National Assembly for Wales

A warm welcome to you. Maybe I could kick off with the first question, if that’s okay. And just as a general starter for 10, as they say, maybe you could tell us your view as to whether the Bill provides a robust integrated and futureproofed regulatory system for disused coal tips, as, of course, the Welsh Government, particularly, is hoping.

Okay. Bore da. Thank you for the invitation. This is a most welcome piece of legislation. I don’t think anyone of my age would want to revisit the events of October 1966. The present legislation, passed in the aftermath of that incident, in 1969, is not fit for purpose; you’ve heard that from the Law Commission. There are a couple of reasons why that’s so. At that stage, lots of these tips were still active, and therefore they were under supervision and there was a structure for that. That wasn’t to last much longer after 1969—pit closures in the 1970s and the death of the industry by the mid-1980s, and then there’s much less oversight of these tips, and responsibility placed on local authorities. And I think local authorities in 1969 were a slightly different creature than local authorities now. I think they probably had more expertise, and, in relative terms, more resource.

So, I think we do need to update and futureproof the legislation, and I think the Bill does a good job in doing that. It will regrow an expertise, I hope, that we did have, and we still have some remnants of, in terms of mining engineering, to look after these tips.

I do think it’s somewhat ironic that the very communities that laboured hard, and in great danger, to provide the coal that fuelled the whole of the UK economy are now revisited by the climate change implications of that coal production. And almost the industrial legacy has come back to haunt them as they face these hazards. That I find deeply ironic. And it is because of climate change. It is because of the transatlantic storms—and the many that we have seen just in the past two months—that are depositing huge amounts of precipitation on tips that have not been re-engineered at all for years, and were often engineered an awful long time ago.

So, we need to do something about that, and I think we’ve got a robust approach here. There is a proviso. I come from the UK Environmental Law Association, and therefore I’m quite interested in the protection of the environment. And there’s a certain quiescence in the Bill about matters environmental, and that’s what I would partly like to talk to you about today, Chair.

Yes, indeed, and a few of the things you said there I know we want to pursue further, so we’ll pick up on them and we’ll start with Carolyn.

That leads me on to my question. So, I’d like you to talk about the extent and scope of the threats arising from disused tips, and should they go wider and beyond direct human threats—threats to the environment especially. So, if you’d like to continue and explain your concerns regarding environmental threats, as well as threats to humans. Thank you.

Yes, sure. So, going back to my first answer, the threat to humans and the communities is not to be underplayed, but they're not the only threats. Mine tailings, the product of spoil from deep mining, often contain heavy metal contamination. You might expect to find lead, mercury and arsenics in the spoil. There's a great danger of acidic run-off from these coal tips, and the acidity of the water run-off can be quite dangerous to the surrounding surface and groundwaters. And then finally, if you're going to re-engine these tips, there'll be an awful lot of dust—coal dust, particulate matter. And we know from the history of mining, we know from things like miner's lung, that the air pollution caused is a matter of concern. So, pollution would be the first thing.

Fire would be on my list. We unfortunately have a long history in the Welsh Valleys of tips suffering internal combustion and burning for periods of time—for quite long periods of time—inflicting nuisances on surrounding communities. And wildfire, as in California this winter. Wildfire is becoming more and more of a phenomenon under climate change, and we already suffer from wildfires in the Valleys. 

Flood. [Interruption.] Do join us. Flood may be covered under human welfare insofar as it might cause serious damage to property, which is part of the definition of 'human welfare', but I worry about flood in its own right. If you look at Tylorstown, the tip came down into the river. So, I worry about that damage to watercourses in its own right, whether or not it affects human welfare. 

And then habitats would be the final thing on my list. The tips are a great story in relation to habitats. We start with spoil and nothing else, no vegetation, and then the first mosses and the lichens grow, and they attract insects. We start from a very primary position and begin to rewild these tips, and the black Valleys become green, and that's a great story. It's a story of genuine rewilding. The Environment (Wales) Act 2016 creates, under section 7, a whole list of species in Wales that this Government has committed to protect. Many of those section 7 species are found in or in proximity to tips. So, I worry about the wildlife on the tips and I worry about the slide-off of colliery spoil into, for example, peat bogs or other natural habitats. 

Do you mind if I just interject? But do you not see that extending the remit of the authority to consider all of those is possibly biting off more than anybody can chew?

I can see that argument, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that every one of those issues is handed over to the authority, but what I am, I think, saying is that the Bill is strangely silent—that might be putting it a bit strongly, but somewhat silent on the interplay between these other environmental hazards and what is going on in coal tip stability.

Of course. None of them exists in isolation. Yes, of course.

We have a nature and climate emergency, don't we, as well as a health emergency. To what extent are existing environmental and planning laws a barrier to ensuring coal tip safety under the current regime?

Well, on the face of it, not necessarily a huge barrier. In these sorts of engineering works, you would expect to have to get planning permission, because development includes engineering and with the sort of activity that's going on, you'd expect to have an environmental permit, because you're shifting waste around. So, there will be a need to get the necessary permits and permissions. There may be some more specific permissions. So, NRW may be involved in issuing tree-felling licences, or if there is a particular protected species on a site, like a badger, then Natural Resources Wales will have to license the work. So, a certain amount of work goes on, but it's work that goes on all the time. But there are two provisos. The first proviso is: whose responsibility? So, if you take clause 33 of the Bill, then the authority can demand that an owner undertake this work. So, all of those responsibilities, all of the dealing with all of that regulation would then fall upon the owner. And you can argue, and I think I probably would argue, that's as it should be—they are the owner of the land in question; it's their task. But in serving that notice, the work has to have a time period within which it's completed, and I do think it's going to be very important that that time period includes all the time necessary to get the relevant permissions. I'll come back to that, because the second thing I'm going to talk about is time.

What if it's urgent? What if we have a high-risk tip that demands attention absolutely right now? If we take the planning permission, there'll be a service agreement with the unitary authority, the planning authority, within which time frame they will issue a planning permission. Very often in Wales, that will be a four-month period. Can we wait four months? I mean, in Tylorstown, when all the spoil came down, all of that needed waste environment permits under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, and that, again, could take an awful long period of time. And it can get even more complex than that, if an environmental impact assessment is necessary to do the work—and I'm not going to explain that, but if you want to come back, I'm happy to try. But if an environmental impact assessment is necessary, that prolongs the period even further. 

And then finally, if there is a habitat, well, even if there isn't a habitat, we may want to do a preliminary ecological assessment before we apply for planning permission, but if there's a habitat, and roughly 100 of these tips are SSSIs—sites of special scientific interest—and a further 30-odd are almost top-tier special areas of conservation, then there will have to be in that case—the final case—a habitats regulations assessment, which is quite a big job. And seasonality kicks in, because there's no point in going and looking at what's on the tip in November and trying to do your ecological assessment. You need to be doing your ecological assessment in spring when things are up and about.

So, that's what I worry about, right? I worry about how we are going to cope with that. And the Law Commission did look at this, and the Law Commission did suggest, and I had conversations with the Law Commission about this, that maybe ministerial directions would be the way ahead. So, you issue a ministerial direction and you say, 'That absolves you from the need to get planning permission right now, but do apply and get that planning permission as quickly as you can, but you will not commit any offences under planning legislation if you proceed with the work without that planning permission.' That seems to me to be a perfectly good way ahead, but it's not one that's included in the Bill.

So, do you believe that that would cover any emergency then? That has been a concern that's been raised.

That's what it will be trying to do: it will be trying to make provision for work to begin immediately in an urgent case.

Without enforcement.

Without the risk of any enforcement for the owners of the land. And that's the other issue—I mean, is it the owner of the land, because in clause 42, of course, the authority may do this work in its own right? Now, you don't have to be the owner of land to apply for planning permission, but the authority, if it wished to intervene in an emergency case, would still need, I think, that support from somewhere to be able to get on with the work without breaching the law.

Okay. I think you've covered my supplementaries there. Is there anything else you think—? If the Bill does not address it, is there anything else, regarding the safety regime, that you think should be included, besides that exemption that could be given by the Welsh Government to do emergency works? Is there anything else that you think should be there in the Bill?

Well, of course, the Bill isn't the full story, because there will be guidance, and therefore some provision for these things may be made in guidance. What I'm trying to do is trying to figure out what's more appropriate in hard law—that's either the Bill or regulations made under the Bill—and what's appropriate in guidance. And I think when it comes to Welsh Ministers issuing directions that the law, in a sense, should be stood down, then that perhaps is a matter for hard law, not a matter for guidance.

There we are, okay, thank you. Delyth.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Professor, and to the committee, my apologies that I was late. The dreaded bus replacement service was very late, so I’m sorry that I was a little late coming in to the session.

You’ve already touched on this, but I wonder if I could delve into a little more detail with you about the implications of expanding the scope of the Bill to cover non-coal tips. It was originally proposed—and again, we’ve touched on this—in the White Paper, it was proposed that there would be preliminary work first before deciding whether to extend it to non-coal tips. In the Bill as it stands, all of that scope is already there. The Chair had asked whether there was a possibility of biting off more than anyone could chew, with having all of that in.

I’d like to ask you specifically about the fact that you’ve mentioned that we know with the coal tips that there are a number of them that are already high risk. We know that there is that risk there, whereas the risk with non-coal tips is perhaps less known. Is there, from a social justice perspective, a risk here that resources could be spread so thinly to cover non-coal tips where we don’t know what the risk might be, could that then be taking away, diverting resources away from places where we know there is a risk already?

Yes, okay. So, it’s a judgment call, I guess, and it’s not necessarily the easiest of judgment calls, because, in fact, you could use the contaminated land regime, Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to cover threats both to human health and the environment of non-coal tips, so there is legislation in place. That legislation is primarily enforced by local authorities, so then the question becomes, do we leave the local authorities with that responsibility, or, since we have the tips authority—whatever the name turns out to be—shall we put these responsibilities in with the tips authority? I think, on balance, I would favour the second approach. I would favour the extension beyond that remit that the Law Commission looked at to deal with tips and quarries generally.

There’s a slight second reason for doing this. I talked a lot about what we call the biotic environment—the creatures and the habitats—but there’s also an abiotic environment, and the quarries are important geological areas in their own right. And I think if you’re going to create a specialist authority, then let’s have the specialists, I think. With all respect to local authorities, let’s have the specialists take on that regulatory responsibility. It does increase complexity; it does provide a much greater challenge for the new authority, but if we limit the legislation to threats of stability, then we miss the opportunity perhaps to deal with a wider range of problems.

Okay, that’s useful, thank you. Some previous witnesses have suggested that perhaps there would be a greater need to ensure that there is a proviso that there would have to be adequate resources to make sure that that increased risk from coal tips isn’t then missed because of the widened scope. And potentially as well—I’m just checking that I’m not covering anyone else’s questions here; forgive me if I am—that where assessments are made, there has been concern raised that—. Well, I’ll tell you that I think it was NRW, Natural Resources Wales, who suggested to us that they think that, for coal tips, the assessments should all be in person, that they shouldn’t be desk based, whereas non-coal tips could be desk based to start with. Would you agree with that?

So, I think a lot of preliminary assessments, including some of the preliminary assessments on those tips already in the lower categories, possibly could be desk based, although I think you’d probably always want, for a coal tip, just a walkover, yes? But for the non-coal tips and quarries, I think a lot of it could be desk based. A lot of these have been there for many, many years, and if they were giving rise to harm, I think we would have evidence of that and that could be picked up on a desk survey.

Thank you, that's helpful. Finally from me, we were talking about the differences between the White Paper and the Bill as we have it, and one of the overwhelming changes is that a lot of the detail in the Bill is left to guidance. You suggest you'd like to see further detail in secondary legislation instead. Could you expand a little on that, please, and also if there are any risks that you think are associated with leaving all of this detail to guidance?

Yes, sure. I watched last Thursday's proceedings and Alison Young, the law commissioner. I've got to say I defer to Professor Young on all things constitutional. She is a far greater authority than I will ever be, and I think she gave you an excellent rundown of how it works. I think we've got to bear in mind, in everything I say today, that I might want to seek perfection, but we have to get this legislation on the statute book. We have to get it there, operating and protecting people, so please bear that in mind in everything that I say.

The Government of Wales Act 2006 does give wide-ranging powers to the Welsh Ministers to issue guidance, and there's a list of matters in the 2006 Act on which that guidance can be issued. Almost first and foremost in that is the environment, so there's no question that the Welsh Ministers have that power. What I think Alison was saying is it's really a question, and it's a question for you, I think, as a committee, about the balance of delegation to Welsh Ministers and oversight by the Senedd. Because, as Alison said, if we're talking about hard law, if we're talking about the content of the Bill itself or regulations issued under the Bill, then the Senedd will have some form of oversight power, and that gets weaker as you move into guidance.

The second thing is guidance will give lots of discretion. Now, on the one hand, that's its advantage, flexibility is absolutely its advantage, and the Deputy First Minister is on record, I think, as saying that. But, in a sense, flexibility can work two ways, because flexibility can also mean quite significant shifts and changes by the mere issuance of guidance. There are delegated regulatory powers under the Bill, clause 74 deals with what they are, but they are things like regulations for appeals procedures, regulations for redefining the meaning of 'disused tips'. I guess it is a question, really, as to whether that balance between what's delegated by regulation and what is left to guidance is appropriately struck. 

I just end by saying this: if you picked up the Bill and you read the Bill, you would see very little about the environment, and you wouldn't know, unless you went to the explanatory memorandum, that there were any plans for guidance that might cover the sorts of issues that you and I talked about.

Okay, diolch yn fawr.

That's very useful, thank you.

Carolyn.

Thank you. In your paper, you—. No, it's not me, is it?

I'm sorry, no. Janet, I think, wanted to come in at this point. Sorry. 

Thank you, and it's fantastic evidence, you're just telling us lots, I've never done so much scribbling, writing down. So, the Deputy First Minister told us that leaving the detail to guidance allows necessary flexibility and will enable the authority to be involved in its development. Do you have a view on this?

Yes, I don't really dispute that. You are going out on an exercise that is somewhat novel: there's no other mine and quarry authority in the UK. We could go to Brazil and find one there, it's been operating for about five years now. We will learn as we go along, and the advantage of having guidance is that you don't then need to keep introducing regulations and laying them before the Senedd every time you want to cover something that you think the tip authority ought to have cognisance of.

It says in clause 69 that once the guidance is in place, the authority must act in accordance with that guidance, so you can see that the guidance will say to the authority, 'This is what you, the authority, ought to do. You, the authority, please take the following things into account.' And I think the list of those things will grow with experience. So, I don't really dispute that. Again, I just come back to what I say, but the question is: are there things that are so important that we wouldn't want them only to be in guidance, that we would want some degree of oversight by this body, by the Senedd?

Thank you.

Thank you. Carolyn

I'm taking you back to environmental information again, in relation to coal tip safety. So, to what extent are you satisfied that sections 8 and 9 adequately provide for this?

Yes, I don't worry about it too much. That might sound a bit strange, but the reason why I don’t worry about it too much is that if you go to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they give very wide-ranging rights to the general public to seek information on the environment where that information is held by a public body. And those rights stem from a UN convention, the Aarhus convention, so they come from international law and they've been copied over into UK law generally. So, let's take an example. Again, I think it's not necessarily planned that preliminary risk assessments or even full risk assessments would be published, but that would not stop, in my view, a member of the public saying, 'I live right next to this tip, I'd like to know what you've found out about it'. I think the environmental information regs would give members of the public that right. It's a bit like freedom of information but for the environment.

Ministers, I think, can add by regulation to the balance of what's on the register, but I did see at some point that there were provisions, I think in clause 8, which said that not everything that may be on the register may be accessible to the public. Again, I have mixed views about that, because it rather depends on what the intention of that is. I can see reasons why that could be so. If you're putting lots of work out to tender to companies under a procurement process for engineering work on tips, you may not want lots of information about how much you've spent in the past, what your other contracts have been worth, out there in the public domain. So, there could be reasons why that's so, but, again, it's not absolutely clear, as things stand, what will be on the register and publicly accessible and what will be on the register but not there for the public to see. My view is that, for much of that, however, the public could get access to it, nonetheless.

Okay. Thank you.

I'm just a bit worried about whether it would be strong enough if it's not there on the Bill. Would there be links to the current legislation? I don't know enough about it, but those are my concerns.

Well, there is a question about safeguards around that information.

Well, let me put it this way, really: the advantage of having a register is that you put it out there for the public, and the public don't have to do anything to say, 'How safe is this tip near—?' You know, 'What do we know about this tip that's overlooking my house?' It's there on the register, they can look on the internet, they can get it without any effort. My view is that they could probably get it anyway, but it does involve, then, people in those communities requesting the information from the authority and making that formal request.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Janet, do you want to come in?

Yes. In your paper, you do raise concerns about the inclusion of the regulation-making power in section 8—

Professor Lee has just addressed that point.

No. This is the one about the section 8—

Yes. Professor Lee has just been talking about the need to make—

Yes, that's my—. I'm on these.

I know that, but if you were listening to Professor Lee, you'd know that he's already addressed that, actually.

Yes. But I wanted to go on about the suitable safeguards.

Okay.

So, with that in mind, the suitable safeguards, are you convinced that they are there to ensure that this power is exercised appropriately? If not, what additional safeguards would you like to see included?

I think, on the whole, as I say, because of this fallback with the environmental information regs, I am feeling fairly relaxed about this, in the sense there is a fallback there, there is a safety net there. You know, if you can’t get it through your clauses 8 and 9 structure, you can go back to the 2004 regs. And I do think, for that reason, there is a route for the public to get information, providing it relates to the environment broadly, including the list of the environmental information regs, the state of land, which is very much what we’re talking about—waste on land is included. So, I think, the environmental information regs are wide enough to cover much of what we’re talking about.

And do you believe—. The authority will be—. My concern is how soon the authority will have the skills and the knowledge and the people there to actually do—? There's an awful lot required of them. The authority will be required to undertake preliminary and full assessments, where necessary, on all disused tips and produce a report. In correspondence to the committee, the Deputy First Minister states there is 'no public interest in general publication' of these reports. 

That, I think, is a matter for you as a committee to decide.

It’s a very profound statement that, isn’t it?

I’ve got to say that, if I lived in the shadow of a tip, speaking personally, I might want to know what its risk profile was.

Yes, yes.

But, in general terms, I do think that because there is this wide-ranging power to obtain environmental information, at the end of the day, it can be got. I think, in relation to the authority and the structure of the authority, we are fortunate enough still to have some residual expertise in Wales on coal, on mining engineering and on coal tip stability. The people are as old me, but there is still some good residual expertise in Wales, and what will be important in the early days of the authority is to simply use these people and capture their knowledge while you can. 

Absolutely. Thank you. 

Can I come in?

Yes, and then we’ll go on then. So, very briefly, if you can, because I'm conscious of time.

Just on that very point, there’s also a general concern about that expertise being moved and areas that need it, like local authorities, being left behind, and we’ve heard evidence that said that, from, I think it was, Rhondda Cynon Taf. So, how do we safeguard that expertise and actually move it wider? Another suggestion was that Wales could be a leader in harnessing that expertise, but growing it too.

Yes, I think that’s how it will look, right? I think you will have a relatively small and tightly knit authority, but they will, in a sense, be work givers. They’ll commission work both for assessment and for stabilisation work. So, below that, you’ll have your whole number of firms, actually not all that far from this building, who will begin, I think, to gear up their expertise in this area and train underneath it. That’s what I hope would happen. I think it is an issue for local authorities, such expertise that they now have, and a lot—RCT and authorities like that—do have that expertise because they themselves are owners of tips. NRW has a lot of expertise simply because it too is responsible for a lot of tips. And I do think there is this danger of poaching—

That’s the risk, yes. That was mentioned last week.

—by the private sector from the public sector probably. But I don’t see quite what we do about that, other than, I think, to use the sort of expertise that we have in the Welsh universities. All of the Welsh universities still have expertise in this area to bring people through doctoral programmes.

Thank you. I'll just remind everyone we have 10 minutes left for this session, so we need to be succinct.

Right, I'm going on to section 38, on appeals. There is a requirement on Welsh Ministers to make regulations about the procedure to be followed in determining appeals against a notice that requires the landowner to carry out operations. You suggest that it would be preferable for the appeals procedure to be included on the face of the Bill, which is, I think, somewhat at odds with what the Ministers have suggested. Could you expand on that, please?

Yes. So, when Professor Young gave evidence to you last Thursday, she was asked, ‘Why did you just go for a single risk assessment? Why not a preliminary and a full?’, and she said, ‘I went to the Reservoirs Act because I tried to find a piece of legislation that was sort of roughly parallel, and they just went straight for full risk assessment.’ I sort of did the same. I thought, ‘Where do we have appeals procedures that would be this sort of appeal?’ I went to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, because that gives a right of appeal to a landowner to say, ‘Do not map my property as open land or common land, I wish to appeal against that’, and that’s in section 6 of CROWA, as we call it. Then, in section 7, we have the appeals procedure in there. Sometimes, the appeals procedures are scheduled to the legislation. It’s not vital. I don’t think this is a major point. But it is simply, again, pointing out what would we have—. There are three areas, aren’t there, really? There’s the Bill, or the Act as it will become, there’s regulation, and there’s guidance. And are the appeals better in the Act than in regulation? I think one of the reasons why they may be in regulation is simply a timing one. We’re racing against the clock to get this legislation in place before next winter, I would hope. So, the easier way to do it is to, perhaps, put your appeals into regulation. It just gives you more time.

Okay. So, I'm going to move on. You raise quite an important issue, that the person appointed by Welsh Ministers to determine an appeal should be sufficiently independent of the Welsh Government. Are you happy or content that section 37 is strong enough to provide for that?

I’ll be very quick here because I know we’re getting tight on time. It seems fairly clear from the explanatory memorandum that Planning and Environment Decisions Wales, PEDW, will be the chosen body, I just don’t quite understand why it doesn’t say that on the face of the Bill. They are, beyond doubt, the best appointed person, so to speak. In other words, they’ll appoint one of their staff—a planning inspector, in effect—to decide this, which has got to be the right way ahead.

Okay.

Thank you.

Julie.

Bore da. I wanted to ask you about fines. I think you suggest amending the provisions to specify the level of fine that can be imposed. Could you explain your reasoning there?

Yes, two things. It's not a major point, I don't think, and I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I hope I get this right. It used to be the case until 2015 that, if you sent a case before the magistrates, £5,000 was the top fine in the magistrates', and you'd need to go to Crown Court for an unlimited fine. I’m in favour of unlimited fines here, given what may be at stake. If you have an owner who’s absolutely turning their face against doing work on a very dangerous tip, then I don’t see why that shouldn’t be an unlimited fine. I’ve got no objection to that at all.

Since 2015, an unlimited fine can be issued either in the magistrates’ court or in the Crown Court, although the court procedure rules do suggest that, if it’s going to be a serious fine, the magistrates should refer it to a district judge. We call those level 5 fines, and all I was suggesting is why doesn’t it say in the statute, ‘It can be a level 5 fine', which means it can be an unlimited fine?

Thank you. And then civil sanctions: you suggest that the provision of stop notices or other forms of civil sanctions would be a good thing to have in the Bill. Do you want to expand on that?

Yes. I think you'll hear more about this from NRW. I think they'll be grateful to have the civil sanctions, because they use them all the time in other contexts. The 2008 legislation of the UK, the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, introduced a whole range of civil sanctions. The one that I'm most concerned with here is a stop notice. A stop notice is a form of civil sanction. It seems entirely appropriate. If you've got an owner who is literally undermining a tip by the work that they're doing on their land, let's use a stop notice, which does what it says on the tin, right: 'Cease carrying on this activity now.' So, I think there's greater room for civil sanctions than the Bill gives provision for.

Thank you very much for that. And then, finally, the last question from me. Your paper highlights that there's no provision to address the aftermath of a tip slip, suggesting that this may be a weakness. Could you expand on this? 

Yes. I've got four minutes. This is a big thing. It's a big thing, I think. The whole Law Commission paper was premised on the fact that we weren't just going to deal with something preventative in terms of instability for the future, but that, actually, we might do things that are remedial. In other words, if there is a coal tip failure—heaven forbid—why don't we charge the authority with the oversight of the remediation of everything that then needs doing? And the reason why I think that that would be a good thing is, if you take my earlier answers about the need to get planning permission, the need to get the permits in a row, to have a body that was overseeing and integrating the whole thing, working with the local authority, working with NRW et cetera, that would seem to me to be very sensible use of the authority to oversee that remediation. 

If we come back to what I said about ministerial directions, the mine tips authority could be advising Welsh Ministers on what was needed and what was appropriate. I can see that role for the mine and quarry tip authority. I actually prefer the approach of both the Law Commission, and, I think, the White Paper, that there would be a role in remediation. If you go to Tylorstown now, a great deal has been done. We've gone beyond simply securing the tip. We've created something of a country park there. So, there's room to think imaginatively about this. There may be room also to think imaginatively about what's in the tips. We don't want to start using more coal, but there is a still great deal of resource in some of those tips, and, if were to think in terms of clean hydrogen, if we could use carbon capture and storage, we could still be utilising some of this stuff. So, I sort of can have a wider vision—in spite of Delyth's question earlier, I can still have a slightly wider vision for this authority. 

And would they need more powers to have this wider vision, the authority?

I think they might need. At the moment, they've got no status at all in remediation, as the Bill stands. So, 'They would', I think, is the answer.

They would, yes. Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay. There we are. Well, thank you so much for your time. As always, you've given us plenty to consider and reflect upon, so we're very grateful to you, once more, for being with us this morning.

Not at all. Thank you very much. If I can be of further assistance, let me know.

Oh, I'm sure we'll be coming after you, yes, no problem. [Laughter.] Committee will now break for five minutes, and we'll reconvene for a prompt start at 10:20. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Yes, I would agree, and I would add that the slip in Cwmtillery, it shows that there is still progress that needs to be made. Having a dedicated authority to drive forward that progress, I think there is utility in that, and not making additional burdens on local planning authorities that are already overstretched and sometimes struggling to discharge their responsibility of oversight on large projects.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Carolyn.

Thank you. The White Paper proposed the Bill would protect communities, infrastructure and the environment by introducing appropriate management of tips. But the new coal tips safety regime in the Bill is based on the protection of human welfare, defined in section 82. So, what are your views on this? And Friends of the Earth, in your paper, you suggest there is a lack of clarity around the meaning of 'human welfare'. Can you expand on this?

Yes, absolutely. We're glad that it is not a narrow definition of human welfare, that it does mention food and water and energy and transport infrastructure. So, it's not a narrow definition. But we're not clear if it would include key threats like fire and flood, whether it includes pollution and contamination of water, which are directly linked. So, we would want to ensure that these hazards are taken into account as well. And of course, all of these could have a big negative impact on nature and biodiversity. So, we would be interested to explore whether threat of environmental harm could be included, either within that definition or as another subsection to ensure that we do deal with all the serious risks that could arise. 

Okay. Because it seems like the White Paper includes the environment, but now there seems to be an emphasis just on human welfare. So, I think that's why I was asking that question.

Daniel, do you want to come in on that?

I would just add that this Bill is narrowly focused on threats to human welfare from stability of tips. I wouldn't want the public to potentially be misled into thinking that it considers all safety aspects of tips, because it doesn't, and I think that is an important point. As Haf mentioned, fire and flooding are not part of this safety regime, except for where they intersect with stability issues. 

So, Daniel, your views on whether the definition of 'human welfare'—. Do you feel that it's appropriate and sufficiently clear? And then are you concerned that it doesn't include those other elements, then? 

I think it's clear enough, although where it uses the word 'serious'—maybe we'll come to that later—I think that that needs to be fleshed out. What does 'serious' mean? I'm hoping it will do as the Bill progresses, maybe in the guidance.

Okay. So, do you not feel that the term 'serious' is clearly understood, and do you consider 'serious' to be a high threshold to be met? 

I think that that depends on what they illustrate 'serious' to mean later on. I would hope that they do. If they don't later in guidance illustrate what they mean by 'serious', then I can't pass comment on that, because what does 'serious' mean? So, I hope that they will bring out more guidance on that, and at that point we can ascertain whether that is a suitably high threshold for it to meet, or too low.  

Okay—

Sorry, can I just be clear then? So, you would explicitly want the Bill to encompass the other elements—the environmental, you know—? Or are you accepting that it's not explicit, but, you know, it's—? 

I understand, in the definition of 'human welfare', how that couldn't be expanded to cover everything, and I understand that it's an intentional decision to give the Bill a narrow remit, but I would be interested in investigating whether environmental harm could be included in the Bill as well. 

And would there be resource consequences to that as well then, would there? 

It would widen what's taken into account, so, yes, it would have consequences.

So, what you're saying is all that would need to be considered as part of that. 

Yes. 

Okay. 

The Deputy First Minister, he said that existing environmental legislation applies, and we heard that earlier, so it's unnecessary because the Bill is already underpinned by it. But do you think that existing environmental legislation should be referenced in the Bill? That's what I was trying to get at earlier. 

I do believe, because the Bill focuses on people and property, although I accept what the Deputy First Minister says—the law is the law; of course it applies—but, given that the focus of the Bill is so narrow, it's not clear and we would welcome a specific reference in the Bill to how all the different processes interact, so, what laws apply to the new authority. That goes for the planning process and waste processes as well, but specifically with environmental legislation, because it's not included in the Bill at the moment, we do believe it's worth while to have a reference. We accept also the argument from the Welsh Government that they don't want to be too specific and need to futureproof the legislation, but there are different ways and different legal terms that can be used to do that, whether it's referencing the most up-to-date environmental legislation, or, of course, this Bill could be amended by future Bills. You've got the—I forget the name—environmental principles and governance Bill coming up later. That Bill could amend this Bill. So, there are different ways of doing it, but I think it should be investigated to make it completely clear that environmental provisions do relate to this, and that they're not just forgotten in the process. 

And there's the whole interplay between primary legislation, regulation and guidance as well, which I know we'll come on to in a minute. Okay, diolch. Thank you, Carolyn. Delyth. 

Diolch. Bore da. I wanted to ask you about some of the potential unintended consequences of the Bill. You've both raised concerns about how there may be scope for unintentionally stimulating re-mining of disused tips. Could you expand on how you think there's scope for that to happen and what your concern would be about that?

Yes, I'd be happy to. And I hope that you'll just afford me a little bit of time to go on to this. This is our main concern and what I think is the main weakness of the Bill as it stands. So, whilst the new Bill doesn't add any kind of responsibilities on to landowners, it does make them more enforceable and then lowers the threshold for acting on maintenance works. So, it does introduce some changes and have financial consequences. Caerphilly council spent £1.8 million across two coal tips on maintenance works that were routine and preventative in nature, between 2021 and 2023. Those are the kinds of sums of money that we're talking about, and it's why Natural Resources Wales responded to the consultation saying that the Bill underestimates the costs of compliance on tip owners, or landowners in the case of this Bill.

There is a coal tip safety grant, but that is only available to landowners that technically cannot pay the costs. Those that technically are able to sure as heck are not going to want to when you're talking millions. So, it's still—. That grant doesn't reduce the incentive to avoid those costs for landowners. I know that, if I was a landowner, I'd be looking to avoid potentially millions in future costs, however uncertain that is. That is a huge liability. So, I would probably try to do one of two things, and this is what I think landowners will try to do: to transfer the ownership of that land out to another company—that could be a shell company. We've seen—. I think I won't mention names, but we've seen other mining companies doing the same thing—outsourcing the land ownership to shell companies that have no assets to pay that, or to another individual that has no assets to pay for it. There's nothing in this Bill to prevent a landowner from doing that. Or, two: facilitate the extraction of coal from these coal tips by a private company offering to do it at no cost to the landowner, in return for selling the coal off, and flattening the coal tip in return. So, that would avoid any future liabilities. And the landowner—if I was the landowner, I would facilitate that company coming in to do that.

The potential impacts of this is that it will create a huge challenge for funding these works if the land is sold out to shell companies that can't afford it and it falls back on to the public purse to fund those works. The coal tip safety grant is not set up and not resourced to do that. Local planning authorities may have a deluge of planning applications coming in for coal extraction from coal tips. Even if the current legislation is strong enough to prevent those applications from coming through and extracting the coal, it's not going to stop the burden on local planning authorities from having to go through those applications. We know that is a high burden from speaking with local planning authorities. And we know that that is a real possibility. We currently have a proposal from ERI Bedwas Ltd to mine 500,000 tonnes of coal, which is what they estimate is contained within two coal tips. If you broaden that out to thinking, what, there are over 2,500 coal tips across Wales, 500,000 tonnes of coal in two coal tips—that is a lot of coal. That is real climate-changing material if some of those applications even slip through.

So, we recommend that steps are taken to ensure that landowners cannot offshore their responsibilities to the public purse. We're not policy experts, but, obviously, speaking to the Law Commission, or other bodies, hopefully they can develop a mechanism through which that cannot happen. We also recommend that, on the face of this Bill, coal extraction under the guise of safety works cannot be approved through planning. As I said, proposals are currently coming forward. So, clearly, existing policies that are in place are not strong enough. They are not sending the message that Wales is closed to coal mining, and that's what we need. We need stronger policies. We need a coal ban, and, at the very least, we need something on the face of this Bill to say, 'This Bill is not going to have that unintended consequence of stimulating a new coal-mining industry.' The UK Government's commitment to ban new coal licensing, as you've already heard, will not impact this, because this is remining coal tips, and they do not need a licence to do that, just planning permission. So, it will not have an effect on this.

We've also heard, from previous consultations that you've had, people talk about stop notices being applied in planning enforcement and other mechanisms through which this possibility of destabilising tips and then taking coal out could be stopped. We've also seen councils refusing to issue stop notices, refusing to enforce these instruments of planning control. Councils are quite cautious about using these instruments, lest it triggers a legal case and the significant costs that are associated with that. So, we can't rely on those planning control instruments. And on that, I'll hand over to Haf.

Haf, you want to come in, and then we'll come back to Delyth, and then we'll make progress.

That was very comprehensive. Thank you so much. That was really important for us to hear it. Thank you so much. Yes, Haf.

Yes, just to add to that that I completely support everything that Daniel said, so I won't repeat any of that. But I do think there's a slight naiveness in some of the statements by Welsh Government that were in a post-mining context here in Wales, when we've got a Glan Lash proposal for a further opencast in Carmarthenshire live, and, as Daniel said, in Bedwas, and I think that's with good intentions that that's what their coal policy is meant to achieve but is not currently achieving. So, you know, we wish we'd put coal campaigning behind us, so do most people, but that isn't the case. And the Deputy Minister, in his evidence session to this committee in December, confirmed that sections 34 and 43 of this Bill allow for the selling of coal as part of tip stability work, which is worrying and does mean that this Bill is relevant to selling coal and further coal industry in Wales, and that's why we believe that an amendment is needed, to ensure that the extraction and selling of coal shouldn't be allowed under this Bill. And yes, we've got wider issues with a coal ban; we realise that all of that can't be achieved under this Bill, but we're happy to work with committee and, of course, the Government on how we can ensure possible ways to amend this Bill to avoid that unintended consequence.

Okay. Briefly back to Delyth, then, and then we'll come to Janet.

Diolch. That's very helpful. Thank you so much. The idea has been broached about the Welsh Government needing to undertake carbon impact assessments and full climate change impact assessments on the Bill. Could you outline why you've taken that stance, please?

We don't need to preach to this committee about Wales's global impacts and the importance of tackling the climate crisis, and if this remining were to happen, and the extraction and use of coal, it would have a serious impact on Wales's climate emissions and carbon budgets, and, overall, our joint responsibility. So, we don't want to see Wales taking a step backwards on that. So, as well as the amendments to prohibit coal extraction for commercial gain, we would like to see a full climate impact assessment of this Bill, because of this unintended consequence. This would be in line with the precedent set by the Finch court case judgment last year. I'm very happy to provide a written note to the committee on that—

Please.

Friends of the Earth were legal interveners in that case. But it basically sets out that, in taking decisions, the downstream greenhouse gas emissions of proposals should be taken into account. And if we consider that the selling of coal is a possibility under this Bill, then those emissions should be taken into account, and, yes, we would welcome a climate impact assessment of that.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Diolch. Janet.

I would—

Very, very briefly, then, because we are up against time.

It's very brief. I would also add that there are significant operational emissions associated with heavy earth-moving works. So, for that reason as well.

Yes, not just coal. Thank you. An important point. Thank you. Janet.

In your paper—this is for CAN now—you suggest a regulation-making power in section 81(4) to amend the meaning of 'disused tip' is not needed. Can you explain your reasons?

Yes, happy to. Thank you. In the last half a century, since 1969, a previous tips Bill, that definition has not been changed. They did not see it necessary to change that definition with creating this Bill either. I can't see what's going to change about tips in the next half a century that didn't change in the last half a century that requires the definition to be delegated to secondary legislation. The whole Bill revolves around the definition of tips. If you change that definition, you change the whole Bill. I can't see the basis for that.

Okay. The power can only be exercised in limited circumstances and regulations will need to be approved by the Senedd. To what extent does this address your concerns about the inclusion of the power?

I understand, or I've been advised that it will by affirmative protocol, so it will require the active approval of the Senedd to change it. However, I think what would be more reassuring, as an added safeguard, is if there's a commitment to undertake a public and statutory consultation ahead of any Senedd decision making on it so that the Senedd can make an informed decision on the changes to that definition.

And what additional safeguards do you consider are needed to ensure that that power is used appropriately?

I think that consultation would go a long way to providing an additional safeguard.

Thank you. In your paper, you raise concern about the regulation-making power in section 81(5) to remove certain tips from the application of the Bill. Can you expand on your concern?

Yes. I think a legislative aim of this Bill is to bring reassurance to affected communities, partly through a consistent approach to coal tips. I think that that is undermined if certain coal tips are excluded in that regime. It could bring a suspicion of arbitrariness to it that might undermine that reassurance.

And, again, regulations would need to be approved by the Senedd. To what extent does this address your concerns about the inclusion of the power?

Similar to my response beforehand, I think that there should be a consultation that would precede that. I also understand it's by affirmative action, and that that consultation should specifically focus on the communities living nearby the tips in question.

What additional safeguards do you consider are needed to ensure the power is used appropriately?

A consultation. Yes, that consultation.

Same again. Okay, diolch yn fawr. Thank you. Julie.

Consultation is the key.

Thank you. I'm going to ask about the register of disused tips. The Law Commission recommended the establishment of a comprehensive register of all disused tips. The Bill only provides for tips that are a threat to human welfare by reason of instability, or could pose a threat in the event of instability, to be included. So, what is your view on this approach?

We agree with the Law Commission that there should be a comprehensive register if the work will be undertaken anyway to identify these. It's better for the public and nearby communities to know, 'Yes, my tip has been recognised. It's not at risk, but it's on the list.' But also, in terms of the—. This Bill is meant to be about preventing issues, and it would be useful to have a comprehensive register for any proposals, any planning proposals, or any developments that companies or anyone else are considering—that they can then look at the register and work out if that impact is on or nearby a tip. So, for that preventative reason, it would be worth while to have a comprehensive register to avoid these issues coming up, to avoid causing harm or damage to tips.

But what about the issue about restricting them to the threat to human welfare?

I think, in terms of how we've discussed the issue or the definition of 'human welfare' and potentially including 'environmental harm' as well, then, presumably, the same issues would apply. But if we don't have a comprehensive register, we don't know they're there, or local authorities looking at a planning application won't necessarily know to take that into account and to consider that impact on tips, even if they're not currently identified as 'at risk', whether they could be made 'at risk'. So, I think it's just as relevant in those situations.

Yes, Dan.

A very brief additional note. I agree with everything that Haf has said. Under the definition of 'welfare', it includes 'serious  damage to property’, and I would just be interested to find out whether 'damage to property' includes death or damage to livestock on common land as well, and whether that’s included within that definition of property.

Diolch. Turning to the assessment regime that’s set out in the Bill, do you think that, as it’s drafted, that is going to be robust enough in terms of coal tip safety? Or—I’m saying ‘coal tip’ safety—in terms of tip safety?

So, I’ve been advised that the preliminary desk-based assessment will include a report from the Mining Remediation Authority following their walkover of the coal tip. So, there will be a physical inspection component to the preliminary desk-based assessment. I think that is important, and I think that there does need to be a physical inspection component to that initial assessment. I think things could be missed if it’s just on a desk. Call me old-fashioned, but I think you need to see it with your own eyes.

Could you tell me again who told you that, because we weren't sure whether that was the case?

We were told it by a civil servant—

Okay. 

—in a meeting last week.

Well, we can pursue that as well. 

It's useful to know that because we weren’t sure of it. So, that’s useful. 

Yes, because we agree—sorry, I can't speak for the committee—but I certainly share concerns that—. We heard evidence last week, didn't we, that there were maps that didn't include certain culverts and mines and stuff, and the maps weren't correct. So, depending on a desk-based exercise isn't always as robust, maybe, as some people would wish. 

And our experience of opencast coal mines very much attests to what’s written on paper isn’t always what’s happening on the site.

Would you—?

Yes. 

You'd agree with that. Okay, so that's useful to know. But I think that I can take it from both of your evidence, then, that the physical assessment of coal tips specifically, rather than other disused tips, is going to be of fundamental importance. And, again, we will clarify that again with the Government, but that’s really useful.

Finally from me then, in terms of producing that report, based on the preliminary assessments of all disused tips, the Deputy First Minister has said in correspondence to the committee that there’s no public interest in the general publication of those reports. I can imagine what your view might be. [Laughter.] But, please, so that we’ve got it for the record, what would your view be on that?

Well, having worked with communities for a number of years on all sorts of different environmental justice issues, issues of transparency and access to information just come up time and time again, and where that transparency isn’t there, it creates distrust and fear and concern in local communities. So, when these reports have been prepared, I’d say there is a significant public interest in making them available, whether it’s for reassurance that everything’s been considered, and there isn’t a risk, or for awareness that there may be concerns.

So, I think if you spoke to people who live near tips, they would be interested and think there is a significant public interest. And, yes, it’s important to build trust with these communities, and for the authority to be able to do that right from the start, to be able to be open and engage with these communities. And also, of course, we have the Aarhus convention on the right to public access to environmental information and environmental information regulations, which I believe is the technical name—the EIRs—which gives the public the right to information about environmental issues. But it can be a case of having to write a freedom of information request to the right person and word it the right way—

Yes, that's not actually open and accessible.

—and go back and forth. And we often hear from communities and residents that are frustrated by these processes and having to ask, and maybe something isn’t available digitally, and having to go back and forth. We don’t think that’s fair on these residents, so it would make sense for these to be made public, to be publicly available. 

Diolch, Haf. And Daniel. 

I would just compound what you said about EIR requests. They are quite technical, they do require a skill to get them right. It is easy for public authorities to discount your ERI request. There are also cost caps on how much information you can get from them. They can take quite a long time to get hold of. If you want to appeal a refusal, that has even longer timescales. So, there is a barrier to ERI requests.

I would also say that it is vital that this authority centres transparency. That is, transparency to the public, but also to civil society, to scrutinise its performance, to scrutinise its work. Civil society is a glue between public authorities and the public. They engender trust in the public authorities. So, I would hope that this authority really promotes this kind of scrutiny and working with civil society, and doesn’t become prickly or defensive, as we’ve seen some authorities do in the face of civil society scrutiny.

Thank you. Diolch.

Could I just—? I know that we want to make progress, but I just want to push back a little bit. Clearly, you’re keen for non-coal tips to be included, as well as coal tips, so that takes us from 2,500 to about 20,000 tips. You’re not content with desk-based assessments, you’d like boots on the ground to assess those, and you want to expand the scope beyond human welfare. As much as I’d support every one of those, is that really practical, for one authority to be able to do that in a meaningful way, all of that?

Well, I don’t think we’re suggesting changes to the assessments, and if that work has been undertaken it's a case of publishing them, so I don’t think it’s significantly changing that. I do recognise that changing the definition or expanding on 'human welfare' would be additional, but if we’re going to set up a new body, we’d rather get it right the first time and take into consideration all of the relevant threats.

Yes, okay.

Chair, can I just—?

Very briefly, then.

Yes, just briefly. We’ve talked in the past about having a public register of assets, of culverts, ditches and mines, because people on the ground, if it’s open access, they walk these areas. They know, if there’s going to be heavy flooding, what to look out for where, but they’ll need to know who owns them and what the issues might be. And sometimes there are local people with local knowledge and local interest—. We said that they need to know who owns them and where to go in an emergency. We’ve discussed that in the past. So, perhaps, if they have this information on a public site, then it means that they’re part of all of that too. That’s just my input into it.

No, you’re right. It’s all about access to information, isn’t it? Again, publicly available. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Janet.

Notwithstanding your concerns about the timing of the inclusion and evidence base for non-coal tips in the Bill, do you support the creation of the disused tips authority, with the main objective of ensuring disused tips don’t threaten human welfare by reason of their instability?

I think we spoke quite a bit about that at the start, didn't we, really?

Yes. There’s nothing more on this, then.

Okay. Can I ask you about appeals, then? In your paper, you emphasise the need for the grounds of appeal against a section 33 notice to be clear and pragmatic, so that it avoids unmeritorious appeals that seek to delay operations. So, to what extent are you satisfied that the grounds set out in section 36 actually meet those criteria?

So, I think that the grounds as they are set out are set out wide enough to allow appeals that are designed to delay works and to delay the costs that come with those works. I think that that is a risk, and we’ve seen it happen. We saw it happen in Ffos-y-fran. I understand that the nuts and bolts of the appeal process are being worked out currently, and hopefully some of those workings will reduce the possibility of these gaming-the-system-type appeals. I think that part of the incentive, though, to launch an appeal for the purpose of delaying works would be reduced if the appeals are dealt with in a timely way, if they are dealt with promptly. Where those delays in hearing appeals and considering appeals take a very long time, it increases the incentive to launch an appeal for that purpose.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Joyce.

I’m going to talk about guidance, and you’ve crossed over some of it already. A lot of the detail to ensure the effective application of the regime, for example, assessment, monitoring and management, which you’ve discussed, will be included in guidance issued at the discretion of the Welsh Ministers. Is there anything that you want to add on that?

So, yes, there is a lot of guidance, isn’t there?

I think there might be, but I raise the question.

We're pleased to hear that work is under way by civil servants on some of the guidance, and I think that I heard that the committee would be able to see draft guidance.

There's been a commitment to share it with us, albeit after being able to test it with witnesses, but at least it's been offered to us, yes.

Yes, but that is welcome, and, yes, it is crucial that there's scrutiny by the Senedd, but also involvement of the other stakeholders and experts in developing and preparing the guidance. So, I don't think that the authority can work without a lot of this guidance—it's so broad, but it's absolutely necessary. So, I would question where there might be a duty to prepare rather than an enabling power, and with timelines—we like timelines, as you know.

As we do, as a committee.

And also, yes, we understand from this Government that work is under way and things are happening, but we do have an election in a little over a year, so, we do need those assurances for whoever forms the next Government and all the actors involved, including communities—local residents need certainty that this work will continue and can happen. So, I would urge you to look at the different guidance in this Bill and ensure that there are timelines or there are duties where that is essential.

And I would just add, obviously there is a balance, and you heard this from Bob Lee earlier, between making the Bill flexible enough to adapt to future challenges, but also making sure that it is open to scrutiny and cannot be arbitrarily changed from what the Senedd thinks that they are passing. I'm not sure that that balance is right. I think that the guidance might be too broad. I'm also mindful of the election that is coming up in around a year's time and the potential to change quite substantively the work that the authority does by how broadly drafted the guidance is.

I wanted to ask about categories of disused tips. What is your view on the approach to categorisation included in the Bill?

They seem intuitive—more intuitive than the preceding categorisation. Other than that, I have no comment to pass on it.

Yes, I'd agree and they also work better bilingually than the use of the English 'A, B, C, D' alphabet.

Yes, I hadn't thought of that, actually.

Yes, because you'd end up with an 'A, B, C, CH' categorisation, so, yes, 1 to 4 with 1 being more serious—

But there is a fifth as well, isn't there? 

Yes, of course.

Does the Government need to be more upfront about that fifth category as well, because there is a category?

Yes, I hadn't realised that until hearing the evidence in this committee, so it would be worth while making that clear, but, yes, using numbers, with 1 being the most serious, does seem to be logical and commonsense.

Do you think the Bill provides the authority with sufficiently strong powers to ensure tip safety going forwards? And if not, how should the Bill be amended to address this?

Well, I think we raised this as an open question in our written submission, because we don't have the legal expertise to analyse, so it's lucky you've got the Law Commission and UKELA as well. But we have experience of current enforcement within the planning system and things like that, so we're very aware that good enforcement is absolutely crucial. And we're interested in the reference to civil sanctions and things like stop notices that Professor Lee made earlier. So, that would be a good additional tool to add into the Bill. I think we've just got to be ready for all possibilities. We've seen from some of the data provided by the Deputy First Minister that ownership is a very complex situation, and it would be worth while to give the authority as many tools as we can for possible future use, and I think that including civil sanctions would make sense.

Okay. And just finally the importance of community engagement, ensuring that tip safety operations prioritise minimising potential impacts on the well-being of communities. So, how can this be ensured, then, going forward?

Yes, absolutely. So, where there is stability work, those maintenance works are significant and can involve heavy machinery, earth moving, and that creates noise, dust pollution, disruption for local communities. They're not going to be reassured if they face this kind of disruption to make stable tips in their vicinity. I think it would be good to have, on the face of this Bill, considerable weight given to minimising that disruption in any planned works. So, I'm not talking about emergency works here, where a slip might be imminent or having just occurred, but those more planned works that would normally go through a planning system. I understand that there are safeguards within the planning system to minimise these kinds of impacts, but we’ve also seen the same planning system authorise opencast coal mines within a stone’s throw of people’s houses. So, I think that there needs to be a heavier emphasis to deliver that reassurance that the Bill is aiming to do so, and that should be on the face of the Bill, but can also be issued in future planning guidance, and that would materialise in greater consideration given to that community disruption, and in application of section 106 conditions.

We’ve had petitions regarding increasing buffer zones as well to mining, because they’re so narrow and, the impact they have on communities, that's important also.

So, would you expect remedial works also to be considerate of human welfare? If you’re thinking of the scope, then, it’s not just what might happen, it’s as you do the work as well, it’s just as relevant.

Yes, the process of carrying out the work should be done in a way to minimise the disruption to people, and things like air pollution and access to green spaces as well. And yes, it’s really crucial; a lot of communities, especially socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, have had developments foisted on them, or things happen to them in the past, and a lot of these tips are the result of that, so we really need to be mindful of doing things differently and getting it right this time, and putting people and local communities first and foremost, and for the authority to be doing that in a proactive way and from the start.

And another—. We’ve referenced lots of legislation in terms of planning and environment, and another one is the well-being of future generations Act, and, presumably, a new public body, this authority will be subject to that Act, and will need to act in accordance with the ways of working, including involvement and participation in that Act. So, maybe we can draw that out more and make that clear as that goes through as well.

There we are, okay. Any further questions from Members? Delyth first, then Carolyn.

We’ve spoken about lots of the potential unintended consequences of what’s in the Bill. Are there any missed opportunities of things that you think should have been in the Bill but are not?

It’s a difficult one, because it does come down to that scope and making it workable. The committee are aware, when you had the inquiry last summer into the legacy of opencast mining sites, that we were hoping that remediation of those sites could be included in this Bill. We recognise that it’s not within the remit of the authority, and that would have significant cost implications, but the sites still need it, so that issue still needs to be resolved and dealt with for the sake of those communities. And the opencast sites, with the exception of Ffos-y-fran and Glan Lash, would come under the remit of this Bill; they are disused tips, but the fact that this is all about stability work rather than restoration might mean that it’s less likely to deal comprehensively with the matter, and then, of course, Ffos-y-fran remains as a significant concern that won’t be touched by this Bill at the moment.

Sure. Okay, Carolyn?

I was going to ask the same question, because that was raised with the previous person as well, that remediation should be a part of the authority as well. We’ve talked in the past that planning officers will receive planning applications, they should follow them through to make sure that what’s built is built, and then there’s more ownership of it as well, and, again, with the authority, if they make sure that they’re regulating it, but that remediation is also covered, because I think that’s such a big part of it as well.

Can I come in on that?

Yes, final word to you now.

I would agree with that. Obviously, expanding the Bill to cover environmental considerations might make it unfeasible, but even the safety risks associated with not just coal tips, but also opencast coal mine sites—. We’ve spoken with local people, we’ve visited these sites that are supposedly restored; we’ve seen broken-down fences, we’ve seen lifebouys out in the middle of these very deep, very cold lakes. The Welsh Government has said that they will commit to making the Welsh countryside a safer place by dealing with these sites, these under-restored sites. We would welcome the Welsh Government applying a timeline, as we always like timelines, to that commitment.

I would also add that, currently, Ffos-y-fran is looking at a downgraded restoration plan, it's looking at reducing it by tens of millions of pounds. That will add new coal tips to this regime. So, right now, you're looking at—. Over the next few years, more tips will be added to this regime. More tips are currently being created if that application is allowed to be passed, and that is being considered on the basis that the company cannot afford to put right that site. We have yet to see any evidence from that company at all that it is unable to finance that work. We hope that the Welsh Government will investigate those financial claims, because it's tens of millions of pounds-worth of restoration at risk here. The local council has refused to take that action. We hope that the Welsh Government will step up and do that to protect those local communities in Merthyr Tydfil.

Aberpergwm is also currently expanding their coal tip, so that's still growing, and we'll see what happens in 2039 when the planning permission for that coal mine closes. Hopefully, that coal tip will be returned, but there's not been a good track record. We'll see what happens with Glan Lash opencast coal mine, which is currently applying for an extension. If that gets refused, we'll see what happens with that site and its restoration.

Okay. Well, there we are, that's something for us to reflect on as we bring this session to a close. Can I thank you both for your attendance and, as always, for the valuable evidence that you've shared with us, both in written form and, of course, expanded on orally this morning? It feels like the afternoon, but it's still this morning. There we are.

Thank you.

Diolch.

Committee will now break for just under 10 minutes. We'll reconvene so that we can start our next session at 11:15. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

I'll kick off with questions, if I may, and we'll go—

Can I just ask, Chair, am I supposed to be receiving a translation?

You are. But I was going to ask my question in English, so maybe we can sort that out while we carry on.

Okay. I missed your introduction, that's all.

So, you can remove it for the time being, if you think that's more comfortable. 

So, you suggest that the Bill should extend only to disused coal tips until such a time as a full and proper assessment or research has been undertaken into the non-coal sector. Now, of course, the White Paper proposed a regulation-making power to expand the scope of the regime to include non-coal tips at potentially a later date. But the Bill, of course, that we have before us now covers both coal and non-coal tips from the outset, albeit with a sort of staggered work programme. You can take those off.

It's gone again, yes.

Yes, okay.

So, what we have now is a Bill that proposes, obviously, both disused coal tips and non-coal tips, albeit potentially with the non-coal tips element coming online in the 2030s. Would the inclusion of a regulation-making power so that could be introduced at a later date have been more of a reasonable and appropriate approach in your view? Maybe Nick first, and then we’ll come to John.

Yes. From my perspective, the concerns arise largely on the back of the figure of 20,000 disused non-coal tips because—

It’s a lot.

—we have no idea where that figure has come from. I’ve liaised with local authorities. I sit on aggregate working parties with the local authorities and they have not fed into this process to give a figure that would warrant that. My own research has been into a database that the British Geological Survey hold called BritPits. It is open to regulators, I think, for free; it’s open to the wider sector, but I think there may be a charge for certain accesses. Now, the BritPits database for Wales identifies just over 29,000 former sites and operational sites, and this is all commodities. So, it’s coal, it’s slate, it’s everything. Within that database, there are approximately 7,000 coal sites, and, of course, we have an indication that of the 7,000 there are 2,500 coal tips associated with those 7,500 former coal sites. That leaves roughly 22,000 non-coal sites on this database and, of course, we have an indication that there are 20,000 disused non-coal tips. So, whereas the ratio of coal tips to coal sites is a third, we’re talking 90 per cent of sites having, potentially, a non-coal tip, which I think is a gross over estimate. And I firmly believe that until we really know what we’re dealing with it’s dangerous to take the route down for legislation dealing with non-coal tips.

Okay. Can I bring John in? Are those figures that you recognise as well?

There we are. I think you’re automatically unmuted.

They are, yes. We’ve looked at similar sorts of sites within Wales and we would concur with what—or I would concur with what—Nick is saying. It seems to be a large overestimate of what tips there would be on site, at 90 per cent of the total figures, bearing in mind that the restoration of sites, particularly non-coal mines, has been in place since the beginning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, really. So, I would concur with that, that it’s probably an exaggeration of the possible figure.

Okay. Well, that’s something that we can test with Government, isn’t it, really? Thank you for that. Okay. Julie.

Thank you. My first question is to John, to the British Aggregates Association. Your paper states there is no requirement for the Bill, as the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969 and associated regulations already provide a suitable legislative framework for tip safety, and you suggest the 1969 Act and associated regulations should be amended to afford local authorities greater powers for disused coal tip inspections. Could you expand on why you consider this a more appropriate approach than the regime that's outlined in the Bill? And what additional powers do you think would be appropriate for local authorities?

Well, the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act was a result of the Aberfan inquiry. And the regulations—. Everybody, or geotechnical engineers are fairly, or should be or are, familiar with the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Regulations 1971. They've obviously been improved through the quarries regulations and the geotechnical assessments that are undertaken at coal mines, or what were coal mines, both underground and opencast, and at non-coal mines, where you had rock quarries, sand and gravel, and various other mines. You had metalliferous mining, for instance, and lead mining and things like that.

At the moment, the local authorities—. One, they don't have the funds these days, but, two, they can intervene if there's an emergency. Really, the only tweak to that legislation, really, is that they, or a nominated authority, which could be the Welsh Government's department for tips, could intervene at any time and assess the condition of those tips and request information.

So, my personal opinion, looking at it from the BAA's point of view and from a geotechnical engineering point of view, is that I think that we had enough powers with the quarries regulations and the mines and quarries tips regulations of 1971—if that was just slightly changed to allow a nominated Government body to intervene earlier than when there was a fear of instability, shall we say.

So, you think that this Bill is not necessary.

Obviously, the difficulty, particularly in the Welsh coal field, is the amount of tips that there were and how they were positioned, and the topography that they are in. Again, I think that, as I say, the mines and quarries tips regulations of 1971, together with the quarries regulations of 1999 in the approved code of practice, together with a slight change to the powers within Wales of the body that would investigate these tips, is sufficient.

Thank you. And then to Nick: in your paper you state that the powers afforded to the Welsh Ministers under the proposals in the Bill go beyond the powers outlined in the previous two consultations. Could you elaborate on those concerns, and perhaps you could say which of the particular powers you consider to be problematic?

Thank you. My concerns relate primarily to the extension from non-coal to the wider disused regime, largely on the back of—. All goodwill and such like, but I'm fearful that giving Ministers power over something that hasn't yet been quantified could set a dangerous precedent. Until we know where we are, I think that we need to establish that foundation before we start suggesting that powers can be given to do this, to do that, to do the other, because we don't know what powers are needed as yet. Does that make sense?

Not really.

Yes?

Joyce.

Not really. I understand what you are saying about quantifying the need and disputing the figures. But I don't easily accept knowing what you're supposed to be securing, because that's outlined in the Bill. It's about making things safe, in terms of human habitats around it, the environmental habitats around it. So, those things can be dealt with. It's not about data, although we can discuss levels of data. It's about the much wider implications, once you've identified what is clearly in need of futureproofing those sites for all concerned.

Well, two points there. Futureproofing what sites? Are we talking about every site? I don't know because I don’t know what that extent is. But if you look at recent landslips that occurred at the back end of last year, in Wales, there was one coal tip, there were five non-tip associated landslips that I’m aware of. And I do feel that, you know—. I’m not saying it’s an easy target, that a tip is a tip is a tip. Don’t get me wrong, the welfare and safety is critical. However, there are other issues that I feel Welsh Government could potentially be focusing on when it comes to land stability and climate change.

Like?

Well, like I say, two of the slips that I referred to at the back end of November ended up with the closure of railways, two ended up with the closure of roads, one ended up with a threat to a dwelling, so there was that potential impact on life. So, the impact of climate change is going to potentially be a much bigger issue, not just on tips. If we’re going down this route, we should be looking at the geological elements as well. So, ground stability, not just focusing on tips. Does that make sense?

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying.

Yes, okay. Thank you. Are we moving on to Carolyn? Yes.

Okay. Does the sector have a clear picture of the location and type of disused non-coal tips across Wales? You’re saying that the figure of 20,000—you don’t think that’s the case. Do you have a clear picture of where they are and how many?

Only by referencing the BGS database, which is the BritPits database, and that is former mineral workings, and that’s a geographic information-based system. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a tip associated with that mineral working. So, that database is with a Government agency.

Okay. So, other than that, there’s no clear picture, really, of how many, where they are, what sort of status they’re at. Okay. And you believe there’s probably less than 20,000 disused non-coal tips, but you don’t know.

I would suggest, by law of averages, that one tip for every three coal tip and then nine for every ten non-coal tip, I think, is probably quite excessive. It's that level of ratio.

Okay. And are you aware of any research that's been undertaken to assess the risk to human welfare posed by non-coal tips?

No.

Nothing. Okay. Great. Okay.

John, are you aware of anything that's happening in that space?

Well, obviously, a lot of land instability is well reported throughout the United Kingdom, and a lot of it has been road collapses, as Nick says, and railway cuttings and things like that. So, there is a wider issue with instability as we re-engineer our transport links and what have you. I wasn’t aware of any, shall we say, non-coal tips causing issues. Obviously, within Wales, you’ve got the historical slate mines, which, looking at it as a specialist, would probably fall into the category of a similar sort of risk to coal-mine tips. But as Nick quite rightly says, the BritPits register, if we’ve got the same similar sort of ratio of non-coal tips to coal tips, then that’s probably a better assessment. Research-wise, obviously, the local authorities or the mineral planning authorities should have historical evidence of permissions that have been granted since 1947, and they're continually monitored and reviewed. And then the various agencies within Wales, like Natural Resources Wales, they'll probably have some data as well. But I'm not aware of any non-coal tips within Wales that we would say would be high risk at this present time, or, shall we say, a slip has occurred, or there's been some instability, other than, possibly, some of the slate tips.

Okay. There we are. Ideal. Thank you. Delyth.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Good morning to you both. I wanted to ask about something that we've already touched on in earlier answers—sorry, you've already touched on in earlier answers—but to go into more detail on it. In terms of the current safety regime for disused non coal tips, do you think that that is fit for purpose, please? I'll go to Nick first.

I think the challenge is that there is a duty on the local authorities, and the issue relates to resourcing and to skills. Certainly, fragmentation of local authorities hasn't helped that situation. It's not helped any situation to do with the mining element—from planning permissions, through to licensing through NRW. And it will still be fragmented. So, to come back to your point—. Obviously, at the moment, as it stands, from an operational perspective, workplace safety is dealt with by the Health and Safety Executive. The mining waste directive is applied by NRW, and managed by NRW, and then, from a planning consent, you have—as John has already pointed out, the local authorities deal with that. So, we have a number of different regulatory authorities that will still be in place. My concerns are that we'll be getting another authority. I think the scope of what's being proposed has been underestimated, not from the scale of the number of operations, but largely from skills, overlaps and competition for those skills, which I can get to a little bit later.

We will come on to skills later, yes.

On the questions, yes.

That's helpful. Thank you so much. John, was there anything you wanted to add to that?

Yes. As Nick's highlighted there, you've got the HSE, NRW—they permit sites that may well deposit mining waste. The HSE look at all the health and safety of it, and the regulations that they've issued under the Quarries Regulations 1999 require geotechnical assessments and a geotechnical specialist to look at those. The difficulty is, I think—. And the local authorities, or should we say the mineral planning authorities within Wales, will hold quite a lot of data, if it's not been fragmented. In fact, the Coal Authority should still have a lot of information, but, unfortunately, with the Coal Authority, when British Coal was disbanded, the abandoned mine plans went to the Coal Authority, but a lot of the other data that was there, which was about the surface collieries and tips, ended up going to either the British Library, I believe, or the National Archives. The Coal Authority should still have quite a lot of records.FootnoteLink

I think the situation is that a local authority can intervene, pretty much; if there's 1 billion in poor repair, they can then go in and try and remediate that. And if they could intervene earlier, or a dedicated body could intervene earlier, that would be better. But as we've highlighted, I think there just needs to be some more research on who is responsible. Because most quarrying companies, whilst they're working a quarry or when they leave a quarry into restoration, then aftercare, they're responsible for that during that period of time, and they are to leave it in a safe and stable manner, either with your landowner or, if they actually own the quarry, they need to leave that under the regulations for health and safety, but also for the local planning authority to sign it off, that it's been restored and that it's no longer a quarry. So, I think that's the crux of it, really.

Thank you, John. And then in terms of the ownership of these disused non-coal tips, you've stated that the surface could be in one ownership, and that the minerals would be in another ownership, so could you talk us through, please, what challenges you think that, what layered challenges could come out of that?

Do you want me to go first?

Do you want to go first, Nick?

Yes, I'm happy to. Just for clarity, I don't think our representation said that, in most cases, the surface would be severed from the minerals.

But in some. 

,Yes. It is common. It's by no means every site that you will deal with. But one of the challenges relates to, where this severance does occur, there may still be mineral in the tip that is still owned by the mineral owner. And I'm citing this from my experiences of working in the china clay industry. So, of course, china clay has significant tipping issues in the south-west. And that china clay within those tips is still owned by the mineral owner, albeit it's nothing to do with the landowner. Now, there may be issues in relation to trespass in dealing with that mineral. If somebody goes in and tries to deal with a tip that has still got a mineral in it, are there issues of trespass? Does that make sense? It's like chattel: if you sell your house and there's still furniture in there, who owns that furniture? So, if that mineral is dealt with, where the ownership is separate, who owns that mineral? And until recently, it was my understanding that, from a Coal Authority perspective, if anybody did rework a former coal tip, a royalty was payable to the Coal Authority. I think that has changed recently, but I'm not aware of any case law from other minerals where that has been clarified.

I was listening earlier on to the point from Friends of the Earth and their concerns about reworking coal tips. And potentially, one way of dealing with any dangerous structures, any tips, would be to rework them. I'm not saying coal is the right thing, because obviously there are policies, but aggregates have a slightly different policy, or other minerals. So, would the reworking of other tips raise the same issues? Clearly, there are environmental matters that have to be addressed, including dust. Professor Lee highlighted the environmental points this morning. Those would still have to be considered. But I would be wary of restricting any reworking.

So, it's not very clear, and unfortunately at HM Land Registry, when austerity kicked in, as you will have experienced in a number of local authorities, a lot of skills disappeared, and I think it's fair to say that mineral ownership at the Land Registry has not been a priority.

Thank you very much. John, I'm aware of time. Are you happy if I move on to another question, which would be to you specifically? Is that all right? 

Yes, if you wish. It's just that mineral ownership and the rights to actually tip materials on someone's land, it is quite complicated. And the law obviously, as mineral ownership is, it was gold and lead and tin and copper and things like that, and then as we used more and more and more minerals, then other minerals became within the ownership of the lord or the mineral owner, and most of them can be severed in some way from surface ownership. So, I'd agree with Nick on that one.

Just coming to working coal tips, I think you would still need the permission of the Coal Authority because coal is vested in the state, as we know, and at the end of the day, coal is used for other things other than creating electricity. There's still a need for it within the UK for other uses, like water purification and things, and having carbon. But, yes, we'll leave it there and then we'll move on if you wish.

Thank you, John, that's helpful. To you specifically, John, in the paper you suggest that disused coal tips could be covered by the authority and that non-coal tips could continue to be assessed by the quarrying sector, the Health and Safety Executive and the minerals planning authority. Do you foresee that if that were to happen that there could be any challenges coming out of the two different regimes running in parallel, or do you think that they would be surmountable, as in the challenges would be surmountable?

Well, in the minerals industry at this present time, the local authority or the mineral planning authority, the Environment Agency in England and Natural Resources Wales will work together with the local authority, and so will the quarries inspectorate. There should be no reason why the Coal Authority can't do that. They should really all work together. And if there was a body to be set up in Wales, then it might have four representatives from each of those bodies, like the Planning Officers Society who deal with minerals, the HSE, someone from the Coal Authority and someone from NRW, and then some representatives from the minerals industry within Wales, and that could then see that co-ordinated, I would have thought.

Thank you. 

Yes, okay, so just to—. I think I know the answer, but we are where we are in terms of what the Bill is proposing, so within that context, do you not accept that creating an authority gives a focal point, basically, because local authorities are juggling so much at the minute, and you've mentioned the Health and Safety Executive, and NRW would have that environmental focus, but for the authority to have that driving force, if you like, in making sure that things happen on the ground that maybe aren't happening as they should at the minute?

From my perspective, I would love to see a single authority that dealt with everything to do with minerals, so from consenting to permitting and everything—an all-in-one authority within Welsh Government. That is unlikely to happen. The issue with identifying a disused tips authority does go back to the skills issue. We do have the Mining Remediation Authority and, from a skills perspective, I don't think there is a better resource than that. To have a separate authority, in my view, creates a bigger challenge to the skills challenge that the sector already faces, because you will be—. As well as the competition that you get between industry and local authority, you'll get competition from one authority to another. I appreciate that people do move around, but it's an area where everybody does need to be pulling in the same direction. My understanding is that the Mining Remediation Authority does have plans to train up more people, but their constraint has, again, been down to resourcing. So, I can see a benefit, yes, if you have an overarching authority. I think to compete with the MRA is a dangerous precedent. I think to work with them, as maybe having the supervisory body with them and undertaking the nitty-gritty stuff underneath, I think that would probably be, from my perspective, a better approach.

Okay. We'll come on to skills in a moment, so, John, just two things then. First of all, I think you suggested earlier that you didn't feel it was necessary, but would you not acknowledge that having a disused coal tips authority, or a disused tips authority, would at least provide that focus and make sure that it might bring together some of the resources needed to mitigate some of the risks that are out there? And then—[Interruption.] Yes, go on, let's address that first.

I'll be honest with you, I'm of the same opinion as Nick: if there was one authority in Wales that was going to look after all the tips, I don't have a problem with that. What it would do is it would gather all the responsibilities of the local authorities, who are responsible under the Act at the moment, and put them in one place. And then there could be a board or a cabinet or a committee who would look at that, and there could be some people within that department—a bit like the old Department of the Environment, really, at the time, when they looked at mines, in the 1960s and 1970s—to look at this.

First of all, deal with the coal tips and work with the Coal Authority and NRW and the HSE, and probably the coal operators and those licence holders. And then, as that's being wound down and they've all been assessed and risk assessed, and once they've been dealt with, look at the non-coal-mining tips. And, again, that body to engage who they need to engage. But as Nick quite rightly says, the quarrying industry and local authorities and the construction industry are looking to grab those skills of geotechnical engineers and environmental scientists and engineers who can deal with it.

Okay. And—

I don't have a—. We don't have a—. As the BAA, we wouldn't have a problem with there being one overarching body that did have funds to be able to undertake this work.

And given that Nick touched on the skills—. I know we wanted to come to it later, but I think time is beating us, really. So, you agree that the pool isn't big enough and there may be a risk in terms of people being poached from other organisations, and a bit of a merry-go-round happening.

I do, yes. The quarrying sector, the construction sector, as we all know, those skills at this present time, we're trying to entice university graduates, and even school students, into that industry and use that knowledge of engineering and sciences, and it's difficult. We ought to be stepping up to this challenge, including the HSE, BAA, NRW and local government. There's certainly a lack of skills in minerals, all over the UK, to be honest with you.

Yes. And we were aware of local authorities in Wales pooling resources—

They are. That's a good thing as well, yes.

Yes. Okay. Fine. Joyce, we'll come to you. We've got about seven minutes left.

Just, again, looking at—. You raised the concerns about whether the Welsh Government has given enough consideration to the work that's involved in undertaking geotechnical assessments for a tip. Much of the detail to ensure the effective application of the regime, including assessments, will be included in guidance that would be issued at the discretion of Welsh Ministers. What is your view on any advantage or disadvantage of that particular approach?

Is that to John—BAA?

That's to John. Yes, that's to John.

Sorry, yes. I'm looking the wrong way. [Laughter.]

John.

I think, as long as the guidance is taken from the current good practice we use within the Health and Safety Executive, and some other practice and guidance notes that went with the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Regulations as well—. They've been mainly updated in the quarries regulations and the approved code of practice, published in 2013. And then, there's lots and lots of information beside of that, from the Quarries National Joint Advisory Committee, which is the joint council, which gives more details on carrying out geotechnical assessments. As long as it's in line with that, which is what most people are used to at this present time, then I think that will be fine. But to actually start to, shall we say, set up a new set of rules would be difficult.

Okay. Thank you. So, final question from me to you, Nick. Your paper says that you support the right to appeal that's in the Bill. Of course, it doesn't extend to the right to appealing against tip registration or categorisation, although you can make representations; it's specifically a right of appeal against a section 33 notice requiring an owner to carry out operations. Should there be broader rights of appeal?

I personally think there should be. Listening to Professor Lee, he cited an example, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, where there's a right to appeal. My own experience relates to things like historic scheduled monuments where, subsequently, we proved that these weren't scheduled monuments, they were periglacial. We obviously had to spend a lot of money to prove that they weren't scheduled monuments. But that right to appeal earlier on would've negated a lot of the subsequent work that we had to do. So, I think a landowner probably knows better than anybody else what's on his land. In a very early role, when I worked in a local authority, I was charged with looking at all the sites from 1947 that had had a mineral permission. I would go to some of them and despite being a geologist, a chartered planner, I couldn't tell whether they'd been worked. Very often, it's not—. You do need to actually undertake an invasive study, a borehole assessment, trial pits, to determine whether or not a site has been worked or is a tip. So, it's not a case of either looking at a map or necessarily doing a walkover survey; very often, it does need exploratory work. So, that right to appeal I think should be there, to be able to disprove that you shouldn't be on the register, because it's a natural phenomenon, a natural site.

Okay. There we are. I think we've concluded our session. Can I thank you both for your attendance? I very much appreciate the evidence that you shared with us, certainly bringing a different perspective to what we've already heard in our deliberations, and I think that's very, very valuable, both in written form and orally today as well. So, diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you for your presence.

Thank you. Thanks for the invitation.

Thank you.

So, we will continue with our meeting, then.

The next item is for us to note papers 5.1 to 5.3. Are Members happy to note those? Yes. Diolch yn fawr.

Therefore, the next item is for us to move into private session.