Local Government and Housing Committee

Item 2, then, is our first evidence session on our follow-up work on the provision of sites for Gypsy, Roma and Travellers. We have Louisa Devonish joining us remotely. Louisa is the director of Gypsies and Travellers Wales. We are hoping that Martin Gallagher, who is a Gypsy, Roma and Traveller activist, writer and academic researcher, will also join us virtually, but Martin is not in the meeting at the current time. So, we'll begin with our questions to Louisa initially. So, Louisa, welcome—thanks very much for joining committee this morning. We have various questions we would like to ask you and, first of all, my colleague Lesley Griffiths will begin with those questions. Lesley.

Thanks very much, John, and morning, Louisa. The Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments are obviously very, very important in ensuring that local authorities are providing appropriate and sufficient accommodation. There had been, obviously, some delay and some churn in the system, I think, when this committee did an inquiry a couple of years ago, and I was wondering if you had seen evidence that things are now progressing in a much more timely and appropriate manner.

We have seen the provision of some pitches in some areas, but there's still nowhere near the need being met at all. I did some research into—. And just to be transparent, when I joined the organisation in 2015, I was employed to do the field work element of the GTAAs, so I undertook that, but I also project managed and did the field work in the 2021 GTAAs—in Cardiff, I should say—so, I'm quite aware of the process and what it is to undertake the work. So, I did some research, and I could see that the 2015 GTAAs evidenced a need for over 350 pitches. So, I've done a Freedom of Information Act to see how far we are to meeting that. I've only received seven responses, but I think there are about 35 pitches from those seven responses, and four areas have zero pitches. So, although there is some work under way, I don't think we're anywhere near to meeting the need.

Thanks for that. So, it's interesting that you only received seven responses. You mentioned that you understand the work that's required to be undertaken. Would you say the work is onerous for local authorities? Is that one of the reasons why? Would you say it's because the local authorities don't engage with the community in the way that they should? Why do you think that is?

So, from my personal opinion—. I see the guidance says that it's good to get organisations like us that have good relationships with the Gypsy and Traveller community to undertake the work, and we received quite a good response: in 2021, we had 122 responses, I think it was, from the Gypsy and Traveller community, which I think evidences how important it is for those trusted organisations—. If you look at the reports that were completed, around 10 were undertaken by consultancy firms. Now, it says within these reports that they're experts, some are experts in the field of working with Gypsies and Travellers, but I would like to see that evidenced. I don't think they're working day to day with Gypsies and Travellers.

So, I think there's—. These are funded pieces of work, so work could be given to organisations that are working on the ground and are trusted with Gypsies and Travellers to undertake this work. So, it is onerous because it's hard work getting in contact, but, if you've got the data to know where the community are that you want to engage with, you're one step ahead. I was looking at our database today, and we have around 800 Gypsies and Travellers on our database in Cardiff that we work with and about 638 of those are housed Gypsies and Travellers. Now, that accounts for—. There are probably a few people per household, but that's still over 200 households that we've got. So, you need the data to start with, and I think that you need to be confident that you know where that community is before you're undertaking the work, and if you're not confident that you can—. We know where local authority sites are, so you've got one step ahead where you can identify the sites, and the community may or may not engage with you, but if you don't know where those housed Gypsies and Travellers are, then, in my opinion, you're not going to be able to do a robust piece of work in engaging with the community.

I think there was one local authority that tried to conduct five interviews and were only successful at interviewing two members of the community. I'm not sure if that passed and if that was classed as adequate; I'm not sure if that was asked to be redone, but I would suggest that that's not giving proper insight into the needs in that area.

You mentioned earlier on that in those seven responses you knew there were 35 pitches and, clearly, if local authorities aren't completing the assessments as they should be, that is going to impact on provision. Would you say, in your discussions in Cardiff, that that is obviously having an impact on the community?

Yes. It's having a massive impact on the community. There are people living on pitches that are really overcrowded. And, quite often, the only way to get a pitch when it comes up is if you're going through the homelessness system. So, it means that people, who may have waited it out on the waiting list and doubled up on pitches, will put themselves through the homeless process so that they ensure that pitch. They are homeless, but they wouldn't ordinarily go into hostel accommodation. But then that further exacerbates the homelessness situation in places like Cardiff, because there's a set of people who also use that service. So, it has far-reaching implications, not just for Gypsies and Travellers, but also for other people who rely on that system.

Okay, I'm really interested in that point. So, you are saying that there are members of the community that go into hostels specifically to try and—?

Yes, and it's not good for—. If you've lived on a site all your life, you don't want to be—. Nobody wants to go into a hostel, but, unfortunately, sometimes you have to. But the implications for mental health and also people who have big families and lots of children and living in one room for—. I had a community member who had six children, and they lived in one room for a year while they waited for accommodation, and that accommodation ended up being bricks and mortar because there were no pitches available.

Okay, thank you, Louisa. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks very much, Lesley. Siân Gwenllian.

Good morning. I'd like to look at transitory provision. The assessments look at these as well as permanent sites and, in the committee's inquiry two years ago, it came to our attention that there was a lack of transitory provision, and that this was a consistent problem. And I think there are still only two places across Wales, although there was a target in the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' to create at least five. What's your opinion about the lack of transitory provision, and is there a different way of meeting this need? And could you also tell us what the impact is of not having enough transitory provision on families in the community we're talking about today?

Okay, that's quite a lot of questions. I'll try and answer them all. Just thinking about people that practice their nomadic way of life and travel around Wales, part of what we're commissioned to do, through Cardiff local authority and Newport, is to visit unauthorised encampments and do the welfare check. So, obviously, with no transit provision or negotiated stopping places, that means there are no legal places that people can stay and live the way of life that they want to. So, that has massive implications—constantly being moved on.

If you look at some of the GTAAs and the way that they're carried out, there's evidence that there are a lot of unauthorised encampments in certain areas. I think there was one that it evidenced in north Wales—over the space of nine years, there were over 100 unauthorised encampments. Also, through the survey, community members expressed the need for transit provision. But in the reports, some of them say, 'no need for transit provision', which just does not make sense to me at all. There seems to be a bit of back and forth on whether it should be transit provision or negotiated stopping places.

I think, really, there are differences, but there's a real need to provide something. And even if we can look at providing something temporary until the decision's made about whether or not it should be one or the other, then there's a desperate need, because with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which further criminalises people just trying to live their way of life, there is a desperate need.

I do know that nine of the local authorities in the south-east of Wales were looking to commission a piece of research on transit need. So, we were asked to comment on the proposal over the summer. I presume that’s in the pipeline—that being done—but I haven’t heard anything further. But that feels like a positive step, if that is being done.

And we are aware of areas—. We were asked recently to get involved in a place that’s been used as a stopping place since the 1990s in Machynlleth. They’re looking at now turning that into a car park, which is just devastating for the community that use that piece of land. And you would think that pieces of land like that would be perfect for negotiated stopping, but there seems to be something stopping that from happening.

Yes, and the simple question is: what’s stopping this from happening, of course? And do you, therefore, not accept what’s being said by local authorities, that there is no evidence? You’re saying that there is evidence, because there are all these sites that are unauthorised—100 of them you said. Could you elaborate on that a little, please?

Yes, I need to look at my spreadsheet now. So, yes, there was—I’m just going through it—

Because it seems to me that that is concrete evidence of the need, if there are so many unauthorised encampments happening.

Yes. So, in this area that I’m looking at, they said that they weren’t sure if there was transit need, but there might be a negotiated stopping need where there are 103. In the 2015 GTAA, it expressed that there was a need for transit provision, so there’s something not quite right here. It’s not really adding up, is it, if it’s previously expressed need?

And, I don’t know—. It’s not all local authorities. Some have said there’s definitely a need. I’ve read one where it says that there’s a big need for transit provision, so it’s definitely not all. But I would query who it is that is conducting this research that said there’s no transit need. So, that would be an interesting point, I think, to look at.

Certainly, we do need to look at the research. And there’s been mention that the Welsh Government intends to commission additional research in order to make recommendations. Do you think that this needs to be done—this additional work?

Yes, definitely, I think that would be really well received, in consultation with the community, definitely.

And then, what about that regional approach? Do you think that that’s part of the barrier as to why there aren’t these transitory places? Do we need a regional approach, with local authorities working together, perhaps?

Yes, and it seems like they are in the south-east—there are nine local authorities working together. So, I definitely think that that approach would really work and be good, and give a really good picture of what the need is.

Do you think that there are differences across Wales, therefore? You’ve mentioned that there’s good practice in the south-east. Perhaps that good practice isn’t being seen in other areas of Wales—north Wales, perhaps, tends to be behind.

It’s difficult to say. Because we work primarily in south-east Wales, obviously we see the good work that goes on down here, and my understanding from north Wales is just in reading the GTAA. So, obviously, I couldn’t give a full picture on that, sorry.

No, that's fair enough. Thank you very much, Chair.

Diolch yn fawr, Siân. Louisa, could I just ask, in terms of stopping places and transitory provision, how easy or difficult is it to work out the sort of travel patterns and numbers? Would it be possible to do some work to look at that, and, on that basis, have at least a general idea of where the needs of these sites—stopping places or transitory sites—are? Or is it very changeable and difficult to predict?

I know, locally, that, often, the police liaise with Travellers around unauthorised encampments. There’s a sort of communication channel, and the police then facilitate stopping and make clear how long it will be accepted that the Travellers remain at the stopping place that's identified, but I don't know how regular and predictable those patterns are. Would you have any idea?

It's difficult to say, really. I think there are regular places where people pull up, but it's getting more and more difficult, because people are moved on so frequently. I believe all local authorities record their unauthorised encampments and where those are. So, I think probably looking at that data would be a starting point to see where those sites are needed, but again, also liaising with the Gypsy and Traveller community and finding out from them where they think they would be needed would be the most valuable information, I think.

Yes. Okay. I guess it's very different now to perhaps years ago where there was this idea that the Gypsy, Traveller community travelled at particular times of the year for particular events or work opportunities and that sort of thing. It's very different now, isn't it?

I was speaking to an encampment recently that we'd visited in Bridgend and I asked them how they travelled, and they said that during the summer months, during the six months, they travelled, and then during the winter months, they would rent on a private site—they would rent a pitch.

So, I don't know if that's true of all people, but there are definitely still Gypsies and Travellers that like to continue the travelling tradition in the way they've always done. I just think it's a lot more difficult now and a lot more stressful, just constantly being asked to move on and there not being the provision of anywhere to put your waste or toileting facilities, and then the backlash you get from the wider communities because there is rubbish. But it's very difficult to dispose of your rubbish—it's difficult for people living in houses to dispose of their rubbish because of restrictions, let alone when there's not provision to dispose of your rubbish, if that makes sense.

Yes, no, sure. Yes. Okay. Thanks, Louisa. Lee Waters. Lee.

Thanks. I'd like to understand the Gypsy and Traveller sites capital grant a bit better. It seems quite muddled to me. I wonder if you could just give me your general view on the grant and the way it's used, and the guidance and criteria around it.

I could give you a very brief—. I'm not an expert on the capital grant, but my understanding is that it's there to pay for sites to be provided, but also for sites to be upgraded as well. I did come across data recently on how much was spent, but I couldn't find it again for this inquiry. I noted in one year that nothing was spent on it, so, it's there, but I don't think it's being utilised as much as it should be or could be, given that there's a clearly demonstrated need to provide sites, even though the need that we're shown probably isn't the actual need, given the difficulties in engaging with so much of the community to actually find out the need.

Yes, so, certainly there have been years where there has been significant underspend, and as you rightly said, one year, there was no spend at all, but that has improved. So, it does seem to be a situation that's getting better, but I was just wanting to tease out whether or not you thought the criteria were overly rigid. But if this is not something that you're particularly across, then I'm—

Sorry, I'm not an expert in—.

No, that's absolutely fine. Do you have any general thoughts on the way that local authorities are able to use funds to support the development of sites?

One of my thoughts is the difficulty in securing land and the length of time it takes to do that. So, I imagine that would impact on using the grant, if it's difficult to get that land in the first place, or if it takes so long. There seems to be a real problem identifying suitable land for some local authorities, despite them really trying to identify that land. So, I think that's definitely something Welsh Government could offer support with.

Okay, thank you. Can I ask you a more general question about just the relationship with communities, because as you said earlier, many Gypsies and Travellers feel very stressed about the reception they receive in areas they move to? Obviously, from a local authority point of view, and certainly my experience locally is that the local ward members are often opposed, because local residents are making representations to them, and so the officers feel in a difficult position, caught between the Welsh Government telling them on the one hand that they have to make provision and the local ward members and local public pushing them in the other direction. What's your general sense of the way that public acceptability plays in all of this, and what more can be done to manage that better?

I think the problem is there's still widely held racism and discrimination towards Gypsies and Travellers, and a real lack of understanding about the community. And that, unfortunately, makes people quite ignorant about the community. It's very unfounded. A lot more work needs to be done to ensure that the wider community understands about Gypsies and Travellers and their needs, and the fact that, actually, they do have rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, they're a recognised race and they should be able to live the life they've lived for hundreds of years.

One point that I thought was really interesting in some of the reports was that the use of the term 'Gypsies and Travellers' wasn't capitalised; it used lower case letters, which is unacceptable. And that just shows that this community isn't being recognised in the way that they should. I think it's often fear from the general public. So, a lot of work needs to be done to make people understand why this community should be able to live in the way that they want to and need to, because it's their culture. And I think there have been suggested ways of doing this: it being on the curriculum in school, being taught about Gypsies and Travellers. And I think that would remove the fear and just make people understand a bit more and get to know this community. I hope that answers your question.

It does, and I completely understand your point on the rights. In terms of the responsibilities of Gypsy/Traveller communities to their neighbours, there is often a perception from residents about anti-social behaviour. How do you think that that's best managed?

But that's true of any community. There's always anti-social behaviour, and that probably accounts for a very small amount of the Gypsy and Traveller community. I'd need to see the evidence that there's more ASB among Gypsies and Travellers than there is among the general population. I just think that it sounds a bit like fearmongering to me, sorry.

On the point about the difficulty in disposing of rubbish and recycling, do you have any practical suggestions of how that can be addressed?

Yes, so when an authorised—. There have been areas previously where, when authorised encampments have pulled up, there's been provision to dispose of rubbish. Community members could be charged for this; I'm sure they'd be happy to pay. I've visited unauthorised encampments before, and one of my questions is: how can we help you? What do you need? And they were like, 'What do we do with our rubbish? Can you provide something for us to dispose of our rubbish and can you provide toilets?' And that's not for free. They'd be happy to pay.

Do you have a sense of how many local authorities do that?

Very few, I think. Sorry, I don't have any data at all, it's just anecdotal.

Sure. Okay. But that's an area you think, a practical way—. You think it would be helpful if we were to think about recommendations in that area.

Definitely, because it would save the cost of rubbish removal in the long run.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Lee. Louisa, we just touched on, and you just touched on, the issues around prejudice and discrimination against the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller community, and one way forward in dealing with those issues, and issues generally, is through the Welsh Government's 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. And a key aim within that was to commission a three-year pilot programme for independent trusted advice to those who would be interested in developing private sites. We've got a three-year contract awarded to an organisation to provide that advocacy support, I think it started just last month. What's your understanding of that? Do you believe that this contract fulfils the requirements in that action plan with regard to these matters?

So, my understanding is that they're two separate things. So, the pilot is separate to the advocacy provision. That's correct, isn't it? I understood the pilot was looking into private planning, but it hasn't happened as yet, and the advocacy provision—yes, that’s happening and it’s been happening for a number—. That organisation has been funded for a number of years to provide that advocacy support to the community, and they do an excellent job of it. Obviously, there could be more money spent on providing provision, advocacy and advice support to Gypsies and Travellers across Wales, but what’s in place currently in terms of the advocacy is doing a really good job.

Okay, Louisa. So, your understanding is that, in terms of advocacy, generally, it's an extension of the existing arrangements, basically. But in terms of the development of private sites, you're not quite sure what's happened with that work and the support that might be available to facilitate that.

No. I've had community members come to me because they’d heard about the pilot and they were initially talked to about being involved with it, but then they’d heard nothing more regarding it, and they came to us to ask us if we were aware of that, and we’re not really aware of what is going on with it. What I will say is that a project that has access to a planning officer, people with expertise in planning, is really needed. There are so many issues that would not happen if Gypsies and Travellers could access planning support that was tailored specifically to their needs—advice around whether the land they were looking to buy would pass planning, and then also the infrastructure that they need on that land to make it liveable, and how they would go about getting grants for that and whether they exist. So, that would be really preventative work, I think.

Yes, so do you see addressing those planning issues, Louisa—is that best addressed through this sort of pilot programme as far as private sites are concerned, which hopefully might come about, or is it by finding a way of facilitating that engagement and contact between the actual planning departments and the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller community, or is it a bit of both?

I think an expert on the project, who had expertise in Gypsies and Travellers and in something that the community could access directly—I think it might be difficult if it was planning departments, whether the community members could access them directly—would be key so that they could go straight for the advice, and I’m sure they would. I know community members who are going through private planning, accessing Planning Aid Wales, but, obviously, their funding is limited and the amount of support they can give is limited. So, if there was something that offered a lot of support around that, I think it would be really well received.

From your engagement with the community, Louisa, do you have a view in terms of the desire for those smaller private sites as compared to the bigger sites that we see? Would the community favour one over the other generally, or are you not in a position to know or—?

I would love to give my opinion, but I don't think my opinion is particularly valid. I think it needs to come from community members. From my—. I think it would be like people accessing social housing and people buying private houses. That's what I would compare it to, but that is just my opinion and that might not be correct. But there's definitely a need for both—we can see that, because people are going for planning permission for private sites and there's a big demand for pitches on local authority sites.

Have you come across the issues with difficulty in obtaining planning permission that seems to suggest a bias against the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller community, Louisa? Have you got any particular examples or would it be more anecdotal?

It would be more anecdotal and it’s difficult to know what people are thinking, isn’t it, when they’re doing planning? I’ve read planning applications and on some of the information in there, or the reasoning, you think, ‘Is that really right?’ There was one that I read recently and they said that where the private site was proposed wasn’t close enough to local amenities. The local amenities it suggested were 2 km away, which, personally, I don’t think is too far away at all. How close do they need to be? And also within that same planning application, it suggested that they could access local authority sites to live on, but, in that area, there were no spaces on the local authority site. So, yes, there seems to be a lack of understanding, I think, by some people, maybe, doing the planning applications.

Sticking with the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', and, indeed, the recommendations that this committee previously made, one key aim was to pilot additional or new ways of funding permanent provision, and explore the feasibility of a mobile home rental scheme. Are you aware of any progress in relation to those?

I don't think there is any progress that I'm aware of, but it's really needed, the mobile homes rental scheme. So, currently in Wales, there's only one company that rents mobile homes to Gypsies and Travellers that I'm aware of, and a lot of the mobile homes that they rent are not a very good standard. I've seen damp mobile homes and just ones that really aren't great to live in, but because there's only one that community members seem to be able to access, there's nothing else, you often find that people are living in caravans and mobile homes that aren't really good enough. So, if there was socially rented provision, or whatever the scheme would look like, I think it would be really good and really well received. I was on a site in mid Wales this week, and they don't have the option of renting homes. They won't get any housing benefit or any kind of housing element of universal credit to rent mobile homes, which means—. There's one woman living on there, and she was living in a 30-year-old mobile home that was leaking and just dreadful, really. So, yes, it's really needed.

Presumably, Louisa, if there's a sort of monopoly position for a business, then presumably the charges made might be on the high side as well. Is that something that you've come across?

Yes, lot there are a lot of issues around the charges and the way that charging is done. I think that would need to be looked into further. I don't think I could really comment on it today, but, yes, it's definitely something that we've been in discussion with other organisations about, that the way they charge is not great.

Okay, Louisa, thanks for that. James Evans. James.

Thanks. Good morning, Louisa. I want to talk about capacity issues. So, given the historical concerns regarding the lack of capacity within the Welsh Government to address the needs of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities—that was highlighted in the committee's previous evidence from the Cabinet Secretary; she acknowledged that there were staffing and capacity challenges. But it was mentioned in that as well that there had been a recent strengthening of the team within Welsh Government. Do you think that's had any noticeable impact on your work with engagement with the community, and are there any specific examples of how this increased capacity has led to improved outcomes and more effective collaboration with the community? Because I always think it's quite good to actually see any realistic examples coming forward of how this has helped.

Okay. So, yes, the new team are excellent. It's really good to have a number of officials that are working within the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller arena. They engage with us regularly; we meet monthly with the team. We tell them about what's going on with the work we're doing, and we're aware they're working on the guidance for the GTAAs. We've invited them along to meetings that they've attended and listened into with community members. I know that they've gone out onto sites across Wales and engaged with community members, just to find out about their experiences. So, yes, the work seems really good.

But, obviously, it's really early on. I think they might have only been in post for a year—I could be incorrect on that—but you can see a real difference in the last year from what it was previously. So, I think it's really positive that we've got this team, and how well they engage with us and other organisations that work with Gypsies and Travellers and how they're trying to engage with the communities. So, hopefully, it will result in positive outcomes.

That's really good. Are there actually people in that policy team from the community, who have been part of that community before, or is there no-one in the team who has been from that part of the community, they're just different civil servants?

Do you mean part of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller team—

Yes, I do.

I don't think so, but I couldn't 100 per cent comment on that. I think they're a new team. But I could be wrong, sorry.

Do you think those teams could be strengthened if somebody from the community was actually on them with that lived experience? Do you think that's something that the Welsh Government should look to do?

Yes, definitely. That would be excellent. As an organisation, we recently put a job advert out that said that we would really welcome somebody from the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community to apply for our role, but we often don't get applications. We do have trustees who are from the community, but it would be great if community members could be in these roles, because their voices are much more important than mine, and, again, as officials within the Welsh Government, yes.

I just want to move on slightly. I haven't got too many questions on capacity, but on the capacity within local government, the Cabinet Secretary previously said that the capacity issues weren't solely confined to the Welsh Government. The Welsh Local Government Association even highlighted that as well in previous evidence sessions and letters, saying that with all the capacity and resource issues that local government have with all the statutory obligations that they've got to meet, sometimes things slow down and don't get delivered quickly. So, I'm interested to know, with the capacity issues in local government, how do you think that's impacting pace of delivery, and are there any examples of local authorities that are trailblazing in this area on the engagement side, putting teams in place and actually getting stuff done for the community? I'd be interested to know, as I said, any examples around that as well. If the challenges are persisting in local government, how do think that they could strengthen the work that they're doing?

I can only really answer in relation to Cardiff and Gwent. They commission us to do their advice and liaison services, and also carry out the unauthorised encampments. Obviously, they're meeting the demand by employing our organisation to cover the work that they need to undertake with Gypsies and Travellers. We're a really busy organisation. Currently, in Cardiff, we have 160 people with open cases, and we're able to meet that demand by working quickly and being really knowledgeable in the areas that we work in. Again, in Gwent, we're commissioned to carry out those services.

You can see within the guidance for the GTAAs that it states that trusted organisations, when they're carrying out the field work, are good examples of ways of working with Gypsies and Travellers, and, again, that's in services like the ones that we provide. It's a good way of meeting Gypsies and Travellers' needs. I'm not sure how that's replicated across the whole of Wales, but it works well in the areas and we work well with local housing officers in the areas that we work in, and we have good relationships and meet regularly. I think we're a responsive and reactive service, and we're able to quickly meet the needs of the community.

I had some questions on how you think it might have improved over the last couple of years, but, obviously, you can only speak for the Cardiff and Gwent area. I can't ask you to say how that's improved, say, in north Wales or mid and west Wales, for example. If you want to comment on that, I'd be quite grateful.

We're looking at making a pan-Wales service. We have a pan-Wales advice line that we will be starting next month. We're just hiring for it at the moment. Because we're called Gypsies and Travellers Wales, we get a lot of requests from all over Wales for support, especially around housing issues or benefits issues. So, we're going to trial this pan-Wales advice line and look for further funding to have provision like ours on the ground in all areas across Wales. I did a mapping exercise across Wales, and met with liaison officers that work in those areas. I did speak to somebody in north Wales and they said that it would be good to have organisations like ours working alongside them. Sometimes, community members don't want to go to the local authority. They do sometimes, but sometimes they don't want to access the local authority for their support needs, so it's good, sometimes, to have other organisations working just for them, that are kind of independent, that can support their needs. Speaking to some liaison officers, they say there definitely is a need for further support. But some suggest that although they're working really hard and they're really busy, they feel that they aren't meeting the needs of the community. I guess that can only be assessed by speaking to community members and seeing how they feel, and if they feel that there's a need for further services and if their needs are being met in a timely way.

Just one question, if that's okay, Chair. It's on Lee's point about engagement with wider communities, not just the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Do you think local government have got a role there? It does happen, there are communities that do get fearful when they hear that they're going to have Gypsy, Roma and Traveller housing next to an area. Do you think local government have got a role to play there in actually allaying some of the fears around the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, or do you think that they don't do enough work around that area? Is that something where you think, with capacity in the Welsh Government, there needs to be a little bit of work? Because I'll speak from experience: when I was a county councillor and we built a Roma and Traveller site in Powys, I had about 500 e-mails from people in that community saying, 'We don't want them next to us' and I was actually trying to tell the housing department, 'You need to go out and speak to people about what's going on'. That got met with a lot of resistance, actually. So, I'm just interested in what role you think local government needs to play in actually engaging with the wider community to allay some of the fears about housing being developed in their areas.

Yes, definitely. They could engage and allay those fears. There are barriers that need to be broken down, and if people understood about the community a bit more and realised that some of the stuff being said is just fearmongering and prejudice and isn't actually true, then I think it would go a long way to making the community more accepted. They're one of the nicest communities I've ever worked with, they're so welcoming and so grateful of the support that you give them, a lot of the people I've worked with, and it really is a pleasure to work with them and give them the support. It's a shame that a lot of the wider public don't get to experience what I experience when I'm working with this community.

I think it's just unacceptable that it's allowed—. You see these protests against sites and it's just racism and prejudice; it's just unacceptable. Where do these fears stem from? What are they so worried about? That needs to be addressed. I definitely think local government could play a part in that. If those fears didn't exist, I think it might be a lot easier to get planning permission and get these sites built and get this community's needs met, which is long overdue.

I do agree, because there is a fear, isn't there—it's like people are scared to go and approach the community in one respect. In my own ward, for example, I had to get—. In Powys, we do actually have a liaison officer between the two. Because the community put horses in the local play park and people were too frightened, actually, to go and approach the community to ask them if they'd take the horses away and it actually came to a local government officer to go around, and that local government officer went with the police, as well, because they were a little bit nervous about going to ask the question. So, I think there is a little bit of breaking down the fear that needs to be done. I actually went and asked myself, because I thought it was my job, as a county councillor, to do it. But it's one of those things. I think there is a role for local government to play here, as I say, about breaking down barriers and fears around the community.

Yes, definitely.

Louisa, have you noticed any shift in recent years in terms of the sort of culture within local authorities at officer, member and leadership level? I know it's a pretty difficult question, but have you noticed any shift at all?

We meet regularly with senior members of staff in Cardiff and they seem really keen to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers and to make sure their needs are met. They fund us, so it's obviously high on their agenda, and the same in Gwent—this doesn't happen across the whole of Wales; organisations like us aren't funded. So, there are obviously some local authorities—at senior level, because they make the decisions—that are really keen to ensure that the needs of Gypsies and Travellers are met. I just think that there are other barriers to getting the sites built, and I think it really needs unpicking about why that is.

Louisa, diolch yn fawr. Altaf Hussain.

Thank you, Chair. Louisa, I hope you're feeling better now—you have to do a lot of talking. My question is about the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales's report and the extent to which the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community are aware of the ombudsman’s report and findings on its investigation into complaints from two Traveller families against the Welsh Government. What impact has it had in your view, those two families who had a complaint about the Welsh Government?

I think the ombudsman's report is great, because it showed in their favour. I think it's put a bit of spotlight on the needs of Gypsies and Travellers and the need for site provision, and hopefully the impact of that will get things moving a bit. And obviously, inquiries like this are happening and we've got a full team at the Welsh Government, so I think maybe that's the impact. I think it's a really positive impact, and hopefully, in a few years' time, it will facilitate things moving along more. So, yes, I think it has impacted. I can't really explain more than I have, but, yes, I'd think it's a good thing, and it's positive for the community that it found in their favour.

Thank you for that. How significant, in your view, was the ombudsman’s ruling that article 8 of the convention on human rights was engaged, contributing to a situation where the rights of these two families to have their family life respected may have been compromised?

I think it's significant, because it's given recognition to the community and their rights, and their human rights, so it's hugely important.

Yes, absolutely. That's right. Chair, these were two simple questions, really. Thank you very much.

Just on that, Louisa, would it have resonated, do you think, the ombudsman's report and findings, in the community? Would it be widely known about and hopefully encourage the community to understand that there are avenues to pursue to make sure that the rights that they have, which definitely do exist, do count for something?

I'm not sure if it is known, but that's a really good point and it's a piece of work we could do, because I think it would be a really positive example, wouldn't it, for the community. I think it's definitely something we and other organisations that work with the community should be sharing and making them aware of. It gives more power, doesn't it, to the community? That's a really good point and something we'll take on board as an organisation.

Okay, Louisa, if there are no more questions from committee members, I'd just very much like to thank you for joining us this morning to give evidence and answer our questions, particularly because our other witness, Martin Gallagher, was not available. We're not quite sure what's happened with Martin, maybe it's a technological issue. But thank you very much for being with us, Louisa. Your evidence is very useful for us. Diolch yn fawr.

No problem. Thank you.

Thanks very much to everyone. We will break briefly before our next evidence session.

Welcome back, everyone, to our further evidence session on the provision of sites for Gypsy, Roma and Travellers, and our follow-up work. I'm very pleased to welcome, joining us virtually, Elliw Llŷr, housing policy manager for the Isle of Anglesey County Council; Ian Bakewell, head of housing, Monmouthshire County Council; Dave Jolly, resettlement co-ordinator, Flintshire County Council; Steph Hopkins, development manager, Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council; John Raine, development plans team manager, Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council; and Bob Smith, principal planning officer for Pembrokeshire County Council. Thank you all very much for joining committee this morning. We will have a number of questions, as I'm sure you'll know, firstly from Lesley Griffiths—Lesley.

Thanks very much, Chair. Bore da, bawb—good morning, everyone. I'm going to ask some questions around the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment. Obviously, that's the framework within which you have to work in order to provide sufficient and appropriate accommodation for the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. It's got a very rigid time frame of five years. So, I'm interested to know—and I appreciate that there might be some variation from all of you, so, if you've got something different to say, perhaps, to the first person who answers, we'd be really interested to hear that—I really want to know whether you think that that is the best way of enabling you to be able to get that information that you need. I'm interested to know how you engage with the community itself and also how you engage with the public, because, as you're doing those assessments, I think it's very important that you engage with your local population. So, I don't know who wants to go first. Nobody.

Any volunteers? [Laughter.] Ian.

I'll try and get the ball rolling. From a Monmouthshire perspective, and I suppose from a personal perspective, I've found the guidance really helpful. At the end of the day, it's still a relatively new process, and, in terms of us implementing the assessment, it was really helpful. I think there are, obviously, opportunities, then, for this to further evolve, and I think one of the things that would be useful—. There used to be a Gypsy and Traveller forum organised, and that, unfortunately, doesn't happen, but I think it would be good if that, or something similar, was reinstated.

I think, probably, one of the things that's been helpful from a Monmouthshire perspective—and this probably where we differ, because we're a smaller authority and our population is smaller—is we were able to—. We've approached it in two different ways—one we've used staff to go out and engage directly with households, and that did work really, really well, because it enabled us to develop a bit of a relationship with those individuals, so, when we're considering the outcome, we know who we're actually talking about. But I do recognise that would, obviously, be difficult for authorities such as Cardiff, who've got a far bigger population.

But I think the question about the idea of it being at set points does—. You can see, if you like, the disadvantage with that, because the need in the area changes all the time; it's a very fluid need. We've found that—. Well, we've found many changes with our need from the one that we did three or four years ago, and we're in a position where the numbers of people on our Gypsy and Traveller assessment have almost completely changed. So, I think the idea of it being done on an ongoing basis in some way—I don't know how best exactly that would be done—I could see the benefits of that. And I suppose that's where having a waiting list would be really important, again, so you know confidently that people want to live in the area and probably know and would have information about whereabouts in the area they would like to live as well.

Thanks. Before I see if anybody wants to come in—sorry, I can see Dave wants to come in—could I just ask you: you said that staff go and engage with households, do you mean the Gypsy and Traveller community, or did you mean members of the public?

No, we did literally—. We established a forum to identify the households in the area—a multidisciplinary forum—and then—. I did it myself, to be honest, actually. There were two or three of us. We literally went out and met the individual households ourselves. That was the first time. The second time we used consultants.

Okay. You also mentioned the Gypsy and Traveller forum that used to be. Is that the Welsh Government forum?

Yes, the one that John Davies used to co-ordinate. That was very good, that was.

Okay. I'd be interested to know anybody else's view around that as well, Chair.

[Inaudible.]—I think Dave had his hand raised.

Thanks, Chair. Agreeing in context around Ian's observations, I think where we are in Flintshire is, obviously, we're similar in as much around Cardiff, that, the volume of presentations we have around unauthorised developments, I think we're up to about 25 now in the county, which is a huge pressure, and, obviously, then impacts on confidence around the settled community, and that interaction between the settled community and those members of the GRT community. I think, again, the GTAA has probably been used almost for local authorities to say that we are recognising the unmet need of families, and the currency around that process being undertaken every three or five years, depending on when we did ours, doesn't actually reflect the transient nature of the families who move into the area without notice, who acquire land at short notice, obviously, usually under the pretence of something, but, obviously, it usually becomes an unauthorised development. And then, obviously, you have that confrontation then between the planning team around the fact that the GTAA says that unmet need for ourselves is 35, there are plans amongst the existing families and with the local authority to meet that unmet need, albeit there's no time frame around when those pitches will become available, and then you've got families then saying, ‘Well, we've just secured this piece of land, which will support our five or six extended family. We want that planning’, and obviously then planners will turn around and say, 'Well the GTAA says this, we're on track to meet our unmet needs, so therefore it would not be appropriate to support the planning application.' And then we'd obviously go around the houses with appeals and stuff. So, I think, for me, the GTAA shouldn't necessarily be the panacea to decision making from all agencies. It should enable an informed decision and encourage that dialogue between the families, the planning agents, the local authority and the wider community. But, at the moment, I think we're almost using the GTAA to reinforce a planning decision that doesn't necessarily put the families at the forefront of the decision-making process.

[Inaudible.]—the GTAA might work in that way, which I'm sure would be, I would have thought, a sort of unintended consequence, really. But, yes, that's something perhaps we can explore further. Sorry, who's got their hand raised? It's Elliw.

Yes, just a bit of background in terms of Ynys Môn's perspective: we've collaborated with Gwynedd for the two past GTAAs, and we've published the assessment jointly with them; we've worked in partnership with them. We invited consultants to do the questionnaire with Gypsies and Travellers, because we felt that we had a good relationship with the community and we didn't want to be seen to be influencing any output from that questionnaire. So, we undertook that independently of the council.

I also welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has a portal to record how encampments occur during the year. That's evidence then for you to be monitoring during the period between assessments. And also it contributes the evidence to the assessment that follows; it's a central part of it. It's not the council that reports on it. It isn't the council that says, 'Well, this is the encampment and what the need is.' So, I welcome the two evidence methods, that they are, indeed, independent of the council in that regard. Thank you.

Diolch, Elliw. John, you wanted to come in.

Thank you. Yes, I was just going to make a comment from a planning policy point of view. In terms of the use of the GTAA assessment method, it obviously sets out the needs for the next five years, which are based on interview data with Gypsies and Travellers in the community. So, the need for the five years can be more robust, but it does then extrapolate that out over the replacement plan period, and there are assumptions and household growth rates that are applied to that. It can become dated quite quickly, and if you're only reviewing that every five years then—. Our housing solutions manager has mentioned that the need data can become dated within one or two years, and it is recognised that it's quite a resource-intensive process to do that. So, a system where you could review the figures annually or continuously to reflect the realities of households coming into the area, or just moving within the area, would be welcomed. Obviously, there's some thought that would need to be taken to see how that would work alongside the planning process. As I mentioned, it does provide some certainty for the deposit plan and the LDP examination, but, if it is in practice then not reflecting the realities on the ground, then I suppose that does need to be considered. So, those are the points I was just going to make.

Okay, diolch yn fawr, John. Lesley, are you content? Yes, you are.

I was just going to come back on that point that John just made—and Robert's got his hand up now as well, Chair—that point around continuous provision. So, I think you're saying, John, that that would be a better way of ensuring the needs of the community were better met. So, the five-year is far too rigid, I think. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think that's what you're saying, because it can change so very quickly on the ground.

Yes. The five-year need can change, and then I think when you extrapolate that out over the replacement plan period, it becomes less meaningful. But I suppose the backstop is the requirement to provide sites through the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, rather than we've got a piece of evidence that says you need to provide a site within the plan. There's always a duty on the council there through the housing Act.

Thanks.

Okay. Robert.

Okay, yes, thank you. Just a few quick points from me, and I'm coming at this very much from my role as a planning officer at Pembrokeshire County Council, rather than somebody who works in our housing team. The Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment, the most recent version of which in Pembrokeshire is the 2019 version, which was signed off earlier this year, provides a key piece of evidence for our local development plan review and is very much the foundation on which we will be making provision for sites in the second deposit plan for LDP2 for Pembrokeshire County Council. So, just a bit of background there.

I had a small involvement in the survey work for the GTAA 2019, and that was carried out in-house by Pembrokeshire County Council officers. So, that's the way we did it, and I know a lot of effort was put into that to try and make contact with as many people from the Gypsy and Traveller community as possible. I'm not sure it was an absolutely perfect outcome, but we certainly spoke to a lot of people.

I know less about whether there was wider engagement with the public in general about the GTAA. I'm afraid the reality is that most of the people who were most heavily involved in working on that document in the first place have now moved on to new roles or retired, so we're now dealing with very much a different set of people to the ones who started off the work on that document.

It did take a while to get from submission through to final sign-off by Welsh Government, for reasons that I think are known. They're essentially a historic legacy now, and we move on from that. It's very encouraging to see that Welsh Government have made new appointments now, and I get the feeling that things are moving forward in a very positive way.

One other point was that in terms of the short-term need that the GTAA 2019 identifies, numerically, we've probably met that and exceeded it through new planning permissions, but we're also very aware that the people who put the applications in are not necessarily those who were identified as actually having that short-term need by the GTAA. So, numerically, we've ticked the box, but in reality it might be that it's actually different people who've brought the applications forward to those who had the need. So, just raising that as a point for further discussion. And that's about it from me on that question, I think.

Thanks very much, Robert. Are you okay, Lesley, with that? Yes, okay. Diolch yn fawr. Siân Gwenllian.

Good morning, everyone. The accommodation assessments include assessing the need for transit provision. So, we will just focus on that element for now. How challenging is it to assess the need for transit provision? Can you give us an outline of how you go about assessing that provision? And we'll see then whether there's consistency across the councils present this morning. Who's going to start? Dave.

Thank you, Chair. From our perspective, obviously, the provision of a transit site is reinforced by the GTAA assessment, and feeding into that is the number of unauthorised encampments we have in the local authority area. Obviously, then, we do some mapping exercises around those locations that are frequented on more than one occasion, to understand whether there's a reason why the families themselves present in those locations. So, we used that data set to identify that, obviously, the corridor into Flintshire was along the main coast road, the A548, and that there was a need to secure transit site provision in and around that area, where we get the highest density of unauthorised encampments.

The challenge, then, is around the pitch provisions. So, we've had encampments of over 30 families at any one time, and then sometimes we have one, so we had to use some slight poetic licence, but understanding what the families themselves wanted, and we went down the rationale of a six-site provision. The challenge now, though, as you will all be aware, is that the GTAA records the need for transit site provision, it features in the LDP, but now it's around selling the concept to elected members and the wider community, around the fact that we need this provision in a conurbation—ours being Flint town centre—and then that's a difficult conversation to have with elected members and their constituents. And whilst there is an evidence base to say that there is a need for transit site provision, securing planning permission for that process and then taking it forward to site capital grant funding is a laborious task, and we're probably now two and a half years into the process and no further on, unfortunately.

Yes. So, you've outlined some of the challenges there. Elliw from Anglesey.

Thank you very much. Yes, we have good information regarding the needs of Gypsies and Travellers passing through Ynys Môn and we have almost two communities. We have people who are travelling over to Ireland who maybe cannot cross the sea and they stay with us for a few nights, and we always get to know about those—perhaps they pull up at a car park somewhere, and just stay for one night and then they go and catch the ferry. And then we have more of the historic tradition where we know, for a period of time, there will be Gypsies staying here, so we work with the community locally and with the Gypsies to prepare a temporary site. It appears to be working. Of course, it's not without its challenges, but we do make temporary provision for that, but it's not sufficient in the long term. That's a temporary provision, just in terms of providing a site and then undertaking those welfare checks and then working with the community. But that's what we've come to realise, to get to know the community and their needs, and then tailor the provision as the needs change.

So, is there a specific transit site on Anglesey, or do you work with wherever an unauthorised site establishes itself?

We have a site where we tolerate the encampments, so the families and the households know where to go and they contact us ahead of time so that we have an opportunity to prepare the site. So, we have a good relationship. We're very fortunate that we do have that good relationship. But it isn't a site where one would be able to say that that is a permanent site for that kind of encampment, it's just that we work with the community to ensure that we provide the facilities.

And can I just go back to Dave in Flintshire? Is the site that you're working towards establishing a site that is recognised as a transit site, or is there a different option, similar to what happens in other places, namely that these unauthorised sites are recognised and that some negotiation happens around that?

No, the application will be for permanent dedicated transit site provision, so we would then signpost families who present to the local authority area to take and use that designated site as opposed to negotiated stopping points.

So, there are two different approaches happening in Flintshire compared with Anglesey, and that's interesting. And the other authorities, would you like to come in? Okay. Pembrokeshire—Robert. Thank you.

Okay. Just a few very quick comments from me again. I don't think our 2019 GTAA identified a need for a transit site, and indeed I don't think there is one in Pembrokeshire at the moment. We are going to be making some allocations for new Gypsy and Traveller accommodation sites in our deposit plan 2 for LDP2. One of those, I think, has potential to at least partially provide a transit site, should one be identified as being needed in the future. But it remains to be seen whether that site and indeed the other ones we're putting into the plan survive the plan process and independent examination and, of course, our GTAA will need to start to be reviewed later this year. And I think the completion date for that is probably early in 2027, so we may get a better idea of whether that need for a transit site has changed since the 2019 survey.

Thank you. Ian.

Monmouthshire’s Gypsy and Traveller assessment—our last one—didn’t identify a need for a transit site. But I think the evidence that we’ve accumulated over more recent years would suggest that there was a need for one. I think the view, though, is that a transit site would probably need to be more of a regional one, and we are involved, or my planning colleagues are involved, with regional discussions about that provision.

I think, as an authority, our stance is that we consider there is a need for a negotiated stopping place. Our two main routes are probably Travellers moving from London to the ferry ports in west Wales, and moving up and down the Wye valley, for example, when you’ve got the Royal Welsh Show. So, we do get encampments, particularly around Chepstow and Caldicot. So, we’re working on the basis of looking to establish a negotiated stopping place in that sort of area. But I have got to say that that work is in its infancy at the moment, but something that, I think, as an authority, we would really benefit from if we can get one of those completed.

And what evidence are you using in your assessments?

Very much similar to the others, particularly unauthorised encampments. We do occasionally get—. You’ll appreciate that unauthorised encampments tend to be the ones that relate to local authority land, but we also try and capture other locations, such as we occasionally get people using private land.

Okay, thank you. Steph, in Blaenau Gwent, I think, yes?

Yes, morning, all. I’m the team manager from Blaenau Gwent council. Our last GTAA didn’t actually identify a need for a transit site. However, in the last probably two years in Blaenau Gwent, we’ve seen a significant increase in unauthorised encampments, and the lack of a transit site, I think, has led to that increase and certainly hasn’t helped.

Speaking from a planning perspective, the fact that we have got an unmet need, and we haven’t got a transit site, makes it a little bit more difficult when dealing with planning applications to retain these unauthorised sites, because of the material weight that’s being placed on the fact that we’ve got an unmet need in the borough. So, I think, in terms of transit sites, it’s certainly something that we need to be looking at moving forward, in bringing some sites into the local development plan and looking at stopping places, because it’s not just the allocation pressure; it’s the pressure on the planning department as well.

Our housing officer, unfortunately, couldn’t make the meeting today, but I think that the issues that he had in providing transit sites is that the cost and the resource is in delivering and managing these sites. It’s quite onerous on the authority, especially when we’ve got the financial constraints within the council that we have.

So, you’re looking specifically at planning for a transit site rather than the approach that Ynys Môn and Gwynedd are taking around a negotiated site. Is anybody else here this morning looking at something that is more in line with what Gwynedd and Môn are doing? Is there a building up of some kind of attitude—? Is there an attitude that is generally in Wales moving away from the transit sites and towards the approach used by Gwynedd and Môn, or is there still discussion around the merits of both options? Elliw.

Yes, in terms of our situation, that's what we have at the moment, but our GTAA demonstrates that we need transit sites, and so within our LDP, there is a need that has been identified and a site has been identified too, but as has been said previously, the capital and the revenue funding prevent one from making progress on that. And we very much welcome that there is an opportunity now, through the capital bid via the Welsh Government, but there are revenue costs, as Steph said, to sustain the site, and it is an additional cost for the councils for them to be administering such a scheme.

But in terms of the families and children, do you also feel that having a transit site that has been properly planned—do you think that's better than the situation at present?

It's a little bit of both. The families and the Gypsy communities that we have are content. They co-operate with us and stay on our tolerated sites, but they also know that we have scope within our LDP for that site, and they want us to provide an appropriate site, as you would expect, with the facilities provided for them.

I see that Ian's hand is up.

Yes. I was just going to add that we work closely with Travelling Ahead. The work that we do with them—. They operate as a critical friend for us, that's probably the best description. But they have really requested us to establish a negotiated stopping site in Monmouthshire. They think that would be of real value. So, that's been a key bit of evidence and drive in terms of us working towards that provision.

We need to move on, I'm afraid. But could I just ask all of our witnesses: are any of you able to point to real progress in terms of a possible regional transit site? I mean, is there, if not agreement between local authorities, are matters approaching that stage, or is it much earlier in the possible identification of a site? John.

Thank you. I was just going to mention that planning officers in south-east Wales have met with housing officers as well, and Welsh Government officials, to discuss the potential regional transit provision study, to look at transit patterns and how long Travellers are stopping in these places. I know there are concerns about the need for identifying a regional transit site, and once that need is identified, how a site is then identified and located and how that is then resourced. So, yes, I know there have been discussions and a brief prepared for that piece of work. However, Welsh Government officials advise that there is a national study being considered at the moment, and that's being progressed, so I think the first step would be to consider the outcomes of that national study on transit patterns.

Okay, John. And Dave.

Yes, thanks, Chair. I think there is a real nervousness, for example in north Wales, around the concept of a regional site. If you look at the other four local authorities who are not here today from north Wales, none of them have recorded in their GTAA an unmet need around transit site provision, but they all have unauthorised encampments in their location. Obviously, if it was us and Anglesey that had the two transit sites provision, it would allow, for example, North Wales Police to direct a family who were in Denbighshire at an unauthorised location to move to the most available transit site provision, which geography-wise would be us in Flintshire. So, then, almost, you're telling the local authority, who have no relationship with that particular family who are basing themselves, say, in Denbighshire, to meet their unmet need and support them. And if that family then said, 'Do you know what? I'm now going to present as homeless in Flintshire', which they do do, then we would have a GRT family presenting at the front door wanting additional support and services, having had the problem pushed on to us.

And politically, it's a difficult conversation to have around transit site provision with our own elected members within our own county. To then say, 'Oh, by the way, we're also going to support families from outside the region to come and stay in transit site provision for anything up to 90 days', it's a very, very, very hard sell to make to anybody, really. So, I think that the reality is that the concept is probably right, delivering that regional model is a huge challenge, going forward.

Okay. That's very useful. Thank you very much. We'll turn to another committee member, then, Lee Waters. Lee.

Thanks. Just to continue on the theme, really, I want to ask specifically about the Gypsy/Traveller sites capital grant and how you find this operationally. It seems to me to be quite a muddled set of guidance and criteria, and I just wonder, in terms of the need you've all just agreed is there, is the way that this grant is working helpful or unhelpful to you? And what would you like to change about it?

Dave.

I'll jump in, I'm not shy. The process to secure the site capital grant funding is quite arduous. We've been successful previously in securing a significant amount of money to reinvest in the local authority-run site, and we've currently got two applications in with Welsh Government to deliver Wi-Fi at that particular location and also to enable the residents themselves to secure their own electricity through a process, whereas now they buy the electricity directly from the council. The challenge we have is the additional documents that you have to provide to support a simple process saying, 'We need x to deliver y, and this is how much it's going to cost.' Sometimes it can be very arduous and probably puts us off maybe being a little bit more innovative in our applications because there are so many steps to the process with additional information being provided that that is a problem. And it's also around the window of when the funding is available. For me, it's a 365-day need, and if we identify that something needs to be done, we shouldn't be restricted as to when we can actually make that application based on the window being available for the grant.

What would you change about it?

I think, for me, it's having confidence that, as a local authority, if we were going to have a conversation with you in Welsh Government that we feel we need x to deliver y, you would have that confidence in the fact that we would be able to articulate in a very straightforward process, 'This is what it is. This is how much it's going to cost. Can you provide us with the capital to be able to deliver it? These will be the outcomes.' And we would provide some update as and when the works are completed to show that it has not only improved the health and well-being of the families themselves, but also perhaps has made savings around officer time and other things. So, I think it's just a process that could be simplified and made a little bit more robust to satisfy yourselves as audit, but to make it a little bit easier to navigate through.

So, just to be clear, we're not the Welsh Government, we're the Senedd and we scrutinise the Welsh Government, but we can make recommendations to the Welsh Government—

Apologies, yes.

—as we want to do. So, you think that there should be more flexible criteria, essentially, for the way that the grant is administered? Okay. Thank you.

Absolutely.

I think Ian wants to come in as well. Ian.

Thank you. Monmouthshire isn't one of the authorities that has made a claim with the grant, but we are very deep into a process of identifying a site. Indeed, we have identified a site that we are now focusing on in the south of the county. As we've been evaluating sites, what we've found is that we've gone into a process already of incurring considerable expenditure. So, we've incurred expenditure in relation to feasibility and evaluation, so noise evaluation, land contamination, ecology, active travel and air quality, and we've actually even got into design works already. So, from our perspective, that's something that the local authority is going to have to fund, because the terms of the grant doesn't extend that far.

The other decision that we've made as an authority is that, in terms of identifying a site, we would focus on council-owned land, for obvious reasons. Obviously, it makes it easier, and we haven't got the issue of incurring capital cost to acquire land, but, again, I think it would be really helpful if the scope of the grant did include the ability to go and acquire private land and know that it would be funded, or that funding support was available.

If I could press you on those two points. You mentioned, first of all, on the latter point about acquiring private land—the guidance, as I understand it, has been extended to allow the grant to be used to purchase private land in exceptional circumstances, but I don't think that those exceptional circumstances are defined. Do you have a clear idea of what the exceptional circumstances are that you'd be allowed to use the grant to purchase private land?

No, I don't, and I've got to be honest, that is something I've not picked up on that there was a possibility of exceptional circumstances.

You haven't tested that, have you? You haven't enquired about the ability—

No, because, as I say, we've used the guidance and taken it as it was.

So, it's fair to say that there's a low level of understanding amongst local authorities of what this grant can be used for. Would that be fair?

Well, certainly from our understanding, the grant is literally to build the site, and those associated costs.

So, I'm not surprised that there's misunderstanding. I just want to clarify: do you think it is fair to say there is low understanding?

It's changed in the last couple of months, so it's pretty hot off the press as well.

Sure, and that's what I'm trying to test with the witnesses. So, is it fair to say that there's a low or inconsistent understanding of the what the guidance says, or would it be helpful to clarify it? That's what I'm trying to tease out here; I'm not trying to catch you out. I'm just trying to establish the level of understanding of what the grant can do.

Well, as I say, certainly, I'd not picked up on that, so on that basis, possibly, yes.

Okay, thank you. So, on the point about feasibility, I can see the prima facie case for allowing feasibility costs to be used for the grant, but let me just play devil's advocate here a little, because the weight of the evidence we've heard this morning is that there are lots of local authorities who are staring at their shoes when it comes to acting on the demands on them to develop these sites, and is there not a danger, in allowing feasibility to be claimed for this grant, that some local authorities who don't actually want to do very much could simply spend a lot of money and a lot of time on feasibility studies that they don't really intend to bring forward? And so you can understand a reluctance by the Government not to allow this money to be used for feasibility.

Yes, I understand your perspective there. Our experience has been that, as we've gone public with sites for possible use, the authority has received considerable challenges around those, and in order to progress our consideration of those sites, it has been necessary to undertake further work to get a better understanding of those sites and their suitability. So, rather than being in a position where we've just got a piece of land that has been submitted as part of the RLDP, we have actually started that pre-app-type work upfront.

Okay. Can I just jump in? Thank you. So, I understand both sides of the point of view here, I'm just trying to grapple towards a solution. If there is concern from the Government that local authorities need to have genuine skin in the game, and on the other hand, local authorities are concerned about spending money upfront that may not then result in grant, what do you think about the idea of following the twenty-first century schools model where there is match funding? So, a contribution from the Welsh Government towards feasibility, but a contribution from the local authority as well. That, then, should potentially flush out those local authorities that aren't sincere about developing beyond feasibility. Do you think that would be practical?

Yes, certainly. I think that would be a positive move, definitely.

Okay, thank you. Does anybody else have any contributions they'd like to make on the way that the capital grant can be used or how the rules could be streamlined?

Yes, Elliw, please.

Thank you. Yes, we've gone through the guidelines for the capital grant and we've taken advantage of that. I went to a meeting with the Welsh Government to discuss options. We've welcomed that we have that resource and that the Welsh Government have given us a response to our questions on the applications rapidly. It's a relationship that's developed over the past months so that we can look at what's possible for us, and we're grateful for that opportunity.

Thank you. Before we come to the other hand up, can I just press you on that, Elliw? There's been an uptick in applications—does that indicate, do you think, that relationships are improving and that the situation is strengthening?

Certainly. From the previous grant, it's developed and there have been changes in this most recent one. There was clear communication from the Welsh Government, and they said, 'There's a grant on the way. This is the window when it will be available to you, and you're welcome to contact us as officials to discuss it.' That's what we did, therefore—we took that opportunity in Anglesey.

Diolch. Robert from Pembrokeshire wants to come in.

Yes. Robert.

Okay. I'll try and make it very brief. I wasn't aware that site purchase was within the scope of the grant scheme—I'm not sure that others in my authority would be either—but it's useful to know that. We've made provision in Pembrokeshire County Council within our capital programme where we've identified a need to purchase sites, so, that's an interesting development and new information, from my perspective, anyway.

In terms of feasibility, we have sometimes identified a need to carry out feasibility studies on potential sites, simply because we have things like potential contamination issues, where we're not certain what the situation is and whether we would actually want to commit money. We need to find out a bit more about, for example, what those contamination issues are and how much it would cost to resolve them.

And I suppose the other point I'd make is that I don't know a huge amount about the practicalities of taking grant applications forward, because others do that, but I'm very aware that, very often, there are other matters to be resolved in conjunction with taking new sites forward. Perhaps an example of that would be the recent extension of the site at Kingsmoor near Kilgetty in Pembrokeshire, where there was a need to extinguish common rights on part of the land involved. And those things can take a long time to resolve in their own right, and, sometimes, the time needed to do those sorts of things doesn't sit very easily with the sort of timescales for expenditure under grant schemes. So, I'll leave it there. I'm not an expert on this, but just a few thoughts.

I just want to ask one specific question to anybody who wants to answer it, really, just for me with what I find is the confusion in the rules. As I understand it, you can use the grant to refurbish a site, but you can't use the grant to maintain a site. Is that a complication that is unhelpful or do you simply find ways around that?

Dave.

Does the representative from Cardiff wish to say something on this, because they have live experience?

I think Dave had his hand raised. Did you, Dave, on this?

Yes. I would agree that not being able to use it to redevelop is a challenge, going forward. I think getting the money to actually put in place new measures is relatively straightforward, but using money to actually maintain the site, which, obviously, defaults to local authorities, is a huge challenge.

So, we used site capital grant funding for 2019 and we're in the process now where everything we put in place is now either broken, damaged or not fit for purpose. And obviously, we either make a fresh application to the Welsh Government, or we consider absorbing those costs from fees that we generate from pitches. So, it is a challenge. It would be helpful if we could use site capital grant money to maintain a site, as opposed to coming to you when everything is broken and it's too late.

Chair, could I ask the representative from Cardiff specifically how they deal with this, as they are a—?

We haven't got a representative from Cardiff.

Oh. From the south-east—who do we have from the south-east?

We've got Monmouthshire, Blaenau Gwent, not Cardiff.

Okay. I wonder if anybody else who deals with larger sites has experience of this barrier.

No. I don't think anybody feels able to offer a view, Lee.

Okay, thank you.

James.

Yes. Just on the grant itself, Welsh Government's guidance notes say that grant funding may—'may'— cover up to 100 per cent of site development costs. I'm just wondering, with all the pressures that local government are under, have there been any circumstances where, if the grant wasn't funded up to 100 per cent, that's made decisions within the local authority about whether they want to proceed with anything or not. Have any of you got any examples of that?

Yes, any examples of that. No?

No?

It seems not.

That's interesting. All right, that's fine.

No. Okay. Well, let me move on and ask some questions on the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. One of the key aims was to have a three-year pilot programme to provide independent trusted advice to those seeking to develop private sites. So, I just wonder what your experience is of that. Is anything happening? Are you aware of any action on that, with that? Yes, Ian.

I don't know whether I'm right, but as I said earlier, we work very closely with Travelling Ahead, and I know they've been awarded a three-year contract. So, whether this actually applied to them, I'm not 100 per cent sure. But I can say that, from a Travelling Ahead perspective, they've been brilliant at supporting certainly one family that we're working closely with in Monmouthshire, who are on a private, unauthorised site. But we're working with them to get approval to remain on that site, and Travelling Ahead have been very instrumental in supporting the family, but also providing a bridge and helping facilitate conversations between us as an authority and the family, plus consultants that we've engaged on behalf of the family, to support their planning application. So, that has worked really well.

Ian, it seems a bit unclear, actually. As you say, there's that three-year contract for the general advocacy and support, but separate to that, as we understand it, there was to be this pilot programme to provide that sort of support and advice, but specifically around private sites. So, I take it that none of you are aware of anything in terms of a pilot of that nature—no? No.

Not per se, no.

Okay. Sticking with the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', another key part of that was, again, to pilot additional or new ways of funding permanent provision and explore the feasibility of a mobile home rental scheme. Again, is that something that you're aware of? Is local government involved in that? Are you aware of any developments? Is the answer again, 'No'? It is. Right. Okay. It's useful that you're not—. Well, it's not useful that you're not aware of it—it's useful to know that you're not aware of it. Okay. Thanks very much. We'll move on then to James Evans. James.

That's fine. I want to talk about capacity and resource issues. Despite the recent increase in capacity in the Welsh Government, what specific resources and capacity challenges persist at the local authority level across Wales, particularly in areas with high concentration of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities? And how have these limitations impacted the abilities of local authorities to deliver effective service and support those communities, particularly in relation to housing, education and healthcare? So, who would like to answer that? How about the head of housing from Monmouthshire? No. There we are. Lovely.

Ian.

Well, from a Monmouthshire perspective, capacity is a real issue. You'll appreciate we're a very small authority and obviously a large rural authority, and there is nobody in the authority with, if you like, a dedicated role. There's nobody there with that level of specialism, and, I think, the more work that we do, I think it's clear how valuable that would be to have somebody with that specialism and that ability to dedicate. I'm obviously talking from a housing perspective, but with my colleagues in planning, our estates colleagues, as we've been trying to work our way through site identification works, again, disproportionately, it's been a big impact on staff resources trying to take this through.

It's particularly been impacted by the level of community objections to the work that we've been doing, because of the level of challenge that we have experienced. So, as I said, going forwards, I can see there being benefits of having someone with a liaison role, and potentially additional services, such as a Gypsy and Traveller forum, and potentially tenancy-support-type services, but it's certainly not something we've got at the moment.

Elliw.

Thank you. In Anglesey, very similar to what Ian said there, we don't have a dedicated role for Gypsy and Traveller communities, but what we do have is a SPOC, namely a special point of contact, for any encampments, and that sits within the housing function, and that person then responds as the encampment is under way and co-ordinates services, bringing in education if needed, bringing in highways and so on, and we work well in that context.

And then, we have the strategic side in terms of when the assessment has been undertaken to drive that forward. That sits within a wider strategic role in the service. Another example of the duties within that post is the recent local housing market assessment that is progressing. And I'm sure that there will need to be, if we develop a site, that liaison contact and we don't have the revenue as a local authority to be able to fund that kind of provision. Thank you.

Do you think there's a role, then, for the Welsh Government within the structure they have here—I know that the Government will probably say not—to actually give some direct support to local authorities in terms of some revenue funding to actually put a post like this in place, as a liaison officer? I know that there is one in Powys County Council, where I was the cabinet member for housing. We funded that out of our revenue account in housing. Do you think that that's something that the Welsh Government could support other local authorities with? If this is a key area of policy for the Welsh Government to be forwarding, do you think they should be providing the revenue to put liaison officers in local authorities? I can see some nodding heads. Does anybody want to comment on it, or do you all think they should do? Yes, one from north Wales, or two. John—. I can't see the names, unfortunately—excuse me on that.

We've got Robert and Dave. Shall we take Robert first? Robert.

Okay, thank you. Yes, I think, probably, the difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff in relation to Gypsies and Travellers is part of the bigger issue for local authorities about recruitment and retention generally. We did lose our Gypsy and Traveller liaison officer a while back. That post hasn't been filled, to the best of my knowledge; maybe it will be in the future. It means that other teams within the local authority are having to try and pick up the work streams that were previously covered by the liaison officer, and that can be quite difficult on the planning side. We're short-staffed already, and we're having to pick up additional work to try and deal with the communications side of things with the Gypsy and Traveller community as we move LDP2 forward. So, it is a very difficult time at the moment. I think it's difficult for everybody, and any help that the Welsh Government can give would be very welcome.

Dave.

Thanks, Chair. In relation to Flintshire, we have two GTLO posts that are filled at the moment. We support the needs of just over 430 GRT community members, and support 25 sites across the county. So, the revenue covers my post and another officer who supports me, and I think it's understanding that the liaison role doesn't just mean working with the families themselves; it's working alongside health, education, North Wales Police and other services to provide that friendly face when conversations need to take place between a family and a statutory service or another team.

For me, it's an invaluable process. I've done this role now for six years. It's taken a long time for me to, probably, secure the confidence of the families themselves, but what we are now able to deliver is consistency around decision making. There is that face, so I make all of the decisions around all of those encampments, which are then signed off by chief officers. So, again, from a compliance point of view, we know that there's a robust process around unauthorised encampments and other decision making, but I think, going forward, what we are trying to do in north Wales is set up a regional group, which is going to be led by Public Health Wales and Betsi, to actually understand the needs of the travelling community.

We've just commissioned a health needs assessment, which is now being reviewed by all of the local authorities, and that will come out with some specific aims for local authorities to support the health needs assessments. So, if there were revenue coming from the Welsh Government to support those posts, I think the other authorities would probably say, yes, it would be advantageous, because there will be challenges from the health needs assessment, for example, which will require the local authorities to commit some resources too.

Yes, as we know, the Welsh Government are moving to a regional basis of doing certain types of work. Colleagues in planning who are on the call will know what they do around planning and on corporate joint committees. Do you think that this is an area of work that could be done on a regional basis to share capacity and resource within local authorities? As I say, some local authorities have them—the liaison officers—and some local authorities don't. Do you think it could be done on more of a regional basis? Is it something that, perhaps, the CJCs could—? There are lots, probably, of hands going to come up if we talk about CJCs, but do you think that this is something that they could, potentially, look at as a way of sharing resource and sharing capacity in this area? As I say, if we've got a very good liaison officer—we've got one on the call now—and if they've got a very good relationship with families, could they be shared across an area to actually try and benefit the families they are there to represent?

Ian.

I'm of the view that—. Because, again, Monmouthshire's a small authority, we've got a number of families that is, obviously, nothing on the scale that Flintshire have just mentioned, so I wouldn't see it as being a full-time post. I think that we as an authority, with a smaller need, would benefit probably from doing something like that on a regional basis, as long as we were able to get our part of any arrangement.

I've got just one more question about the regular meetings you have with Welsh Government. The Cabinet Secretary has said that they've been invaluable, the meetings, the regular catch-up meetings, with local authorities around capacity, around different things. I'm just wondering, from those meetings, what do you get out of them? Do you think they're valuable, the meetings you have with Welsh Government regarding this area of policy? And what examples can you give of where those regular meetings with the Welsh Government have actually delivered something, rather than just being a talking shop?

Elliw.

We were visited by Welsh Government officials during the summer, and it was nice to meet those officials. We have a work plan on the GTAA, and we had an opportunity to share that with them. They saw that as good practice for local authorities. And it happened to be that, at the time they were here, we had encampments and we took the opportunity for them to visit the temporary site—the tolerated site that we have. Even if they had just had an opportunity to see that, it was beneficial, but I don't know regular they will be. I'm not aware that there's a set of dates in place and what output will stem from those meetings. But we certainly welcome the fact that dialogue has started.

Okay. Anybody want to add anything to that? No. Okay. We'll move on then to Altaf Hussain, and a couple of concluding questions. Altaf.

Thanks very much, Chair. I'll come to the Welsh Government and the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales report. Since the publication of this report, do you think that local authorities have taken any steps to address some of the deficiencies in the process for delivering on their GTAAs, and how this could be improved in future?

Okay. I know it was two north Wales local authorities that were subject to the ombudsman, wasn't it, and none that are on this panel giving evidence to us this morning. Would anybody like to say anything about—? Has it had an impact, as Altaf asks, or would you say you're not really able to point to any impact? Ian.

I can't comment, in particular, directly in relation to the ombudsman report, but I just wanted to give you a feeling of what it's like in Monmouthshire. From my perspective, I consider that the Gypsy and Traveller agenda, and meeting the pitch needs, is a high priority in Monmouthshire. We've had member training, we've had member workshops, we do periodic reports to committee, and we've involved Travelling Ahead with those, as a direct opportunity for members to engage with Travelling Ahead, and I can only see that continuing to become more established and more regular. Certainly, again, I think it's making sure that it's not a one-off exercise, because, obviously, we all benefit from refreshers, and, obviously, members change when we have elections, et cetera, et cetera. So, I just envisage that continuing within Monmouthshire.

Chair, I don't know whether they know about the report, so probably I'll leave it there.

Okay, Altaf, well thanks for that. Perhaps we could just ask about that. Is there awareness of the report amongst relevant local authority officers, would you say, or is it something that might have gone under the radar a little? Elliw.

I've only become aware of the report very recently, so I haven't had an opportunity to see what implications it has for us as a council. But certainly, we do have a GTAA that has been completed, and we have an identified need, but the challenges that we've touched on during the meeting can clearly stop or prevent us from moving forward with some things.

Okay. That's very good. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Altaf. Diolch yn fawr, bawb. Thank you all very much for giving evidence to committee this morning. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay, so we will break briefly for a further 10 minutes before the next evidence session. Diolch yn fawr.

Croeso nôl, bawb. Thank you to everybody for returning for our third evidence session today on this important piece of work, following up on the provision of sites for Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. I'm very pleased to welcome here in our committee room Jane Hutt MS, who's Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, and two of the Cabinet Secretary's officials, Amelia John, who's director of communities and social justice, and Sarah Melkevik, who's head of race, faith, belief and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller policy. Welcome to you all. We will begin with some questions. Firstly, Lesley Griffiths.

Thanks very much, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. To start with, Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to ask your view on how you think the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment framework is operating. Obviously, it's a very rigid five-year time frame, and I was just wondering if you think this is the best and the most effective way of ensuring that there's sufficient and appropriate accommodation available for the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community.

Thank you very much, Lesley. When you saw the evidence paper that I gave prior to this meeting this afternoon you will have seen that we have made progress. It was essential that we made progress to deliver on the GTAA process. And actually, I have to say, I was just reflecting on the fact it's 10 years since we had the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. I think you and I were here when we passed it, weren't we, Lesley? Of course, that is the statutory duty on local authorities in Wales to prepare those GTAAs.

It is important that we actually review the GTAA process. That's just to look at the framework to actually review the process, including, and which we are also reviewing, the guidance as well, because that's crucial not just for local authorities but for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people themselves. That review will include looking at timescales in terms of the five-year time frame, but I think that has been tested; as I said, it's a decade now since we've had the legislation. We want the legislation to work. It is a statutory duty, as I said, but it is about ensuring that local authorities do adequately assess the need for a variety of pitches and sites that they need across their areas.

Of course, it's not just their own local authority-run sites; it's privates sites as well increasingly coming up as a need and a request from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities—temporary sites through transit, and I'm sure we'll be going on to look at the transit issues. But there are lots of developments now in terms of transit that are looking at new ways of addressing this with negotiated stopping places that are regularly used.

We're now in a situation where all GTAAs have been approved from all 22 authorities. There's been a big push—this has been a priority, as far as I'm concerned, formerly in my role, and I know you took that forward as well when you had this—that we should address this and make the legislation work, ensure that we review the processes and the guidance, but working in partnership with the local authorities.

Just another thing about the five-year time frame. We all know that it can take a long time to get from the point of proposals coming through as part of the assessment, but then, of course, you have to go through the planning process, engagement with the community, engagement with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people. So, I would assure the committee that we're reviewing the process and we're reviewing the guidance, but we believe that the framework is appropriate at this stage.

Thanks very much for that. I'll come back to what you said about progress, because I do think that's a very important point, but we've just been listening to evidence from the local authorities. I'm not going to name names, but I think in the main they would say that the assessment process is too rigid and they feel there should be some more flexibility, and that's because it doesn't really reflect the transit nature of the community. So, five years is a long time—a lot can change in five years; a lot probably can change in just five months, particularly with this community. So, I think while they welcome the guidance—I think they all said it was very helpful—I think that there is a need to look at whether you should have that continuous provision in relation to need. Is that something that you're going to look at, going forward?

I'll perhaps bring Sarah in, in terms of actually looking at how we review the process, because that's crucial, and we're sharing that with local authorities. Perhaps, Sarah, you could say something about the four themes that we're undertaking, but obviously very much at official level, working with local authorities. In my evidence paper, I think you will see that I've said it was really helpful—. Can I say, this inquiry has been so important, Chair? Because it's helped us and local authorities and the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community focus this and make this a real priority for all of us in terms of our statutory duties. But in my evidence paper, I do say that we are setting up a rolling programme of monitoring with local authorities. Because as you say, Lesley, this is something where we have got to be flexible, we've got to recognise changes and circumstances, needs, pressures, and often very difficult circumstances in relation to community and planning and elected members' engagement in these issues. But I'll ask Sarah, Chair, if that's all right, to just talk a bit about how she's going to assess the process in terms of whether we do need to make any changes.

We are reviewing the entirety of the GTAA process on the basis of four themes: lessons learnt from cycle 1 and cycle 2—cycle 2 we've just gone through—and reviewing desk instructions from an internal perspective about what officials need to do when GTAAs are submitted and how they need to analyse them. We are reviewing the GTAA guidance, as the Cabinet Secretary has said, and then we're looking at monitoring and escalation, which allows us to have a more robust process for where we believe that the GTAA content or analysis is not robust enough.

The Cabinet Secretary has spoken about monitoring. I think the critical thing as part of that is the monitoring discussions that we're having with local authorities. We've spent a lot of time to try and build relationships with local authorities so that it's a partnership working together to look at what they have in their GTAAs and how we can help them to meet those needs and meet those duties. For me, there's something that we need to look at in terms of the data, particularly around the caravan count and the unauthorised encampments, and then there's a very critical piece of work that this review needs to bring into play, which is around discussions with community members themselves, particularly those who are more transient in nature, and understanding what their needs are from the GTAA process.

Thank you. Can I just pick up on the progress? As you said, much-needed progress has been made; you've now got all the 22 local authority assessments. Obviously, that took a couple of years longer than should have happened under the 2014 legislation. Obviously, we've had increased capacity in the Welsh Government official teams; in local authorities, clearly capacity is an area of concern. So, what work is being done to make sure we don't see delays like that again in the process?

The delay has been regretful. We very much regretted the fact that we had that delay, I have to say, in receiving the GTAAs, let alone getting to the point of assessing them. The team is absolutely now up to capacity with skill and expertise coming into the Welsh Government team. I go back to the fact, Chair, as I said, we welcome this inquiry, but also, alongside your inquiry, we've had the important input of the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', which, of course, gave another set of expectations quite rightly in terms of actions and outcomes for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, who face some of the worst discrimination in terms of ethnic minorities in Wales. So, we've said we're going to make sure it doesn't happen again and that we're on this rolling monitoring programme. We've got this review of the processes that we already have in terms of the legislation; we're also going to review the guidance, and that's something we agreed to do. And in terms of that guidance, it's going to be very much involving Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people as well as local authorities.

But also, I have to say, it's been really important to go round and meet local authorities myself, and I did quite a bit of this earlier on this year, because you need to meet cabinet leads and address the issue with them, particularly in north Wales, I have to say. We went to north Wales and met with the cabinet leads who are responsible. Last week, I met with the equality and community cohesion leads in local authorities. They were from the Welsh Local Government Association. They’re mostly also responsible for the GTAA process and monitoring. So, I think the political—in terms of ministerial and cabinet member—engagement has been important, as well as the fact that we’ve got expectations and actions under our 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. We’re in a place now where we’re nearly up to the spend in our capital sites programme. I think you’ll see in the evidence as well—. We can update from the evidence that came out that—. In the evidence, we say that, as of 5 September, we’ve made 10 awards, totalling £2.49 million, to five local authorities. I think that’s gone up to 11.

It's 12—12 to six local authorities.

So, the pressure is on them, and it's now making a difference, and we hope this is now going to be the way forward.

Could I just ask one final question, please, Chair? There used to be a Gypsy and Traveller forum the Welsh Government had that liaised with local authorities. Are there any plans to reinstate that?

Yes. That’s absolutely crucial, and that is part of the expectations, the actions in the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. So, we’re now working—and I think, again, I’ve made this point in my evidence—to engage with the Gypsy and Traveller community, and, indeed, we have also, Chair, and Lesley, awarded, as was said in my evidence, the new three-year contract to Travelling Ahead, to provide support for families. That’s advocacy, but it’s also about representation and engagement.

This is something also where I have to say that local authorities have their own challenges in terms of how they seek to involve Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, because it’s part of the criteria, isn’t it, in terms of us being able to approve a Gypsy, Traveller and Roma accommodation assessment, that they have to demonstrate that they’ve engaged. And they need to engage locally. There are some excellent examples amongst local authorities, where they have got specified, designated roles in the local authorities, and they are the ones who engage with Gypsies, Roma and Travellers if they’ve got existing sites, and, also, new needs that are coming forward.

I think one of the key messages that has come through is that you need the capacity at local authority level, as well as in the Welsh Government, to make this happen. But, yes, the engagement is now part of our commitment to developing a Wales-wide forum, and, certainly, we’re working on that now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jane. Thank you, Lesley. Siân Gwenllian.

Could I just bring up one other point that you’ve made this morning? Good morning, by the way. You mentioned in your response to Lesley just now that it’s important to meet cabinet members in order to discuss issues with regard to sites, et cetera, but you said ‘particularly in north Wales’. Does that mean that you feel there are more problems coming up in north Wales?

Diolch yn fawr, Siân Gwenllian. I gave the example, I suppose, of going to north Wales. In fact, I had a whole tour of Wales to do. I think the first meetings, actually, were with Newport and Monmouthshire. But there were specific needs—and I say this openly because of the public services ombudsman report—in north Wales, in Conwy and Denbighshire. But I think there are challenges throughout the whole of Wales, and I’m hoping to, now, pick up again the visits and the meetings that I’m holding with other local authorities.

Thank you, Jane. I'll move on, therefore, to discuss the transit provision, which of course is a part of the assessments. Do you believe that the fact that only two transit sites are available in Wales—? Is that sufficient for the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community?

It's absolutely clear we need more transit sites in Wales. We have actually got seven transit pitches. As a result of analysing the GTAAs, the accommodation assessments, we can identify now that there are seven pitches, but we need sites. But also, I think there has been learning that has developed, and it is about actually engaging with the Gypsy and Traveller community about the ways in which they travel, what time of the year, where they would like to stop. It's no good local authorities or the Welsh Government presuming they know about transit and travelling. I'm sure probably amongst us here, in our constituencies, we have got travelling examples and experience of travelling through Wales at particular points in time.

The assessment of transit needs is crucial to the GTAAs. Discussing this with local authorities, we've looked at it in terms of local responsibility—it's a statutory duty on local authorities—but then over the past year we've looked at it more with them around whether there's a regional answer to this, and we're now looking at it from more of a national, all-Wales basis. Because we need to see what is appropriate, where we can provide those transit sites, and build on the transit pitches.

I've had some very good discussions with local authorities who want to play their part, but obviously this is about them working together. For example, we did have a meeting—and I think, Amelia, you might have been at that meeting—with Gwent publics service board back in April. This brings everyone together in the five Gwent local authorities—a really useful forum. There's the corporate committees as well, looking at this. But we also now realise that we probably need a Wales-wide provision, an independent look at what transit sites are needed.

Just one point, I think, that is very encouraging is that we have got one authority that has come forward with an application for funding for a negotiated stopping site. I don't know whether we can define that. Perhaps you could explain what that might be. But it seems to me that this is something that we're learning about transit, and with local authorities—that a negotiated stopping place, which is probably very regularly used at a particular time of year, could help with addressing this. We're now considering that application. Sarah—. Oh, sorry, Siân, did you want to—?

I was just going to ask about the negotiated stopping places. In terms of the evidence that we've received from local authorities this morning, I think that Anglesey is working in that way at present, but in the long term they would like to see a transit site established. In Flintshire, they're going down the transit site route, rather than the negotiated stopping place route. So, I do think we need to be clear what the difference is between them, and also be clear which of those two routes is best for the families from the communities we're talking about.

I think this is really useful additional context for the inquiry, isn't it, that's come through, and very helpful too that you've had that evidence from local authorities. I don't tend to mention the authorities, but I think Ynys Môn is the one that's exploring and, in a sense, piloting, probably, this negotiated stopping place, which could be a safer option, if it’s identified. And we’ve got to also recognise that we’ve got the whole issue of the police engagement in terms of protocols on managing unauthorised encampments as a result of legislation that we didn’t agree with in Wales at all and that hasn’t been implemented in terms of criminalising Gypsies and Travellers for unauthorised encampments. We’re totally opposed to that legislation, which sought to criminalise Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people.

And actually, I think this is a really important point that Siân raises: we’ve got an absolute duty to get this right, haven’t we, to protect families and to recognise the needs of communities to find suitable places. So, it is good to hear that local authorities are recognising that they need to have proper transit provision—sites and pitches as well. But it’s something where I think it is—. This is where we’re working together, with a national, independent, Wales-wide look at what the travelling patterns are, what local authorities’ responses are. I think that, now, is the next step in terms of trying to address this, working, of course, with local authorities. They have taken different approaches to this, but basically not enough has been done and we want to help to move this forward.

Could you talk a little more about the independent research that has been commissioned? When is that happening and what is the timetable for reporting back on that?

Diolch yn fawr, Siân. Sarah, do you want to say something?

Thank you. We are going to procure an independent organisation to undertake that research. We want to make it absolutely critical that whichever organisation is awarded that contract understands that they will need to involve community members absolutely within that. We don’t have timescales at the moment. We’re going through that procurement process. At the start of that process, we will be hoping to award that contract with the proviso that community members are involved in the design of the research and also, obviously, involved in the content of the research.

To come back to your previous point about negotiated stopping places, there is very little difference between negotiated stopping places and transit; I think it’s the length of time, really, that family members will be on the site. But the crucial thing with negotiated stopping is that it is a relationship with the local authorities, between the families and the local authority. It is a conversation and a welfare assessment about what that family needs in terms of facilities and provisions. A negotiated stopping place could be in use or operation for a matter of days or weeks, but without, I suppose, the threat of it being an unauthorised encampment, where there is more precariousness around it. And I think it’s critical that the research that we do comes back to us with recommendations for the location of transit or recommendations for the location of negotiated stopping that are being driven by the needs of the transient community, who move in and out of local authorities and in and out of Wales, and what they need, where they want it to be, and how they see that being operational in Wales.

Yes, and perhaps I could just say that obviously, probably, some of us are aware of how there is a travelling pattern. If this can be a relationship with the local authorities so that they know and get some forewarning of when Travellers may be coming, then they can provide all of the facilities that might be needed—temporary facilities—just in terms of bins, showers, portaloo toilets, et cetera, and then access to, again, negotiated engagement, perhaps with welfare checks. Whereas at the moment, it is just haphazard, it’s not planned. So, I think it is worth looking at the example that we’ll have from Ynys Môn for that negotiated stopping place, but again, building on that for the wider transit provision.

So, we're far from reaching a situation of having at least five transit pitches in both north and south Wales by next year. That's not going to happen, is it? But that was the target in the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', and it's slightly concerning that there will be more delay now. Because I agree that we need a national picture and we need these places to be recognised on a national stage, but at the same time, what are the local authorities going to do in terms of the provision that they want to prepare for? There's a bit of a mismatch going on at the moment, and this national work needs to happen very rapidly, I think.

Absolutely. Of course, I'm pressing my officials to move as fast as we can on procurement of that national assessment, but that doesn't actually stop local authorities taking their responsibilities now, as Ynys Môn has done in terms of that temporary stopping place, which we can look at carefully.

As a result of the GTAAs, there are seven transit pitches, but we want a lot more from that, and we need to move beyond pitches to sites as well. It's interesting talking to local authorities. For example, in the south Wales area, at one point—and I think I mentioned that in my letter to the committee—some local authorities thought they'd do a regional assessment, because it's obviously more than one local authority that travellers are stopping in, to see patterns along the M4, for example, and patterns of travel to north Wales as well.

I've had, and officials have had, regional, subregional meetings, and we've mentioned the Gwent PSB meeting as well, Amelia, that you went to earlier this year. So, this will not stop action in terms of local authorities taking responsibility, but I think they welcome the fact that we're assisting with this independent national overview and analysis of transit sites in Wales.

I know that we want to move on, but on this point about two sites and five pitches, it's important for the committee to understand the difference between a site and a pitch, I think. So, if you could send a note on those definitions, that would be useful. Thank you, Chair.

Diolch, Siân. And just to be clear on the GTAA, Cabinet Secretary, and the seven transit pitches that you mentioned, are they currently in existence and available?

Yes. But obviously, that's come out of our just recent analysis. But we'll certainly be very pleased to send you more detail about the different definitions and criteria emerging, and also the emerging temporary arrangements that we've been talking about, with authorised arrangements.

Could I ask you as well, Cabinet Secretary—? In terms of the UK legislation that you mentioned—which arguably, potentially, criminalises the nomadic way of life—what's the nature of the policy and practice of the police forces in Wales? Is it an informal understanding that that legislation will not be enforced in Wales? Is it more than that, or is it less than that?

Again, in my evidence to the committee, there is a section on crime and justice, which really was trying to respond to that question, Chair, that you've put about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, because although we resisted it, it could be enforced in Wales. So, we have been working with policing partners to ensure that we can approach this in a more measured way in terms of supportive relationships, and preventative relationships as well. As I've said, we fundamentally opposed that legislation. We want to focus, as local authorities so often do, and the police, on engaging with communities, but also, ultimately, investing in those sites.

So, there is some guidance under the National Police Chiefs' Council, who've got operational guidance. They've got to consider obligations under the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty. There's a multi-agency role here, and I think, particularly in Wales, we've got policing in Wales, the Welsh Local Government Association and the Wales Safer Communities Network developing protocols. Obviously, this is about the supportive, proportionate approach to working with Gypsy, Traveller communities.

We're also considering, as I said in the evidence, exploring funding an organisation to facilitate engagement with the community to see if they can work with the four police forces in terms of their protocols. So, I think, as the legislation was being enacted, we were approaching this in the Welsh way, and we hope that there will be no criminalisation in respect of this. But it does mean we've got to have the provision—that's the point. We've got to have the transit provision.

Absolutely. It may be that you're not in a position to answer this, but do we know if that approach to policing is mirrored across the border, or are we not in a position to know that?

I think it is the National Police Chiefs' Council, which is England and Wales, who've also developed this operational guidance, which is encouraging. Also, of course, this is something where we have a policing in partnership board that I chair, and we discussed this at the time. The police and crime commissioners were very much in the same place as us about trying to make sure that this is more about how we work together and avert any of that kind of criminal justice approach that is inappropriate. Amelia.

I think it might be worth adding that the criminal justice bodies in Wales have their own anti-racist Wales action plans. We work closely with them, and they have specific actions around engaging with Gypsy, Roma, Traveller communities to understand much better their needs, but also to build that trust up. So, that's a close working relationship we have with them.

Okay. Before we move on, Cabinet Secretary, could I just ask you as well about regional transitory provision, because we had several local authorities giving evidence to us earlier today, and they weren't really able to point to any examples of meaningful discussion, or at least meaningful in terms of any regional approach coming to fruition at any time soon, basically? I just wondered: are you aware of any local authorities in Wales that are fairly advanced in terms of agreeing, perhaps, on a regional transit site?

Without repeating myself too much, I have had discussions with local authorities in south-east Wales, Monmouthshire, Cardiff, Newport, and there was going to be a proposal that they were going to initiate to work together. So, we were trying to trial that across Wales. I equally did so in north Wales as well, so that we could try and help facilitate those—I think Sarah actually chaired a whole range of meetings at regional and sub-regional level. I can name the authorities again who did say that they wanted to engage—Torfaen, Monmouthshire. You can see that that's a sort of M4 westwards group. But I think it's come to the point where we don't want to stop that, but we're going to do this national outlook as well, and they will all be involved in it.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Lee Waters.

[Inaudible.]—see if there is progress, and we've had some useful evidence this morning, I think, that can help perhaps accelerate some of that. I just want to touch on the capital grant for Gypsy, Traveller sites, and it's good to see that the applications are now really starting to come in for that, but there is some opacity, I think, in the guidance that I'm struggling to understand. The evidence we just took from local authorities shows that there's, at best, varying understanding amongst themselves. So, you announced new guidance in April, I think, to say that the grant could be used in exceptional circumstances to buy private sites. I'm not sure that 'exceptional circumstances' has been defined, and again, from the sample of officers we took on this morning, they didn't even know that the guidance had been changed. So, I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about how that can be made most useful to allow that to be operationalised.

Well, it's true that we did change the guidance as a result of feedback from local authorities about the fact that they needed to be able to purchase land. In a sense, with the words 'in exceptional cases', we actually want them to be able to use this new power to help them to purchase land. This is not just about private sites, either; this is about their own provision. So, at the moment, inevitably, in terms of grant applications, it has to be case by case in considering the applications. I mean, there are some things in terms of what we think would be inappropriate for them to spend money on—for example, if there was a site that needed a lot of remediation, land remediation, or feasibility study costs, they're not included in the new criteria. But, it broadens the options for them.

We've had one application for development of a new site under the capital site grant, under this new flexibility, but we want authorities to use it more. And, of course, the rest of the criteria—. In terms of when the legislation came into being, we were hoping that local authorities, for developing their own sites, would use their own land, but it's become clear—and this is about review, assessment and monitoring—that that's not always possible and they need to have this flexibility. But I think the word 'exceptional' is not as rigid as it may sound.

Okay. Well, it may be, and I don't want to anticipate what we might suggest, that some clarity around that might be helpful. Why are you so opposed to feasibility being funded as part of the grant?

Well, I think it's really, in terms of—. You know, we've got the grant and we're getting to the point where it's nearly been spent for this financial year, which I think we're really pleased about. But, feasibility studies, I think, should be the responsibility of the local authorities themselves. When we considered using the funding to extend it so that they could purchase land with it, we did not think that this should include—. Because a feasibility study has got to be very much across the authorities' responsibilities in relation to land availability, planning issues, community needs. So, at present, we don't include it. But I don't know, Sarah, if there's any particular reason why we didn't include feasibility studies, except just funding availability.

So, the truth is that it's a limited pot and we want that money spent on new pitches and we want that spent on good-quality facilities for the community. So, we have to put some criteria in place. I think we do need to look at the guidance again, if I'm honest, but we absolutely want that capital, ideally, to be spent on those new pitches, rather than capital works to repair, for example, utility blocks as part of—. So, I think there's something for us about that case-by-case basis to use those funds most effectively.

Okay. I wanted to come on to maintenance, but let me just finish on feasibility, because we had evidence from Monmouthshire this morning, who clearly are willing and are on board with trying to improve sites, but they gave evidence of how the upfront costs of developing some of these complex sites are a drain. And when local authorities are making marginal judgments about where they put their funding, that could well be an impediment to developing it in this area. So, I was just floating the idea with them, because what we wouldn't want is local authorities using feasibility as an excuse for not doing anything, so they could say, 'Well, actually, with feasibility—', when we know they could well have no intention of going beyond feasibility. So, perhaps a model that we have with the twenty-first century schools, where there was a degree of match funding, where they are sincere about wanting feasibility, but have some skin in the game, maybe would be a compromise to help oil the wheels a little—if you'd consider that.

Well, I think this committee will come up with a few recommendations, and I think that sounds like the sort of thing—we want to learn from the evidence from this committee, so, you know, I think we should progress it. It is important, as you will recognise, that we've listened to the authorities about the need for money to purchase land, and that's the key point, and it is case by case, but, I think, if we can have evidence that feasibility might be a barrier to this, let's look down that route.

Well, the other issue that we then touched upon this morning was the maintenance issue, where a grant can be used to upgrade facilities, but not to maintain the facilities. And the evidence was that that is quite an unhelpful distinction for some sites where all the facilities are no longer fit for purpose, but those can't be repaired because of the rules in the grants, but an upgrade could be done. Now, that, again, I can understand why you're trying to funnel the scarce resource to stop it being frittered away, but if that, in practice, is actually stopping purposeful sites being used, then that seems to be an unintended consequence, which is getting away from your objective. So, again, we'll reflect on this after the session. But, again, other than just trying to filter scarce resource, what's your in-principle objection to money being used for maintenance?

Can I just refer back to the evidence that I gave to this committee? The grant is used to support site development, refurbish existing accommodation, which is really important, and I'm sure authorities today recognise that. Actually, a lot of the grant funding that's going out this year is for refurbishment, rather than for new sites, also including capital expenditure related to improving sites as well as funding, obviously, residential sites. So, I think, improving sites is—. One of the things that we want to do as well is look at energy efficiency, look at digital inclusion, accessibility, a safe, secure environment. But when it comes to actually maintaining the sites, I would say that that's a local authority responsibility. But I'm hoping that some of the applications that have come through are going to help with actually developing or refurbishing to be more energy efficient so that maintenance costs will be reduced. Maybe you'd like to give a couple of examples.

Thank you. I think the critical thing, in terms of maintenance, is it's a local authority-run site and there's an expectation that they would run that site appropriately. I think we would prefer that those facilities—and let's say utility blocks, so you might be talking about catering, kitchen facilities and maybe shower facilities—are maintained and kept up to scratch, rather than left to to deteriorate to the point where they are not fit for purpose and then need capital investment, otherwise we're putting a lot of capital investment in replacing like for like. So, I suppose there's that. Some of the bids that we've had to date have been focused on—

Renewing fencing, CCTV, solar panels.

I just wonder, just reflecting, there's a general agreement, isn't there, with the WLGA to look to try and reduce the micromanagement of funds as much as possible, and to allow local authorities to have flexibility to not spend time on lots of complying with grant conditions but to use their judgment in how those funds are spent more generally. That's something the whole Government has been telling us all about. And I just wonder if this is an example of one fund where a little more flexibility and devolution to local authorities would be appropriate, rather than trying to manage this level of granularity, given the evidence we're getting from local authorities.

Well, I think, it might be helpful, Chair, if we shared some of the examples of the way that the grant funding is being used, which is quite flexible. It is case by case, obviously. We've got to approve it. And also learning from experience in terms of sustainability—. But I think these are all really important points.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Just on refurbishment, we did hear in our previous inquiry that, very often, the refurbishment that took place wasn't the result of meaningful and effective engagement with the communities, and, as a result, work was carried out that wasn't really what was required for the necessary standards and quality of life that the community wanted, but I'm sure that lessons have been learnt since that time in terms of the current refurbishment.

Well, I think so. I recall going to visit a site—I think it was in Merthyr Tydfil—where I was taken around the site, in terms of looking at how the grant was being spent by the people living on the site, because they had very clearly influenced how that money should be spent to meet their needs, culturally and just in terms of all of the other points that we've been discussing. So, obviously, that does go back to the fact that we've now—. Also, we are, as with earlier questions, now continuing funding an advocacy organisation to help with this.

Yes, it's good to hear that, Cabinet Secretary. We were just about to move on to that, actually, anyway. But, in terms of that pilot that was part of the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' to have a service that provided advice and support in terms of private sites, and the development of private sites, is that something that's separate to the general advocacy service that you've just referred to?

Yes, in terms of that one particular goal and action from the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' to pilot—the opportunity to have pilot sites—and I'm just looking now at the particular point—. It was—. Right, here we are, yes. So:

'Review the current funding—.'

Ah, yes:

'Commission a three-year pilot programme to provide independent, trusted advice to those seeking to develop private sites.'

Well, that pilot hasn't been commissioned yet, has it?

It hasn't, no.

But it certainly will, as is outlined in the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', include that advocacy support and guidance. But I think we've also, quite separately, as you know, commissioned and now contracted Travelling Ahead—as they've done for many years, provided a very good advocacy service—so, I'm sure they will be involved. But the pilot programme, which is now being sought—procured—may use other independent, trusted advice. Sarah, you're looking into this, aren't you, in terms of specification?

We are looking into it. The critical thing is that land is sold to families—private land is sold to families for private sites. Sometimes, that land is inappropriate and will not be able to get planning permission for it to become—. So, part of the advocacy and advice is advice about planning, absolutely, and they do that. When we commission this work, we will have to look at that trusted, independent advice that, actually, is robust enough to help community members to be able to develop and run their own private sites, but that's still being worked through.

Is there a time frame for that, or—?

I think we've agreed to procure it in the next financial year. We're working through what that might look like, and then it'll be a three-year pilot from that point onwards, once that is set up.

Yes. Cabinet Secretary, are you able to say anything about the planning system as well? One thing that we've heard throughout the work that we've done on these issues is that there is an element of discrimination and prejudice involved in the planning process, and this is what the community has told us, so it's important to have this trusted, independent advice. But does that involve liaising with planning officers? Generally, there's the pre-application process, isn't there, that applies to planning generally. Would there be some element of that involved?

Well, yes, they will have to act. The independent, trusted advice will have to advocate and engage with planning, not just officers but also in terms of the whole planning process. But it is going to be really important that the families affected, who are seeking these private sites, feel that they can trust that independent advice, and that hasn't been available. Unless they—again, they can't afford to pay for that independent advice, so I think this pilot—. I suspect this is a pilot that hasn't been tried anywhere else, I have to say, in the UK, it's pretty innovative. It came through the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. Again, probably Members themselves will have situations in their constituencies where there are these private sites and people want to resolve the ownership, the planning, around those, and there can prejudice and discrimination just in terms of handling the whole process. So, that trusted, independent advice is crucial.

Okay. Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Getting back to the newly commissioned advocacy service, there are always issues about sufficient resource and expertise and so on. How will you measure the impact of that newly commissioned advocacy service? Is that built into the scheme?

Yes. I think it's really important that we've now awarded that three-year advocacy and advice contract to Travelling Ahead, who have huge experience. There was open procurement for that grant award to Tros Gynnal Plant, Travelling Ahead, but they have huge experience. But, of course, they have that grant aid, and, as has always been in terms of our public funding arrangements, it has to be monitored. It will be monitored by officials, as all grant aid is in that way. But I think it is a really exciting opportunity—I think you might have even taken evidence from Travelling Ahead—for them to build on their experience, particularly working with us in terms of delivering on the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', delivering all-important working relations with local authorities. They are very engaged in terms of developing local consultation networks, as well as at a wider level, and also very clear about being able to feed back to us about site conditions, issues that might be emerging, including transit issues as well. So, they are well respected, but also will be monitored very carefully in terms of delivery of outcomes.

Okay. Thanks for that. Just sticking with the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', it's been undergoing a refresh, which will revise targets. It's only a couple of years old, and developed following significant consultation with the communities. So, could you just tell committee briefly, Cabinet Secretary, why you feel there's a need to refresh and revise targets possibly at this stage?

Well, we had always agreed that we would have a refresh after two years of the whole 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', so this is just one part of it, and I would, obviously, be bringing this refreshed 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' to the Senedd in due course, within the next few weeks.

The 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', as you know, has an external accountability group, which is co-chaired by the Permanent Secretary and Professor Emmanuel Ogbonna. The external accountability group includes people from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities; they have stakeholders in the group. But also there has been discussion in terms of bringing forward refreshed actions for Gypsy, Roma, Traveller communities. There has been feedback that perhaps we should have something that much more reflects their needs.

I think the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' purpose and actions are very valued. We've talked about it just now in terms of the piloting for the private sites, which very much came from the communities themselves, but, certainly the refresh is being developed with Gypsy, Roma, Traveller communities, stakeholders and local authorities, and we want to focus more on delivery of tangible outcomes for the community.

Okay, thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Yes.

Just to add, we've taken the opportunity with that to just strengthen the whole focus on Gypsy, Roma, Travellers, to reflect the deep inequalities that they face, and discrimination. And so, Gypsy, Roma, Traveller equalities is one of the six cross-cutting themes, and all areas of Welsh Government have been asked to strengthen their approach and engagement with Gypsy, Roma, Traveller communities in the refreshed plan.

Okay, thank you very much. James Evans.

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, I want to talk about capacity and resources. Could you elaborate on the regular cycle of meetings between Welsh Government officials and local authorities? What are the specific goals of those meetings and what do they aim to achieve? In particular, what types of support and expertise are the Welsh Government offering to local authorities to enhance their capacity to meet the needs of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities across Wales?

Thank you very much for that question. I think we've covered quite a bit about the ways in which we are engaging with local authorities, not just in terms of their statutory duty to provide the GTAAs, but also the fact that they are also applying to us for funding for refurbishment and new capital sites and transit sites. So, there is a great deal of engagement at the official level from the team. Actually, I think the grant officers in your team are the ones who are particularly engaged, and they will be engaged with the designated officers in each local authority.

But, over and above that—. So, this is very operational in terms of developing, and, because it's the five-year cycle, there's been intensive engagement with the latest round of GTAAs. But also, on a grant level, we've got £3.44 million available this year, and I hope for it to be spent to the £1 by the end of the financial year. That requires lots of engagement.

But also I've mentioned, just in terms of the ‘Anti-racist Wales Action Plan’, local authorities are delivering on the ‘Anti-racist Wales Action Plan’. Many of the goals and actions involve local authorities. Also, of course, we've just funded Travelling Ahead, and we've covered the fact that they have very much a bridging role. They engage with local authorities as well as the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller communities themselves.

But, finally, I'd say that, and I've already mentioned the fact, I meet as regularly as I can with local authorities. So, yes, we need to support our officers and officials working on a very difficult area of policy, because of the prejudice and discrimination often, Chair, that Gypsy, Roma, Traveller people experience. I had it on the agenda of the equality meetings with equality and community cohesion cabinet members only last week. I always put it on the agenda when we meet, and they value it. It's a two-way process and we learn a lot because they're also, in these meetings, sharing with each other experience, which is a helpful way of bringing local authorities together in that capacity. And one point that I made in my evidence, and it's a good example of local authorities coming to us and Gypsy Roma Traveller people, was about the cost of fuel, energy costs. And so last year we funded £290,000 for a package of winter fuel support to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community people. It helped 332 families—this is in the evidence—across local authority sites and we're developing a similar programme for this financial year. And this is about helping local authorities, back to the maintenance and the sustainability of our sites. This helps local authorities, but it helps Gypsy, Roma, Traveller people, particularly because of the access to off-grid fuel, for example, on sites. So, I think we've got a robust—. Well, you've heard from the local authorities today as well about the working relationship.

Yes, so, with that working relationship, obviously there are probably asks that come from these groups as well back to Government. So, I’m just interested in what areas of policy are you considering changing or tweaking to address issues that come forward. So, you talk about energy, housing specifically, and also health is also an issue, the outcomes for those communities as well. So, are there any areas of policy from those meetings that you're looking to change or tweak because of the feedback you're getting as part of these meetings?

Well, I think you'll have heard already that we did change the criteria in terms of using the capital grant to acquire land. That was directly as a result of engagement with local authorities. I've just mentioned another example, this winter fuel initiative for Gypsy, Roma, Traveller communities. I think local authorities—. This came to us via various sources, and the fact that we were supporting people with the cost-of-living crisis. We said that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people mustn't be left out of that. But I think the point that Amelia has made about the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' is important, and you'll see in the refreshed version that this is not just about accommodation, it's not about the sites—it's about education, it's about well-being, it's about access to leisure, it's about access to health and social care. I think that's the rounded picture of how you will see it reflected. We want more engagement at a local, regional and national level with those wider policy areas, and I think local authorities themselves see those opportunities.

On capacity, we heard from local authorities this morning. Not every local authority has a community liaison officer to deal with this community, and sometimes other areas of the council are picking up work. So, planning might pick up a little bit, housing will pick up a little bit, education will pick up a little bit, and it's very difficult for those local authorities to build the trust with the communities and actually get that tangible evidence and data back for the Welsh Government to implement change.

There is a drive within the Welsh Government and within the local authority sphere to move things to more collaborative working on a regional footing through corporate joint committees. Is it something, perhaps, that the Welsh Government could look to fund, perhaps, those regional liaison officers, especially in places like mid and west Wales, Monmouthshire, where they were saying they don't have a liaison officer, and across south Wales, so there could be one single point of contact across the region that families and communities could go to as a trusted person that feeds back into the wider structures?

It's a bit of a piecemeal approach at the minute across local authorities, isn't it, about how they engage with the communities, and I don't think you're going to get the proper engagement with the communities if, one minute, a planning officer is helping them with something, and then an education officer is dealing with something, then somebody else. Do you think that's something that the Welsh Government could look at funding in the future, maybe, on a regional basis, if this is a priority for the Welsh Government?

I think one has to go back to the fact that this is a statutory duty on local authorities—

But the Government placed that statutory duty on them, didn't they?

Yes, but there are many statutory duties on local authorities across the board, aren't there? The law was passed by this Senedd; it's a statutory duty. And to be fair to local authorities, they know it's a statutory duty, and some local authorities—even, I would say, some of the smaller authorities—have got excellent leadership in terms of support. Of course, it actually helps them to invest in—. And it may be one designated officer. We've met—of course, you know many of them across Wales—the officers who are dedicated to this role, and some local authorities also have people working on sites—the wardens, et cetera. So, it is about regarding this as a priority as well as a statutory duty.

I mentioned Travelling Ahead and the commission, that we're funding that organisation, which works across Wales. That's really important for local authorities. There is some regional working. The public services boards have got a role to play with that. But I think one of the good things that's coming forward from the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' is that we've appointed regional convenors. And perhaps that follows your point, James: the regional convenors are going to be responsible for engaging with communities and local authorities across the board in terms of black, Asian and minority ethnic needs. But as Gypsies, Roma and Travellers have come to the fore, really, in terms of the refreshed plan, I think we'll be able to tell the committee more about the regional convenors, which that will be of help to local authorities, but particularly to the people that we're trying to support.

We've gone a little bit over, Cabinet Secretary. Are you able to remain with us just a little longer? We have a couple of questions on the ombudsman's report.

Yes, that's fine.

Okay. Altaf Hussain.

Thank you very much, Chair. Thanks, Cabinet Secretary. I'm sure you've seen the report. It talks about the Welsh Government's inaction and delay in the case investigated amounting to maladministration, causing an injustice to those complainants. Cabinet Secretary, what steps has the Welsh Government taken since the publication of this report and findings into failings in relation to the GTAA process and dealing with complaints about the accommodation needs of the GRT community?

Thank you very much, Altaf. This is a really important question and I'm glad we've been able to reach it. The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales made six recommendations, and all have been accepted and completed by the PSOW deadline.

Thanks, Cabinet Secretary. That's very good. Do you accept the ruling that article 8 of the convention on human rights was engaged, contributing to a situation where the rights of those two persons to have their family life respected may have been compromised?

This is something that obviously was of great concern. Just to clarify this point, neither complainant alleged that the Welsh Government had unlawfully interfered with the article 8 rights, and I think this is something where the Welsh Government remains very clear that it's for local authorities to secure accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. Obviously, I've said yes, we've accepted all the recommendations, but part of that was to—as I've outlined today—deliver on all the GTAAs et cetera. But we've been very clear that it's the local authorities' duty in terms of suitable accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. We have the powers of enforcement when a local authority fails to deliver on that statutory duty, but it wouldn't have been appropriate to use those powers in either of these cases because both local authorities had taken reasonable steps to find suitable accommodation for these two families. This is just in terms of the particular response to your question. It wasn't raised by the complainants; we didn't accept the ombudsman's argument that any failure to monitor delivery by the two authorities or to take enforcement action would have contributed to a situation where the rights of the complainants to have their family life respected may have been compromised.

Okay, Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much, and thank you, Altaf. Just one last point from me: when we took evidence from the local authorities earlier, there seemed to be little or no awareness of the ombudsman's ruling, and given, as you say, that local authorities have a key role in this, maybe that's something that might usefully be addressed, I think.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you to your officials as well for giving evidence today and for staying with us beyond the allotted time. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr.

You know you'll be sent a transcript in the usual way. Diolch.

Our next item is papers to note. We have paper 3, paper 4, paper 5, and paper 6, all of which relate to this particular inquiry. Are Members content to note those papers? Yes, I see that you are.

Item 6 is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Is committee content to do so? I see that you are. We will move into private session.