Y Pwyllgor Deisebau - Y Bumed Senedd

Petitions Committee - Fifth Senedd

13/03/2018

Aelodau'r Pwyllgor a oedd yn bresennol

Committee Members in Attendance

David J. Rowlands
Janet Finch-Saunders
Mike Hedges
Rhun ap Iorwerth

Y rhai eraill a oedd yn bresennol

Others in Attendance

Gill Bell Deisebydd, Pennaeth Cadwraeth Cymru, Cymdeithas Cadwraeth Morol
Petitioner, Head of Conservation Wales, Marine Conservation Society

Swyddogion y Senedd a oedd yn bresennol

Senedd Officials in Attendance

Graeme Francis Clerc
Clerk
Kath Thomas Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk
Kayleigh Imperato Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk
Lisa Salkeld Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Legal Adviser

Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.

The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:06.

The meeting began at 09:06.

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

Bore da, good morning, and welcome to this Petitions Committee meeting. We'll go on to item 1, which is apologies and substitutions. We have apologies from Neil McEvoy; he's not able to attend this morning.

2. Deisebau newydd
2. New petitions

So, if we begin by looking first at the new petitions. There are three new petitions before us this morning.

The first of those is 'Protecting Class Sizes in Design and Technology Classrooms and Workshops'. This was submitted by Aled Dafis, having collected 338 signatures. We have had a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education on 21 February, which indicated that this was not a matter that was under the Welsh Government's legislative abilities. But I think we ought to note that there are other interventions open to the Welsh Government in making sure that the regulations that are in place are enforced by the local authorities and those people responsible for the class numbers. Does the committee have any comments they'd like to make?

I find it bizarre that the Cabinet Secretary says that they have no responsibility. They could put out an advice note—Cabinet Secretaries put advice notes out all the time—saying that 'In the interest of safety, it is the belief of the Welsh Government that class sizes should not be above a certain size whilst dealing with this area'. That would not have any status and people don't have to follow it, but if an accident occurred afterwards, it could be used in law as an explanation that they'd gone above the recommended size. So, I just find the reply lacking accuracy. 

I think the blame would lie with either the local authority or those administering the classroom sizes within the school environment.

It would lie with the school, because schools have delegated responsibility, but my understanding is that, if they send out an advice note saying, 'We do not believe that class sizes above 15, 20, 25'—whatever number it is—'can be dealt with safely'—. They say they've got no control over class sizes; they've already set class sizes for children under seven. They've already set the number of adults that need to be with classes in primary schools. So, either those have no force, or they seem to be treating this differently. I think that we should write back and ask why they can't just send an advice note out saying, 'We do not believe that class sizes above a certain level are acceptable'. 

I think, in defence of the Government, what they are saying is they can't bring in legislation on this matter, but as you rightly point out, they could certainly send a note to these. I think the general belief amongst authorities is that class sizes should certainly be no more than 20, given the dangerous aspect of what's being done in these classes in particular. So, possible actions—. Janet, did you have anything you'd like to say on the matter?

Fine. Okay. So, the possible actions are that the committee could write back to the Cabinet Secretary for Education to share the further information provided by the petitioner and ask for her views in light of the fact that a limit appears to be in place in some other parts of the UK, and whether the Welsh Government will give consideration to reviewing the suitability of existing guidelines and the extent to which it is followed by schools in Wales. Does that cover what you want to do, or a little bit more? 

09:10

Certainly, yes. Certainly I agree with Mike: we can't hide behind the fact that health and safety legislation isn't devolved, or health and safety isn't devolved, but there are other things the Government can do, and I think if we write along those lines, it would be a start.

Okay. Are we happy? Fine.

The second new petition is 'Our natural world is being poisoned by single use plastics...it’s time to introduce a tax!' This petition was submitted by Friends of Barry Beaches having collected 102 signatures. I'm sure the committee has had time to study the papers with regard to this. There was an initial response from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on 13 February. Does the committee have any—?

I think it's something that's coming. I don't know whether it's going to be coming from the Welsh Government or from Westminster—it's probably from Westminster, and I think it would be beneficial to have it covering the whole of Britain rather than just Wales. I think we can send it on to the Cabinet Secretary asking for a further response, but I think that the likelihood is that some action is going to be taken, because there's huge pressure from the public.

I think it ties in with the session that we're holding later on, the evidence session. There is a raft of initiatives currently moving us in the direction of legislation of some sort. I would love to see Wales taking a lead as it did with carrier bags, for example. I'm grateful that we have this petition and I'm sure we'll have many more, but I think we can certainly wait for the views of the petitioner on the Cabinet Secretary's response. 

Well, the proposals are, really, that we await the outcome of the evidence session and then explore the possibility of perhaps linking the two petitions together at some future date.

I can see this going to debate level, because it's such a huge issue now, isn't it?

It probably will come to that, but we're having the evidence session, which is closely linked to this petition. Are we happy to await the outcomes of that evidence session? Fine. Thank you.

The third of the new petitions is 'We need Welsh Government funding for play!!' The petition was submitted by RAY Ceredigion having collected 328 signatures online. An initial response to the petition was received from the Minister for Children and Social Care on 6 March. Does the committee have any views on that? We've obviously had Members supporting this petition.

Yes. I think we're at the stage of needing to write to the Minister. A number of possible questions have been set out here that I'm certainly happy with.

I think we're all in agreement with that. So, the committee could write to the Minister for Children and Social Care to share the concerns of the petitioners and ask two specific questions: what assessment the Welsh Government has made of the sufficiency of steps taken by local authorities to fulfil the duties under section 11 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 and whether he would consider ring-fencing funding to local authorities for this purpose.

I'm not happy with the last bit. I'm not happy with the last bit for two reasons: we're moving away from ring-fenced funding, and let's be honest about it, if everything that people wanted ring-fenced was ring-fenced, the problem would be we'd be asking them to ring-fence more money than local authorities are getting.

Well, it's a probability. So, I think we should ask him whether he would consider giving advice to local authorities on what level of play they should provide.

09:15

I don't disagree with what we've just heard. Also, the health and social care committee are currently undertaking an inquiry into physical activity in children. I wonder if there is a way to just tie that into our actions here at all, because, clearly, as a committee, we're showing an early appetite for pushing for investment in not just play for young children, but certainly facilities throughout childhood. I mean, that would mean waiting and asking for the petitioner's view on the report of the health committee when it comes out, which is quite a bit down the line. But I think it all feeds into the same agenda.

Is that inquiry—? Forgive me; I'm not sure of the current status. Is that taking evidence at the moment?

So, we could, as a committee, write on this petition to the health committee, making sure that all Members are aware of it.

Yes. And I know play isn't all about physical activity; play is about wider developmental issues for children, but I think it feeds in.

Yes. So, the possible actions are that the committee could write to the Minister for Children and Social Care to share the concerns of the petitioners, and ask what assessment the Welsh Government has made of the sufficiency of steps taken by local authorities to fulfil the
duties under section 11 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010, and whether he would consider ring-fencing funding to local authorities. Is that something—?

Instead of that, reflecting Mike's concern, ask what consideration the Government has given to ensuring that expenditure is made at a local level throughout Wales.

Can I just say on that—? I know of areas where we've got really good play facilities, but, for whatever reason, it is seen that, 'Oh, it's not worth opening them' and there's a barrier to what we've already got. I'd like to see—. Anything we can do to get children off computers and iPads and things and out into the fresh air and burning off some of their excess energy has got to be good, and I just sometimes think maybe—whether we can do some kind of evidence gathering as to what play facilities are already out there and how well they're being used. 

I think that's what Rhun was saying—that's what the committee that he's a member of is currently doing.

What we can do is write to the committee that's involved and explain what we have in front of us. 

In fact, just pausing here, the Government is currently going through the process of putting together an obesity strategy. We could ask what consideration has been given, currently, in the development of that strategy, to play facilities for children.

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

The next petition is 'To Make Mental Health Services More Accessible'. This petition was submitted by Laura Williams and was first considered in February 2017, having collected 73 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 27 February, when it took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services.

Chairman, I raised concerns at the time, because I did feel slightly uncomfortable. I didn't find out until afterwards that the public gallery—. It was the other way around wasn't it? We had the petitioner in the gallery, and I felt some of the responses from the Cabinet Secretary were primarily aimed, if you like, at this one individual, yet 72 other people had signed the petition. And furthermore, we know—. How many debates do we have about really problematic access to mental health services? It's a bit disappointing, really. She feels it's frustrating, but I felt frustrated sitting here, as a member of a committee, not knowing we had the petitioner in. I felt a lot of his responses were directed—'Oh, this is one person.' It's a bigger issue than that. And so, you know—. You know what I mean? I think we ought to write back to—

Well, we as a committee could consider the possibility of inviting other agencies in to make their contributions to it—

09:20

I think, first of all, we need to get a summary of where we are; we've been doing this over a period of time. Then we need to decide whether we wish to talk to more people or write a report at that stage. I think that when we know where we are then that will be an opportunity for us to make proposals.

We'll get a summary for the next meeting. We'll get a summary for the next meeting, then we decide how we wish to take it further, who, if anybody, we wish to invite in afterwards or whether we feel we're in a position to write a report at that stage. And I think that, when we get that summary, it'll make our mind up. I can't remember everything that's been discussed on this.

And also, let's be honest, I think all of us agree with what is trying to be achieved through this petition. As Assembly Members we are well used to hearing stories of problems in the mental health sector. There are limits to what we can do as a Petitions Committee on such a broad area of discussion. This is not the committee through which we will resolve the problems in mental health in Wales; the question is how we keep up the pressure through this committee.

Exactly. So, how do you suggest that, perhaps, we take this matter forward? 

We could bring back a summary of the evidence that the committee has heard to date, who it's written to to date, who has replied to us. We could also ask colleagues in the Research Service to outline possible further witnesses or evidence that we could take in writing. We could bring that back to the next meeting.

Yes, particular elements that have perhaps been focused on in our committee work that somehow have slipped under the radar elsewhere—you know, are there particular elements of the evidence that we've heard so far that merit specific investigation?

Where do we want to end up? I want us to end up creating a report. Whether we actually want to take that to a Plenary session, we'll decide when we've had the report. But I think we ought to produce a report at the end of this investigation.

Yes, I agree with you, but I'm asking a specific question: do you think we ought to write to other agencies to get their information prior to that report?

We'll decide next time when we've got a summary, because then we'll decide who we want to write to, who we would like to ask in. 

And if we pledge to do extra work in advance of this committee, we'll have to give it extra thought.

Right, fine. Are we agreed on that, then? Right, fine. Thank you.

The next petition is to 'Ensure access to the cystic fibrosis medicine, Orkambi, as a matter of urgency'. This petition was submitted by Rhian Barrance and was first considered in January 2018, having collected 5,717 signatures. The committee considered the petition for the first time on 23 January and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to share the information provided by the petitioners. A response was received from the Cabinet Secretary on 21 February.

Can I just say, I've looked into this outside the committee, and I understand that the Cabinet Secretary is making quite a strong point that, is it, Vertex won't engage in terms—? I think it's been agreed in principle that there needs to be a broader look at this because Orkambi is a fantastic medication, however it's a broader—there are other medications that will help other certain types of cystic fibrosis is my understanding. Now, I'm being told that Vertex won't engage in that respect, but I'm also now given to understand that Government officials are working with Vertex, so there's a little bit of—. I was just wondering whether we could write to the Cabinet Secretary and ask him the question, because I'm being told two different things.

I think the very existence of this petition is the strength at the moment. We're not sure at this stage whether, say, a debate in Plenary would be useful, because I think the Government recognises the strength in this, and it seems that they're genuinely frustrated.

Do you think there's any strength in us writing to Vertex ourselves and expressing this petition?

09:25

We're getting told two different things, aren't we? I'd like to tease it out and find out exactly what's going on.

If we go to Vertex via the Minister or Cabinet Secretary, it might be the quicker and more successful route.

I think the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group is—. I don't know whether they have or they are going to. We need to be kept up to speed on if they have or when they are and if there's a delay in responding again or—. It just seems we need to have clear lines of communication—

It seems for very strange reasons, because one would have thought that they would have wanted this particular medicine to be made available. It seems very strange that they're not engaging with the Welsh Government on this matter.

I believe they are. I believe they are. But, obviously, it's with Government officials at the moment. Whether there's a lack of communication, I've no idea. But what I wanted to ask as well, and it's a question that's been raised with me by other petitioners: when we open a petition and we accept it, do we close that petition? Because there are other people wanting to sign this now.

When a petition is referred to the committee, it can no longer be signed.

It's the petitioner's choice as to when they want the petition to close for signatures and be referred to us as a committee. 

Yes, but, if it's going through a process, I just wondered whether there was any scope to keep it open online so that other people can add.

With a physical petition, you hand—. Forget the online petition, with a physical petition, you hand the physical petition in, that is the petition completed. Having people—

I think it's up to the petitioner to get the maximum number of signatories before they put it in. I think it's their duty. They put it in at whatever stage they think they've got enough signatures, don't they? They can keep it open for a year or they can keep it open for a week. It's entirely up to them. They collect the signatures and they put it in.

Yes, the length of time the petitioners collect signatures for is a matter for their choice.

Okay, fair enough. Then, is it—? It was asked, the question, here whether Vertex could be written to, just so that you've got it in black and white that they are engaging. I just don't want us—. I want the transparency of process to be here, because we're being told one thing and I think it would be—

Well, the evidence in front of us today is the fact that they're not engaging with the Government on this. So, do we question that situation?

Maybe it's the journalist in me—there's an element of curiosity—it would be interesting to hear from them where they think they stand.

Well, I think we've got to make sure that we're in close contact with the Government and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group throughout this, because I think we both want the same thing. But I think it would be interesting to hear from Vertex—you know, 'Are you in contact with Government? Have you received their letters? Do let us know.'

Yes. A good question there from Janet: 'When was the date of the last correspondence between you and the Government?'

Okay, the next petition is 'Remove the Obligation on Schools to Hold Acts of Religious Worship'. This was submitted by Rhiannon Shipton and Lily McAllister-Sutton. We first considered it in June 2017, having collected 1,333 signatures. There is another petition, which I think we ought to take into account at the same time, which is 'Keeping Current Guidelines for Religious Assemblies'. This was submitted by Iraj Irfan and was considered in June 2017, having collected a total of 2,231 signatures.

The committee last considered these petitions on 3 October and agreed to await an update from the Cabinet Secretary for Education following her consideration of the issues raised. In response to a request from the clerking team, an update was received from the Cabinet Secretary on 22 February. The petitioners were informed that their petition would be considered but, at this date, had not responded when papers were finalised. Does the committee have any comments to make?

09:30

I think there's some more information that we could tease out from Government about what exactly they do intend to do in looking at this, what nature of review they plan to conduct.

Right. Does anybody have any comments? So, I think that we could again write to the Cabinet Secretary—

I think the Cabinet Secretary's response is quite fair in that it's a bigger issue, but she has promised to provide a substantive response, hasn't she, in due course, in the coming months.

Okay. So, are we agreed that the committee could write to the Cabinet Secretary to request details of what the ongoing consideration of these issues involves and ask if she can provide a more precise timescale for providing the substantive response to the committee? Does that sound—?

As further background to this, the committee has now been waiting quite a considerable length of time for a position from the Government. The petitions were first considered summer 2017. We had a holding response in September, I think, and this is a further holding response.

Okay. The next petition to be considered is 'Remove the compulsory aspect of Welsh Baccalaureate'. The petition was submitted by Katharine Drinkwater and was first considered in December 2017, having collected 60 signatures. The committee considered the petition for the first time on 5 December and agreed to await a copy of the Cabinet Secretary for Education's response to a detailed letter from the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee concerning the status of the Welsh baccalaureate and the findings of the review of the Welsh baccalaureate being undertaken by Qualifications Wales.

The Cabinet Secretary responded to the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee on 23 January. This is included in the papers for the meeting.

Does the committee have any comments on matters so far?

I think there are two issues now raised by the petitioner: the one with regard to an exercise that was set by the Welsh Joint Education Committee with regard to a scratchcard win, which she considered very inappropriate, given the problems that we have with gambling. So, that was one matter that she raised in addition to the original petition. 

In answer to your question, Mike, the Qualifications Wales review, the Cabinet Secretary stated that she understood it was due to be published in the new year. That letter is dated 23 January. So, I'm guessing it means this new year, not the next. It should be imminent, is my understanding. 

So, the first consideration of the committee is: should we address the issue of the exercise in relation to the scratchcard?

Yes. Fine. I think that we ought to point out that the Cabinet Secretary has indicated that the Welsh baccalaureate is not compulsory for pupils, but we have to point out that the examining people who go in to look at the schools' records take the baccalaureate results into account when they do that.

09:35

Yes, and as somebody—I've long been a fan of having a Welsh bac, for decades. I think the principle is very, very good. But I also recognise that we're still on a journey of needing to take some people with us, and questions over the content, of course, are very, very valid, which is why I think it's perfectly right that we ask the WJEC to justify that particular part of the course. But we need the evidence base, as Government tells us. So, getting that timescale for the review by Qualifications Wales, I think, would be useful.

To those of us of a certain age, it's reminiscent of A-level general studies, which existed back in the late 1970s towards the mid-1980s.

I was in a school yesterday, talking to bac students about citizenship, and talking to them about politics, and their role in shaping their own futures. And without the bac, you miss that kind of opportunity. But I also recognise that people still need a little bit of persuading.

Fine. So, the possible actions, just to be succinct about it, are that, if the committee wishes to address the issue of the exercise in relation to a scratchcard—and we feel we do—so we shall write to the WJEC to seek their reasons for putting that particular question in. And if the committee wishes to pursue the issue of whether universal adoption of the Welsh baccalaureate should be encouraged, it could await the publication of the Qualifications Wales review into the skills challenge. Or if the committee is content with the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and the current status of the Welsh baccalaureate, it could close the petition. I don't think there's— 

Yes, I think we'll take the second option on it. Fine, thank you.

The next petition to review is 'Review support for asylum seekers accessing further education'. This was submitted by Gulnar Sohail and was first considered in December 2017, having collected 78 signatures. The committee considered the petition for the first time on 5 December and agreed to await the views of the petitioner on the response provided by the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning before deciding on any further action in relation to the petition, and to write to the Welsh Refugee Council to seek their views on the issues raised by the petition to assist the committee’s consideration. We had a response from the Welsh Refugee Council on 27 February, and, in essence, it was supporting this petition.

So, possible actions: the committee could write to the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning to request an update in light of the suggestion that the Welsh Government has agreed to consider the eligibility criteria for the education maintenance allowance, following a recent meeting between the leader of the house and the Welsh Refugee Council. Or the committee could await the views of the petitioner on recent correspondence before considering further action on the petition. Does—?

We need to make firm that suggestion that Government has already agreed to the review—that they have said as much to the Welsh Refugee Council. So, I think writing to the Minister to seek confirmation of that, and any details about the kind of review that will take place, would be really useful at this stage.

Fine. Are we all agreed on that? Yes. Fine, thank you.

The next petition is 'Rights to Primary Health Care in Welsh'. The petition was submitted by Cymdeithas yr Iaith and was first considered in December 2016, having collected 766 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 14 February 2017 and agreed to await the publication of the Welsh Government’s response to the consultation and draft regulations they bring forward, and to consider the petition again at that stage. An update on the petition was received from the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning on 27 February, and the papers that we have—the background papers—describe what these decisions are.

We're at the stage now where decisions have been made by Government on how to move forward on this. Government has not fulfilled what the petitioner is asking for in full, although primary care that is directly under control of local health boards will be subject to Welsh language standards under the proposals made by Government at the moment. I think the committee for the Welsh language is starting tomorrow to look at this, so I think we need to pause. The point has been made very clearly by the petitioner. There'll be an opportunity for evidence to be taken by that committee and for Government to respond in due course. There's not that much, I don't think, that we can add as a committee at this stage.

09:40

So, as Rhun has said, the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee is considering taking evidence on this petition tomorrow—well, not on this petition, on these regulations—and I understand that there's also a Plenary debate next week on these same regulations as well, tabled by the Government. So, there are opportunities for those views to be discussed. It may be that we do want to return to this petition after both of those things have happened. 

I think there are a couple of points of principle here. Hopefully, we would all agree that there should be maximum access to services through the medium of Welsh. 

What the Government is proposing is that standards need not necessarily apply in all of primary care. If that is the case, we need to have other forms of regulations to make sure that people have Welsh language services. So, there's going to be an interesting debate over the next few weeks, I think.

Fine. So, the possible action is that the committee could await the views of petitioners on the latest information from the Minister for Welsh language and the content of the final regulations before considering whether to take further action or close the petition. Are we happy with that? Rhun, are you happy?

Yes. And slightly wider than that, it's a matter of telling the petitioner where we stand at this point, but we are very aware that there will be many opportunities for discussions on this—a number of opportunities for discussions on this in the Assembly, in committee and Plenary, over the next few weeks. So, maybe a discussion at this point in Petitions Committee isn't perhaps the best place to take the argument forward. But we are very interested in following this through. 

Okay. So, we'll write back to the petitioners. 

Yes. I think that's very good.

The next petition to be considered is the 'TATA Steel Port Talbot Power Plant'. This petition was submitted by Peter Bamsey and was first considered in September 2016, having collected 531 signatures. The committee considered the petition on 7 November 2017 and agreed to await the views of the petitioner on the latest information before considering closing the petition, in light of the information received and further funding committed by the Welsh Government in the draft budget for 2018-19. In that draft budget, the Government committed £8 million to improving the power plant. Do committee members have any views?

Let's have an update from the Cabinet Secretary about what's actually happening with support for Tata. There's overwhelming support to give Tata support, but whether its overwhelming support for Tata to receive it is a different matter, so I think an update would be useful. 

Yes. The petitioner has submitted some extra evidence, but it's very much repeating the comments he made in his original statements to the committee. So, the committee could note the comments of the petitioner and close the petition, as previously indicated, on the basis of the support that has been committed by the Welsh Government to the improvement of the power plant. Would the committee be happy to do that?

No, I don't think we need to at this point in time. These are the people in the community in Port Talbot who are determined to put every option on the table for ensuring the long-term viability and success of the steelworks in Port Talbot. And, I think, as Mike suggests, we can be writing to the Cabinet Secretary to ask for an update of where we're at because I think the petitioners deserve it. 

Are we happy with that? Okay. The committee could write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport. 

'Resurfacing of the A40 Raglan-Abergavenny Road'—the petition was submitted by Sara Jones and was first considered in September 2016, having collected 22 signatures. The petition also collected 142 signatures on an alternative e-petition website. 

09:45

Can I just say, Chair, that on this one I do have some concerns? The Cabinet Secretary says he's provided further information about the previous change of policy. It was agreed to resurface this years ago. I don't know, it's almost like there's a barrier now. The councillors have written in, the Assembly Member's written in, the Member of Parliament's written in—residents want this. Now, they've changed their policy and they're trying to say now that laying an asphalt surface layer on the existing concrete is not feasible, and then they're going to do noise barriers and things like that. Now, if it's already been agreed previously in this key set of priorities that this road needed resurfacing, and with what they call 'whispering tarmac', I'm just baffled, really, why the Cabinet Secretary has decided to go into battle and, actually, has become quite resistant to getting the problem solved.    

I would suggest we write a report on all the evidence we've had on this, so that we produce just a factual report and then we decide what we want to do from there. But let's produce a factual report. We've talked about it for a long time. Let's get a factual report on it and publish that. 

There is one alternative that we could perhaps use, and that's to write to people such as Tarmac et cetera, and ask whether this road is suitable for resurfacing in the condition that it is in, because—

But it's actually been previously agreed, and everybody was in agreement that it needed—

Well, I think that was not to resurface the road; that was to actually reinstate the road completely as a tarmac road. But there is an alternative—that the petitioners feel that this road is suitable for just placing a tarmac cover on it. Now, we don't know whether that's actually possible or not. The Welsh Government's saying it's not feasible. But on the one hand they're saying that this road is in a perfectly good condition and doesn't need attention at this moment in time, and then they're saying it's not suitable for tarmacking. So, perhaps we could get the technical details on that. 

Yes, I was going to say: is there a technical report that is public from Government on why the laying of an asphalt layer isn't feasible? 

But we know, don't we, that we don't put asphalt on top of asphalt because you end up with a gap between them? What you actually do is just take the old top surface out, you scarify and then you pour a new surface on, roll it, and you end up with a good road. That's what happens. So, I can see why they don't want to put it on top, because it will lack bonding, won't it?   

No, the petitioner is asking for them to replace the old concrete surface. In other words, this road needs restructuring, and somebody's decided, perhaps, that they're not going to prioritise to spend there. The noise action plan states that this road—and that was in 2013-18—is a priority. I'm just a bit worried that this is—

Mike makes a good point that this is a technical issue. If they're saying that the reason is that you cannot put tarmac on concrete, we're in no position, obviously, to comment on that, but there are people who can. What scope is there for this committee to ask for a technical opinion on a report from Government on whether you can put tarmac on concrete? I don't know. Can we? 

We sent around yesterday some additional comments from the petitioner that had come in after the papers had been published, and we've provided those to Members today. The view from the petitioner is that, in terms of the timescales for this, what happened was that the commitment was made in 2014 to resurface this road, and then in 2015 they commissioned a review by the South Wales Trunk Road Agent. I don't know if the agency themselves did it or whether that was contracted. That came up with the fact that a resurfacing scheme alone was not enough—that you would have to redo the whole road because of various technical limitations. The Cabinet Secretary has quoted from that report. Whether that report is publicly available, I don't know, but we could find out. If it is, we could use that to, as Mike has suggested, produce a factual report from the committee that we could bring back to you for you to agree your recommendations. If it's not available, we could ask the Government whether they will provide it to the committee.

09:50

So, I take it, Chair, as option (a) essentially, and the bit in brackets in particular—so, producing a short summary of the evidence. We'll bring it back to the committee. You can have a further discussion at that point—

—on what recommendations or conclusions you want to reach.

Yes, because we're in stalemate here, and I think it needs to be—. Thank you.

Okay, fine.

The next petition to consider is 'Road Safety Improvements Along the A487 Trunk Road between Cardigan and Aberystwyth, to Include Passing Places'. This was submitted by Maldwyn Lewis and was first considered in September 2016, having collected 93 signatures online and 750 on paper. The committee last considered the petition on 19 September and agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the latest information received.

The petitioner has now provided further comments, which are included in the papers for this meeting, and I'm sure the committee has had a look at those.

So, our possible actions are that the committee could write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to seek an update on the sites being taken forward in this area, following the first phase of the pinch points programme, and for his views in relation to the new freight strategy shared by the petitioner.

Yes. I know this is only dealing with this petition, but there is a huge problem getting from south Wales to north Wales, and this is just dealing with one small part of it.

Yes, I think we should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport seeking an update on the sites taken forward in this area, following the first phase of the pinch points programme. Yes, perfect. Let's do it.

Yes, the important thing is that there seems to be an agreement that this needs doing. That road—every now and then I have to do the journey from, say, Swansea to Anglesey. Goodness me—it needs doing. It seems that there's recognition, but that things aren't moving as quickly as they can.

Yes. We combined the next three petitions at an earlier committee meeting. I will enumerate what the petitions were. The 'Penegoes Speed Limit Petition': this was submitted by Isabel Bottoms, Peter Bottoms and Sarah Holgate and was first considered in December 2016, having collected 298 signatures.

The next petition was 'A487 Trunk Road Through Tre-Taliesin: Urgent Need for Effective Speed-Calming Measures', submitted by Antony Foulkes, and was considered in July 2017, having collected 52 signatures.

The third petition that we considered, together with that was the 'Petition to extend the 40mph speed limit in Blaenporth'. This was submitted by Rosemary Chaffers-Jones and was first considered in January 2018, having collected 75 signatures.

The committee last considered the three petitions on 9 January and it agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport on all three petitions to ask how the Welsh Government intends to prioritise the work of the three-year speed limit review. We had a combined response from the Cabinet Secretary on all three petitions in February, and a response from Ceredigion County Council was received on 14 February. The petitioner for Tre Taliesin has provided further comments, but the committee has not received reaction from the other petitioners.

The points for discussion: the Cabinet Secretary has said that there is a speed limit review that will look at over 600 sites across the trunk road network, and has declined, actually, to give prioritisation to any of those that are under review. The Government is unable to give exact timescales for the implementation of those 600 sites.

So, possible actions are: the committee should consider whether it wishes to take any further action in relation to the overall speed limit review, for example by recommending that the Welsh Government ensures that the agents carrying out the work should seek to engage with local communities. I think this is a very important point, actually, that, once each of these are being reviewed, the agents who are being employed to do those reviews actually engage with community groups, and perhaps there's the possibility of prioritising those who have raised this petition.

09:55

I think they should talk to all community groups. I think if they're looking at speed limits there, they should engage with the local community, who will be able to tell them more about that road than they'll get off a map.

I'm frustrated by the response that the Government has 600 sites under review and, 'We can't tell you when any of them are going to be done.' In communications terms, when your own speed limit concern in your village or town is the most important, to not be told when in the next 10 years your section's going to be reviewed, I think is unfair.

We could ask the Government to publish a programme. I've always felt people to be very willing, if they know they're going to be reviewed in five years' time, to accept they're going to be reviewed in five years' time. It's just the not knowing and the 'some time in the future' that upsets people.

Yes. With other programmes, they've got a week—it will take them 12 years. But at least you'd know where in that 12 years you were going to be.

Yes, just to ask for the development of a programme of works so people know—which is slightly better than ad infinitum—where they stand.  

Okay. The next petition—and I'm mindful of the time now—is 'Reopen Crumlin Railway Station'. This was submitted by Michael Davies and considered in September 2017, having collected 208 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 21 November and agreed to await the views of the petitioner before considering any further action in relation to the petition. The petitioner has now provided further comments, which are included in the papers for this meeting. Do you have any particular points to make on this?

If we're going to try and get people back onto public transport, the more convenient your station is—. To be honest, I think that some of our railway stations and the little stopping points are part of the natural heritage of Wales, and I think the Cabinet Secretary and Welsh Government—we should all be doing—. I think it's fantastic to see little stops and stations there and just making it easier. We've got an older demographic, and I think we should be looking to reopen what is already there. It's not as though we're having to build new stations. I'm totally in favour of these kinds of things, and I think we should be pressurising the Cabinet Secretary to put some kind of strategic approach in place to looking at all railway stations to see where it's feasible to reopen them and where it isn't and let everybody know.

I agree, but I think we have to point out that these railway stations are not entirely under the remit of the Government because it's to do with Network Rail.

I know. I know there are complications. They need to start talking to one another.

So, the committee could write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to ask whether he's in a position to provide an update on the assessment process in relation to the case for a new station in Crumlin and for further information on the likely timescales for this work.

'Port Talbot Community Against the Super Prison', from Port Talbot superprison protest group. It was first considered in November 2017, having collected 8,791 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 9 January and agreed to write to the Welsh Government to ask for further information on the decision-making process it will undertake in relation to the sale of land. A response was received from the Cabinet Secretary on 21 February. Now, given the answers that we've received, the possible actions are: the committee could await an update from the petitioners before considering whether to take further action on the committee; or the committee could write to the Ministry of Justice to ask for an update on their plans for the development of a new prison in south Wales and for details on the intended timescales for further developments. This would be in response to the fact that the Welsh Government has actually said that they have not had a formal request from the Ministry of Justice for this prison to be built.

10:00

I don't think we'd be fulfilling the aims and ambitions of the petitioners if we write to the Ministry of Justice and give them a push into doing something about building it. Let's go back to the petitioners. I certainly would oppose going to the Ministry of Justice; we don't want to push them into doing anything.

You can look at it both ways. It's that way, or you could say that writing to them, highlighting that we are writing because of a petition against the prison, reminds them that there is opposition to the prison. We can certainly ask the petitioner whether they would like us to write to the Ministry of Justice.

But if we're going to write to the Ministry of Justice, it should just say, 'We've had a petition opposing it', rather than just asking them what they're doing.

Just to make the committee aware, when a Plenary debate was held on this petition in December, we did write to the Ministry of Justice at that point just telling them that that was happening and that there was this petition. So, they should be aware of its existence.

So, contact them, and tell the petitioner we'd be happy to write to the Ministry of Justice if they would like us to.

Right, the next petition is 'Hi speed broadband to Llangenny village.' This petition was submitted by Llangenny village residents and was first considered in January 2018, having collected 72 signatures. The committee considered the petition for the first time on 9 January and agreed to write to BT to highlight the frustrations of the petitioners and to ask for clarity over the plans and timescales for connecting properties in Llangenny to broadband, and to the leader of the house to share the concerns raised by the petitioners. Now, we seem to have had two conflicting pieces of evidence from the two parties involved, in that BT says that it did not complete the necessary infrastructure, whilst the leader of the house seems to indicate that it was connected and that there would be some time delay—I think something like eight weeks—in order for them to be brought on board. 

Chairman, can I just say on this that I held a broadband surgery last week and, similar to this, loads of people have been told it's going to happen? I don't even know where Llangenny is. What I do know though is that they are entitled and should be able to receive and not feel that they're isolated further by the lack of this—. But this is so reminiscent of what people were saying last week. People have been told 'this day', then it hasn't happened, and then I've even got people being told now it's not going to happen as part of this particular contract. People are left in limbo.

The possible action, really, I think is that we ask the petitioners for an update so that we have a clear idea as to whether they've been connected or not. Do you think that's the best way to go forward?

Okay. The final petition under discussion today is 'Male domestic violence victim support services to be independently run & funded'. This was a petition submitted by Tom Embling and was first considered in February 2018 having collected 138 signatures. The background: the committee considered the petition for the first time on 6 February and agreed to await the views of the petitioner on the response from the leader of the house before considering further action on the petition. The petitioner has now provided further comments, which have been provided to the committee, and therefore we consider it with those comments in mind. Does the committee have any—?

10:05

I have had people in my office where they do find it very difficult to access services for male victims. I find it really difficult. I don't know whether they would be better or worse services independently run and funded separately from Women's Aid, because Women's Aid do a fantastic job in protecting women. So, it's a difficult one for me, actually. 

There's no question that we need to strengthen help for men who are experiencing domestic violence. There's no question, and there's an argument about whether all funding should be non-gender-specific—

—but we know that Women's Aid is a source of great help and comfort to many women who are—.

It doesn't help, I suppose, being called Women's Aid. Do you know what I mean? I think there needs to be a non-gender approach. Domestic violence is domestic violence.

I don't think the Government has answered this specific question that's been asked by the petitioner, and that's to have specific funding for males.

Well, I think it should be non-gender, in terms of—. Domestic violence is domestic violence. And if it's evident, if it's proven, then irrespective—. But I suppose when an organisation is called Women's Aid, it's like I know a lot of men won't go into a ladies' hairdressers to have their hair cut, even though you can have people there—. It's just how people feel, and if you're suffering domestic violence, and you're feeling a little bit—. It's a difficult one.

Are we in agreement with the possible actions? The committee could write to the leader of the house to ask what consideration the Welsh Government has given to funding specific support for male victims of domestic violence, and whether there have previously been opportunities for organisations to apply for funding.

4. Papur i’w nodi
4. Paper to note

There is a paper to note. It's the 'Tywyn Memorial Hospital X-ray & Minor Injuries Unit Petition'. Just to give a background to this: the committee closed the above petition in March 2017 on the basis of commitments made by Betsi Cadwaladr university health board that the opening hours for the minor injuries unit would be extended and the satisfaction of the petitioner with this. The petitioner has recently written to inform the committee that these changes did not materialise during summer 2017 and that she and her organisation have not received responses to queries they have raised with the health board. So, the possible action for the committee: if the committee wishes to follow this up, it could agree to write to Betsi Cadwaladr university health board—

We took a decision as a committee on the basis of a pledge that had been made by the health board. We took them at their word, in a way, so we need to find out what's going on. It also ties in with work that this committee's been doing in relation to Blaenau Ffestiniog, because this is about the provision of a certain level of healthcare within rural parts of north-west Wales. We certainly need clarification about what's going on here.

Fine, yes. I think, given the time, we'll go straight into the evidence session, if you're all agreed with that.

5. Sesiwn dystiolaeth - P-05-750 Ar gyfer eitemau untro: cyflwyno System Dychwelyd Ernes ar gyfer cynwysyddion diodydd a sicrhau y gellir compostio cynwysyddion bwyd cyflym a'r offer sy'n gysylltiedig â hwy.
5. Evidence Session - P-05-750 For single use items: introduce a Deposit Return System for drink containers and make fast food containers and utensils compostable

Good morning. Bore da, Gill, and welcome to this evidence session of the Petitions Committee. As you know, the committee first considered the petition submitted by the Marine Conservation Society, calling for the introduction of a deposit-return system, last September. Given the current interest in the issue, we agreed to take further evidence from you as an organisation on the issue, and hence, of course, the session today.

Can I apologise in the first instance that this has taken a little longer than we originally anticipated to schedule this session, but it's very nice to welcome you this morning? I'm sure you're au fait with the equipment should any questions be asked in Welsh, but you're free to answer in English, those questions.

I'd like to just point out that this evidence inquiry takes the form of a question and answer session and please don't take it as being in any way an interrogation—it's simply to give us a little bit more background with regard to our inquiry. You understand that.

So, I'll open by asking you: can you please outline any research you have undertaken into the implementation of a deposit-return system in Wales? 

10:10

Well, as you are aware at the moment there is an extended producer responsibility report being commissioned and it was supposed to come out in February. So, we're awaiting that. With regard to Wales specifically, it's difficult, because that report isn't due yet. So, a lot of the work that we've looked at is for the rest of the UK and Europe wide.

A deposit-return system isn't something novel—there are almost 40 other countries and regions who have already done this. What I would say is that, if we were to do it, I know that in the budget there was a suggestion that if we got some funding through, we would see what a trial would look like for a deposit-return system in Wales.

I would advocate that that's not the best use of that money. We've already seen that it works elsewhere and also trials can be very leaky, by their very nature. If you were to set one up in Cardiff—most of you don't live in Cardiff—you then may take your bottle away and that would then take it away from the system. So there's been a lot of research done. We know the effects that it has, we know that if you set it up, if you set up a deposit-return system, it generally increases the recycling rates, it improves the quality of the recyclate and it also reduces littering.

Now, obviously, from the Marine Conservation Society's point of view, that is the key thing that we're trying to do. We've been monitoring litter for 25 years, we know that's it's increasing, we know that despite Wales being—it depends on which report you look at—either second or fourth in the world for recycling, that food on the go—so items that we class as plastic bottles, cans, sweet wrappers, coffee cups and things like that—still make up 20 per cent of the litter. And that still makes up about 142 items for every 100m. We don't want to see that. So, we've seen that that has continued to increase, we know that a deposit-return system, where they've been implemented in other countries, can have a significant effect. In fact, some research done by Eunomia—looking at, obviously, not Wales yet—estimates we would see 18 million fewer cans of litter and 21 million fewer plastic bottles.

So, to me, it's a win-win situation. We're desperately waiting on this report coming through. With regard to that, I would like to see the Welsh Government act very quickly on the recommendations, because the time to act is now. It's almost, as you say, been a year since I put this petition in. When I put it in, I went for what I thought to be something very reasonable—a deposit-return system and then to look at fast-food waste and make it all compostable if it's not reusable, recyclable or, you know, in-store recycling facilities. And that was a year ago, and you're all sitting here now and in the media the whole time, plastics is in the media every day. So, it's a different landscape to what it was, so we need to be as bold and do as much as possible. We should have something within the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Wales should be the leader in this as we are with the recycling.

Fine. Thank you. And, obviously, developments in that year—although we apologise for the delay—have certainly come on board your side of the argument as such, and, of course, we do have a certain amount of evidence that charging for such items does have an effect. We've had that with the plastic bag surcharge that we've had in Wales. That's proved to be a huge success, of course.

10:15

It demonstrates that a small financial incentive actually makes a massive behavioural change. And if you're honest, before the carrier bag charge, how many of you used a reusable bag? Even though you knew it was the right thing to do, you may not have done that, whereas that little, little incentive just tips you to change it. But that incentive has to come from Government, so I think that that's one of the things I would be keen to see from this report—that it needs to come from Government.

I'm going to ask my colleagues to ask you questions in turn, but sometimes one of my colleagues may want to come in on a particular point. I think Janet wants to do that now.

Yes, good morning. You know I'm a fervent supporter of this and I know, as it's come up here, it's about pushing it forward. You mentioned earlier that, at that time, you thought it was a reasonable step. Is a DRS scheme going to solve our problem in terms of—? Personally, I would go for a ban on three Ps—polystyrene, polythene and plastic—and make especially food wrappings and things so that you can recycle them. Would we be going for this only to then need more legislation to come forward to actually put a ban on it? Is this strong enough, Gill, now? 

They have. When I put it in it was what I considered to be reasonable, because I didn't think that it would go as far. Today, I'm not sure whether you're aware, but Philip Hammond is likely to make an announcement about a consultation on single-use plastics. To me, we should be looking at all single-use plastics. I'm glad that you've brought this up, Janet, because I do feel that my petition is now dated. It's great for me to say that, because I've been working on litter for 15 years and couldn't get the media attention and get people involved. Blue Planet has done that, so it's fantastic.

No, my petition doesn't go far enough. I do feel that we do need to be looking at all single-use plastic. We need to make sure that everything, if it's not reuseable, is very easily recyclable. The reason I put the second point in this petition, above the deposit-return system, is to look at all the fast-food containers, because we know that we get huge numbers of that on our beaches, and almost all of those are plastic. They used to be recyclable materials and now they're not.

Because we have such good kerbside collection also for compostable materials, we need very clear labelling on all these items. They're either to be recycled or they're compostable and they go in your compost bin. There is no need now really for single-use plastics. I think we have the potential here to be world leaders. The well-being of future generations Act was applauded around the world for being so good, and yet I'm very disappointed when I hear that announcements are made by other Governments and yet, so far, we haven't heard anything from Welsh Government. 

If I may—sorry, I know I'm going forward on—

If I can say to you, Gill, we are very, very happy that you give us these full and comprehensive explanations and answers, but some of my colleagues may be coming in with some of the questions that you may be pre-empting. Obviously, at the end of the session, I'll give you an opportunity to sum up if you want, if you think that we've missed something and you feel that we ought to have asked that question. So, can I ask some of my colleagues to come in now and perhaps pursue the questions that we have for you? Mike.

We've moved on, haven't we, from the days when most things were sold in plastic or in paper. We've moved now to most things being sold in plastic. We've seen what happened with the plastic bag levy and how 5p has made a huge difference to a lot of people. What I'd say is, if we bring one in in Wales, what level of deposit would you be looking for? On returning, I'm a fan of the old Corona pop bottles, which some people may remember. They used to go back, and those people who didn't return them, who left them out, there was no shortage of children prepared to go around collecting them and returning them to get the money back. So, what sort of level of deposit would you be talking about? Are you talking only about plastics or would we sort of move through—pop bottles and milk bottles would be a very easy place to start—and then move on to other types of containers at a later stage?

10:20

Can I just come in there on that? I may be even a little older than Mike. We won't argue that point at the moment, but I remember that, in my childhood, the deposit was thruppence on a bottle return. Now, when the drink itself cost in total 10d in the old money, you can see that that's a very high percentage of the overall cost of the original cost of the bottle. Would you suggest that that's the sort of level we ought to be pitching this deposit-return at?

Well, I do think that you need to make it a financial incentive. If it's too low, then people just think, 'Oh, if it's only a couple of pence, then it doesn't matter; we can still discard it'. But, obviously, that plastic bottle or glass bottle or can, at the moment, we consider has no value, whereas, actually, it does, and we need to make sure that people now realise that. They realise that a plastic bag has some value. So, 20p would be a good level to set it at. Obviously, anything that we do we would need to have a public consultation on, but I think that 20p is sufficient for people to think, 'Yes, I'm going to take that back. Actually, if I buy a couple of bottles a week, that's 40p; I can do that, I can return it'. So, in answer to that bit, I think at least 20p, if not more.

We would need to look at this extended producer responsibility report and see what Eunomia has perhaps suggested as the minimum level, but I would say at least 20p in order to make sure that we can cover all the costs that are associated with setting up the scheme.

With regard to what should be included, with a deposit-return system we would definitely want it to be for all plastic drinks bottles, but we'd also like to be for cans and glass bottles. We don't want it just for plastic bottles; it has to be everything. There's no point in setting it up, to me, to say, 'We are going to do plastic bottles first and then we'll maybe move on and do glass bottles later'. Let's do it. If we're going to do it, we set it up correctly in the first place.

Yes, can I say that I've been very impressed by the fact that, with the 5p levy on plastic bags, everywhere I ever go always says, 'Do you want a plastic bag; it'll cost you 5p'?. That seems to work. No-one seems to hand them out when no-one's watching. So, do you think the scheme would work equally as well and that people would be taking the deposits and then collecting them back—even more so, in a sense, in that, if they didn't take the deposits, if there's a deposit-return scheme, they'd be paying the money out anyway?

They would. So, the options for taking them back are obviously that you could have reverse vending machines. So, it's like, instead of a vending machine it's a reverse vending machine—you take your empty bottles back and you get your deposit back. That's great, because the quality of the recyclate is very high then, because you effectively take—you know, a bottle can then be made into a bottle, as opposed to being what I call 'downcycled', as its mixed plastic and it's made into a piece of plastic furniture or something like that. So, I do think that it's a behavioural change that people will need to do, and everybody didn't take their own bags before, but they do tend to now, so, just that financial incentive—. It has certainly seen—. You know, I can quote you the countries, like Norway—97 per cent they get recovered from their plastic bottles. We know that it works. This small incentive will actually make a difference.

It also has some knock-on effects, because, if they don't recycle it, it then will, hopefully, go into the kerbside collection recycling, so then the council benefits from it. If they can't be bothered—'I'm not going to take it back to where I bought it from and I'm not going to carry it'—then, you know, the kerbside collection—. And it also has the other knock-on effect that, if it is littered—and let's not forget that, with all these recycling rates and these fantastic levels that we have in Wales for recycling, they haven't tackled the problem of litter. If it's littered, then, again, the council can get some of that money back. So, at least it will then help with the street cleansing.

I was going to say that it probably wouldn't be the council; it'll probably be children collecting them. But we've seen the huge change with the plastic bags. I spend a lot of my time at sports grounds and in parks, and you used to be able to guarantee that they'd be awash with plastic bags. If you see a plastic bag there now, it's something to talk about, because it happens so infrequently. So, I think that there has been a change. And what I'm saying is: would you agree that, if it gets littered, if there's 20p or 30p deposit on it, then there will be no shortage of children to collect them?

10:25

There wouldn't. It does benefit a lot of members of the community. I've seen it in other countries, where people who need some revenue will go through bins. It also, obviously, will reduce the amount of rubbish that's collected by councils and how often rubbish bins have to be emptied, because these are very bulky items that fill up bins very quickly. And so it does—it does benefit; it has multiple benefits.

If we have a ban on all single-use plastic—most polystyrene is single-use—there are alternatives that we can use, compostable alternatives. I gave evidence to the previous Government, and this is my third time of coming to talk about plastics and polystyrene. So, I gave a petition then to try and ban expanded polystyrene foam, because it's just—. If you look at all of the major fast-food outlets now, they've all moved over to cardboard; it's only just the small independents who are still using the polystyrene. To me, we should ban it, we should ban all those—particularly the black and very dark plastics, we should have those—those are the things that your mushrooms come in and things; those are almost impossible to recycle. We can look into all of these on the legislation that we're going to produce, but, yes, there is no reason, really, for having the polystyrene.

And I suppose you're like me, and you'd love to see a complete ban on plastic straws.

Oh, definitely—all of these utensils. That's why I've said in the petition it's all fast-food utensils, as well as the coffee cups and the polystyrene, expanded polystyrene foam containers. We don't need it. It's our big campaign at the moment to tackle straws—you've seen all the media, you've seen the impacts, you've seen the turtle with the straw up its nose; there's no need for them.

And my final question on that is about how packaging producers, big companies, are using them, because it's a fact that, aesthetically, something in plastic, highly coloured, looks good on the shelf. And I know that a lot of big companies prefer the use of plastic, because, in terms of storing things on shelves, especially if it's soft, you can cram more on. And that is coming at a huge cost to the environment. Should there be a tax on manufacturers who, basically, won't listen to Government in terms of, 'Let's do this the nice way, with a carrot'? Should there be a stick—and that's taxing these packaging producers, and even companies, where they're prepared—? I've said it once in Plenary: I don't want my banana wrapped in plastic; it comes in its own protective wrapping. And we seem to have gone overboard now. As you say, I see a huge urgency in this. Social media is full of bad examples. David Attenborough, bless him, with Blue Planet, has done a lot. But unless Governments take heed—I think we're allowing food manufacturers, and packaging producers, to actually make lots of money out of our environment. And, as I say, I'd like to just go a bit further and say I would call on the Welsh Government to ban the use of plastic—bring in a tax, and bring in a DRS.

Just a couple of questions, really. I think public support is probably there now to move towards this. My party, as it happens, long supported a deposit-return scheme, and we support a levy on single-use plastics. Is the barrier the retailer? Because, as lovely as a reverse vending machine sounds in making it easy, we're not going to have those everywhere. What happens on day one of the introduction of a deposit-return scheme? Who administers this thing?

Okay. So, because there are over 40 countries that have already done that, the Eunomia report will cover how it will be introduced, and we can look at best examples of how that's been done. With regard to the producers and how things will happen, if I just combine your two answers, if I may, one of the things I get very frustrated about is that I do the plastic challenge every year, where, for a whole month, I try not to buy any plastic. It's almost impossible to do. Every time I go shopping, I try to reduce the amount of plastic. I'm being forced to buy things in plastic, because that's how they come. But, in addition to that, what galls me is that I'm then paying for that, because of the amount of money that I'm being charged for waste collection, and most of that waste that is generated is from supermarkets. So, getting back to your point, we need to make sure that the producers actually take responsibility for this, and they're not doing so at the moment. They have something that is a PRN, which is a package recovery note, and, in that, they're encouraged to try to increase the amount of recycling of their plastic, but it's not a very transparent system. So, even just yesterday, it was announced that Westminster are going to be looking into that. 

So, the issue is, yes: how do we do it? We don't do it from day one. We obviously have to have a phased transition into that. We'll have to get the public behind it. We have to have the behaviour change. We have to explain why we're doing it, but we also need to make sure that the businesses—. A lot of the small businesses and things are struggling; we need to make sure that there's a financial incentive for them to be able to undertake these more environmentally friendly ways, and the things that are still in single-use plastic we incentivise to make them less profitable. 

10:30

A quick shout out to Biocomposites at Bangor University in my constituency, who I've visited a couple of times. They're in the business of developing compostable plastics—not plastics, but compostable material to take the place of plastics. How developed are we in moving towards a position where most of the plastics that we see now could be replaced by a biodegradable material that does pretty much the same job?

Almost there. There is really no need, apart from the fact that there is a cost implication generally, in that they are more expensive and so therefore they're not the item readily of choice. So, therefore, that's why we have to go into this incentivisation scheme to reward best behaviour. But also it's been demonstrated that, where they've set up these schemes and insisted that materials be compostable, the price then has obviously come down because of the demand. So, at the moment, it's not financially viable for most people to make the right choice, but if we implement the legislation and we incentivise at the beginning then it will become so. 

And when we are at that point when biodegradable material takes the place of plastic, does that mean we won't need a deposit-return scheme any longer and we won't need a levy on single-use plastics because we'll have moved on?

I think that there are certain items that may always have to be, or the manufacturers may always want them to be, wrapped in plastic. So, I do think that we need the deposit-return system, but I would hope not. But I would think that—. I know that Coca-Cola are talking about increasing the amount of recyclate within their bottles, but they're not talking about replacing it completely. So, this is long term. Long term, let's get rid of all plastic if we can, but, in the short term, we do still need that deposit-return system. We do need a single-use plastic tax. 

You must be older than me, David, because I used to get 5p not 3p. [Laughter.] But the point I was going to raise is that the growth of plastics has been on relative cost. There was a time when most items were sold either in paper or in glass. But, as plastic has become cheaper, there's been a movement towards it. You did mention a soft-drink manufacturer. They used to use bottles, then they moved to plastic because it was easier and cheaper. In fact, they used to have deposit bottles. So, something will have to be done to change the economics of it, because plastic is readily available, it's cheap, therefore you can use it. Glass is more expensive to make because of the temperature you need to get in order to make it, and paper, again, has become more expensive. That's why they give you things in plastic rather than in paper or glass, because the economics drive it. Surely, we have to change the economics, because, unless we do that, whatever we do is not going to affect the way companies work. 

It isn't, so that's why we need an incentivisation scheme, where more environmentally friendly products are better value and people can afford to buy them and that. But, also, people want this to happen. We know and we've seen the support. There was just a report that said that 80 per cent of people would like this to happen. So, we go back to me trying to buy non-plastic, but, certainly, we can—. As a Government, I want Welsh Government to be aspirational in this. And I think that they should, and I think that it is something that we can do. Did that answer your question? 

10:35

How has the Welsh Government engaged with the third sector, waste organisations and wider circular economy stakeholders on the issues of DRS and compostable packaging? What discussions have you had with the Welsh Government on DRS? 

This is my third time coming in front of various Government committees about plastic—

I do mean an Assembly committee; I apologise. 

We have something called the Great British Beach Clean, where every year we go out and do a snapshot of litter on Welsh beaches, which is how I helped give evidence to get the carrier bag charge in. How have we dealt with it? I've met with quite a few of you individually to talk about it. We do a lot of petitions. I did manage to get a meeting with the Minister for Environment, Hannah Blythyn. So, Minister Blythyn and her advisers at the meeting were unable to comment and unable to give me, really, very much information at all because they're waiting on this report. So, every question I asked, they were coming back to me and saying, 'We're having to wait on this report. We can't make any commitments at all.' That was a little bit frustrating for me, because when I got the appointment to meet with them at the beginning of February, I thought, 'That's great because the report is due out, and we'll have a lot to talk about', but, unfortunately, the report still hasn't come. 

It's the extended producer responsibility report that has been commissioned by Welsh Government, and we're still waiting on it. It's by a company called Eunomia. 

I'll send you the link. It's Eunomia. They did 'Have You Got The Bottle?' for Scotland, and they looked at all of the implications and potential in doing a deposit-return system, but this is wider—this is extended producer responsibility looking at the circular economy, and everything really. So, that's good in some ways. So, Hannah, coming back to Hannah, she was unable to pass any comment, and what she did say to me, which was quite positive, was, 'We're looking at it more holistically', because I highlighted that Scotland are introducing—you know, have committed already to a deposit-return system. They've committed to banning plastic in cotton bud sticks. They've committed to banning drinking straws. We haven't heard anything from Welsh Government so far yet. Her response was, 'We're waiting for this report. We want to do it more holistically', which is great. I wholeheartedly support that. If we can have a tax on all single-use plastics from this, fantastic.

My concern is that it may delay it by some considerable time, and the momentum that we have with regard to plastics may have dwindled by then, and there may not be so much public support. So, I would suggest that as it's the Year of the Sea, as we've got the Volvo Ocean Race coming into Cardiff, that will be the ideal time for her to make some sort of announcement. Let's show that that venue—that we know that there are plans already to make that plastic free, to have a plastic challenge and a plastic pledge by all the people who are there. Let's make that a time that we make a big announcement and talk about introducing a single-use plastic tax for Wales.  

Finally, where should we be looking towards for good practice? You did open it out, I think, and you've mentioned a little bit with Norway, 97 per cent et cetera. Are there any other examples you'd like to give us, both of the products and perhaps who is implementing it? 

We have, obviously, seen in the news recently things like demands for plastic-free aisles. We've seen demands—we've seen a supermarket open that's completely plastic free. People want this. So, we're looking for—. You know, hats off to people. We've got the first plastic-free shop in Crickhowell. We've got plastic-free coastlines. We've got plastic-free islands. Everybody's clamouring to be plastic free. First of all, that's fantastic and well done Wales for supporting and getting behind it. So, we have actually got good examples within Wales, even though the legislation hasn't caught up with those yet. People want it. So, that's the first. 

The second is: obviously, I've mentioned already Norway about having 95 per cent recycling rates. For plastic bottles that are recycled, they have these reverse vending machines. Things like New South Wales, where they also have a scheme—. We haven't really talked about cost implications, but it's one of the things that lots of councils are very concerned about that they get some revenue for, because of the easily recyclable things like the plastic bottles in their waste, but it has actually been shown that they will get revenue increases. New South Wales estimate that they would increase their revenue by 30 per cent and it would also reduce recycling costs by about 19 to 47 per cent. So, there are best examples in so many other countries. We're not leading the way here. We're not suggesting anything novel, unless we do the single-use plastic, which I think we should.

10:40

Thank you very much, Gill, for your very expansive answers to our questions. I'm sure that we're all very much better placed to take the matter forward, and that's what we'll be discussing after this session—how the Petitions Committee will take this matter forward, hopefully in a timescale that's a little bit better than we've achieved up until this moment. Obviously, there will be a copy of the transcript sent to you so that, if you want to add to that transcript in any way, or maybe query it, it will be available for you to do so. 

Can I end this session with just a little bit of good news, perhaps? I've got a constituent who's developed a product that is very highly competitive price-wise with plastic that coats paper and is impervious to water, and I'm taking that forward. Rhun mentioned Bangor University; they've been very much in touch with Bangor University, analysing and developing that product. So, perhaps on the not-too-distant horizon we may have a complete answer. 

The alternatives are there. We just need to make it financially rewarding to use them. Thank you.

Can I just say thank you for the work that the Marine Conservation Society do? Because you've got a huge task ahead of you, and you're not a big team, but the work you do is really effective. 

6. Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i benderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod
6. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting

Cynnig:

bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).

Motion:

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.

Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public for the remainder of today's meeting. Are we in agreement? Thank you. 

Derbyniwyd y cynnig.

Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 10:42.

Motion agreed.

The public part of the meeting ended at 10:42.