The short debate is the next item on the agenda. I call on Huw Irranca-Davies to speak on the topic that he has chosen.

Diolch, Lywydd. Last week there was a packed meeting in Heol-y-cyw community hall. I guess there were over 150 people because, as well as every seat being full, people were standing in the aisles and around the walls. People, young and old, voiced their concerns over a fire that had raged in the Heol-y-cyw premises of South Wales Wood Recycling Ltd, causing a thick, unpleasant smog to billow out across the village and neighbouring areas. I’d first spotted it when I looked down the Llynfi valley early one morning from my home several miles away in Maesteg—a thick spume of smoke, very evident from the hilltop. It was like groundhog day and I instantly thought, ‘My goodness, it’s another wood fire just like the one near Coytrahen earlier that year’. Indeed, earlier, in March that year, I’d driven down the lower Llynfi valley into a similar dense, white smog that was slowing traffic down to a crawl. The whole of the valley bottom was engulfed in a foul-smelling and cough-inducing mass of smoke that lingered and settled in the valley bottom. Residents of nearby Bettws, Shwt and Coytrahen had to put up with the worst of this for days, but people as far afield as Bridgend were reporting effects.

What links these two fires is a company called South Wales Wood Recycling. Residents want to know what’s going on and so do I. Investigations are ongoing, so nothing I say today will risk compromising those investigations and any related actions. However, I will be robust in articulating the concerns of my constituents and demanding action as their Assembly Member. And, as a legislator in this Parliament of Wales, I will be specific in suggesting improvements to the current legal and regulatory regime.

Here’s the essence of the matter: South Wales Wood Recycling, a company with a recycling base in Heol-y-cyw in my constituency, have now had three fires in piles of biomass or contaminated wood waste over the last year, in three different locations. One may be regarded as unfortunate, but three? Well, this raises significant concerns. The first fire started in Newport in November last year and it burnt for over two months. I watched this on the news with interest and with concern, but, ‘Newport’s a long way from Ogmore and, well, it’s an isolated incident, surely’.

The second was in March, as I said, between Coytrahen and Llangynwyd in the lower Llynfi valley. It’s only a couple of miles from my home. This was not a site that I and other local people understood was being used for processing or storage of biomass or wood waste, and people locally are concerned that this and the fire in Heol-y-cyw is not burning biomass at all—as in, clean, virgin wood—but may, instead, be contaminated low-grade wood waste from processed and recycled wood, including plastics and PVCs and other materials. We’re waiting to find out, but the health concerns are clear.

When the material on the Llynfi site caught fire in March, this low-lying valley was smothered in deep, unpleasant and nauseating smoke and smog for days, causing real fear of health impacts. Local councillors, like Martyn Jones, took a lead role with local residents and worked closely with me and with Chris Elmore MP and others to get to the bottom of this to encourage the various agencies, including the fire service, Natural Resources Wales, the local authority and Public Health Wales to co-ordinate their response better and, crucially, to communicate effectively to residents.

The local authority ultimately played a key role in liaising between agencies and with local residents. But Councillor Jones and I and local MP, Chris Elmore, subsequently met with senior staff at NRW, who have responsibilities for permitting and environmental regulations and enforcement, and, more recently, with the local authority, which has planning and environmental health responsibilities. We wanted to understand what had led to wood waste being present on the Llynfi site and without informing residents, without informing elected representatives or any regulatory agencies. We wanted to know whether the disposal of materials on the Llynfi site was authorised. But this meeting also allowed us to reiterate some of the concerns of residents over the operation of the main processing site several miles away in Heol-y- cyw—matters that had also been raised with us by residents and by local councillors like Gary Thomas and Alex Owen. We did not realise at that point that, before long, a third fire would occur at that very site in Heol-y -cyw. Once again, at the Heol-y-cyw fire, fire attenders were sent, the local authority and NRW attended, and residents, understandably, feared for their health and their safety and their homes. Some, as with the earlier fire in the Llynfi valley, were forced to leave their homes while others, with disabilities and mobility issues, were unable to leave, but they suffered the horrendous nauseating smoke inside and outside their homes—it got everywhere. And, once again, despite the excellent work, at great cost to the taxpayer by the emergency services, the residents were left in a literal smog, but also a smog of confusion over, ‘How could this happen again?’

Local councillors, like Alex, himself a fireman, who’s been engaged in directly responding to these events, I, Chris Elmore and others were there, once again, asking on behalf of residents, ‘How did this happen? Who’s in charge? Who is communicating with residents?’ That brings us to that packed meeting in Heol-y-cyw community hall last week, which was—Suzy Davies was there and other colleagues here—standing room only. At that meeting, we heard local residents allege that stockpiles of wood waste regularly exceeded the permitted height and dimensions, contravening planning consents and the environmental permit. That’s what residents said. They said that this was a disaster waiting to happen.

The investigation is ongoing to determine the causes, and we must let those investigations run their course, but let me turn to the wider responsibility of the directors of the company, South Wales Wood Recycling. Reassuring statements after the event have appeared on the website, but they’ve been otherwise absent from the scene, not playing their part in engaging with the community, explaining what is going on and helping to give reassurance.

But, I am advised they do leap to action in other ways. I’m led to understand that they do hire top-notch legal experts to challenge enforcement orders and stop notices, leading the local authority and Natural Resources Wales on a merry dance, trying to delay and obfuscate. And meanwhile, the money for recycling rolls in, and yes, as the Cabinet Secretary knows, there is money in waste. There is money in recycling. In fact, there are millions if not billions to be made. The latest data suggest that the UK recycling industry as a whole was worth £23.3 billion in 2015, up 15 per cent on the year before.

In the wood recycling sector, there are fortunes to be made as wood waste of different types of grades is diverted from landfill to biomass and energy projects and to recycled uses such as chipboard and value-added products such as equine and public pathway servicing and garden mulches. The public net worth of South Wales Wood Recycling rocketed from £313,651 in 2013 to £1,303,675 in 2015. They have plans to expand. This company is going places, it seems.

We need recycling companies to succeed. We actually want them to do well so we are sending less to landfill, wasting less and helping us to become a more sustainable Wales and world. But they have to do this properly. Any company involved in this needs to care for their communities, not just their profits. Of course, we have to let any investigations into these activities follow their course. But let’s be clear too: any company, regardless of this one, that does not show respect for their local communities or any company that demonstrates indifference or even contempt for their communities in their actions or inaction will ultimately be held to account. They must be held to account. For any such company to appeal every challenge, knowing that this delays the process by months, to hire fancy barristers to tie knots in enforcement agencies while the money continues to roll in is just rubbing the faces of residents in it.

I want to see responsible waste recycling companies in Wales that do good by the planet and do good by their communities. So, I say to the directors of South Wales Wood Recycling Ltd, ‘You are looking pretty irresponsible and cavalier at the moment. You’ve got your work cut out to get local people back on your side, and I’m one of them.’ Meanwhile, Cabinet Secretary, I do have some specific suggestions, and I know you’ll be constrained from commenting on the details of these incidents and this company because of ongoing inquiries and investigations, but I believe there is more we can do as a legislature here.

We can put more power in the hands of regulatory and enforcement bodies and in the hands of local people, and I’m more than willing to help take this forward. We have the powers in Wales already over many relevant areas of waste management, landfill, planning, environmental enforcement and more besides. Other powers are reserved currently and we’d need to work with the Westminster Government, but I and local government colleagues in Wales and others are keen to work with you to tighten up the regulatory and legislative regime so that the good waste management and recycling companies are rewarded and the bad are rounded up, sanctioned and put out of business if necessary.

So, here are some specific suggestions. Firstly, let’s set up a small, time-constrained task and finish group to review the legislative and regulatory framework for licensing and planning controls of waste and recycling operations, and look at the scope for extending the framework of criminal law in this area. Second: seek to strengthen significantly the financial penalties on breaches of planning and environmental permits, which are currently so insignificant, frankly, that they’re often regarded as puny and petty by the offenders. The higher end of penalties for those who wilfully or repeatedly offend should cause extreme financial and personal embarrassment to individual company directors as well as owners or shareholders. Third: explore ways of putting sanctions directly against named company directors and owners, including the possibility of suspending or banning individuals guilty of repeat or serious offences from holding any positions in related industry sectors—name and shame for a first or lower offence, but bar them from holding such positions for serious or repeat offences. Fourth: bring forward proposals for streamlining and improving the co-ordination of investigations between organisations such as enforcement agencies and planning authorities. The better sharing of intelligence data and legal expertise will help balance the scales of justice.

Five: develop new ways to entirely remove parts of this process from legal and judicial proceedings, which are costly for the taxpayer and time-consuming for enforcement agencies, frustrating for residents and others affected by ongoing issues. For example, if a company proceeds to operate illegally or in contravention of permits whilst appealing a stop order, they know they’re trying to dance rings around people. It’s also risky for enforcement agencies, who know they could face even higher legal costs and claims for operational losses if they’re unsuccessful. Let’s find a way to make a stop order on paper a stop order in practice and put the balance back in favour of the enforcement agencies and of local people. Corporate lawyers and barristers are trying to run roughshod over democratically elected Ministers and councillors and local people. Let’s get the balance right.

Six: extend stop notices and other enforcement powers to cover existing consents, not just new offences and new developments, so that stop notices and other sanctions can be enforced on existing operations where they contravene the permitting or the planning conditions. And seven: examine the scope for extending criminal law to cover new areas covered currently by planning and environmental law, such as serious risk to amenity, and allow local authorities to determine what is constituted by that serious risk. This would allow the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be applied to breaches, so that profits made by criminal behaviour could be sequestered to the public.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Now, there are some practical, legislative and regulatory proposals that would make a real long-term difference, way beyond the immediate issues in my own constituency. But to return finally to South Wales Wood Recycling, it appears to residents that it has either grown too fast and beyond its capacity to manage its operations effectively or it’s grown greedy. Cabinet Secretary, the directors of this company either need to sort these issues out rapidly themselves or they will need sorting out robustly by Government and its enforcement agencies to stop activities that are damaging the people and the communities I represent and which are currently suffering under its presence. So, I hope, Cabinet Secretary, you’ll find merit in my arguments and my proposals for changing the way we hold operators to account in our regulations and legislation. We need to put the balance back in favour of good operators, the enforcement and the planning agencies and the people we represent. I’m more than happy to meet with you and with Cabinet colleagues at any time to take these issues forward. Thank you.

Can you confirm that you’ve allowed Caroline Jones and Suzy Davies both to have a minute each?

Yes indeed, boss.

Right. Okay, I’ll be generous. Caroline Jones then.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I’d like to thank Huw for bringing forward this short debate and for agreeing to give me a minute of his time. Thankfully, for my constituents in South Cornelly and the surrounding areas, South Wales Wood Recycling have withdrawn plans for a plant in the village. The company have been beset with problems with fires at their Bridgend and Newport facilities, which have had a detrimental impact on the health of residents living near the plants and in the surrounding areas. However, there are also the hidden health impacts from this type of facility. The health impacts of wood dust, which South Wales Wood Recycling’s own consultants describe as having

‘the potential to be extremely significant’ is of biggest concern to local residents. The question arises, therefore: why are local councils and the Welsh Government allowing plants such as these to be built in the first place?

I attended public meetings in North Cornelly and Porthcawl and the attendance on both occasions was at least 150 people and 220 people respectively. The factual evidence provided regarding the health impact was extremely concerning. I hope, in responding to the debate, the Cabinet Secretary will undertake a review of the planning guidelines and environmental consents covering this type of facility. Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd.

Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd, and thank you, Huw, for bringing this short debate forward today. Obviously, we’ve been having parallel conversations with the individual bodies you mentioned, so I won’t repeat anything you’ve said except to encourage the Cabinet Secretary to consider some of the suggestions that Huw Irranca-Davies put forward. One of the points that was put to me is that some of these might have been accommodated in the recent Planning (Wales) Act 2015, and I view that as something of a missed opportunity, but I appreciate you weren’t the lead Cabinet Secretary on that.

Two specific points; sorry, three—when past breaches of regulation fall short of being criminal, is there a case to be made there that that should be able to be taken into account by planning officers when considering whether to grant planning permission for different sites? At the moment, the bar on that is particularly high. Secondly—the perverse incentive of local authorities paying for waste wood to be taken as part of their recycling programme, rather than paying on distribution of the chipped wood.

Thirdly, I wonder if you can give us any guidance at the moment on how those whose health is affected by the poisons that are carried on the wind from such fires are to be compensated, because it’s not clear at the moment whether we’re talking about class actions or whether individuals might, under any particular scheme, be able to make a claim for proven, through causation, ill health? Thank you.

I call the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to reply to the debate—Lesley.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to thank Huw Irranca-Davies for bringing this short debate forward and Caroline Jones and Suzy Davies for their contributions.

The way that society manages waste has changed radically over the last 20 years, and this has had implications for people, the environment and regulation. As waste has been diverted away from landfill and up the waste hierarchy, there have been significant environmental benefits, but it has also brought some environmental risks. We now have less reliance on landfill, we have more waste being separately collected, recycled and recovered, with many more sites sorting and processing waste before it is sent for treatment and disposal.

These sites are an integral part of the infrastructure that we need to manage our waste, and when waste companies and sites operate well they have a positive benefit on the environment, businesses and society as a whole. They help to preserve precious resources, create jobs and move Wales towards a more circular economy.

Most of the waste industry does operate responsibly, and with the changes in waste management a number of operators, many new to the industry, may need to better understand the regulatory requirements and precautions for managing waste. There is also a small part of the industry that fails to meet the required standards of, or operates outside the law, and we do need to take strong action to prevent these from operating and to remove them from the industry.

We know from our discussions with the Environmental Services Association and their UK report on waste crime that illegal activity is costing around £569 million a year and undermining legitimate business. More importantly, these activities are damaging our environment and harming our communities, and I commend the people of Heol-y-cyw for the way they’ve coped with the incident. I also think I should mention the three local councillors that Huw Irranca-Davies also mentioned—Alex Owen, Martyn Jones and Gary Thomas—for the way they’ve worked with the emergency services and regulators, and supported their constituents and communities.

We do have a dual regulatory regime for authorising waste activities. The local authority planning regime controls the development and use of land, imposing requirements on a developer to control traffic movement, noise and other impacts on the local environment and community. This is complemented by the environmental permitting regime, which protects the environment and human health by controlling the day-to-day operations at a site. Most waste operators are required to have an environmental permit issued by Natural Resources Wales. Some smaller low-risk activities can be registered as exempt from permitting, but in both permitted and exempt cases conditions are set with which operators must comply in the running of their operations. These conditions include controls on the types and quantities of waste that can be handled, the height and spacing of stockpiles and the fire precautions to minimise risk of fire.

NRW is responsible for the day-to-day regulation of sites and for taking actions against those who fail to meet the required standards or who operate outside the law. They have powers to stop offending, control and to clean up sites, and to deter or punish criminal activity. In carrying out their regulatory duties, NRW inspect and audit sites to check for compliance. Enforcement is achieved through working with operators and, where necessary, serving compliance or enforcement notices, or issuing stop and suspension notices. They also have the ability to vary or revoke a permit.

I support and encourage organisations to work together to tackle these issues. NRW have been working with the Wales fire and rescue services to identify high-risk sites and to target regulation at these sites. In May of this year, they jointly published guidance on fire prevention and mitigation. This guidance is being used to modify permits and develop fire prevention requirements for new permits.

NRW have also been working with Bridgend County Borough Council and continue to jointly monitor the illegal storage of woodchip at the former Llynfi valley power station. South Wales Wood Recycling Ltd operates a number of sites. They have two permitted facilities for the storage of waste wood where fires have occurred. NRW are currently investigating the company and taking legal action. To avoid prejudicing this action, Deputy Presiding Officer, I’m unable to comment on the specific activities of the company. I do recognise the serious concerns about poorly performing sites and the need to ensure sites are well operated and regulated.

I’ve been working with NRW to strengthen their enforcement powers to tackle waste crime and poor performance in the waste industry. Last year, we introduced powers to make it easier for the regulator to suspend permits and to take steps to remove a risk of serious pollution. We’ve introduced powers to make it easier for NRW to make an application to the High Court for an injunction to enforce compliance with enforcement and suspension notices.

I’ll be introducing more new powers to enable the regulator to take strong action to stop criminals. I’ll provide powers to NRW to lock the gates of a site, to physically stop access and prevent more waste coming into the site. Those who unlawfully keep or allow waste to be kept on their land will be made responsible for removal of waste from that land. I will review provisions for a new fit-and-proper-person test, to ensure operators are competent and financially secure to run facilities.

I will also be consulting early next year on a review of the exemption regime. This will look closely at the storage of flammable materials and provide further improvements to tighten the regulatory regime. I’m looking very seriously at the possibility of providing civil sanctions, such as variable monetary penalties and enforcement undertakings, to sit alongside the criminal sanctions within the permitting regime. I will raise this matter with NRW and consider how we can take this forward. The Welsh Government is looking to introduce the landfill disposals tax Bill in April 2018. Proposals in the Bill will require the payment of tax on illegal deposits, which will provide a further strong deterrent against illegal activity.

The justice system is a reserved matter, therefore I do not have the powers to amend financial penalties for breaches of planning and environmental permits. However, in general, waste legislation already does carry the maximum penalty. On indictment, this can mean an unlimited fine or a sentence of up to two years in prison. Whilst, historically, the level of fines imposed by courts has been low, and may not have acted as an adequate deterrent or penalty, in 2014, guidelines on the sentencing of environmental offences were issued to criminal courts by the Sentencing Council. For the first time, a tariff has been provided to indicate the appropriate level of penalties, dependent upon the seriousness of the offence and the turnover and profit of the organisation involved. This sentencing guideline has already had a marked impact on the sentencing of waste offences. For more serious cases of illegal activity, NRW consider using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to recover money made illegally. They’ve had some success in using these powers, which act as both a strong penalty and deterrent to other offenders.

I do agree that more needs to be done to improve the performance of the sector and to remove the rogue element from the industry. I will continue to consider the options to strengthen regulatory action with NRW and the industry to ensure this happens. I am, of course, happy to meet with Huw Irranca-Davies to discuss his ideas in more detail, and I hope the legislative changes that I have outlined, and the action that I’ve taken, will reassure Members present and all constituents that I am tackling this matter. I will also ensure that the points that you’ve all raised are taken up with NRW and update the Member when we meet. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That brings today’s proceedings to a close. Thank you.

The meeting ended at 18:25.