members?
|
[144]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
[145]
Neil McEvoy: I completely agree, yes.
|
[146]
Mike Hedges: All I would say is that it also fits in with the new
taxes policies, which may well come in, where you can’t make
people produce disposable or returnable items, but you can tax them
if they don’t, and that may well be a more successful route
to getting them to do it than to try and make it
compulsory.
|
[147]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes.
|
[148]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I think it’s well worth pushing
this forward for further work.
|
[149]
David J. Rowlands:
Right. So, we agree to take forward a
piece of more detailed work.
|
[150]
Mr Francis: In relation to the first stage for that, would you
see that as being to get the petitioners in to outline their
reasons for bringing the petition, and take it from there with
that?
|
[151]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes.
|
[152]
Mr Francis: Okay.
|
[153]
David J. Rowlands:
The next petition is ‘Stop
Compulsory Welsh Language GCSE’, submitted by Emma Williams,
having collected 128 signatures. The committee considered the
petition for the first time on 13 June and agreed to await the
views of the petitioner on the response from the Cabinet Secretary
for Education before deciding on a course of action. A response
from the petitioner was received also on 5 July, and is in the
papers for the meeting.
|
[154]
Mike Hedges: I have no problem with writing to the Cabinet
Secretary to seek a response to the concerns raised. I would say,
of course, that there are those who find compulsory double science
up to the age of 16 something they would prefer not to have,
because they would prefer to concentrate on languages, for example.
If you’re going to have compulsory subjects, why not Welsh?
It is the language of Wales. Let’s write and get a
response.
|
[155]
David J. Rowlands:
So, the possible action is to write to
the Cabinet Secretary for Education to seek a response to the
concerns raised by the petitioner, especially in relation to a
potential reduction in subject options for pupils due to timetable
clashes and pressures on school budgets.
|
[156]
Neil McEvoy: Chair, can I comment on the ignorance of the
petitioner? I speak as a modern languages
teacher—formerly—and if you’re brought up
bilingually, there are not only health benefits to that, but also
there are benefits in acquiring other languages. I think this kind
of petition is the short end of a very prejudiced/racist wedge that
we see in Wales, unfortunately. These people never admit to being
anti Welsh or anti Welsh language, but I think they clearly are, so
if it were up to me, I would dismiss the petition and close it now,
really. I wouldn’t imagine there’s a consensus on this,
so—
|
[157]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I disagree. I think that they’ve
got every right to, you know—
|
[158]
Neil McEvoy: Well, ban English then. Is that where you’re
going?
|
[159]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Neil, I’m not going to get into an
argument about the Welsh language—
|
[160]
Mike Hedges: Let them have an opportunity to respond.
|
09:45
|
[161] Janet Finch-Saunders: Let them;
they’ve got every right. We live in a democracy.
They’ve got every right. They’ve made representation,
and I propose that we move it, you know, to the next stage of
whatever, you know, because it—.
|
[162] David J.
Rowlands: Right. Well, let me reiterate the possible actions:
we’ll write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education to seek a
response to the concerns raised by the petitioner, especially in
relation to a potential reduction in subject options for the pupils
due to timetable clashes and pressure on school budgets.
|
[163] Neil
McEvoy: Can I just finally comment on the economic aspect,
because the Welsh language actually makes money for Wales? It
embraces the circular economy, keeping money in the country.
|
[164] Janet
Finch-Saunders: I agree.
|
[165] Neil
McEvoy: We have a television industry because of the Welsh
language, we have a publishing industry because of the Welsh
language, and it’s a misrepresentation to say that the
language actually loses money and costs us money. It doesn’t;
it makes us money, economically.
|
[166] Mike
Hedges: Can we just get a response on [Inaudible.]?
|
[167] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes, and I do think we, as a committee, and AMs
in particular, need to be a bit careful about our language when we
are dealing with petitions, because it’s been sent in, you
know, they have every democratic right to send that in, and I think
we should be very careful about name calling, Neil.
|
[168] Neil
McEvoy: I’m just stating my opinion, as a Member.
|
[169] Mike
Hedges: We have a process that we go through, where we write to
the Minister, we get the Minister’s response, we send that to
the petitioner, the petitioner responds again, we send that to the
Minister, then we get the Minister’s next response, then we
decide what we want to do with the petition. I think, whatever our
personal views on the petition, we should always do those
processes—.
|
[170] Janet
Finch-Saunders: Absolutely.
|
[171] Mike
Hedges: If we want to close it at the end of that stage,
it’s up to us, or if we’re going to take it forward, or
whatever, but I think that every petition should be treated in
exactly the same way.
|
[172] Janet
Finch-Saunders: With respect.
|
[173] Mike
Hedges: And with the same respect, whether it’s something
we like or we don’t. Because there’ve been
several—. There are always several petitions that I
fundamentally disagree with, but I think we have to treat each
petitioner with respect, because we’re not here on the
Petitions Committee for our own views; we’re here to carry
out a function of the National Assembly.
|
[174] David J.
Rowlands: Absolutely.
|
[175] Janet
Finch-Saunders: And we don’t want to put people off.
|
[176] Neil
McEvoy: I’m content to follow my colleagues on this. I
wanted to make the point.
|
[177] David J.
Rowlands: I fully agree with the fact that we have to give due
consideration to every petition that’s put to us,
irrespective of the political views expressed in those petitions,
or whatever. Thank you.
|
09:47
|
Cynnig o dan Reol
Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r
Cyfarfod Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve
to Exclude the Public from the Meeting
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o
weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog
17.42(vi).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in
accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig. Motion
moved.
|
|
[178] David J. Rowlands: Now, I’d
like to come to the motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to
exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting.
|
[179] Mike
Hedges: I move, and we’ll get the crowds out now.
[Laughter.]
|
[180] David J. Rowlands: Moved. Yes,
fine.
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
09:47.
The public part of the meeting ended at 09:47.
|
|
|
|