National Assembly for Wales

We looked at all options, Chair, but we ruled it out for some significant reasons, the idea of actually making amendments to the 1969 Act. Because one of the things, as you'll be very aware from your evidence, the Law Commission made very clear was that they wanted to see a consistent approach to disused coal tip safety, and a proactive approach to actually dealing with these issues as well. So, a proactive, preventative approach, and, critically, the need for a single, unified oversight body, with that capacity and that expertise and a single focus on this issue. And I know, in the evidence that you've received as well, there's been very strong support for that approach there.

We did give consideration to whether we could, for example, utilise an existing body in the 'Coal Tip Safety (Wales) White Paper'. It was one of the options considered in the regulatory impact assessment, but, as I said to the committee when I appeared in front of you before, there is no suitable existing body that was identified that could do that range of things, with that dedicated focus, that did not have potential conflicts of interests as well. They might have land ownership as well as being the body charged with doing this. But that proactive, preventative approach, which goes through this Bill, is not enshrined within any of those existing bodies.

The other aspect is that it could lead to a very fragmented approach, where there is a bit of the work being done here, a bit of the work being done there. What we will have with setting up a new, unified body is independence, accountability, expertise and also for the public, as well as for Senedd Members, taking away that possible perception of a lack of independence. This body needs to be charged to get on with doing the job of looking after the welfare of those communities that are living with this legacy. So, for those reasons, we did look at it, but we discounted it. There is no other body that could do the task we're asking this to do.

Thank you. Good morning. Bore da.

Good morning.

The UK Environmental Law Association told the committee that

'legislation should be clear and complete, not leaving gaps to be filled by soft law guidance when hard law, statutory provision is more appropriate'.

It also suggested some of the matters that will be covered in guidance would be better dealt with in the Bill or in secondary legislation. How do you respond to this?

We think we've got the balance right here. We are always open, I've got to say, to the views of the committee when you bring forward your report as well, but we do think we've got the balance right.

And I was really interested, in looking at the evidence that you've had in front of the committee, including from those with the legal expertise, who acknowledged that, actually, this is a matter of judgment. And the ability of guidance, actually, particularly when you're setting up a new authority that will develop its own expertise and capability, that will need to deal with advancements in knowledge as well, the ability to allow guidance to do this gives real flexibility. But I was taken as well with some of the evidence you've heard that says that, also, whilst it is a matter—and we think we've got the balance right—it also gives that ability for a more collaborative approach.

Now, bearing in mind that the ethos of this Bill is to set up this new body to really task and really focus, it's also based on a collaborative approach between those bodies out there. So, for example, Natural Resources Wales, local authorities, the Mining Remediation Authority, as it currently is, and so on, so that they can work together. Now, that's where guidance plays a real role. It's not a question of stepping away from saying, 'Could we do this better by putting it on the face of the Bill?' Because I'm always cognisant of that. There are real advantages here to getting the balance right with guidance to allow that work on this, develop the expertise, refine the guidance, futureproof the guidance, change that dynamic approach, whilst being steered, I have to say, by the views of Welsh Government as well.

Thank you. And, of course, although you've shared draft outline guidance with us, the new regime will not be operational until 2027. This means the final guidance will be a matter for a new and potentially different Welsh Government. What would prevent any new Government from adopting an entirely different approach to the one you envisage?

I'd find it almost inconceivable, based on the cross-party support for what we're trying to establish, if this finds the favour of the Senedd and the commitment across all parties to establish this approach going forward, as well as the new body, that there would not be an impetus to actually bring forward the guidance in the way that I've described, in the way that we've set out in front of this committee, in the way that others that you've received evidence from have also said is going to be necessary. It seems difficult to conceive of a situation where any future Government, as this comes forward post 2026—and we're talking about a fairly short timescale after 2026—would turn on its heels and say, 'We don't want guidance being brought forward.'

Okay. With the new voting system, there's a bit of an unknown going forward about, you know, what could form the next Government. Have you considered that at all in this?

It's not for me to speculate on what might come next, but I think if this Bill is passed—. And I note from some of the evidence that you've taken as well, quite interestingly, I think one of the people, one of the individuals from a legal background giving evidence, actually saying, 'Let's not make—', you know, to paraphrase, '—the perfect the enemy of the very good'; the recognition that this Bill is in good shape. In going forward, there is such a momentum here of setting up, passing the legislation here, bringing forward, as we've tried to do already, some of our work in progress in terms of draft guidance and so on. It may be that the committee considers we can go a little bit further in spelling out a little bit more on the face of the Bill, or in regulations and so on. We'd be interested in your views. But that sets in train a very clear pathway. I think, for anybody to walk back from this will mean unwinding provisions within this legislation. And I have to say how foolhardy they would be, based on the legacy that we're trying to deal with and, I have to say, the will of the people of Wales as well.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Delyth.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. My apologies that I was a few minutes late, to you and also to the committee.

I wanted to ask you about disused coal tips' inclusion in the Bill. Firstly, when we've taken evidence from some other interested parties, they have acknowledged that there is a social justice element to this Bill and that there could be a risk to that social justice motivation if, for example, the inclusion of disused non-coal tips, because there are so many of them, could mean that—? We know where the dangers are with coal tips. Would that be a concern for you in terms of, that it could be there and that you'd need to mitigate that risk to the social justice element?

I think I see what you're saying. So, one thing to make clear, as I've mentioned to the committee before: there are powers within this Bill, if it is passed, that if there is a danger from a non-coal tip, then action can be taken by the authority. But it's probably fair to say that the enormous amount of work that we've done now on already being out there—it's important to emphasise this: the work that the Mining Remediation Authority and local authorities and Natural Resources Wales have already done in going out and assessing these tips.

So, we've got to the point now where, on coal tips, we have a real good feeling. We can see the categorisation already. They're being walked, they're being inspected, they're being monitored. The C and D ones, as they currently are, have got that enhanced monitoring regime and so on. But it's probably fair to say that, in terms of non-coal tips, we're now at the start of that journey that we were on back in 2020 with coal tips. But that means we can also see, whilst the priority has to be on those coal tips that are living with this legacy—and we know where those risk elements are and getting on with that—we do need to move on to the non-coal tips as well. So, there is a social justice element with that, but to make crystal clear, to emphasise this point: there are powers within this legislation that, should there be a risk with a non-coal tip—this issue of social justice—the authority can also take action there as well.

We've put the powers in place, we're futureproofing it now. But it's realistic to say, as I've said to the committee before, that the work on the wider issue of identifying, and working the way through in the way that we've done with coal tips, doing that work with the non-coal tips is probably that five years down the line. Hence why, as we've touched on before, the RIA with this—as we appeared in front of the Finance Committee—has got a 15-year span rather than a 10-year span, because that's where we think we kick in big time into doing the non-coal tips as well. But they need to be done, because it's social justice in terms of the coal tips, it's also social justice in terms of the non-coal tips.

That's a fair point, thank you. Because of—obviously, there are always going to be finite resources, finite capacity—that mapping that will need to be done and the relative sparsity of the information that we have on non-coal tips, because work has had to be diverted to looking at that as well, has that had any effect on how the Bill has been drafted, in terms of a lot of the changes—that some of the detail has moved to guidance to allow flexibility, as compared to how it was in the White Paper? Has that been partly because of the inclusion of non-coal tips?

No.

Well, that was a very straightforward answer.

There we are, that's what we like. We like straight answers. Joyce, you wanted to come in on that.

Just on non-coal tips, a lot of those are quarrying, and there's more than one danger with quarrying, especially if it's empty, and that's water and keeping people away from that water, particularly young people, or ill-informed people. So, will this Bill, going forward, do something to protect the public from those dangers?

There are separate regimes in place already, Joyce. It's a very good question, but there are separate regimes in place that fall outwith this Bill. This Bill is very specifically focused on the disused tips legacy, as opposed to quarrying and the wider remediation landscape of some of the ones that we know very well.

I’ve said to the committee before, we’ve got to focus on—. There’s a real imperative behind delivering this Bill, which I’m sure committee members will understand. But, at some point, we’re going to need to actually address that, and that may mean, actually, engaging with the UK Government as well about that particular legacy. But that doesn’t fall within the scope of this Bill, for very good reasons. This is very focused, dealing with a very specific issue. You’re right to raise the issue, but there are existing regimes to deal with that in place. There’s probably a wider issue longer term about that issue of the liability and responsibility for some of those, but it’s beyond this Bill to deal with that. 

Ocê, diolch yn fawr iawn. Carolyn. 

Well, my question is about risks other than instability as well—  

Yes. 

—such as, we've heard about evidence for the new regime to be extended to address risks posed by disused tips that are independent of instability, which include flooding, combustion and pollution. The White Paper proposed these risks to be included originally in the assessment process. So, what’s the reason for the change in approach?

It’s a very pertinent reason. This is a single-focus Bill. And that focus is very much on human welfare and safety, which I think, from a lot of the evidence you heard, has been welcomed—that real focus, the human welfare and safety issues of this legacy of living in the shadow of disused tips.

Now, those other areas are already covered in existing statutory regimes. So, for example, protecting people, communities and the environment from the impacts of pollution and so on. However, it is worth flagging to the committee as well that, within this legislation, there is the ability for the authority to take into account, for example, consequential issues. So, where we saw, for example, in Tylorstown, that it wasn’t only the slip that happened, but it also, then, materially impacted on the course of the river, which could have impacted on issues of flooding, which could have impacted upon the local communities—. So, there is the ability within this for the authority to take account of that, but there are different regimes already for those other aspects. But this is very much focused on that one issue of human welfare and safety to do with disused tips.

Can I just push back a little bit? Because I thought having this new authority would help bring all that together, and you’ve got a clear line of accountability and powers, whereas the other bodies, they push from one to another—they push the blame from one to another very often, they don’t have that power. So, I was hoping that this would help with that, because combustion, flooding, pollution are all an important part of the instability as well. So, I would have thought it would come under that one body, with that greater power and importance, rather than be devolved to the other bodies.

What I would caution against is the idea of making this the one piece of legislation that solves all the problems, including environmental, pollution, et cetera, et cetera. There are other regimes in place already. This is a very, very, rightly laser-focused regime that is on human welfare and safety, and taking away the risks, or the potential risks, of the instability of those tips. But it can take into account consequential issues as well. So, if there is a matter, for example, that you’ve raised there within those broad things, that is to do with stability, or potential instability of tips, the authority can take that into account. But what it doesn’t do is set a new regime, or try to override existing statutory regimes that exist on pollution, the environment and so on.

This is very much focused, and, I think, again, to refer back to, I think, the evidence that you’ve received, there’s a welcome that it has that singular focus—it’s dealing with this issue. But it can, as I said, with the illustration of Tylorstown, also take into account consequential issues that flow from instability. But it’s not meant to overwrite or replace existing bodies of law.

Briefly from Delyth, and then we'll move on to Janet. 

Diolch. I support what Carolyn was saying, because the issue is that so many of the existing regimes aren’t always working properly, and because of the increased risks of storms and flooding, and, as Carolyn was saying, how a lot of things like flooding can contribute towards instability. I recognise what you’re saying, I do appreciate it. I am a bit concerned that the authority can take into account consequential issues, but that there's no guarantee there. Would there be?

No, but I think you've actually answered your own question. The authority can take into account those contributory factors towards instability. So, if flooding increased in traumatic weather, as we've seen in Cwmtillery recently, that can be taken into account. 

Which I absolutely welcome, but can take it into account, rather than would be obliged to.

No. So, this authority is focused, laser-like, on what are those factors that lead to the instability or potential instability of a tip that could jeopardise the welfare and safety of communities living in their shadow. So, if there was a matter like an increase in traumatic weather incidents, which could lead to the changing of culvert patterns, water run-off, et cetera, that is a pertinent issue within this legislation. 

And would there be a requirement, then, rather than 'could take into account'?

Yes, it's within this legislation, and that, then—. Now, here's the interesting bit, in light of your earlier questions. Do you put all of that stuff on the face of the Bill, when we recognise that the science, the technology and the engineering knowledge that this new body will have and will be, I hope, world-leading in, is advancing at pace? Do you put that on the face of the Bill, or do you say to them, 'We should actually have this in the emerging guidance, directed by Welsh Government Ministers, so that they can actually, dynamically, take this forward to be really cutting edge on it'? But all of the items that you've covered there are to do with instability, are to do with welfare—they're covered within the Bill.

Okay.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. Janet. 

Yes, thank you. The Welsh Local Government Association and some environmental organisations have raised concerns that the Bill could inadvertently stimulate re-mining. They suggest that proposals such as the one to remediate Bedwas colliery tips might be particularly attractive to some private owners facing significant financial burdens under the new regime. Is this something that you've considered during the development of this Bill? And how does any potential increase in re-mining align with the Welsh Government’s policy on the extraction and use of coal?  

Thank you. Look, we disagree with those concerns. We don't think that they're well founded, but we understand why they put them. To come back to the point, this Bill is entirely focused on the stability, or the lack of stability, of disused tips and human welfare. It does not include any proposals that would allow for or enable generic remediation or the recovery of coal for commercial purposes. Just to be very clear on this, the Welsh Government's policy on the extraction and use of coal is very, very clear on it. The guidance says 

'Coal is a non-renewable energy source. All proposals for the extraction of coal, including any secondary coal products produced during mining operations, which are destined for energy markets, must clearly demonstrate why they are needed in the context of climate change emission reduction targets.'

We're pretty clear here in Wales on keeping fossil fuels locked in the ground. The Bill only allows for the owner of the land to remove or dispose of property, including property that belongs to another person, that is situated on the land if it's for the carrying out of operations required by the notice—the section 33 notices. It's only for those purposes. So, any operations will be subject to those issues of stability and also the planning law and the Welsh Government's policies on the extraction and use of coal. So, I understand why they're putting those concerns forward; I'm saying to you that those concerns are not grounded. We don't agree with the concerns that they've raised there, because both our policy context and the reasons underpinning this Bill in terms of any removal—. Bear in mind that, in Tylorstown, nothing has been removed from the land. It's actually been remodelled. And that's the way that we would see this normally happen. But, there might be a good reason, for example, to enable access to a piece of land.

We've talked previously that one of the things that this Bill does is that it doesn't only have powers in terms of the land where there might be instability, but the ability to use coterminous land in order to gain access to, and inspect, or carry out operations and so on if need be, with commensurate powers over appeal and so on. But that is important, because that might mean that you have to displace material in order to get to a site; some of these sites are inaccessible. It might mean that there may need to be removal for some purposes, but it will not be for commercial exploitation, as described in the Bill; this is a one-purpose Bill.

So, just for clarity, then, you sound as if you’re saying that there's a guarantee that no coal that might be removed from these tips in the process of making them safe will not be sold or burned. Is that what you’re saying?

Yes, I’ve set out the policy context very clearly, but let me give you some additional clarity.

It’s simple enough. It’s just we’re looking for a guarantee that that’s the case.

Yes, let me give you some additional clarity, because there are uses for non-combustible coal that are not to do with burning fossil fuels, so let me give you some illustrations here. If, for example, coal removed from tips for the purposes of this Bill, which we think will be relatively minor and exceptional, by the way, if you look at examples where the work is already carrying on—. But there are uses for coal that are not linked to burning for combustible reasons for fossil fuel—for example, water filtration, batteries production, et cetera, et cetera. Now, are we to say that we rule out those?

No, no.

So, if there is a purpose, for the purposes of this Bill only, which are very focused, where removal of coal is necessary, but within the policy context of our fossil fuel approach in Wales, but recognising that there could be non-combustible reasons, but there might also be very good reasons within this Bill why some material needs to be removed off-site, then that is the exceptional provision that we are putting here. But this is not saying that we are going to be doing extractions of material for sale on the open market as fossil fuels. The Welsh policy context is not in that space.

No, no.

Neither is our planning context, and I think I’ve been very specific here that there are some exceptional uses for coal that are non-combustible.

I understand that, yes. Okay. Diolch.

Diolch. What is—

And the position, by the way, is always against extraction.

Against. Yes, yes.

I appreciate you saying that. Of course, what’s happening in Bedwas does show, though, that, under the guise of remediating a site, coal can be extracted and then sold to finance the operation. Would you have any concern that an unscrupulous company in the future could find this as a loophole? I appreciate that this is not in any way the intention—

I understand what you’re saying.

—but the Bill wouldn’t actually prevent that and prohibit it from happening, would it?

Well, it would. The purposes of this Bill, as defined within the legislation here in front of me, are very clear on why any movement or disposal of material on a site—coal or other assets on that site—can be done, and I’ve described very, very clearly the context. So, the remediation in Bedwas, or in other ones, operates under a different regime. This is a laser-like focused regime that is to do only with that aspect of stability/instability. It would be exceptional to remove off-site; if it’s done, it’s in the context I’ve just described and as described within the legislation.

But that, after it has been removed, could then be sold.

The authority has clearly set criteria here of why any material would be removed off-site, and they would be operating within the policy context I’ve described.

No, I appreciate that fully, but—

So, if an operator came along and said, ‘We’d like to come on-site; we think we can offer you a way out here, we'd like to remove a huge bund of coal, but the only way we’re going to do it is commercially through selling that stuff,’ I’m sorry, that just doesn’t fit within the legislation here, nor what I’ve just described is the policy context in Wales. This is quite different, and deliberately different from the other aspects of other statutory regimes currently in place. It’s very, very focused.

Okay. Thank you.

There we are. Okay, we’ll need to make progress now, because, otherwise, we won’t cover all the provisions of the Bill. So, Delyth, on to you next.

Okay.

Oh, no, sorry. Julie next.

Thank you. Bore da. We’ve had evidence expressing concern about the cost of setting up the new authority, and wondering why you didn’t do something different, such as having a Welsh branch of the Mining Remediation Authority. So, I wondered if you could tell us what were your reasons for that.

Thanks, Julie. It's a good question, and we did look, as I mentioned earlier, at a range of possible options, including whether you could use the MRA itself. But, to be absolutely crystal clear, there were really good reasons why we discounted the MRA. The MRA has got a significant body of expertise, by the way, in certain aspects of the work that we're doing, and all credit to them for the work that they've been doing along with local authorities and others in walking these tips over the last few years to help us to the point that we're now at. But, to be clear, the MRA is also an owner of disused tips. It currently owns around about 26 sites in Wales. Now, there's clearly a potential conflict of interest between being the body that is given the powers within this Bill and a body that also happens to own 26 sites in Wales, so we want to avoid putting them in the position, frankly, where there is that potential conflict of interest.

It's also because they are, of course, not directly accountable to Welsh Ministers. And coming back to the previous question, interestingly, the final decision on whether coal could be taken off a site, if it came to that, would actually fall under this proposal to Welsh Ministers. That direct line of accountability is critical. Most of these coal tips are in Wales on this. So, it was that reason as well, but it was also because the clear call from the Law Commission and others, and, from what I've read, the vast majority of the evidence that you've heard from other stakeholders, saying that they support the idea of a new, dedicated unified body that avoids the fragmentation, brings it together with direct accountability here within Wales. So, the MRA has significant expertise, but it's not as simple as—even though we did look at these options—making a Welsh arm of that, because of these issues of potential conflict of interest, lines of accountability and so on.

So, would you see them having any role, undertaking work on behalf of the authority, or any role at all?

Potentially, yes. The new authority will have the decisions to make as to how they carry out their duties described in the Bill, whether they do this themselves, whether they contract out to the MRA. Working in partnership is part of the whole ethos of this Bill, as I've described before, working with local authorities and others—

But then, if that happened, the MRA would be specifically responsible to them, so—

Absolutely, and the line of accountability is to Welsh Ministers—

With the Ministers, yes.

Indeed. So, what we're setting up here is something where the MRA could well be potentially one of those organisations that provide services to the authority, should the authority—. And what we're doing is saying to the authority, 'You decide best where you bring in that expertise, what you have there yourselves, where you decide to contract out to others.' The MRA is clearly in a good position to provide services here, but I have to say that decision should be left to the new authority.

Right, and the role of the local authorities as well, in a similar way.

Yes. Local authorities are key to the future of dealing with the stability of coal tips, and they also have local knowledge as well. I know, in the evidence that you received from them, that they were very keen to ensure that they were part of this. So, the approach here that this Bill takes, and my clarity here as a Minister is that it is not only a proactive approach, but it's also a collaborative approach with landowners, but with local authorities, who have real local knowledge and understanding. We need to make sure that their expertise is also good and solid as well, and there is a question here of lifting all boats. We really do need to deal with that pipeline of expertise, which is currently lacking. We need to build that up year after year after year, and the authority will have a role in that, but also protecting and working in collaboration with local authorities and NRW as well.

And is that clear in the Bill?

Yes, I think it is, and the—

Because I think some concern was expressed about that.

Yes, I think local authorities—. Curiously, I've had discussions on wider aspects of my sponsored bodies' engagement and collaboration with local authorities. Local authorities are always rightly concerned that, like public bodies generally, they become the talent pool, and that talent then is taken away by a new public body, by the MRA, by commercial contractors, whatever. Hasn’t it always been the way? What we need to do, and it’s an interesting piece within this, not just within the piece around works on mine tip stability, but also generally on things like flooding and so on, we need to start building those pipelines very cogently, and there are ways we can do that. I think that does mean working with those bodies out there, but also with the further education and higher education sectors. I used to teach in leisure and tourism, business and economics in the old red brick building in Swansea Institute on the hill going up to Mount Pleasant. That was formerly the mine engineering building. I was very proud to teach in that; the brass plaque was still on the wall. Now, if you look to the south-west of England, you have Camborne School of Mines engineering. The people there go off around the world, taking their expertise to the Gulf, to Uzbekistan, to all these places. Now, what we need to be doing is building that pool here in Wales as well, developing that thing that will lift all boats—so, local authorities, NRW and the new authority as well—because we need more people with more skills, and newer skills and developing skills within it, so that we have those good salaries right across the piece and we also have good expertise. Local authorities are going to be key to this. And I see it working in concert, in collaboration, with the new authority. But it would be good to see a situation where, if we can lift all the boats, we do have people who transfer between these things, because those skills will be needed right across the piece.

Thank you. 

Okay. Well, you've taken us into the next area, I think, in terms of skills and staffing. I don't know, Janet, if there's anything you want to add to that.

No, but it takes time. My only comment— 

It does. 

—on that is that it takes time, and it's finding those skills here. 

Yes. 

It’s one thing them going off, it’s another finding them and keeping them here.  

You don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul, do you? Take from the local authority and then—

I think you're right. I think you're right. And one of the things that I've been at pains to stress on the floor of the Siambr and here in committee as well, and in my public statements on this, is that this is not an overnight thing, either in terms of developing the authority and the expertise, but also the skills behind it, and actually dealing with the works on the tips. This is not a, 'Let's bring in billions of pounds now', because, frankly, the people we need, with the hydrological skills, the engineering skills, the civil engineering skills, some of them are there and we've been building that, by the way, over the last five years as well. But we're going to need to build this year after year after year, and then ramp up the work that we're doing. Now, that's a challenge, but I have to say it's an exciting challenge to do as well. 

I've talked about developing what we can do here indigenously, and we need to do that. Hell's bells, surely one of the things we should be doing in dealing with this industrial legacy is making sure that some of the benefits of the skills and the jobs and the employment that flow from this in local authorities, in NRW, in the new authority, in the MRA, are actually coming to those communities that are affected by it, because these are well-paid jobs, long careers within it. Establishing this is a generational piece of work where people should be able to, like the Camborne School of Mines engineering, be developing long careers, not going off around the world, but coming here.

But what we can do as well, Janet, and what we’re doing already, is working with those who are beyond our borders as well. So, I mentioned in my previous visit to the committee around this issue that we’re working with an organisation called Talent Beyond Boundaries, which looks at more the international flow of these, because we do have talented individuals who can help us right now, who are coming in from around the world. Now, currently, they’re going elsewhere. So, working with organisations like Talent Beyond Boundaries means that we can identify, recruit and attract those people here as well, alongside developing our own talent here in Wales. It’s working, by the way, very well in Scotland and England already. We’ve now started that work with Talent Beyond Boundaries, but we’re very optimistic about the potential.

I wonder whether that’s the first time ever that ‘hell's bells’ will appear in the official record of the Senedd. I wonder. Somebody can search for us, I’m sure.

Well, now it’s going to appear twice.

Twice now, you’re right, yes. Oh dear. There we are. Let’s stop there. [Laughter.] Okay. Julie, over to you.     

Diolch. We did have a call in our evidence for a comprehensive register of all disused tips that had been assessed, with the ones that weren’t put on and that didn't qualify to be registered exempted from the other elements of the new regime. What's your response to that?

Julie, I think I can be helpful to the committee here, because I suspect some of this may be a misunderstanding, or a lack of full awareness of what's already been going on.

So, over the last five years, the Mining Remediation Authority, together with NRW and local authorities, have been walking the ground across Wales. So, the fact that we've got to the point now where we already have an extensive list—. That comprehensive list is already being put in place there; we're not starting from scratch—it's being done. But that's different, and this is where I can help with some clarity, the clarity on the register. The register rightly focuses on those tips where it is deemed that there is either a threat of instability that would jeopardise the human welfare and safety of communities, or where there is a risk of instability developing. Now, that's the register, and it's right that that is the register, because those are the ones that we need to prioritise the work on.

But there is a list as well, which is more comprehensive, of all of the disused tips. It's just that some of them do not feature within the categorisation that says, 'These need to be on the register as described within this Bill', which is that threat of instability, or the risk of becoming instable and becoming a threat to human welfare.

Right. The Law Commission did suggest that application of the new regime to disused non-coal tips may have influenced your decision not to have a comprehensive register of all disused tips. Is there any truth in that?

No. No, there isn't. The Bill places a duty on the authority to have a preliminary assessment in relation to every disused tip, and that work, by the way, has been progressing—we're not starting from a blank sheet of paper on this. So, as I've stated, it's expected that the authority will work to compile a comprehensive list of all disused tips in Wales, both coal and non-coal. But it's the difference between what's on that and what's the register. But there's certainly nothing that has influenced this in terms of the non-coal tips; we will come to that subsequently. We will need to do the same piece of work, I suspect—sorry, the authority will need to do the same piece of work—that we began five years ago on the coal tips.

Right. And could you tell us what sort of mechanism the authority would put in place if an unregistered disused tip may need to be reassessed?

Yes, indeed. And bear in mind it's happening dynamically at the moment. So, we've already had tips that have been reassessed, and categorisations being moved as well. So, this is happening live time. So, there could be, for example, a change in circumstances in the site or within the vicinity. Bear in mind that this Bill looks at the site, but it also looks at factors on coterminous land that could be affecting it as well. So, for example, if there was a property that was being developed on or adjacent to a site, which could heighten the risks of instability, then that could be a factor in making a reassessment. It could actually be information from a local authority, which has good local information and understanding of that site, that says, 'We're aware of the circumstantial change there.' It could be to do—to come back to Delyth's points—with an adverse weather incident that has had a material impact on the site or on a piece of land that is pertinent to the stability of the site, that has, I don't know, changed a course of water, or culvert, blocked something, whatever; it could be a range of things.

So, that could be a range of information that comes forward from different sources that was not available during the previous assessment, which would then cause—. And, within the Bill as described, the authority would need to then actually carry out an assessment within its expertise.

How would the authority be alerted to those changes? Is there anything that would ensure that these areas, the information—. You've given the sorts of things that would trigger it, but how could you be sure that the authority would know about it?

So, this authority will not be omnipresent or god-like. But the duty placed on the authority to take that proactive approach to engage with partners, local authorities—community engagement, by the way, as well—. And we've seen this in places like Cwmtillery as well, and others, where the local knowledge is really pertinent as well to the solutions, going forward. But that proactive approach, based on sharing of information as well, based on the duty that lies on, not just the authority, but other public authorities, to be part of this regime and to feed into it, means that there is an obligation to actually provide that information where there is an issue of an instability, or potential instability—a material change that could lead to that—in between assessments. So, local authorities, NRW, landowners as well, would need to actually alert the authority to something that could make a material difference to their initial assessment of that site.

Thank you.

Is there an obligation in the Bill for landowners to notify a public authority?

Chris. Sorry.

I was going to say, so, section 57 is the relevant provision, and the duty is on relevant public authorities: so, that's the Welsh Ministers, Natural Resources Wales, a council or county borough council in Wales, a national park authority for a national park in Wales, coal authority, fire and rescue. The duty is that, if, in exercising their functions, they become

'aware of a threat to the stability of a disused tip, or evidence of a disused tip’s instability, and considers that the information ought to be shared with the Authority in the interests of avoiding or reducing a threat to human welfare, the public authority must give the Authority the information as soon as practicable.'

And, as the Minister's said, local authorities have such relevant local knowledge, there'd often be occasions where they might come across such information.

Yes, of course.

And pertinently here as well, because I mentioned that engagement with the local community, it's not only that the public authority—not the authority, the public authority, as described—must give the authority the information as soon as is practicable, in a subsequent subclause under section 2, as Madeline was saying,

'it must give the public authority the information as soon as practicable.'

Sorry, I'm reading from the wrong bit here.

'If the Authority, in exercising its functions, becomes aware of something that it considers ought to be brought to the attention of a relevant public authority for the purpose of the public authority’s exercise of its functions, it must give the public authority the information as soon as practicable.'

So, it's really spelt out there within the legislation. So, they have to act, but this also, I have to say, is shot through with the need to collaborate effectively.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Joyce, on to you.

I'm going to talk about assessments and the fact that the Bill doesn't make provision for the publication of reports of preliminary and full assessments. You've said that, in your view, there is no public interest in general publication of those reports. Given that we've been told there's a high level of public interest in coal tip safety, do you want to clarify your position?

Yes, indeed. We stand by our assessment that there is no public interest in the general publication of the reports of each single preliminary and full assessment. However, members of the public can actually request the information held by the authority. So, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environment Information Regulations 2004, subject to the normal restrictions on disclosure under relevant data protection legislation, they can request that information. So, under section 19, the authority has to produce a report of a full assessment in relation to disused tips. It has to do that as soon as practicable. It has to give notice of the conclusions of the report to every owner and every occupier of land on which the tip is situated.

Now, this is considered—we consider this—to be the appropriate way to deliver the conclusions of the full assessment to those parties. But there are provisions here for the members of the public. There are existing statutory provisions where they can request the full disclosure information. But, yes, it is our view that there is no public interest in the general publication of every preliminary and every full assessment.

Of course, the issue—

Sorry, Joyce. Very quickly to Delyth.

Yes, just quickly, if you don't mind, Joyce. That would place quite a burden, though, wouldn’t it, on members of the public to know that that right would exist for them to be able to request that information. And it tends to be people—. A lot of people living near the highest risk tips tend to be in areas where there are many disadvantages in those areas, and there is not as much time or capacity to be able to look those things up as well. Is there some kind of inverse effect here, because people are statistically the least likely to be democratically engaged and to know those kinds of rights?

So, I live in communities where we’ve got coal tips around us, including some of the highest category—currently—defined tips. It is very important that we provide the members of those communities with all the available necessary information that is deemed necessary to keep members of the public informed of the categories, the risk levels and so on, to provide the necessary assurances that disused tips are safe and secured and being monitored well and so on. That’s different from, however, doing full disclosure of every single preliminary and full assessment. There are implications of doing that—significant implications of doing that. So, we think the balance is absolutely right here. And what we’re looking at is this question of is there a general public interest in disclosing every single preliminary and every single full assessment, as opposed to putting the right information in place, so that I, and the people who live in my communities, or in other communities affected, can see with clarity what’s being done, what the assessment is, what the work needed to be done is. That’s different from saying, ‘By the way, here’s dumped on you, not hundreds, but, potentially, thousands of assessments.’ And there is a question as to what the general public interest is in that, as opposed to clarity of information.

Joyce, back to you.

I think the danger here is the vacuum that people might feel, and the need to explain, which you have just done, to those communities really why they’re not getting absolutely all the information, but the relevant information. And I point to the vacuum, because we all know what happens in a vacuum—people fill the space and then start occupying that space with misinformation, which then causes anxiety, and, very often, in this case, it could be anxiety that isn’t correct. So, I suppose the real question here is that: how are you going to militate against that happening?

I think that's the right question. The question isn’t to do with disclosure of every preliminary and full assessment. The question is how the authority actually engages with communities to communicate effectively what it is doing, what conclusions it’s come to on individual tips, and how it is making those safe.

But, having said that, just to go back, there is the ability for those who have genuine queries under the current statutory regime of freedom of information requests and environmental information regulations, to actually say, ‘Well, I want to drill deeper. I really want to get into this, because I might have some queries about it.' But what the authority will need to do is to actually be proactive, not just with landowners, but with the wider communities, in relation to the work that the authority is doing, and explaining it very well. Because I come back to this point: for me, and for many of my constituents and others affected by this, what they will want is the right information provided, the right assurances that work is being done, with clarity and in a way that is really understandable. Some other people might well want to say, ‘Well, actually, I want even more than that, so I’m going to request additional information.' They can do that.

The flip side of what you’re saying, curiously, as you and I will know, is that, sometimes, dumping all the information, regardless of the general public need to see all of that—sometimes, dumping all of that—can actually not just fill a void of a lack of information, it can actually lead to additional interpretation or misinterpretation of what the data actually says. So, I think there’s a real role for the authority here, as I’ve described, in explaining to those communities that live in the shadow of this what they are doing; that's different from a general requirement to provide every single report. 

Does the Bill provide for that?

Yes, that's the question, because I don't think there is any provision in the Bill for that.

Chris.

No, so, I think what we're saying is that there's no need for a provision in the Bill because there's already external provision. We have many requests for information on reports for Bills; all of them are responded to. The reports are sent once we redact personal information, so there are a number of data protection issues that we have to go through. Both us and the MRA have quite a few requests; they're always answered and the reports are always provided, and we would expect that to continue under the new regime.

They've just got to be asked for.

Yes.

Yes.

And there is a requirement on the authority to publish in its annual reports how it has discharged its duties, and I would expect, as part of that annual reporting, them to explain how they've communicated with the most significant stakeholders in this, which are the local communities affected—how they've explained to the communities what they are doing.

Okay.

So, there wouldn't be a website or information that's just publicly available for people to look at. 

The authority could make the decision to do that, if they felt that that was the best way to communicate. But, I suspect, also, because each of the tips is characteristically very different and very specific to the area, a lot of the communication will, actually, be much more direct to those communities as well. But, certainly, the authority can bring forward its proposals on how they most effectively discharge those responsibilities of communicating with the public. You know, if they bring forward in their first annual report, 'One of the ways we've chosen to do this is through making the right information available on a website or other platforms'—digital media changes so much, so rapidly—that might be something they want to put forward.

There will be a register of tips made available, and that will be available on a public website. What we're talking about here is the individual reports. So, they'll have a general register; it will tell you where the tip is, what category it is, when the last inspection was—general information—and then there's another side that is about the list of reports. If people ask for that report, they will get it. It's just a case of taking the time to actually redact and make sure it's actually complying with all of the data protection rules.

I see.

Briefly, then, Julie, if you want to come in, and then we'll come to Janet.

Well, it just seems easier to me to just put it all there, in terms of openness, but are you saying it's because—?

Redacted, obviously.

Yes, redacted, of course, but are you saying that it's the work of redaction that holds you back from putting that in the Bill? 

Well, there is an element of that, because we could be talking about not hundreds but thousands of reports and the element of redaction. So, there's a genuine question for the committee here about whether they consider it appropriate, on the balance of things, to say, 'We'll produce every report', and that would mean that the new authority would need to go through every single report before it's published, including the time delays with that, making the appropriate redactions to protect the innocent.

It's also a case of how easy it is to access or find information in amongst thousands of reports. Sometimes, that can be more difficult, and it may be simpler just to go to the authority and ask for a specific report, which can be provided.

I understand. There we are, that's something that we can ponder. Janet.

Thank you. The draft outline guidance you've shared with the committee touches on the purpose of management plans. Can you expand on their purpose? In particular, how do management plans fit into the new regime provided for in the Bill?

The management plans are absolutely crucial to the new system. We expect that a management plan will be produced for all, under the new categorisation, category 1 and 2 tips, and, on a case-by-case basis, management plans for lower rated tips as appropriate as well. What these will do—. The purpose of them is to set out the work that's needed—maintenance or other work—to reduce the risk of the problems escalating and the risk of any tip failures. They'll be very site specific; they could identify, for example, one-off operations to remove or reduce threats to the stability of a tip. Again, a classic example would be something like redirecting a water course—that could be part of a management plan.

It's also important within the management plans to look at that issue of support and co-ordination when you have an emergency response. So, the plans for contingency plans: what would happen in the case of an emergency? So, for example, that could include a tip located near a highway: what effect would that have? Or a tip located near a river that could lead could flooding: what would happen in that eventuality? So, we're ahead of the game. So, the management plans will not purely rest with the new authority; they will actually be the other public authorities, including NRW and local authorities, working together. And, again, the idea is to get ahead of the need for emergency action and to take that proactive approach, but in case of an emergency, also, to anticipate what would then need to be done.

Thank you. Given the importance of these management plans in ensuring effective ongoing management and maintenance of disused tips, why have you not decided to make provision for them in the Bill?

We think the balance is right, but we are also interested in what the committee's thoughts are. We do think with the management plans that, genuinely, the right place for this is within guidance, but we do recognise that there may be a case for having some clarity on the Bill about what should be in those management plans, but without getting into the detail of, 'Here's exactly what they should be.' So, we're open to that argument, if the committee is considering that. We think we can do that without stymieing the ability of the authority to be much more flexible and to work with the expertise they have, and to work in a collaborative space.

I noticed that in some of the evidence that you've had that talked about this, it wasn't simply to do with flexibility and futureproofing against the dynamic nature of emerging expertise and technology, it was also to do with the very nature of this Bill being collaborative. Some of the legal expertise that you had in front of the committee said that. The balance is an interesting one, but, if you have it predominantly within the guidance, then that allows for a more collaborative space where those agencies can come together. So, I genuinely think there's a cogent argument, but it may be that there is something more that we can put on the face of the Bill, and we're willing to look at that, if the committee thinks that that's—

Because there's not a requirement in the Bill to have management plans, let alone what they look like or how they operate—am I right?

Yes, that's right.

Yes, that's correct.

So, that's another one.

It might be something that we can work with the committee on.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you. Julie.

Why have you chosen to enable the authority to set its own policy on categorisation, rather than in secondary legislation?

I think it's very much because of what we've just talked about. The authority will be the bastion of expertise within this; they genuinely will be. We intend for this authority to be world leading in its expertise. So, they will be best placed to set the policy and categorisation, rather than being double guessed by us or by a Cabinet Secretary. 

They could also, if we set this right, on the balance between what's on the Bill and their ability to refine this as they go forward, revise their approach on categorisation, depending on the development of their awareness of traumatic weather incidents and climate change, depending on the emerging technology, which is changing as we speak on the ground. We are trialling some of this latest technology on the ground across Wales as well. So, I think that's why we've said that the authority needs to do this. They will be the bastion of knowledge and expertise.

Thank you. We have about five other areas that we wish to cover, and we have 25 minutes to do that. So, we'll do as much as we can. Carolyn.

Just regarding notices requiring an owner to carry out operations now. Local government representatives have suggested that it would be beneficial to include a power for the authority to vary a notice. Why have you decided not to include such a power in the Bill?

I'll take the Chair's guidance here. It's simply because there's a power here to revoke and then replace a section 33 notice, so it does the job. There's no need to get into the complexities of amending and so on and the implications of that; they can revoke and lay a new section 33.

Okay. Section 34 provides certain rights to the owner of land to carry out operations required by a notice: the right of entry onto land and to remove and dispose of property. If changes are informally agreed between the authority and the owner, for example, to timescales and the operations required, would these rights remain in place?

So, the first thing to say is that this harks back to the section 33 notice, and there's an expectation that proper engagement, proper dialogue would have taken place with the landowner, between the landowner and the authority. So, I think this scenario is described as very unlikely to happen in practice, but the rights conferred by 34 are tied to the section 33 notices; they require an owner of land to undertake operations. If section 34 is engaged and parties other than the landowner have received a copy of the notice, then I would expect the authority to cancel the original notice, issue a new notice, which could then reflect any amended timescales and any changes that are brought forward required by the notice.

Okay, so they'll be responsible for it as well, then. So, for example, who will inform the person occupying the land of the changes? Who will be responsible for that going forward?

Chris, I don't know if you want to expand on this, but there’s full engagement with the landowner.

The authority will. 

The authority. Okay, thanks. And we've also heard concerns about the potential for owners to transfer land ownership to shell companies in order to avoid liability. That's happened already. Is this something you've considered? How does the Bill address this? We've heard examples from Caerphilly County Borough Council. It's a real concern. 

Yes, we did consider this, and again, for some helpful clarity for the committee, what the Bill ensures is that certain persons who contribute to the need for operations during the preceding 12-year period—12-year period—can be liable to contribute up to 100 per cent towards those costs or expenses for relevant information. 

Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you. There we are. Janet, over to you.

The committee has received evidence to suggest that the grounds of appeal set out in section 36(3) are widely drawn and could give rise to appeals lacking merit, designed to delay operations. How do you respond to that? 

In our considered view, the grounds for appeal that we set out in section 36(3) are proportionate and they are fair. They're the right balance. They're very necessary to ensure that the process operates fairly for all those who've received a copy of the notice under section 33 of the Bill. It's going to be very important for PEDW, the planning inspectorate—Planning and Environment Decisions Wales—whom Welsh Ministers intend to appoint to determine these appeals, to do it in a very timely manner. So, we've set it out in the regulatory impact assessment, and I’ve previously stated that we don't anticipate there'll be a large number of appeals. But if a person does launch an appeal that is without merit, just to try and delay the process, it's very important to remember the authority can undertake operations itself under section 42. So, any delaying tactics wouldn't prevent necessary operations from being taken forward in a timely manner. It would also not result in the landowner avoiding the costs of the operations because the authority can seek to recover its costs where appropriate. 

Okay, thanks. And an appeal application can be made on the grounds that the owner is unable to meet the costs of the operation required in the notice. You have said that guidance on appeals will provide details of the circumstances when this ground may be relied upon. Can you outline what those circumstances might be? 

Yes, indeed. And it's worth starting by saying that this Bill does nothing in terms of changing the ownership and the liabilities that are within property legislation, and so on. So, responsibility for the land remains with the owner. It's important to say that right up front. This Bill does nothing to change that.

So, under normal circumstances, the cost of operations would fall to the owners of the land. But we are aware that some owners—and we've had lots of discussion about this—. It could be a small owner who isn't aware entirely and then suddenly faces—. For example, in the south Wales and the north Wales Valleys, you'll sometimes have people who, over recent years, as the former coal authority has withdrawn and so on, have taken on ownership of small pockets of land. It might not be the whole piece, whatever. And it might literally be somebody who's living in a terraced house at the top end of a valley and they've got a little piece of land there, but it is now pertinent to what we're discussing within the Bill. Now, that might be a retired individual who doesn't have two pennies to scratch together. So, on that basis, as I've made clear, first of all, the authority will need, and the other partners within this, to engage with landowners and talk through with them what the issues are, what measures will need to be taken, can they actually do it, it's their responsibility as a landowner. If there's genuine hardship, then there are provisions within this legislation that the authority will engage with those landowners, will take account of genuine—genuine—financial hardship. It's easier when you talk about larger commercial entities, because you can look at what their statements are that are publicly available.

So, we will have the coal tip safety grant still available to help owners deal with the costs of maintaining the stability and safety of a tip, providing funds if owners cannot fund the work themselves and, of course, any owner who's given a notice under section 33 can also appeal on the grounds that they are unable to meet the cost, but bear in mind what I'm saying: I expect the authority to be working with the landowners well in the run-up to this, so, hopefully, normally things will not be out of the blue, because the inspections are being done, the monitoring is being done, and those landowners are part of and they have liability for the solutions to it.   

Can I just ask: are you thinking of putting a charge on the properties to claim back if it was a substantial cost and the local authority couldn't out of this fund? Would you do the works and then reclaim it by default by putting a charge on the property? 

So, if it needs to be—. If the judgment is that the owner has sufficient funds to cover this, bearing—

How will you know? 

So, we anticipate that the legal person who'll be making these judgments will be Planning and Environment Decisions Wales, and it will require those individuals to actually provide the information that shows that they do not have the funds available and for a judgment to be made. If the judgment is that, actually, even on appeal, those landowners do have the funds available—it could be a big commercial entity, or it could be that retired person in a cottage who, actually, has stored away significant assets over their lifetime, or whatever—well, they have responsibility then in that case. 

So, that assessment will need to be made and, yes, the provisions there then are to recoup that. But there is the ability here in order to avoid what could be essential works with the stability of the tip for the authority to go on and actually do the works and then deal with the issue of do we need to work with an individual who cannot fund the work, or do we need to go back to that individual and say to them, 'We have the powers to reclaim that money from you?'

Okay. 

What about penalties then for failure to comply with a notice, because the Bill doesn't state that fines will be unlimited for obstruction of monitoring activities or assessments, and for failing to comply with a section 32 notice? Should it? 

The Bill provides that anybody guilty of an offence is liable on conviction to a fine. You're talking about the limits of this. Right. So, we believe it's very clear in the Bill. Under subsection(2)—. There are two different aspects here. Under subsection(2) of section 61 it's punishable with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. So, what we're talking about there—the current level 3 maximum—is £1,000. The punishment for the 'either way' offence in subsection(3) of section 61 is not subject to a limit. Subsection(4) refers to the imposition of a fine without more, so it's therefore punishable by a fine of an amount to be determined by the court imposing the sentence. Now, that's very understandable, well understood, that approach, so it's set out, we believe, very clearly in the Bill where it's unlimited or where there are limits to the fines. 

Okay. Thank you. Janet, back to you. 

The Bill enables the authority to carry out operations immediately to avoid an emergency. Can you clarify whether in these instances the authority would still be expected to obtain relevant consents under existing environmental and planning law, and what consideration did you give to providing an exemption for authorities to obtain relevant consents in order to avoid any delay in carrying out operations? 

The first thing, importantly, to say, Janet, in response, is that existing environmental and planning legislation continues to apply alongside this Bill. It doesn't need to be described again within this Bill—that would be not the best approach to legislation—but that still applies. So, where existing legislation places obligations on the authority in the discharging of their duties, it has to comply with that legislation. But the exemption of activities to be undertaken by the authority, especially where those immediate interventions are required, that would set quite a challenging precedent, the granular nature of saying what exceptions and so on, when they actually need to take expedited action to deal with instability, or potential instability, of a tip.

So, the approach taken in this legislation, and the approach that we expect the authority to take, is to work in collaboration with partners—NRW, local authorities, WLGA and the MRA—and that work is already well under way, in developing clear protocols, working arrangements, which will assist the authority and others to work together and expedite consenting, permitting or licensing requirements. So, they're already working with the environmental bodies, with the local authorities, to develop those protocols, which avoids us then having to go through the complexity of actually putting a list of exemptions and granular detail. There's a way of working that goes through this Bill; they're working on those protocols. Establishing those better relationships and working practices across the agencies and statutory bodies is a much more practical, workable, proportionate approach in tackling these issues. But the legislation that lies outwith this Bill on environmental matters and so on still stands there alongside this Bill.

I think that's where the ambiguity is starting, for me, and worry and doubt with this Bill. I think I  was thinking it would be covering a wider—. And it wouldn't mean using that legislation—you know, that it was more encompassed within this Bill.

No. It's very focused. And we're consciously, in good legal drafting practice and statutory legislation procedure, trying to avoid duplicating what's already there.

But I think there is duplication here, sorry.

No, no. We're avoiding duplication. So, we're deliberately not lifting a whole chunk from another set of regulations and trying to drop it in, or to create exemptions saying, 'We're trying to do a different way of work with within this.' But that legislation still is on the statute book. This public authority and partners will still have to comply with that separate legislation. Chris, I don't know if you wanted to add to that. Sorry, I don't know if you have time.

Well, I—. Go on, then, Julie, yes. Julie wants to come in.

On safety, we were told fairly dramatically by Councillor Andrew Morgan about when they had to—. His staff were dealing with an emergency on the hillside; NRW were handing them notices, some saying that they could be in a judicial process or something. Surely, that can't be right.

Yes. They were cutting down trees without a licence. That was the—.

NRW have already started work with the WLGA, including the local authorities that were giving evidence, to try and set out a way of working that will avoid that happening again, and we expect that to be set out in the management plan. The management plan should, for all category 1 tips, for example, identify scenarios, what could happen if the tip slips, and then work with NRW and the other authorities to put a plan in place for avoiding the type of situation that you've just suggested. I think NRW actually submitted their protocol, their framework, for working in that environment, when they provided evidence to the committee. So, their example of the first draft of that is available to you. We think that that, over the next 12 months, will develop a lot further. It's something that already works, I should say, in reservoirs as well. So, there's a similar type of activity that goes on in reservoirs, with a plan for emergency activities. So, we know it works.

So, that's a type of understanding between NRW and local authorities, but, as you said earlier, there are many players in this, really. The Law Commission had recommended a power of direction for the Welsh Ministers, as a means to resolve the matter of potential conflict. So, would you not consider a belt-and-braces approach by including that kind of provision?

We've had lots of discussions around this. Nobody's been able to say to me, as a policy person, which part of the environmental legislation they want to turn off. They all say, 'Have an exemption', and when I say to them, 'Okay, tell me which exemption you want, for how long and for why', nobody can answer that question.

As opposed to just giving Ministers the power to decide—

Absolutely.

—because that's too much power—

So, if you give someone a blanket power—

—that's what you're saying, because it could be anything.

Exactly. Do you want to give an authority a blanket power to turn off legislation?

Well, you give a Minister a blanket power to do so.

Yes. So, it's the unknown. It's knowing what you need to turn off and when, and that's the answer I don't think we've managed to get. If we provide a precedent here where we provide that switch-off power, then I think it needs a lot more scrutiny and a lot more thought.

Yes, a lot more scrutiny and a lot more thought, and maybe—. I'm conscious of some of the evidence you heard as well where the argument was made with broad support for this Bill. We think we've got a way forward here, and it's a way forward that I think actually encompasses the approach taken in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which is to do with this collaborative approach of actually working together where we can as well. It is the solution, and the protocols we've mentioned are being worked up as well. But the evidence that you heard, Chair, which made that point, not to make the perfect the enemy of the good here. This is a—.

Carolyn.

I was just thinking, during the pandemic, and under gold command, we had emergency powers in place, and I was just thinking: if there's a disaster or something like that, can that happen?

'Would those powers be available elsewhere, or in another context?' is the other question that we needed to ask.

The civil contingencies aspect would—

Yes, in the face of an emergency.

Civil contingencies. That's it. Thank you.

Yes. So, those are already in place as well. And this is what we're trying to avoid, is making this Bill—wrapping everything into it. 

Indeed, because you'll never get to a point where we get to Stage 4 if you do that. 

No.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Delyth, then.

Diolch. Just on that, before I ask the final question, if that's all right, it's almost a philosophical point here, and I completely appreciate the point you're making about not making the perfect the enemy of the good. Because we've had so much evidence about how a lot of detail is being left to guidance and how that—. You were just talking about the unknown and how that leaves us open to the unknown in the future, and, again, not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but is there a danger of letting good assumptions about what could happen in the future be the enemy of certainty?

Genuinely, I honestly think we've got the balance right here. We're open to what else we might be able to put within—some clarity within—SIs and so on, but we think we've got the balance broadly right. I looked at the evidence that you received with real interest, and people like Professor Young, who went into some detail on this balance between guidance, showing the pros and cons—really fascinating. With guidance, 

'there might be a risk that it isn't brought in, but then you could have a similar risk with statutory instruments. Also, with statutory instruments, there'll be democratic scrutiny; with guidance, there would not. But guidance is much more flexible, and can be changed much more quickly in terms of technical need and to make sure that it's up to date, than statutory instruments. So, that might help you make your evaluation',

said Professor Young. So, I think some of the legal expertise out there has reflected, actually, our consideration about where we've come to this balance and recognising that it won't be us but it will be this new authority that will really develop the expertise and will know dynamically how to change it. And for that, guidance is a more appropriate mechanism to do that on these technical aspects.

But there's no requirement in the Bill to have guidance. Surely the Bill should say that there must be guidance, in that case.

Well, look, we're interested in what thoughts the committee might come up with on this.

Yes. Okay.

Okay. Diolch. I'm sure that we will return to these questions. Finally, then, in terms of—. Well, to turn to a point of semantics, or definitions, a number of stakeholders have pointed out to us that the meaning, the definition, of 'tip' in sections 81(1) and 81(2), that that isn't consistent with the meaning that's set out in existing regulations. I mean, I think that—. I'm trying to find the relevant section. In the evidence, I think that we have—. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council said that the definition potentially opens up many other sites that aren't classed, like old colliery surfaces, relatively flat-lying areas, whether the definition includes reworked material that was once, for example, coal tip material, but has now been moved and redeposited to a new location.

Because of those potential concerns, could you talk us through, please, why you've chosen to use this different meaning?

Yes, indeed. This is of particular relevance in terms of the evidence given by the Health and Safety Executive, I understand. So, first of all, the existing definitions of 'tip' in the Quarries Regulations 1999 and in the Mines Regulations 2014 and the Mines And Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, they were all taken into account when we produced the definition that now appears in section 81 of the Bill. Just to say, the current definitions of ‘tip’ in those pieces of legislation I’ve described are not identical. There’s a clear difference in approach between the primary legislation in section 11(3)(a) of the 1969 Act and the definitions in the secondary legislation that is relevant. So, there are subtle differences in the wording used in each case, but we think the definition of 'tip' that we have in this Bill is easier to understand than the definitions in the quarries regulations and the mines regulations.

We don’t agree, however, that it’s effect is narrower. The difference is that the HSE is referencing, we think, presumably, the absence in the Bill of references to the particular examples of accumulations or deposits of waste, unlike the 1999 and 2014 regulations. But a list of examples is not used in section 11(3)(a) of the 1969 Act either, presumably on the basis that examples provided are illustrative not exhaustive, by saying the tip includes but is not limited to the things mentioned. So, the absence of particular examples does not mean, for the purposes of this Bill, that they are not within the scope of the definition nor the definition of 'tip' in the 1969 Act, for that matter. So, I think we may be dancing on the head of a needle here, but I think that’s our understanding of HSE raising this issue.

Right, okay. There could be a list, an inter alia list so that it isn’t exhaustive, as well, which might—. But, okay, I won’t get into the weeds. 

Even the original, prior pieces of legislation have subtle differences and try to avoid that issue of describing an exhaustive list. So, we think ours is clearer and understandable, but it does encompass—

Sure. Okay, thank you. 

Julie. 

[Inaudible.]

No, final word to you, then—we've got a few minutes left. 

You have, yes, okay. We’ve talked a lot about the authority and the expertise there, and the good jobs that will be there. Have you give any thought to making the authority and its employees really representative of people in Wales, and making sure that women are included because, obviously, this does, sometimes, tend to be a male-dominated field, and this is a great opportunity, with this new money, expertise, to make it more representative of people in Wales?

I think you make a really wise point there. We know how much we’ve still got to do to make the career pathways, and things such as civil engineering, hydraulics, all of these things, much more visible, but also much more easily accessible to a range of diverse opportunities, for women, for those of black, Asian, minority ethnic communities as well. And I would expect the authority, and other partners, like local authorities and NRW, and with the support of our HE and FE colleagues, to be working to do this absolutely. Because the jobs that we’re talking about go from the heavy manual—. When we go up to Tylorstown and you see people on site working with the JCBs and the heavy hydraulic equipment and so on, heavy manual, there are also jobs here that are desk-based ones that are to do with the mapping, the mine engineering and the environmental mapping, all of these things as well—a range of jobs.

We absolutely need to take this opportunity to make sure that the development of this pipeline of skills and expertise is really being taken up by every member of our communities—women and men, people from different backgrounds, everybody. And there’s a role for the schools in this as well, I think, because, if we can engage not just in the college structures, but, actually, those people who are living within sight lines of some of these tips, to say, ‘There’s work to do there, and you could be part of this’—.

Very, very briefly then, Joyce, thank you. 

Just very briefly, I’m sure it wasn’t meant, but you’ve already separated the girls from the boys by your answer. I’m sure that was not intentional—

No. 

—but you did say that the heavy lifting was going to be done by men.

No, no, I didn't. 

Well, I’m sure you wouldn’t mean ever to do it, but I’m just asking you to reflect on your answer.

Okay. 

I understand what you’re saying; it wasn’t what I said. These jobs are available to everybody. I’ve spoken to people in this context, and also in heavy flood engineering as well, where there have been young women apprentices coming through on graduate schemes and others, doing all aspects of this work. So, my apologies if you took that as an implication—it wasn't. These should be, as I said, available to every member of our communities, regardless of gender, regardless of background as well.

Indeed, indeed. Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for being with us again this morning, and to your officials as well. We're very grateful. As you know, that will conclude our evidence in Stage 1, and we will consider our report and table it by the 4 April deadline, and then we'll see where we go after that. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you very much for being with us. The committee will now break for 15 minutes and we will reconvene in time to start our next session as part of our separate inquiry on storm responses at 11:15. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Yes. So, a very different impact from the two storms. Storm Bert was very much flooding. We had a lot of power outages as well, but they were short-lived. The flooding had a major impact on a few of our waste water treatment works and a few of the assets, predominantly in the south-east Wales Valleys. Storm Darragh was very different again. That brought widespread power loss and that was very different. Despite moving a lot of our major assets onto a generator, we had to really mobilise a lot of generators around the patch as the impact started—more pumping stations—so, in very rural communities, both on the clean water side and drinking water. So, that was predominantly the impact. The impact was mitigated, and 99 per cent of our services were not impacted, and that was through some good, hard work by our front-line workers, who worked in pretty atrocious conditions over the weekends. These storms never hit during the week; it's always on a weekend. But, the mobilisation during the storm and then the recovery, which went on for some time after, that's all down to the hard work of our people, who worked throughout the two storm events.

There we are. Diolch yn fawr. Liam.

Well, storm Bert, really, for the SP Manweb network, didn't really impact on us. We never really got above business as usual. But storm Darragh was an entirely different story. As you would expect, the hurricane-force winds brought significant damage to the network between 6 and 8 December, impacting a total of 181,000 customers across our area, with the bulk of those, obviously, being in Wales. The worst-hit areas were the north and mid Wales coast, along with the Valleys, Snowdonia, the Conwy valley, et cetera. We took 77,000 calls during the event into our contact centre, and over 65,000 of those were related to the storm itself. Vulnerable customers were prioritised immediately upon calling in, as we knew that this was going to be a significant event and that we would have to manage a lot of vulnerable cases as we effected repairs. Typically, we would take about 37,500 calls in a whole month, so, as you can imagine, to get that over a couple of days was a significant challenge for us. 

The Government issued the red warning threat to life, which, as we know, is very rare, and the text alerts did focus people's attention that something severe was coming and that they should try to remain in their homes, which was, I think, a very good step. The health and safety of everybody is paramount during an event like this, and probably the one thing that was most difficult was that, for the first day and a half of the storm, it was very difficult to work at height due to the excessive wind speeds. Our staff will always make a sensible risk assessment and, obviously, the prevailing wind conditions and the likelihood of trees falling down in wooded areas where they were expected to work was a paramount factor during that risk assessment. 

To give you an idea of the scale, compared to previous events, an interesting statistic is that, during storm Darragh, we used the same amount of materials as we had done in the previous five large storm events, including storm Arwen, so that was a considerable effort and challenge by our dedicated staff. A good thing was that it was localised to ourselves in Wales and the south coast, which meant other distribution network operator companies were able to send resources to help us very quickly, which enabled us to restore 89 per cent of customers who were impacted within 24 hours and 95 per cent within 48 hours. However, in the days thereafter, you’re effecting repairs to get relatively small numbers of customers back on, which is difficult but necessary.

During the course of the event, we put in place various measures to inform customers of progress, identify cases of vulnerability that we may not be currently aware of. We worked with partner organisations through the local resilience forum to try and reach customers; we deployed a whole business response to this—in fact, I’d go so far as to say it was a whole industry response to storm Darragh—

Sorry, I don’t want to cut across you. I know we’ll be picking up on some of these issues. Is there anything you wanted to add just briefly at this point? We can pick up on much of this.

I think I’ve covered the main points.

Okay, thank you. Sorry to cut across. Finally, then, Steven.

Good morning, bore da, and thank you for your time. In terms of the impact we had in south and west Wales, which is the area that I cover, we had around about 200,000 customers impacted by the storm, which was broadly about 10 per cent of the population that we cover, which is around about 2 million customers in south Wales overall. In terms of what we saw in faults, we saw about 1,150 faults cover the whole of south and west Wales, which is actually more than the combined amount of faults we saw in the three previous storms, from storm Darragh. Similar to my colleagues, storm Bert kind of came and went. That was a storm that we were able to contain and mobilise resource relatively quickly and get customers back in service.

Storm Darragh was a much bigger impact for the very similar reasons that Liam spoke about—the high winds that we saw, up to 96 mph. That caused a lot of damage to our network, and not just the network itself, but through debris, through trees falling, which wasn’t just the impact to the network, but actually physical access to the network as well, through roads being inaccessible and fields being inaccessible. What was taking some of the time to restore was actually physically getting to the network itself. We saw our customer contact increase. Across the weekend of storm Darragh from the Saturday to the Sunday, we saw 0.25 million calls into our contact centre. To give you a scale of that, in a year, we take 1 million calls. So, we saw a lot more contact into our contact centre, which we promoted prior to the storm as well, because we were very keen to ensure our customers knew where they could reach us to ask any questions, queries and concerns.

That wasn’t the only method we used. We reached out to our priority services register customers. In Wales, we have just over 300,000 of them across the whole of south and west Wales. We proactively contacted those prior to the storm to ensure that they were aware of what information was available to them, where they could reach out for support and what they could do as well. Importantly as well for the priority services register customers, they had a direct line into our contact centre, so if they had any questions or concerns they could come immediately to us instead of to our business-as-usual 105 number that we publicised as well.

This is a question for Steven and Liam. Both of you have detailed damage caused by fallen trees during storm Darragh. How do you work with forestry companies, landowners and management authorities to minimise the risks posed by falling trees?

If I look at what we do BAU, outside storm periods, we invest our money in removing trees that are close to our network. We do that by monitoring the network through helicopters and drones and foot patrols to make sure we understand what trees are within falling distance of our network. Annually, we spend in south and west Wales £12 million on removing trees that are within falling distance of our network. During storm Darragh, because of the severe red warning—obviously, a very rare red warning—trees falling and debris that were hitting our network were completely outside the normal falling vicinity that we’d expect, so actually, there were trees falling down that we’d never expect to fall down that would be anywhere near our network. We continue to invest in monitoring and removing trees that we see as risk.

Outside that, in terms of your question of actually how we work with the forestry companies as well, we work very closely with Natural Resources Wales, because that is a large landowner across my area. There are challenges in terms of access to properties and where we actually want to invest in the network as well in terms of additional reinforcement of poles or cables. At times, we have quite long delays, because the sense of where we need to be able to get into the land itself and actually agree, at times, where we want to put more reinforced materials there. At times, it takes a lot of time to come to an agreement to allow that to happen. But we work with them regularly because we're keen to invest money into the network. To give you just a quick scale of that, we'll invest around £1.2 billion of capital into the south and west Wales network over five years, and we're going to sustain that in a future sense. But we do see challenges when it comes to actually being able to get access.

A lot of the things that Steven has just outlined there are very similar to ourselves. I think there are a couple of things that I would add. Engagement is really critical with landowners, particularly commercial forestry companies. The work that we do, obviously, has a commercial impact on their business, so we have to spend a lot of time engaging and negotiating with them to get that. But we have an extensive programme, and, as Steven outlined, a lot of the commercial companies, we have a very close relationship with, but in a storm like this, as Steven outlined, it's not just a case of trimming back trees, you would literally have to fell significantly more trees and create a much wider corridor for lines to run through to prevent that from ever happening, which, again, is difficult.

Again, we use helicopters, drones et cetera to identify trees that may be growing a little closer than in the agreed corridor, and we trim them back straight away. I think from the point of view of non-commercial businesses, as well, there are a lot of trees, obviously, on private landowners' properties, and, as we know, people like to see trees and they don't like to see companies coming in and cutting them, so we have to be very sympathetic and work with those landowners to make sure that we keep the network as resilient as it needs to be. That costs millions of pounds annually. We'll never stop doing that. I think there's one thing that potentially might help us. The legislation that gives us powers to access land where we might not be getting permission is over 30 years old, so perhaps a review of that with a view to making us more storm resilient might help us in the future.

Just to add on that point very quickly, I think to follow on from what Liam mentioned there, obviously, it's very similar in south and west Wales, and actually, when we look at the access rights for other sectors, like the telecom sector, that obviously have a similar challenge to ourselves, they are differing in terms of the agreements that they have in terms of access to land, et cetera. So, it is trying to work together on how do we create consistency so we can continue to invest in the network where we need to.

Interesting. Diolch. Very briefly, Joyce. 

You mentioned the local resilience forum being involved. There are powers under local resilience and they were exercised, of course, in that red warning, in any case. Are you involved in any emergency talks that would alleviate some of the things you were talking about with power of entry in terms of people needing their power, people being vulnerable? I'm just interested, because you talked about the powers that you have being 30 years old and maybe not up to scratch, but was there an alternative? And you might find it easier if you took your headphones off, not to hear yourself.

Thank you. There were cases where we got assistance through third party agencies that were involved with the LRF, and, in some cases it wasn't a case of using the police to help us gain access, it was sometimes more discussions with landowners so that they could understand that a particular village had a high proportion of vulnerable customers and having access to do work would help us. In many cases, people will see reason, but there are the exceptions to that where the powers are the only option, and that's difficult, because we don't want to be seen as a company that runs round just waving legislation about. We want to work with the people who have our assets on their land.

Julie.

Diolch. This is for Steven. Why was low-voltage electricity distribution infrastructure so much more vulnerable to damage during storm Darragh compared with the high-voltage network, which is operated by your sister company?

Thank you. The transmission network, which is the high-voltage network that you discuss, is much more widespread and in much more isolated areas. So, to our earlier point of what caused a lot of damage during storm Darragh, it was trees falling, debris et cetera, which a lot of the transmission network is not exposed to. The distribution network is around five times larger than the transmission network, so there's a lot more of it, because our role is to get the power away from the high voltage into our customers' homes. So, it's a lot more exposed to things like the overhead network, like the trees et cetera.

Roughly, we've got around 1.5 million wooden poles that allow us to serve, particularly, our hard-to-reach customers, and they're the type of things that got impacted during the storm because of the severe red warning that we had and such high winds. In normal circumstances outside the storm, our network is 99.993 per cent reliable, so a lot of the time our customers don't see any impact at all because of this. But due to the severity of such high winds, that caused the impact it has, and where our network is and the size of it compared to the transmission network—that's a lot of damage that we saw.

Thank you. Then, I wanted to come to Dŵr Cymru. As a risk management authority for flooding, how do you feel about the current distribution of roles and responsibilities for flood mitigation in Wales?

We don't have a direct responsibility for flood management, just in the responsibility not to cause any additional flooding from our assets, but we work with NRW and the local authorities, which lead flood response. We joined the flood board set up by Rhondda Cynon Taf during the storm Bert event, following on from storm Dennis back in 2022. We've continued to work with the local authorities the best we can, but there's always room for more communication around flooding, and we very much entertain the views to continue to get around the table. As we've proven with Rhondda Cynon Taf, these things work; all agencies working together have a responsibility to prevent the impact from flood damage.

So, do you feel the roles and responsibilities are right, in the way they're distributed?

I think they're well practised in Rhondda Cynon Taf, and we worked with Monmouthshire County Council when we had the issues in Monmouth. I think that the authorities that deal with more flood events are more versed in those relationships. We feel that everyone is playing their part, but there is still more to do. 

Thank you very much. You're all category 2 responders under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Can you tell us what this means, in terms of how you prepare for, and respond to, storm events?

Do you want me to start? All of our emergency response is linked to weather warnings. So, for storm Bert, we had a yellow warning for rain. That level of warning makes us heighten our preparedness, so we dust things off, effectively, ready to deploy. Storm Darragh—the red warning that covered all of our area leads to our highest level of response, and that means that we mobilise all of our standby resources, both in people and equipment.

Our command centres are set up; so, we have silver command centres in the local areas impacted, which was all of Wales for storm Darragh, and we have gold command overseeing the event. For both storm Darragh and storm Bert, we also stood up our crisis management team, which is led by our chief executive, who has overall responsibility for ensuring that we are resourced and that things like welfare and health and safety are foremost in how we carry out activities.

What we then do is participate in the tactical co-ordination groups, the TCGs, and when the SCGs are stood up—the strategic co-ordination groups—we also sit and play a part in those groups. Following on from the events, we go through the debriefs that are led by the SCGs and TCGs, and we've participated in all of the hot debriefs that the Deputy First Minister has led for all events as well.

Thank you. Does anybody else want to come in?

Very similar to Ian there in terms of the structure. One thing that we do is that we invite all of the local resilience forums and emergency planning officers into our business in around about September time, prior to the typical season, so that we can brief them on any changes from the previous year, any things that we might want to do differently and any assistance that they can give, and, also, so that they understand who the key contacts are in our business during a storm event. Then, as we've said, depending on receipt of a red weather warning—. We monitor the forecast on a daily basis, 365 days a year anyway. But, when a warning comes in, we move through our states of our emergency preparedness, from level 3, which is preparing for an event before it happens, to level 2, dealing with initial impacts, to level 1, where we have an event of the scale of Darragh where we're importing resources, either from our sister licence in Scotland, or from other DNO businesses. 

In terms of preparing customers, we start to push things out through social media and advertising campaigns, telling people that something's coming and what to do to try and prepare for a potential power cut, obviously communicating how to get in contact with us, either via the website or the 105 telephone number. We have leaflet drops that are done before storm season start for GP surgeries, community centres et cetera, and then, obviously, we work continually with the local authorities. We provide daily briefs to parish councillors and the chief executives of the local authorities of any impacted areas to make sure that they know exactly what we're doing, what's the impact in their particular area and who to contact if they do have any cases of extreme vulnerability et cetera. So, we try and do as much as we can in advance, but then we also do a lot during an event as well to make sure that people are kept up to date.

Thank you.

To answer your question directly in terms of the category 2 responders, we engage regularly with the local resilience forums, our emergency services, local authorities and the NHS. We do that on a regular basis outside storm periods. During storm periods, similar to my colleagues, we ramp that up in terms of communication throughout the storm, and we do that at a wide scale as well, at a local level as well, in the communities, to ensure that we can understand local challenges and understand what we can do to help each other to address the concerns that we have, and then try and respond to customers quicker.

Similar to the alert systems and forecasting we have, we have weather systems. We use a system called DTN, and it tells us wind speeds, rainfall, snowfall et cetera, to allow us to assess the potential size of the impact we have. Obviously, as we had the red warning coming in, that allowed us to understand what response we had to do. So, in two additions to that, then, how we responded internally with our staffing: we doubled our staffing standby measures, as Liam said, across the weekend, which isn't a typically working day, to ensure that we were able to respond quickly, and, actually, what we saw is, by the time we got to Saturday morning, all available staff were deployed, whether they were on standby or not, to ensure that they were able to respond. Additionally to that, we doubled our contractor staff footprint across the weekend, and our contractors do things like tree cutting for us, to ensure that they were able to remove the trees at a much quicker speed than before. As the storm then progressed, as we were able to restore service back to our customers, we were able to target the effort and the resources much more localised, where we saw the customers who we weren't able to respond to as quickly. Actually, to give you a scale of that, in our west Wales area, around the area of Cardigan and Newcastle Emlyn, which was one of our worst-hit areas, typically, on a given day, we have about 60 engineers a day restoring customers' power and providing maintenance to the network; during the week of storm Darragh, that number grew to 350, to ensure that we were able to respond to customers much quicker than we normally would.

And just finally, if you don't mind, in terms of our customer contact, our customers we proactively reached out to through various media outlets, whether it would be tv, radio, social media, and through our website as well, and we did see the interaction increase. So, on our website, where customers have information, we saw traffic increase by about 4,000 per cent to what we'd normally see, and we saw our incident map, where they saw updates of where their faults were, increase by about 3,500 per cent as well. So, our customers were using the outlets that are available to them to understand what information they'd need.

Thank you.

Can I just ask one question? In that situation, would you then contact, put something out to, the local health authority, GPs? Because they'd be the people who would know, if they had time to react, of the vulnerable customers that you would have no way of knowing, like a newborn baby, an elderly, isolated person.

So, a twofold answer, if you don't mind. So, yes, in terms of, actually, our work with the local authorities, whether it would be local GPs, as well as the local communities, whether it would be local councillors, local MPs, and during the storm that was pivotal for us, because they were providing us information about customers who may have not registered under the priority services register forum. That's something we utilised throughout storm Darragh, completely, to give us more information that we needed, and it's something that we're continuing to do as well, which, in addition, a big part of that is working our charity partners. Charity partners play such a big part as well, and we utilise those extensivelly.

Thank you.

And we'll move on to the PSR, the priority services register, in a minute. Thank you. Carolyn.

Just briefly, because we haven't got a telecommunications company here, when we have high storms, we can no longer rely on phone lines connecting anymore, because we rely on electricity. And if you haven't got a mobile signal, then it's really tricky to actually say, 'We haven't got electricity or power.' It has happened to me twice now. I live on a main road in quite a well-populated area, but I haven't got a mobile signal. So, how do you know when there's a power cut for that area? I just feel like there's a gap now for people to be able to alert that they haven't got any power, any electricity.

In terms of—. So, if we have a power cut that's affecting a mobile mast—is that the question?

Yes. Well, during both storms there was no power in our area. I wasn't—. You're no longer able to phone because you haven't got a landline, because you rely on electricity nowadays; they've been cut off. You haven't got the internet, you haven't got a mobile signal, so it's really tricky, isn't it, to be able to actually say, ‘I've got no electricity.’ You say dial the 105 number for an emergency, but you can't unless you go and walk up the hill and try and get a signal. It's really hard for people, isn't it?

We do make priority decisions on critical sites like mobile phone masts, pumping stations, where we know—. 

Are they well known, these areas, these notspots?

Just to add to that, the biggest problem for us during storm Darragh wasn't necessarily the power outages, it was the loss of communication to assets. So they generally are through public switched telephone network lines, which are on poles in rural areas, and some of the masts went down, certainly in Carmarthenshire, as well. So, our biggest problem was understanding which assets had actually lost power—

Because you don't have people there, you have—

We have no visibility at all, and especially the mobile phone signal—. PSTN switch-off, which is happening in 2027, switches everything to mobile providers, so all of our telemetry systems, that control of our assets, will be over mobile connectivity, which isn't the best in parts of west Wales. The 4,000 customers that we had impacted through power loss on storm Darragh couldn't contact us by phone, couldn't contact us by internet, we didn't have visibility they were off supply. It ended up when someone actually went out of the area and managed to get a phone signal that they could contact us, because everything else was down, and this is a real challenge all of us need to face.

Yes, that's what I had to do twice. Go up the mountain. It's the issue.

We touched on this slightly when we discussed the sewage outflows, didn’t we, and monitoring?

My elderly neighbour couldn't do that, so every time we had to go up the mountain and try and get in touch to sort that out. But I must say, though—

Very interesting, yes. 

—we're grateful for the way that electricity was restored quickly in terrible conditions. I would just like to say that.

Some local authorities have raised concerns about inconsistent risk tolerance between responder organisations in the aftermath of storms. So, how do you manage risk during storms, and what's your approach? Was it shared with other responders as well? Do you work together?

From the point of view of risk management, obviously we don't just rely on our own information in an event like that. We all take in information, whether it be provided through local resilience forum meetings or any other means, so that we can prioritise in the right way. Probably for the first time in anger, during storm Darragh we used a new prediction system that helps us understand the impact for communities when they're going to experience certain weather systems. It worked pretty well and enabled us to make sure that we were prioritising the communities that were going to be significantly impacted if they were off for lengthy periods. It doesn't get absolutely every single decision right, but it helps you make those decisions very quickly.

I think one of the critical things about managing risk through that storm is making sure that you have information and that you have people who can react very quickly to situations as they may arise because, for example, there are so many different priorities coming at you in the middle of a storm event that you need to make sure your risk management is robust, because otherwise you can deploy resources that are better placed elsewhere doing something for less gain.

Can I just ask, though—? Risk management is one thing, risk tolerance is another thing, isn't it, in that you will each define at what point—. There's amber and there's amber, isn't there? I think we heard an example of a low likelihood of a highly damaging event, or a high likelihood of maybe a low-risk event. Do you co-ordinate how you interpret that matrix, because sometimes you might find one part of the system actually stepping up a bit further than another part of the system because they just don't appreciate the risk in the same way?

I can only speak on behalf of the national grid in terms of the work that we do on risk tolerance, and the role that we play is to ensure that, if customers lose power, to restore power as quickly as possible. If we look at storm Darragh, 80 per cent of our customers in south Wales got power back on with 24 hours, and then subsequently that grew to about 90 per cent when we got to about 48 hours. So, in terms of your question on risk tolerance, the tolerance for us is we want customers to maintain power and we will remove the risks that will prevent that from happening. A lot of that is what we discussed already around trees and tree-cutting tolerance, ensuring that we remove those risks in terms of if that is the risk to providing a customer power.   

So, your response, regardless of why it becomes an amber or a red, would be, basically, you would kick in to the same kind of process; you wouldn't differentiate. 

Correct. 

And also—. Yes, okay. Right, fine. And is that the case for Dŵr Cymru?   

We align to the yellow, amber, red, and each one of those steps requires a different response. With storm Bert, our impact was not in line with a yellow warning. We would have thought it would have been more significant than a yellow; certainly, the rainfall we saw on the Rhondda Valley. Storm Darragh, no issue with the warning at all. I think it was very clear, given in advance, and allowed us time to fully mobilise. Whenever we mobilise, though, we never know where the impact is going to be, and with storm Darragh it was moving continuously around the network and trying to get generators to the points that really needed it, which was made a lot more difficult by loss of communications in large parts of the rural areas. 

Yes. Okay, diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you. Janet, a question. 

Yes, just a point that my colleague, Joyce, mentioned before about the vulnerable people register and how you handle any crisis. As well as storm damage, we had a recent water outage and it was chaotic. The Cabinet Secretary didn't seem to think it was, but it was. However, what I found was that different organisations hold different sets of data. 

Yes, we're coming on to that. There's a whole section on that in a minute—

Yes. I just want to know whether you feel—

So, I think we should respect the people who've asked to cover that. Sorry, Janet, I just—

—currently that it is as joined-up as it could or should be. When you go into a response, there must be something that you feel, 'Oh, that needs to be better'?

I think, yes, ultimately, it would be great if we all had the same lists of vulnerable customers, but the problem we have is 'vulnerable', from a PSR perspective, can include such a broad range of things. Going back to the point that Joyce made around information on newborn babies or somebody who's recently become critically ill, that sometimes can't filter itself to us very quickly, so we do rely on that. So, I would say the one thing that could be done better is perhaps that sharing of information. We've recently signed a memorandum of understanding with some of the organisations in the local resilience forum community to try and improve that. The systems and infrastructure aren't fully developed yet, but the first step has been taken in acknowledgement that we need to share information in a much better way and have some sort of robust system around it to protect things like people's data and medical information and so on and so forth. 

Thanks. 

Okay. Delyth, I'll come to you. 

Diolch. This is primarily for Liam and Steven. When you're restoring disrupted power supplies, could you talk us through, please, how you prioritise recovery efforts? Thinking about Ian's point earlier about the loss of communication with assets, do you focus on restoring power to other essential utilities like water suppliers? 

Our priority is to get every customer restored as quickly as possible, and we do that firstly through our network. So, our network is an automated network as best as possible, where you don't then need to send physical people on the ground. The network is able to be smart enough to divert power around to restore service as quickly as possible. So, what we try and do is, where we've got opportunities to fix parts of the network that increases the ability to use that automation, we try and prioritise that as quickly as possible because that allows us to restore large volumes of customers quite quickly. And that's what supported us really well in storm Darragh; when we were able to fix those parts of automation that had broken, that allowed us to restore customers very quickly on a large scale. 

Moving forward, our main goal then is, again, to prioritise our priority service registered customers, and they'll always be the ones that we respond to as quickly as possible, whether that be through fixing the network or providing generators, which we did throughout the storms as well. And just a brief added note is that, from a generator perspective, we typically have around about 50 generators across south and west Wales available to us at any point. During storm Darragh, that number went up to round about 300 that we pulled in to have additional means to support those customers where we needed. So, the role for us is we restore volumes of customers as quickly as possible as well as prioritising the PSR customers as well.

Thank you.

I would just add to that, in terms of whether we prioritise other things other than large customer numbers, yes—if we're aware there is a critical site that might be off supply, particularly things like hospitals, medical facilities, communication infrastructure, water supply infrastructure, and if we're aware of it and we understand the criticality of getting it back on, then, yes, that becomes a priority, because, obviously, the longer communities are off supply, the more vulnerable people become as they go through that event. Being without power is one thing, but being without other services, as we've discussed, only exacerbates that problem. So, we will try and alleviate that wherever we can.

Thank you. I think this only would affect Liam, but, actually, I'd be interested in hearing all of your thoughts on this in terms of how it would affect you. We've been told that ScottishPower Manweb didn't have Welsh language provision for phone calls during storm Darragh. Obviously, the primary concern here would be about people's safety, because, in a lot of the areas that were covered, proportionately, there might be more people who don't just speak Welsh but they're much more comfortable in Welsh, particularly if they're vulnerable, if they're older. Would that be something that you would be hoping to make sure is available in future storms?

Absolutely. Obviously, we do have Welsh speaking contact centre agents. It's difficult when you're dealing with such a volume to try and ensure that people will always get through to a Welsh speaker, if they prefer, because sometimes, when they want to speak to you, they will just press the options to get through. Obviously, our local engineering force are all based in the community, and many of those are Welsh first language and able to assist. But also, other people who work in our business that have Welsh language skills are drafted in to man the phones during the storm events. So, absolutely we'll look at the issues and try and improve that, but I can assure you we do have Welsh-speaking facilities for people.

That's great. Thank you so much, Liam. Did either of you want to add anything to that?

Yes. I'd just add support. I don't think it's an issue for Dŵr Cymru, but the events, for the call centre for us, were not significant for these two storms. So, we were dealing with very low numbers of calls.

Of course. Diolch. Did you want—?

We've got contact centre staff, similar to Liam, who speak both English and Welsh, that allows us to engage the customers we need to. All our written material is sent in English and Welsh as well, and our website's able to translate into Welsh as well. So, we've got various forums. In addition, too, a lot of our people are embedded in communities. So, a lot of people are able to discuss with customers in Welsh as well and, throughout the storm, our Welsh-speaking members of our team were the ones engaging in the media outlets where, actually, Welsh speaking was required, and, after, we utilised the facilities we've got to ensure that our customers got the information they needed.

Thank you, all.

Thank you. Can I ask why did it take so long to get people back on electricity, really? I know the scale, obviously, of the storm, et cetera, but it did feel exceptionally long for some customers this time, didn't it, particularly in rural areas.

So, I'll start. As we've discussed, it was a severe red warning. Again, to give you scale, this was larger than any of the three storms combined. This was the biggest storm that south Wales had had in about 30 years. As you advised, it was with a large-scale impact. The biggest thing that caused the damage wasn't necessarily the damage to the physical network itself; a lot of it was access to the network that was slowing us down—so, trees falling, road access because of trees falling, and hence our desire to stand up those contractor footprints, to allow us to remove the trees, remove things that are in the way of the physically getting to the network itself. That's what slowed us in the early days. If we think back to storm Darragh as well, it wasn't until the Sunday evening that the winds actually passed. So, whilst the red warning was only over a space of about 24 hours, it wasn't until Monday morning that, actually, the wind had passed to allow us to physically get to some parts of our network. About 50 per cent of our network is overhead, and, as part of the network, it was dangerous to climb at points to actually physically start to restore power as well. But a lot of the challenges that we had were physical access to the network, which slowed us down. As soon as we were getting our hands on the network, we were able to restore customers at a rapid pace.

Okay. And similar for you, I'd imagine.

Yes. Overhead line faults are actually relatively quick to repair compared to cable faults, where you have to excavate. But trouble getting around was a big factor, not being able to work at height for a good day and a half in the early stages, but also multiple damage in certain locations. Some communities, all the lines that feed a certain village had a damage on them, so trying to get the repairs done and restore the whole village was very difficult, and we do thank customers for their patience because there were some people who were off for a longer time than anybody would have liked during storm Darragh.

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

I'm from an area where some houses were restored quite quickly, within a few hours, but there were a number of houses that weren't restored for five days, and they thought maybe it was because of the lower population of that area. So, is it because the network is more ageing, that they're connected to?

No, not as such. Going back to the point that Steven made before, some restorations we can do remotely very quickly, so we can sectionalise a circuit actually from the control room remotely, so it's only the customers that remain off then that need the network repaired to get them restored. The bulk of the customers, once we've isolated the section to a small number, we can restore remotely, and that's why people have different experiences. So, some will say, 'Well, it went off, but I was back on within five minutes', and then other people who needed to wait for the repairs to be completed, they may have been off for significantly longer.

Okay. Thanks, Chair.

Okay. Can I just come back to the priority services register? We have had local authorities tell us that the PSRs that were provided by utility companies weren't good enough, basically; they were poorly maintained. Carmarthenshire told us they even included names of people who died years ago. So, who's responsible for maintaining those?

Do you want me to start with the water company? I fully support the views, and we support the views that there's work to be done on joining up all vulnerable customers because we all have individual priority service registers, with all different definitions of what makes a customer vulnerable, and every time we come to one of these events, we are trying, in the heat of battle, to co-ordinate different lists between different agencies, and GDPR, unfortunately, cuts through everything. We need to find a way collectively of sharing that data because we have a very distinct definition of what would make the customer vulnerable. One of our biggest issues is trying to explain to a customer that just because they've registered as a priority service with another agency, it doesn't automatically update them to our priority services. So, our register is as accurate as our billing data, because it's all related to billing, so there will be gaps and there will be areas to improve. We continue to campaign to get more visibility of what our vulnerable customer priority service register is, but there's a lot more to be done, but more collectively between different agencies and utility companies.

Steven, Liam, and then we come to Janet, and then we come to Carolyn.

To update the priority service register, we proactively contact every customer on it every two years to make sure their information is as up to date as it can be, but, in the meantime with that, we also partner with Age Concern Wales and other third sector organisations to try and glean as much information as we can. We also promote people to go online and update their information themselves. We do leaflet drops in GP surgeries, community centres, encouraging people that either are on it or think they should be on it to register and update their information. So, as my colleague said, it's very difficult at times because it's an ever-changing picture, but we do try to keep that as up to date as possible.

We're very similar. So, every two years, we proactively reach out to our priority service customers. We, each year, as well, in the winter, reach out to those to explain what they need to be aware of because, at times, the network can be a bit more susceptible to faults. During the winter periods, you want to make sure they understand what means they can contact us on if they need support at all. So, there's an opportunity every single year to ensure that we're contacting them to have the most relevant information and details we need to keep in touch. And to the earlier discussion we were having around working with local authorities, we have been historically sharing information with local authorities, with the fire and rescue services, with oxygen providers who are trying to, then, as I say, start to share information back and forth, but there's more for us to do in terms of working with other utility companies. Likewise, we discussed the telecommunications companies who were getting in touch with very similar customers, so it's something we're keen to progress on.

Okay. Briefly from Janet, and then we'll come to Carolyn.

I think this is a huge issue. I think, just even with our water outage—and I spoke to the fire service afterwards—if you're a responder, if you provide emergency provision, I can't for the life of me now, with digital technology, understand why we haven't got one list that's used by fire, health, you name it—you included. Now, I understand, during the water situation, you had 3,500 on the priority risk register, but in that few days to the weekend it doubled to 7,500. That shows there’s a weakness in the system. So, do you believe—it will take some work, it will need some support from the Welsh Government—that there should be one risk register that everybody can access, that the hospitals can access, the GPs can access, you can access?

Do you agree with that?

Yes. 

Would you support one central register?

We would support it, yes. 

Albeit with, as you mentioned, data protection and GDPR, and all that kind of thing, which might be—

Just to add to that, we had the hot debrief for the pipeline incident that Janet’s referring to. A task and finish group has been formed by the local resilience forum in north Wales.

Oh, good. That was on Monday, wasn't it?

Yes, it was, and that task and finish group has been tasked by the Deputy First Minister to look at trying to resolve the issue around one common list, and we fully welcome that.

Thank you. Carolyn. 

Anglesey told us that they weren’t provided with the register until late on Sunday night, more than 24 hours after the peak of storm Darragh. So, can you explain why the delay happened?

Yes. Anglesey, obviously, is an important community for me and for our business. Of around the 70,000 people who live on the island, 17,000 of them are on the priority services register. So, we know that’s a community that, if a storm arrives, will be significantly impacted. So, we did our best to prioritise those customers. We offered hotels to the most vulnerable. We provided generators. We would typically deploy around 50 people working on Anglesey on a business-as-usual day. There were over 250 working during storm Darragh. It was a very difficult set of circumstances for the customers. We provided welfare. We have taken some feedback locally that there were some local businesses that would be prepared to support us in the future with the provision of hot food, et cetera, which we—

But the issue here is—

It was the delay, wasn't it. 

—that you didn't provide the list for 24 hours, not how you responded to those who were on the list. 

Because you have a list—

Yes. 

—but Anglesey didn't have that list.

Until 9 o'clock on the Sunday night, which was 24 hours after the peak.

I'm sorry—I wasn't aware that that was the case. 

Okay. 

But it certainly won't be the case next time. 

Okay. Maybe you could write us a note afterwards explaining, maybe, what the circumstances were, and—