Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Can I welcome everybody to today's hybrid meeting of the Senedd Petitions Committee? I believe we're all in person today, however. As a reminder, this meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. Aside from the procedural adaptations for conducting proceedings in hybrid format, all other Standing Orders remain in place.

I move to item 1 on the agenda—apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest. We have received apologies from Rhys ab Owen and Buffy Williams, and we have not received any substitutions in their place. I remind committee members that at this point they should note any declarations of interest, or do so at the relevant point during today's proceedings.

Okay, moving on to item 2 on the agenda, the evidence session for P-06-1307, 'The Welsh Government should commit to the adoption of the maintenance of new housing estates by local authorities'. I'm very pleased to have with us today Simon Gilbert, who is the head of planning at Cardiff Council. Simon, we're grateful for you being here. I think this is our fourth evidence session on this matter now. It's of interest, I'm sure, to a number of members in Cardiff Council in general, but certainly to Members of this Senedd as well. We're seeing estate management charges, for example, being used in all parts of Wales, so we're grateful for your expertise in some of the matter now.

If I could start with questions before moving on to questions from other Members, just to say that we of course know that there are a number of examples, right across Wales, and the United Kingdom in fact, where open spaces in newly built housing estates are not being adopted by local authorities. Can you tell us your assessment as to why this is the case?

Certainly, and thank you, committee members, for inviting me here today. This isn't a new phenomenon, as such. There have been privately maintained open spaces in residential developments for decades in the UK, particularly more so around flatted development or leasehold development, where quite often there is a maintenance charge associated that looks to maintain incidental or open spaces. What we are finding now is that there is more of a desire from larger private developers to seek to create management company arrangements around their open spaces, rather than offering up the open spaces to the councils to adopt. Why is this happening, Chair? I think there are a number of reasons. Some may be more obvious to the committee than others in terms of resourcing and councils having the sufficient resource to manage and maintain large new areas of open space. We are doing our very best at the moment in Wales to manage our existing parks and green spaces, and the process of securing a commuted sum for maintenance is time constrained. So, I suspect—and I can only speak from my own authority's perspective, really—that the mechanism of securing commuted sums is a good one and happens on other adoption processes. But they are a fixed payment for maintenance and they are not in perpetuity. One of the benefits of a management company is that residents are more often than not responsible for that organisation and the appointment of contractors to manage and maintain the asset. That will run with the land, so that will last as long as those homes are occupied and lived in, whereas commuted sums are often for 20 years on average. So, the question would be then how would the council manage to maintain those to a standard that the residents expect, once those commuted sums have expired, notwithstanding they are council tax payers, often.

So, there is a move towards more privately maintained open spaces, not just on those flatted developments I mentioned, but on larger, more traditional suburban housing estates now. I suspect the debate for the Senedd is whether that should change in Wales to deny the advent of management companies and resident-owned maintenance and resident charges, to revert to a more traditional model of having councils adopt and maintain those assets on behalf of the residents. I can see the benefit in that process, but, for the reasons I've just briefly alluded to, I do feel that there will be challenges for many local authorities in Wales to provide the level and quality of service that those new residents would expect.

I would, slightly in favour of management companies, suggest also that there are other quality factors involved where many developments have quite specific landscaping schemes, different types of species, they may have hard landscaped areas for communal activities, which may not necessarily come forward in a more traditional model of a council looking at formal recreational space, children's play areas and so on. So, there is a danger, colleagues, that, if we were to adopt that council approach, we may actually get less quality in the design of those facilities to compensate for the resource implications of managing them. So, apologies, Chair, but I don't think it's necessarily a simple equation of one is better than the other in this instance.

Thank you for that. That certainly gives the committee something to think about. I should say as well, obviously you're here as head of planning from Cardiff Council, and I appreciate you can't comment for other local authorities, but I should just place into public record the correspondence received from the Welsh Local Government Association—written correspondence to the committee on 12 October—with regard to some of the questions that we have to them as well.

I take your point on resources; local authorities are stretched, and I think that is perhaps underestimating the actual implications of what local authorities are going through at the moment. And I also take your point on quality of service. Before I just pass over to Peredur Owen Griffiths to ask further questions, I think I should remind Members of the visit myself, Hefin David, who is the local Member for Caerphilly, and Buffy Williams, who is a committee member, took to Cwm Calon estate, where we saw various parts of quality throughout the estate on the same road, if you like. The grass just was stopped being cut by one management company, and then the council might have done something else; it was very bizarre to see, quite frankly. I do take your and recognise your points. Peredur Owen Griffiths. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Thanks for coming in, Simon. Going on from what you were saying just now, and digging a bit deeper with regard to what arrangements work well, you touched on quite a few different aspects there. In your opinion, then, what is the best way forward, or is it more about depending on what type of estate you've got as to—? What would you suggest would be a way of tackling it, or how do you tackle it in some of the planning applications that come across your desk?

It's a very hard question to answer, but I'll try. I don't think there's a one-shoe-fits-all approach here; there's a very much maligned phrase in planning parlance, which is 'every application on its merits'. So, I think there is an approach that should be advocated that is more standardised, perhaps, in terms of what we know is good and works well, possibly irrespective of whether it's a management company or a local authority maintaining the asset. Even though you might pass over the park or the green space to a council, then there may be separate arrangements for the drainage; there may be separate arrangements for the highways, and certainly some of the smaller, incidental highways in estates, that aren't necessarily being put forward for formal adoption currently. So, I think one recommendation for good practice would be to have a more holistic approach to adopted assets, whether they're highways, the verges on the highways, as we've just mentioned, or the parks, or the drainage assets, the ponds, the swales, the basins and so on. Because I think what is happening is that there's a fair degree of confusion with new residents of estates as to who is actually responsible for what, and that maybe what the committee witnessed the other day.

So, part of the solution is about looking at what is best practice. If, say, we are to advocate a management company arrangement, I think it absolutely should be resident owned, so that they are responsible for both the contractual arrangements for maintenance companies—. And I often make the distinction between a management company and a maintenance company. The management company are the residents, more often than not, hopefully, and they are responsible for appointing an organisation to maintain their asset for them. And if that happens, then that's part of the solution, as far as I can see—it's that ownership from individual householders.

So, is that working well on estates in Cardiff at the moment?

It is, because we are—. The planning system, coming back to my bit, are requiring that mechanism, through section 106 legal agreements, from the commencement of the permission. So, we are advocating a number of what I would suggest are not good practices, but they're must-have practices in terms of, initially, the developer being responsible for setting up the green space for a period of time. So, you don't hand over to the residents on day one. That's really important, so that we can then establish that the planting's well established, the soil resource is appropriate, it's been well irrigated, it's mature, it's—

So, is that a phased handover, then?

Yes. We often impose a five-year period for developers to maintain the asset before the management company will take responsibility, and that, again, is enshrined in the legal agreements, so it runs with the land; its binding.

And with those agreements, do they then get written into the conveyancing contracts with the people who buy the properties as well? Say you have a seat on this board, or you're a voting member on this—

Not being a resident who's one of those people, yes. I'm of the opinion, or of the understanding, that each resident would be a shareholder in the management company to the area where they live. So, that gives a lot more governance and control, and potentially denies the anxiety of residents that their charges will just amplify over time.

Okay. And we've heard some evidence where some of this stuff is failing, so my second question, really, is in two parts. Taking the next step on what you're talking about there, as properties change hands, how does managing that company work, and whether or not there are templates or something that could be put in place? And then, where a management company or a situation has fallen apart—and we've seen, in certain areas, where things have fallen apart—what role does the local authority have in something that's not been maintained? Or what recourse have you got to be able to step in and say, 'That company needs to do something about it', or is it is just strongly advised that things are done, or are there any statutory things that you can do?

Not necessarily statutory, but I think you asked at least two questions in that. The first one, in terms of a new resident comes in—someone sells the house, someone else buys it—then that should be picked up, because it's a land charge, essentially, at that point, in terms of the planning obligation, through conveyancing and solicitors advising potential purchasers, that there is that levy or that responsibility within part of the title of the property. So, that should come forward quite nicely in a private sale. There is an issue—. I won't be distracted; I'm sorry, I'll go off on a tangent, but there maybe is an issue with more rented tenure or affordable homes, older person's accommodation, as part of these larger developments, that is slightly more difficult. Because should charges go up beyond what is affordable, then it might break thresholds in terms of affordability criteria for homes, rented properties. That's a concern, to be honest. I don't necessarily have a solution for that, but I am concerned that these inflated charges, just because everything's more expensive, are going to become prohibitive for a lot of residents to pay. So, the likelihood of these companies failing is greater, through no fault of anybody's, really. There's that issue.

The second issue you mentioned—and you may have to remind me—was on—

Well, if you get to that situation—the company's fallen apart, or they're not doing what they're meant to be doing, what role has the local authority got in—?

As part of the good practice in terms of the obligations on the developer, and then, by default, once properties are bought, the residents, there is the requirement or the ability of local authorities to step in to, essentially, take the role of the management company for a period of time, and this has been discussed in my council a lot because of the sheer scale of new development, all of which have this obligation. Should the worst-case scenario happen and a lot of these assets aren't being well maintained, the council would be obliged to step in to fix the issue, for no more reason than—. It's not just about mowing grass on a play area; there could be real consequences in terms of flood risk if the swales, the ditches and the ponds aren't maintained. So, it's not just about an amenity consideration; this is potentially life and limb if done incorrectly. Not to put words in your committee's mouths, but I think that's important to consider as part of this conversation. So, a council can step in. There are also mechanisms in these agreements where we could seek to recoup our charges from the residents, and then put back the management company when we feel that it is being well managed and maintained, and fit for purpose. 

And how would that recouping happen, then—through the council tax mechanism or through a court order, or—? 

Again, it would be for the council to seek payment from the residents, separate and in addition to their council tax. Fortunately, in my tenure in the council, that's never happened. There are occasions where the council may have helped manage an asset as a one-off, let's say, but, to my knowledge, I don't think any council that I'm aware of has ever sought to recoup additional charges beyond our council tax. So, it is written into the obligations and the legal agreements, but I would personally struggle with seeking to double charge a resident for the privilege of the council maintaining their asset for any period of time. But, again, it brings into question the resources, the capability, but also the risk. We've got a lot of privately maintained open spaces at the moment; should they all fail concurrently, how on earth would a local authority be able to take on that resource effectively? So, it's potentially a bit of a ticking time bomb. 

Finally, on those agreements, as a planning officer when you're helping and they go through the planning process and the planning is approved, how much control have you got of what goes into those contracts, effectively? 

The legal agreements through the planning application process, the section 106 agreements, are quite detailed and explicit. The ones I've been responsible for and drafted have been getting into detail about having council representation on the board of the management companies, having a retained interest from the developer as well, and also in terms of securing bonds or establishing that the management company arrangements are sufficiently liquid to be able to deliver the services. So, there are multiple checks, and some of that's enshrined in the legal agreements. The rest of it is enshrined in our technical guidance that we produce for developers as well, so that there's an expectation, should a developer elect currently to go down the management company route, of a certain degree of specification within that. But it is guidance. It isn't in statute, as such.

I suspect that some kind of progression of best practice could help, actually, everybody, because there's a good level of standardisation that would then deny maybe a slightly more dubious developer from trying to cut corners. Because there are examples where trees have been planted, parks have been laid and grass has been laid, and because they haven't necessarily been maintained, watered or looked after, by the time the residents inherit that asset, there's a significant initial cost to make good. So, it's important to make sure that there are these kinds of triggers before the developer's responsibility is passed on to either a council or private residents. I think it's about getting the detail right in terms of how robust and enforceable those measures are.

Thank you, Peredur. Just in terms of the guidance that you have referred to, I wonder if you'd be able to share with the committee after today the guidance that you have—I can see you've brought it. That would be very useful for us to consider.

I'll bring Joel James in shortly; I just wanted to touch on the attraction of resident-owned community management companies. I refer back to the Cwm Calon estate, because of the visit that we had there. They have set up a committee. That committee has local residents on it, it has local elected representatives on it, and one of the problems that they have is getting developers, the actual management company, to the meeting to discuss some of these issues. Some of the discussions we've had with them—. Would it be right getting that on the statute book, for example?

But one of the experiences we had heard—. I forget the gentleman's name, but he's now retired from the committee. He bought his forever home, if you like—he saved for this brand-new dream home. He's then moved into the house, moved into the home. He's then found out about the actual management charge in itself, and there's a piece of work to be done, I think, with estate agents and solicitors and so on, making sure that that absolutely is known to the people who will be buying those properties. But what he also did, obviously, was set up this committee. That was an additional burden for the individual who, at the start of this, thought, 'I'll buy this house, it'll be great and I'll retire here', and so on. He's now finding himself essentially having another responsibility to his daily routine. 

You suggested that the council, in terms of Cardiff, can and has stepped in where management companies haven't been performing in the way that they should to that high standard. Would you also consider it the council's duty to step in if residents were either reluctant or perhaps didn't have the time or skill set they felt necessary to perform the duties of sitting on, or being a shareholder in, a management company?

I think 'duty' is quite a strong question, a strong word. I think there's always the opportunity for councils to act as advisers to residents' groups, and certainly through their local elected Members, or through community councils as well in many locations in Wales. And I think there's that advisory, facilitation function—whether that's a duty or whether that's just a function of providing a service, whether it's parks, highways, drainage, it's very much a function of local government anyway to provide that service to residents, certainly. So I think inadvertently the answer's probably 'yes' to your question.

I'm conscious that there are a lot of issues around this topic that are to do with communication as well. I don't think it's quite as simple as saying there's one mechanism to manage an asset and there's another. Often there's a lot of correspondence I'm receiving from new residents saying, 'I didn't know', or, 'I was told that the park would be finished by the time I moved in', or the road would be completed. So, there's an awful lot of work that needs to happen beyond the regulatory process, I think, in terms of communicating how new residents are looked after and giving realistic expectations in terms of the timescale for implementation of some of these features, particularly on very large schemes that are happening in phases.

What I'm finding is that there's a frustration, often, because we as a council aren't the developer, often—it's a third party, a house builder, a private interest who is actually delivering the landscaping and the external space or the highways on behalf of the residents. And what we as a local authority do is we have powers, don't we, to either adopt or to enforce if they're not done properly. A lot of the challenges that we're facing currently are around having people on the ground to actively look, to be clerks of works to supervise that the planting regimes are put in properly, that it's the right species, it's the right soil volumes. Tree pits on highways are a particular bugbear of mine. If they're not put in, you won't know about them, but then you've got a row of dead trees on the highway, and you've got to dig it up to make it good. So, there's a number of implementation factors, I think, before the residents even move in, that I think could actually help support a better process here in terms of the quality of the open spaces and the natural environment. 

It's that expertise that you clearly have and the knowledge you have, and we can see that with the answers. I think it would be a pretty hard task to ensure that residents of these houses across Wales would have such—

I agree, and I think that's why the onus has to be on the developer, and hence the period might be longer than five years. Cardiff advocates a five-year regime of management and maintenance before the transition. Maybe that period could be longer—I don't know.

But, colleagues, what this conversation has been skirting around is that if we were to adopt the parks, we're already having to adopt a lot of the drainage facilities, we're seeking to adopt all of the highways on these new developments, each of those requirements comes with a very significant commuted sum. The cost to the council is greater so the commuted sum is higher. If we were to apply that across all infrastructure delivery on new developments, we would get less for schools, or affordable housing, or other community infrastructure we're seeking to deliver in the current financial climate. And that's the head of planning in Cardiff talking, so I'm sure in other parts of Wales it's even worse.

So there is a genuine and compelling reason to advocate management companies, because it affords more investment from the developer into other community infrastructure. And I can't avoid saying that in this committee, Chair, I'm sorry; it needs to be said. 

I'm grateful for that. Joel. 

Thank you, Chair, and thanks ever so much, Simon, for coming in today. It's been quite fascinating. I used to be—I was going to say many moons ago, but it's not many moons—a councillor as well. I used to sit on the council's planning committee as well, so I'm quite familiar with these types of applications.

I've got a couple of questions. I was just wondering about where the planning process can come in. Because I know we've spoken to quite a few residents where a few of them had no idea—as Jack alluded to there—that this was a thing, that they bought their property and then all of a sudden they're tied in to this management agreement. Do you see that's a failure there of the planning process, do you think, or does the planning department—or even, maybe, the Planning Inspectorate—have a role to play in this? Because I know one of the developments that was in my ward was originally refused by the council but the Planning Inspectorate overturned it. And unfortunately I think that led to a little bit of—. I wouldn't say animosity, but I felt that that decision there was one of the reasons why the council refused to engage then and say, 'Well, hang on, we rejected this, we had strong reasons, everything that we are concerned about hasn't been addressed, so we're not adopting it', you know? But then obviously, you would have thought the Planning Inspectorate would have taken that on board. 

And then, another question is: obviously we only ever hear, really, the bad examples, and I was just wondering, are you familiar with where this practice has been quite good, where there's been an estate that's been built where residents are fully informed, are fully involved and it's proven to be quite beneficial? Because one of the issues is everyone's signed in to a legal agreement to do this, and if the estate was to be adopted by the council everyone would have to sign out of that legal agreement. And when I've spoken with some people, they say, 'Well, actually I'm quite happy with the situation because everything gets maintained, the park is looking quite good, the grass gets cut; if the council did it it wouldn't happen at all'. 

And the final question then, which is quite off tangent I suppose, is with regard to the unadopted roads taskforce—I think it was 2018—that brought forward a few recommendations in terms of making sure unadopted roads, especially in new housing estates, happened less. And I just wondered if you were thinking if that's having a positive impact. 

Thank you. I'm mindful of the time, as well, Chair—

Yes, I'm conscious of time as well. It's my fault, really. It's been a fascinating evidence session, as Joel says. I'm happy to extend for a further five minutes, if Simon is.

Very much so. Thank you for your questions as well. First question, 'Is it the planning department's fault for not communicating this maybe to residents?', is a good question. I don't think there is blame from the Planning Inspectorate in this instance, because whether a decision is made by a local planning committee, as you know, or the Planning Inspectorate, there would still be obligations and conditions attached to that decision, and that would capture, you know, the delivery of open space and the management and maintenance or the design of highways or so on, or conditions to be discharged later. So, the simple answer is: no, I think it's the duty of anybody who is purchasing a property to understand what charges are levied against that.

So, with that question, it wasn't necessarily in terms of whether the planning department had to liaise with local residents, but more almost sort of like the breakdown in the planning process that has meant that the council hasn't adopted it, then, in the sense of—. As you say, you go through stages where you look at—. You know, a developer will come to the council and the council will say, 'Well, actually, if you build this, we want to see a playground, we want to see this and that,' is that the case there that, during the planning process or the development process, there has been that sort of breakdown of communication between the planning department and the developers, then?

It can happen, and it can certainly happen that an inability to agree a position with a developer could result in a refusal of the planning application, and a policy reason not to accept it if we think it's deficient in any way. I'd be very surprised if a planning inspector wouldn't ask the local authority to draft the legal agreement as part of the appeal process. So, it wouldn't be just because it's an inspector's decision—or a ministerial decision in some cases—that you can't adopt and it has to be a management company; that's not the case. It could be either, both ways. I think what is important is to ensure that there are sufficient conditions attached to planning permissions. If you think you've got—. I might go on a bit long now, Chair, sorry. But lots of the time, on big housing schemes, we get an outline planning application, so it's the parameters; so, the maximum quantity of homes and the broad locations for development, but not the detail, not the layouts of the streets and the housing estates, or even the parks often. But it's at that point that you establish the mechanisms: the commuted sums or the management company arrangements. It could be several years or maybe decades after that the actual homes are built and that's implemented. So, it is important to make sure that there is a chronology of conditions and obligations to work through so that, when the detailed layout of the park comes in, we can then work with the developer to make sure that it is better managed or could be maintained better by the management company, so that it's not cost prohibitive in terms of either the council or the management company. So, I think there's an iterative process here on large developments. And I think if we were to—. What we were talking about earlier about having those standards, so, it is very much a communication with a management company about the design and layout through the planning process—then it gives everybody more assurance that that will be successful and not fail.

I think it's becoming much more challenging when we've got new legislation now for sustainable drainage. A lot of the sustainable drainage systems features that we need on all new development in Wales beyond a dwelling are often in green spaces—are in parks or in public open spaces. And I think that's quite a compelling argument for this committee to seek to try and bring some of these regulatory processes together, these adoption processes. Anecdotally, Cardiff Council will have many streets in new developments where the highways department are managing the verges, the parks department are managing the trees in those verges, and the drainage department might be managing the swales within that highway—all within a metre of each other—and the highways department are managing the footways and the tarmac. So, we've got three different parts of the council all managing what is essentially the same asset. So, even if there was an adoption process, I think there are still improvements to that in terms of how it's orchestrated.

Other questions quickly: applying the processes retrospectively, you mentioned, so areas where there are management companies, how would you unpick those legal agreements—I think that is potentially a very big question, because we're talking about current developments or new developments, but there are literally hundred of thousands if not millions of people in Wales living in existing developments. I don't have statistics in front of me, unfortunately, but it would be a heroic challenge to try and unpick all of those, often where the developer has long gone as well. So, I think it's more about reducing risk to residents and managing the pre-existing conditions, rather than trying to retrospectively amend already built and occupied developments.

In terms of the taskforce, I think it has worked and is working, certainly in terms of highways and maybe because of the SuDS legislation as well, where we are mandatorily adopting drainage features, many of which are either adjacent to or on highways. I think what is happening with my colleagues in highways and transportation in my council is to very much seek to adopt all new roads in new developments. Obviously, that's not something that we can require, but it's very much in the developer's interest to do so, particularly when those same highways are, as we say, managing drainage assets. They're also carrying emergency vehicles, refuse vehicles, so we'd need to ensure that they are to an adoptable standard, and there's no better way to do that than to adopt them. So, yes, that is the case. However, a lot of more suburban developments and those flatted developments I mentioned have highways that are designed for children's play—you want the primacy to be for children to go out of their front door and into the street and play, and often that means that an overly engineered adoptable standard is not necessarily the best fit for those locations, those shared spaces.

Also, there's conflict with ecological considerations where, if we have to adopt a highway, it has to be lit, but then, if there's a dark corridor where there are bats or nocturnal animals, we sometimes have to dim the lights or turn them off or have no lights at all. And it's a struggle for my technical officers in highways to adopt those highways—too many 'highways'—because it would otherwise cause an objection from Natural Resources Wales, or from an ecological perspective. So, there are sometimes some compelling reasons to actually go beyond a standard adoption process, but very few, I would suggest.

Okay. Brilliant, thank you.

Thank you. I think we could easily go on and unpick your knowledge in this area, but I think we will have to draw this session, now, to a close. We do thank you so much for coming into committee, you've certainly given us lots to think about, and perhaps some more questions that we might follow up in written format. Likewise, if there's something that you wish you'd had the opportunity to say and could not, please do write to us and let us know. We will send you a transcript for factual accuracy, if you could check that and let us know if there are any problems. But certainly, we're very grateful for your evidence and expertise on this matter. It's something to take forward. And we'll be discussing this session later on in private to further our report. So, diolch yn fawr. Thank you, Simon.

Thank you.

Okay then. I'll move to item 3, new petitions, on today's agenda. Item 3.1, P-06-1362, 'Match the new childcare offer in England of 15 hours for 2 year old's from April 2024'. This petition was submitted by Madelaine Hallam, with 407 signatures. I invite committee members to discuss this petition and any actions they may wish to take. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. This is the second petition relating to childcare that the committee has considered. The other one, obviously, had over 10,000 signatures. Oxfam Cymru has written to the committee sharing the data from a piece of work that is scheduled for publication in mid November. I think the petitioner feels that the Minister's response doesn't address the core issue, and offers several reasons why Flying Start is not comparable to childcare for working parents. She even notes that

'working parents and childcare providers feel let down.'

As we did—. Last week, we agreed to write to the Government seeking further information in light of the Oxfam data. Would it make sense to do the same for this petition and put them together and deal with them in the same way, because it seems to me there's an overlap between the previous petition and this petition? 

Diolch yn fawr for that suggestion. I can see Members are content. I think that makes sense, so we will action the matter, send the Minister a letter about the two petitions jointly, and, of course, we look forward to seeing the data from Oxfam Cymru, hopefully some time in November, too.

Item 4, updates to previous petitions. Item 4.1, P-06-1334, 'Make the Senedd More Representative of the Welsh Population'. This was submitted by Seren Cole, with 258 signatures. Again, I bring Members in to discuss this petition and any actions they may wish to take. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Jack. The Chair of the Reform Bill Committee has agreed to ensure that Members are made aware of this petition, but they also noted that the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill is being referred to the Local Government and Housing Committee for detailed scrutiny. So, I'm wondering whether or not we alert the Local Government and Housing Committee that this petition has been received. Obviously, it ties into both bits of work around those two Bills. The reform Bill has obviously been laid now, so we'll be going through scrutiny of that. Maybe it's worth just keeping this open and keeping an eye on what's going on, probably til about at least the end of Stage 1 of that Bill going through.

Diolch, again, Pred. So, the suggestion is to write to Local Government and Housing Committee and keep the petition open, and we'll review it and bring it back for consideration by this committee again at the end of Stage 1 of that Bill. I see all Members agree with that.

Item 4.2, P-06-1332, 'Fund vaccine research to protect red squirrels from deadly Squirrelpox virus', submitted by Craig Shuttleworth, with 11,076 signatures. I remind Members that we held the debate on 27 September, where we heard from members of this committee and more widely. I think there was good interest in the debate. During my closing of the debate, Alun Davies, the Member for Blaenau Gwent, intervened and made a request that the committee keeps the Senedd updated on the taskforce—the forum, I should say—the squirrel forum and their work, which the Minister also pointed to. I agreed to do that on the floor of the Senedd. I think I should stick by that agreement, if Members agree, and we will keep this open for consideration, again seek an update in 12 months' time, and, of course, we'll write to the Senedd and Members of the Senedd to inform them of those discussions. Are Members content? I thank them for that.

Item 4.3, P-06-1299, 'Welsh Government "Freeze on road building" to include a clause for cases that pose a danger to life', submitted by Susan Blaney, with 455 signatures. I bring Members in to discuss this petition and any actions they may wish to take. I look to Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. I'm conscious that we last discussed this just before recess, when we had a response from Rhondda Cynon Taf council regarding the proposals. As I said in the meeting at the time, I was a little bit disappointed with the matter-of-fact response, really, and we really needed to get some more information from them, I thought, as a committee, before we could make any final recommendation. With that in mind, I was wondering if we could write back to the council just to seek that extra bit of information—so, whether or not the route that has been identified has been costed, are they actively pursuing this with the Welsh Government, or are they looking to develop any alternatives? It would be good to get that information from the council, I think.

Thank you for that suggestion, Joel. I can see Members are content with that. Can I also perhaps suggest, with the local knowledge that you have with this, having a discussion outside the meeting with clerks to help draft the particular letter and the questions that we seek answers for?

Before I move to item 5, the next evidence session, I'll call a short, perhaps five-minute, technical break, while we bring our next witness in for this session. So, on that note, I'll pause the meeting now.

Croeso nôl. Welcome back to all Members to the Senedd Petitions Committee today.

We move to item 5 on the agenda, to another evidence session, this time for P-06-1335, 'Welsh Government should take steps to ensure vulnerable adults without bank cards can pay with cash'. I think it's our third evidence session on this important petition from Mencap Cymru. With us today, we have Darren Joyce, the director of the Friendly Trust. Darren, welcome. Can I thank you for being with us today, on behalf of the Friendly Trust? I think I have this right in saying that the Friendly Trust is a registered charity that helps vulnerable adults to manage their money. So, we appreciate you spending time with us and taking questions from us today.

If I can start, then, just by reflecting on what the petition actually highlights. So, Mencap Cymru, who submitted the petition to the Senedd, have highlighted that some people with learning disabilities are unable to access services due to the option of cash payment being withdrawn in many shops, cafes and other services across the country. Is this a concern for your charity, and how widespread do you think this practice is?

It's definitely a concern for our service users, and we have about 600 active service users at the moment. We have service users all across south Wales and to the west of England, and it's concerning for quite a sizeable number of them. It has a genuine impact on their ability to function independently.  

Thank you, Darren. We heard evidence from Steven McGee in our last evidence session on this matter, and we heard the direct consequences. Steven wanted to go, for example, to the vending machine here in Cardiff Bay. Last time he was down here to visit the Senedd, he could do that; this time, he could not. So, I think we are seeing, and we heard, that those experiences are happening, and I think you've described that, too. I'll pass over to Joel James. 

Thank you, Chair. I've just got two questions to ask you, if I can. One that Jack has roughly touched upon, and you—. First of all, thank you for coming today. Sorry.

Thank you. That's okay.

Bear in mind it's a Monday afternoon.

You've touched upon this yourself, but I was just keen to know the impact that withdrawing that cash ability is having on your customers, or on the people you support, and if you know of any examples you could give us as a committee. And then the second question I wanted to ask then is, basically: we've heard in previous evidence sessions about the impact that businesses that have to deposit and withdraw cash, because, unfortunately, with banks leaving the high street, options are quite limited there. And I was just wondering if you had any advice for those businesses, then, from your point of view, I suppose. 

I do. I think it's quite a challenging subject, because we're not in a position where there's an overall strategy for this change, and so, for our service users, I think a lot of the activities that most people take for granted, for our service users, they require quite a lot of planning, and that planning has to be quite meticulous. And also part of their ability to be independent is to be able to do that planning, and I think if they go into a shop and they suddenly find that all the planning they've been doing, which becomes quite a significant part of their daily comings and goings, if something they've not anticipated is suddenly presented in front of them, that's where people can find themselves suddenly becoming incredibly anxious.

We have examples, and I know, when Wayne was here from Mencap, he talked about service users going into a shop, going to pay for something, suddenly finding they cannot pay for it and not knowing how to react at all. And sometimes, they're going to get things that they've spent a lot of time building up to. It could be a gift for someone, or it could be their own items that they've saved up for. For a lot of our members, our service users, we are quite carefully managing their finances. Now, this doesn't mean that all of our service users are poor; some of them are relatively well off, and so we don't have to monitor their money as carefully, but, for some, saving up for an item is quite a significant activity, and so going into a shop and then suddenly finding that you cannot buy that item, even though you've taken the advice of your trust officer, you've saved up the money and you've worked really hard to pull that together, to suddenly find you haven't got that is quite challenging, and it can have a really significant impact on someone's mental well-being.

Another example is—. We have to assess someone's mental capacity, and we have some service users who we would judge to be able to manage their finances if they are dealing with physical cash, and so they are equipped to go to a shop, they can spend their money because they are handing something tangible over and they are receiving goods for it, and they absolutely understand that. When we go into an environment where they're not physically handing cash over, their ability to manage their own finances and to be financially responsible is changed, and so our interventions with that service user suddenly become much more intrusive, and I think there's a matter of an individual's independence being stripped back, and, of course, if you find that you're not as independent as you once were able to be because of decisions made by faceless other people, then actually there's an impact there on somebody's mental well-being. So, those are just a couple of examples—not specific examples, but they're things that come up all the time for us. I often hear our trust officers on the phone, managing someone through those situations.

In terms of what businesses can do, that's a really challenging question. I've spent quite a long time thinking about that. We operate as a business and our auditors are always saying to us that we need to eradicate as much cash out of our organisation as we possibly can. We've pushed back against that ever so slightly, and the reason we've pushed back on that is because we've taken the time to listen and understand our customers, service users, their needs. And so, that would be my advice to any business: understand who your potential customers are, make sure you do your research, talk to local leaders, talk to local organisations that are prominent, and make—. I guess, ultimately, you're making a conscientious choice, and if it is very challenging to make cash deposits or access to cash, then I do accept that that is potentially going to sway someone's decision. But I do think, if you're saying, 'We're not going to accept cash,' you are going to exclude a relatively large group of people, according to the research that's been provided to this committee. So, I think it's that consideration to people in as wide a context as it can possibly be. I think, also, I would urge them to challenge their banks to be able to help them provide this service. The challenge has to come from all facets. The Government can do a certain extent, and then people and business would also need to lobby organisations to enable them to function from a cash point of view.

Thank you, Joel. I'll bring Peredur Owen Griffiths in shortly. Just one point and perhaps one question from me. I agree—I think banks need to do more, and I think we had an agreement in this committee during the last session we had, from the Federation of Small Businesses, who made the comments that high-street banks in particular have a responsibility to their customers and their service users, and cash isn't going away. It's very much needed for certain people, and we've discussed some of them this afternoon and in previous evidence sessions.

On the point with business owners perhaps understanding their clientele and the needs of their clientele, do you think perhaps there's scope for where the Government can support this—perhaps a campaign highlighting the importance of cash and access to cash and using cash in businesses? Particularly when we look to Mencap's petition, and the needs of some of your service users as well, where they only really can go about their daily lives physically transacting with cash and not cards, do you think there's scope for such a campaign?

I do. I think there's obviously some sort of bigger picture, sweeping changes that can be implemented, but I think there are also very localised things that shops can do, and potentially the Welsh Government can help with that. Like the labelling that we have on any cafe or restaurant—the food hygiene rating—a sticker that just said, 'We accept cash', or, 'We don't accept cash', so that that person knows before they enter the shop whether or not they're able to pay with cash, I think that would go a long way to ease some of the anxieties that people are struggling with.

I think, also, if you have a campaign where shops are requested to display whether they accept cash or not, you suddenly get that topic on the agenda, and I think it's very hard to put a system in place, I think, that enables someone to—. You can't force someone to accept cash in their establishment, but I think we can set it up so that it's convenient, and I think, at the moment, we're in this wave after the COVID pandemic where this move to cashless has accelerated hugely, but we haven't really had the discussion, I don't think, at local level, at community level, as to what the impact is. I think it's great that this conversation is happening here, but in the small towns in south Wales or in the Valleys, in west Wales, that's where the conversation needs to be had, because I think it's about understanding the local communities and what they need in order to be able to, I guess, offer the most comprehensive experience to people.

Okay, thank you. You're right—we can't, and Government can't, force business owners to operate with cash, but one space where they may be able to do some work around that is bodies that are funded through Welsh Government—I'm thinking museums, et cetera. I think we heard, if my memory serves me correctly, where there was cash payment for the ticket to a theatre show, but the ice cream or whatever the person wanted on that day, you couldn't actually get it with cash as it was card payment only. So, I think that maybe, certainly, the committee can look further into what we could do in those types of establishments.

Yes.

Peredur Owen Griffiths. 

Diolch. I just want to look at it from a slightly different angle, and not one I necessarily agree with, but if we assume that society's going towards cashless, from your organisation's point of view, and you're obviously helping people to manage their finances and vulnerable people to be able to do that, and disabled people, what are you doing at the moment to help those people cope in a cashless society?

We're providing support in terms of prepaid cards. So, I guess our primary function is to help that person to become financially independent, financially stable, and one way of doing that is to ensure that they don't go into debt. So, a number of our service users have prepaid cards, on which we can top up a balance from their bank account and they can either use that card to pay for something or they can go to the bank and take cash out. So, that is enabling them to begin to understand how you can do a cashless transaction and not run the danger of spending more money than you have because you can't. And that's a very slow process, because that's about rebuilding, or building, trust in that entirely digital transaction. And I think one of the things that we find with a number of our service users is there's a real hesitancy around digital banking, cashless transactions, and it's inherited from parents. There's a mistrust of banks and financial institutions, and I think there's work that needs to be done there. And we certainly work very closely with our service users to make sure they are entirely aware, if they're able to be aware, of what they've got in their bank account, what they can access. It's about being transparent, and it's about demonstrating to our service users that they are, as far as they can be, in control of their bank account. But that's a very one-on-one kind of—you know, that's time, that's a resource that's spent with those people. And I think there's probably more that can be done between banks and local organisations in educating people on the use of prepaid cards, because I think they're a really good crossover. There is, as I said, that reassurance that you cannot go overdrawn using these cards, because if the funds aren't on the card, you can't spend it.

I also think that there's a different approach to how we teach people about money, from a very early age. I was spending time over the weekend, trying to work out why we have this reliance upon cash, and I think it's because when we first learn about money, we first learn about coins, and we move on to notes, and so from a very, very early age, our understanding of money is in this very physical object that you have. And it's only when you later get to having a sum of money that's worth having in a bank account do you start to see that your money exists as numbers rather than as notes and coins. I wonder if there is—. And we haven't cracked this at all, but I think there is something in the way that we talk to people, we teach people, about the value of money. It's very much, from a fundamental point of view, a physical thing: here's money to the value of x—you give it to this person and they will give you goods to the value of x. I think we've got to get away from that fundamental teaching, so that, from an early age, people understand that it doesn't have to be this physical transaction any more, actually; it is, for want of a better expression, numbers on a screen. And I think we have to try and get that really ingrained into people, and that would really facilitate us moving across. But we have such a wide variety of people, there is no one size fits all. We'll have some service users we talk to every three months and some we talk to every day. So, we'll respond, depending on what their needs are, what their financial circumstances are, so it's very difficult to give you a broad answer to that.

It's interesting, and especially the bit that you said that we inherit it from our parents—our understanding. I'm just wondering, over time, as parents are more likely just to be using cards or phones or watches, are we going to see that trend develop? But I think it then goes back to, as you neatly put it there, that we physically look at swapping one thing with another. It's basically bartering—effectively, that's what it boils down to. So, it's that physicality that then becomes a concept, and obviously it's harder for some people to grasp a concept as opposed to money in their hands.

It is, but I think we confuse them by starting off with one concept and now we're moving to a slightly different concept. So, I guess my proposal is that you do away with that initial concept around physical cash and, actually, if that's how we want to exist as a society, then why are we teaching that part of it? That is not a quick solution to the problem, but I do believe that in 20 years' time, we probably wouldn't need to have this debate, but at the moment we do need to because we're in this transitional period. 

And, obviously, with your—. Do you see a difference between your service users, dependent on age? 

Broadly speaking, yes, but we do—. We have a service user in their 20s who absolutely will not have a bank account because their parents do not have—. There is just this utter mistrust of the system. So, broadly, yes, but there are people who just don't want to invest their money in a—

And the importance is having a choice, I suppose, isn't it, rather than—

It is, yes. We have to understand that we are advocates, we are guiding someone, but if we've assessed them to have the mental capacity to make their own decisions, then we let them—. They have to make their own decisions. It's about empowering and facilitating. We are a relatively small organisation. We don't have an outreach arm that's able to do that level of educating. So, it is very much down to the individual trust officers and their service users to interact. 

Finally from me, if I can, have you come across any businesses or organisations that have changed the way they interact with your service users for the better? So, they've realised that it's negatively affecting this cohort of people by going cashless, and then gone back the other way and said, 'Actually, for these, we will be able to accept cash.' 

The short answer to that is 'no', but I should caveat with the fact that I've only been in post two months, and so I've not really had the opportunity to fully, I guess, get the history of some of our service users.

It would be just interesting to see—

I'm not aware of any. 

It's just to see what can be done to help those people who've been negatively affected, and what scope there is to address some of that. 

I think the challenge comes with small businesses, where you have an individual. It's much easier for either a service user, the trust officer or any of the team to have a dialogue with that individual. It becomes a much more challenging thing—. The bigger that organisation becomes, the wider their reach. So, I had a conversation with a newsagent in Penarth this morning about magazine subscription, and they've looked at different ways in which we can facilitate one of our service users having their magazines that they like to get. And so we're able to have that dialogue. It becomes much more challenging the broader the scale.

Okay. Thank you very much. Diolch, Jack. 

Diolch yn fawr, Pred. We're moving quickly through today's final session, I think, so before I ask, perhaps, my final questions, are there any further questions from Members? No. Happy. Darren, thank you for the information you've provided so far. Perhaps if you do come across, when you have some more time in post, businesses, like Peredur Owen Griffiths suggested, we'd be certainly happy to find out about those if you and your—

Yes, I will share, of course.

That would be great. Just to say from me, we'll be discussing this evidence later today in private session. We'll be discussing where we go next with this inquiry, but at the end of the inquiry, we'll produce a report. That report will make some recommendations to Welsh Government, which they will have to either accept or reject, and offer their reasoning as to why. I wonder, from the Friendly Trust's position, do you have any recommendations that you would like to see in our report so that we can consider those? 

Yes, I've made a note of three, and I've alluded to all of them over the last half-hour or so. One is for shops and businesses to clearly identify whether they use cash, take cash, are cashless, or both, and I think it would be great if they could do that physically, in shop fronts, but also in any kind of electronic presence they have—social media, website and so on. I think that enables our service users to be able to do their preparation work, which is a big part of it. Again, we've talked about the support for small businesses to be able to handle cash. I don't know that we're necessarily talking about massive sums of cash, but I find it—. I can order an item from an online retailer for one of our service users and on occasion it will arrive later that day, or the very next day. And so I find it challenging that there isn't a facility for local businesses to deposit and access cash in a similar way. I think that would be an interesting proposal to explore. And the last one is very much about looking at how we educate people about money. For me, that's the key to unlocking this problem. It's not a quick fix, but I think challenging our educators to find a way to teach about the value of money, the moving away from the physical transaction part of it—I think that would unlock this for a great many of our service users and the wider community. 

Thank you for those. They're very useful—I've made a note of all three. I know the clerks have as well. I'm particularly interested in your second recommendation, or suggested recommendation. I think there's some interesting thinking behind what that actually looks like and it gives us lots to think about—they all do.

So unless Members have further questions—. They don't. Any final words from you, Darren?

No. Thank you very much for inviting me along. 

Can I thank you for providing us with the evidence? Of course, what you and your team at the Friendly Trust do on a daily basis is very important work indeed. Following this, we will send you a transcript of today's session. Please check that for accuracy and if any amendments need to be made, do let us know. We may have some further questions that we will follow up in written format. Likewise, if there are things that you wish to have said, and haven't had the opportunity to do so, please do let us know and we can consider that. But for now, I thank you very much for that. We'll move to our next item of business. 

Thank you.

Okay, moving to item 6, then, and that does conclude today's public business. Can I once again thank both witnesses from the two different inquiries that we've had with us this afternoon? I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), that the committee does resolve to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting, where we will go on to discuss those two evidence sessions. Are Members content? I can see they are. Thank you very much. On that note I will close the meeting. We will be back on 13 November. Diolch yn fawr. Meeting closed.