We move on to item 7, which is a debate on petitions P-04-472, 'Make the MTAN law', and P-04-575, 'Call in All Opencast Mining Planning Applications'. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee to move the motion—David Rowlands.

Motion NDM6747 David J. Rowlands

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the report of the Petitions Committee on petition P-04-472, 'Make the MTAN law and P-04-575 Call in all opencast mining applications—Summary of consideration', which was laid in the Table Office on 27 April 2018.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you for the opportunity to have this debate about the Petitions Committee's report on two petitions concerning opencast mining. Both petitions were submitted during the previous Assembly session and have been under discussion for a considerable length of time. Therefore, I would like to begin by acknowledging the work that has been done on these issues by Members in both the current and previous Assemblies. In particular, I would like to place on record our thanks to the previous Petitions Committee. 

Petition P-04-472, which was submitted by Dr John Cox and collected 680 signatures, concerns the status of 'Minerals Technical Advice Note 2: Coal', more commonly known as MTAN 2. Dr Cox’s contention is that the content of the MTAN should be made mandatory in planning law in Wales. In particular, he has referred to the requirement for there to be a 500m buffer zone around opencast workings and provided examples of where this has not been enforced.

David Melding took the Chair.

The second petition to the Assembly, P-04-575, calls for all opencast mining planning applications to be called in and determined by the Welsh Government. It was submitted by the United Valleys Action Group, led by Terry Evans, and collected 180 signatures. The Petitions Committee would like to acknowledge the conscientious, determined and patient way in which both sets of petitioners have engaged with the Assembly during the time these petitions have been under consideration.

We laid our report on these petitions in the Table Office on 27 April. The report contains an overview of the evidence we received during our consideration of these issues, in both the fourth and fifth Assemblies. Members will be aware that all the evidence we have received, whether written or oral, is also publicly available through the Assembly’s website.

I will speak about some of the evidence during the rest of this contribution. The MTAN guidance covers a wide range of issues relating to coal developments, including the selection of sites, protection of the environment and reducing the impact of coal extraction on local communities. It, like other planning policy and guidance, should be taken into account in planning decisions, but there is no explicit statutory requirement for it to be followed.

Dr Cox’s petition calls for the MTAN to be put onto a statutory basis and made mandatory in planning law. The petition was prompted by the planning process that followed an application for an opencast mine at Varteg Hill in Torfaen. This is an issue that I am aware has been raised in this Chamber on a number of previous occasions, notably by Lynne Neagle, and we acknowledge her considerable contribution to the discussions around MTAN.

This application went against aspects of the MTAN guidelines, including in relation to the buffer zone around the proposed works. The application was rejected by Torfaen County Borough Council, but was then subject to an appeal by the developer. Dr Cox’s view was that the planning inspector proceeded to disregard the MTAN guidelines during the hearings and in reaching the decision to approve the application. The result was the petition’s contention that the guidelines should be strengthened by being placed on a statutory footing.

In response, the Welsh Government has argued that planning policies need to have a flexibility that would not be possible if they were made law. However, the Cabinet Secretary has stated on the record her view that planning policy should be taken into consideration at all stages during the planning process. The committee concurs with this. However, we have also raised concerns over the degree of oversight within the Planning Inspectorate itself, and whether auditing is conducted on the decisions taken by inspectors. We consider this to be extremely important in relation to ensuring there is a basic consistency of approach taken, especially in relation to appeals.

The petition from the United Valleys Action Group proposed that all opencast mining planning applications over a certain size should be called in by the Welsh Government. This would be a way to potentially achieve that consistency. The petitioners have argued that the implications of these developments are far-reaching and long-standing, with effects beyond the immediate locality. Therefore, they feel such applications should be considered on a national basis.

The committee notes that the call-in process is concerned with the question of who should take a planning decision, rather than the merits, or otherwise, of a specific application. The grounds for call-in can include instances where an application may have effects beyond the immediate area; is likely to significantly affect areas of landscape or nature; or is in conflict with national planning policies. The petitioner's argument is that these criteria are all relevant to applications for opencast mining developments. Furthermore, they have raised concerns over whether the technical knowledge and expertise exists within local planning authorities to deal effectively with planning applications of this type. However, Ministers have expressed the view that the power to call in applications should be used selectively. Therefore, the Welsh Government does not consider a blanket policy to call in all planning applications of this type to be appropriate.

I will now turn to recent general developments in relation to coal extraction, and the Welsh Government’s planning policies in particular. The Cabinet Secretary has made clear on several occasions that the Welsh Government’s intention is to move towards a low-carbon economy and away from the continued use of fossil fuels. The recent consultation on changes to 'Planning Policy Wales' has confirmed this direction of travel. In relation to opencast mining, the version of the policy put out to consultation stated that,

'Proposals for opencast, deep-mine development or colliery spoil disposal should not be permitted.'

The Petitions Committee welcomed this approach in our report. The consultation has now closed, and we would, of course, be interested in any updates that the Cabinet Secretary can provide today on this aspect of future national planning policy.

I wish to also touch briefly on the issues of legacy and reinstatement. A number of examples have been highlighted to us where restoration works at opencast sites have been inadequate, or even non-existent. Both sets of petitioners argued strongly that much more needed to be done on this, including that a deposit equivalent to the full costs of site restoration should be obtained upfront by local authorities. We note that this issue has also been the subject of recent coverage in the media. Again, this is an issue covered within 'Planning Policy Wales'. However, while the draft policy stresses the importance of restoration, it stops short of requiring a full upfront deposit. This approach has clearly led to issues in the past where local authorities have not been able to recover the necessary costs for restoration. The committee has concluded that effective guarantees must be obtained from those responsible for opencast mine developments. Potentially, this may include an upfront deposit for the full costs of site restoration or reinstatement. We believe that the Welsh Government should keep the effectiveness of national policy in this regard under close review.

To conclude, based upon the evidence gathered over a substantial period of time, the committee reached four conclusions. We are pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has subsequently expressed her support for all of these. It currently appears unlikely that Wales will see further applications for opencast mining in the future. Furthermore, if planning policy is revised along the lines proposed, it would seem likely that any such applications would be refused. Whilst this should be of some comfort to people who have petitioned the Assembly on this subject, it is also vital that the Welsh Government and local planning authorities effectively enforce these policies that exist to safeguard local communities and the environment. This must include ensuring that national planning policies are followed and upheld, except, perhaps, in exceptional circumstances, and that adequate provision can be guaranteed and utilised to return sites to suitable use by local communities. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm very pleased to just make a brief contribution in this debate. As David Rowlands has highlighted, the petition 'Make the MTAN law' was tabled by one of my constituents, Dr John Cox, and I have worked closely with him on that petition and gave evidence to the Petitions Committee back in May 2013. As David Rowlands has said, the petition was tabled after Torfaen council had rejected the application to opencast mine at Varteg Hill. That application was to opencast just metres from residents' homes and a local primary school.

I absolutely think that Torfaen council did the right thing. They looked at the MTAN and they saw that there was a buffer zone there, and on that basis, they rejected the application. It is, of course, not without risk for a local authority to turn down an application because there's always the possibility of an appeal and of cash-strapped local authorities being hit with costs if they lose that appeal. However, Torfaen council did the right thing and rejected it, but unfortunately, the developers appealed and it went to a full planning inquiry.

At that point, the planning inspector seemingly disregarded the guidance in the MTAN policy about the buffer zone and recommended an approval. So, he flew directly in the face of not just Welsh Government policy, but policy that was unanimously agreed by this Assembly. And it was that which led to this petition, really, because we didn't believe that there should be this disjoint in Welsh Government policy, Assembly policy, and what actually happens on the ground.

I'm pleased that we're debating this report today, and I very much hope that David Rowlands is right in looking forward to hearing what the Cabinet Secretary's going to say, and I hope that we won't see new opencast applications. But I'm not entirely clear from this report how this is going to protect communities going forward from the same kind of thing happening that happened in Varteg Hill. We need some assurances that where there is a policy in place, planning inspectors are going to abide by this policy.

I'm grateful to David Rowlands for his kind words to me, but I did just want to raise concerns about the very long length of time it has taken for this petition to come to fruition here. It's been five years, and I think we have to recognise that when citizens or communities approach the Petitions Committee, they do so because they need our help and support with an issue there and then, really. I think it is incumbent on all of us to try and respond to those concerns in as timely a way as possible. I don't know why it has taken so long for this to come to debate today, but I do think that is something that we need to look at, because there's no point having a Petitions Committee if we can't respond in a timely and effective way to the concerns of the citizens of Wales.

I look forward to hearing the Cabinet Secretary's assurances that other communities in Wales—and hopefully, certainly, my community in particular—will never be put in the position that the residents of Varteg and Torfaen council were put in some years ago.

Just before I finish, I would like to place on record my very grateful thanks to Carl Sargeant who, thankfully, did have the good sense to reject the application against the recommendation of the Planning Inspectorate. So, a very big thank you from myself and the residents of Varteg to Carl Sargeant. Thank you.

Mark Reckless.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer, and I'm sure some Members from the previous Assemblies will have fond memories come to mind of seeing you in the chair. May I also put my congratulations on the record for your investiture with a CBE yesterday from Prince Charles?

The Petitions Committee, I was quite struck that the Petitions Committee was coming here today notwithstanding how long ago these petitions initially came.  There may have been particular reasons for delays, but for my part, I would like to thank David Rowlands as Chair, and the committee, for continuing to pursue this, and the fact that it had been there for a long time wasn't a reason for it to be forgotten, but actually to be brought here today for a debate. I think that, at least, is positive.

Lynne, I think, has spoken clearly about the particular difficulties, and I would concur with her criticism of the inspector's report on that Torfaen application, but at the end of the day, the Minister made the right decision that was consistent with the guidance. And it strikes me that the guidance regime provides for a sensible level of local discretion, and every application and every proposed development will be different, and for Ministers, Government and this Assembly having input to provide guidance on what are the appropriate things to consider strikes me as sensible. Then the planning committee can take into account local situations and, as importantly, local representations. It's clear that opencast mining is rarely popular, and, where it's been brought forward, generally there have been significant objections. I see no reason why a locally elected planning committee would not properly take into account those objections from the people that live in their area, and I think that regime is probably better in supporting localism, which we on these benches strongly support, rather than either making that guidance statutory or having a requirement that, in each and every case, irrespective of the particulars of the local area, above a certain size, you should call in an application.

However, I think the petitioners have largely succeeded in their objectives. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us further when she speaks. But I think the draft Planning Policy Wales 10, where consultation finished in mid May, seems to have quite a significant tightening of the policy, and it's difficult to see how opencast mining gets through this. The Chairman of the committee gave the first sentence; it does continue:

'Should, in wholly exceptional circumstances, proposals be put forward they would clearly need to demonstrate why they are needed in the context of climate change emissions reductions targets and for reasons of national energy security.' 

I think that's interesting and, in some ways, challenging, because it puts the onus of the exception on national and, presumably, UK-wide considerations of climate change targets and energy security. I just wonder, within that, if there is a proposal that's been put by UK Government and a policy—I think it was previously supported, to a degree, by Welsh Government—that coal should be phased out to a certain extent, I think, into the mid to late 2020s, if, in the meantime, someone said, 'Well, that's the policy, that's agreed, but, in terms of energy security, isn't it better this should be produced domestically rather than relying on imports from far afield?' I just wonder what a planning inspector would make of that argument, and we'll look forward to seeing the final guidance that the Minister puts forward in this area.

The Valleys have moved on since the days of coal mining and being perhaps the leading coal mining area in the world, and certainly in terms of the quality of the coal. We've had some opencast mining, but it's been pretty unpopular when put forward. I know there's been a proposal about the Dowlais Top where people had very strong views against it. Also, I think the Rhydycar West area, where there were previously proposals for opencast mining—I think it's very exciting that Marvel are now putting forward this really substantial proposal for a development that I hope, at least, will be more popular than opencast mining, an indoor snow centre, a skate and bike park, an indoor water park, and holiday accommodation and homes, and really very substantial investment has already gone into this and I thank them for their invitation to an information event on Friday.

But I think the issue of call in and local decision making—clearly, in some areas, particular applications are very, very demanding and very difficult and they have a huge amount of detail. For cash-strapped local authorities, particularly small ones, they can be very substantial things. But I think the importance of local democracy is key, and I've put a written question in on this, and I understand the difficulties if it comes to Ministers following an appeal and a planning inspector, that you don't want to prejudge things, but I wonder if Welsh Government could do more to provide planning support or perhaps resources smaller local authorities could draw on for particularly large applications at a central level, while ensuring that that provision of a general resource and expertise didn't prejudice any later appeal that Ministers might have to deal with.

I congratulate the petitioners and the Petitions Committee for finally dealing with this, and look forward also to what the Cabinet Secretary will have to say.

Can I certainly thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this report forward for discussion? I wasn't here when these petitions were originally submitted, but I'm well aware of the battle that my colleague Lynne Neagle has, and I'm facing similar battles now in my constituency with the applications for Nant Llesg, which I'll cover in a moment. So, I have followed the consideration of the petitions with interest, because since I was elected as the AM for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, opencast mining has been a major consideration in the work that I do, and in the concerns of the constituents that I represent. The current opencast coal operation at Ffos-y-fran in Merthyr Tydfil has been of keen interest to my constituents, because the issue has been rumbling on around the restoration of that site. We've also now had the application for Nant Llesg in the upper Rhymney valley, and the petition, the second petition, was submitted around that. A number of my constituents were actually involved in submitting that petition to call in the opencast mining applications, including Terry Evans, who you referred to, David Rowlands, and those people have been closely involved in campaigning vociferously against the Nant Llesg development in the upper Rhymney valley.

But my interest lies in two areas in particular: restoration, which I've already referred to, and future applications. So, as I've already said, during the short time that I've been the Assembly Member, the landscape around Merthyr has changed completely as a result of the Ffos-y-fran development, as the coal has been removed and phased restoration work has taken place. More recently, however, I've been concerned to see court action involving the owners of the Ffos-y-fran operation and the local authority. Now, my position is clear and absolutely unambiguous. There remains an overriding public interest to ensure that, on completion of current opencast operations, the owners must restore the site in compliance with their obligations. That, and that alone, is the overriding public interest in this matter. However, given the ongoing litigation on that—and I believe that we may actually be getting a decision on that court action today—I don't propose to say any more on that. It does, however, lead me on to the more general point of principle, which is that local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and Welsh Government should ensure suitable financial provision for restoration is implemented, monitored and enforced effectively, the point that I think is set out in conclusion 3 of the committee's report. No community should ever face the uncertainty of being left with a legacy of problems after operators have made millions of pounds from their operations.

And that's why the current review of 'Planning Policy Wales' is also welcome, given the outstanding applications of concern that I've referred to, including Nant Llesg. The Nant Llesg application has already been rejected by the local authority. It doesn't form part of that authority's local development plan. It is opposed almost unanimously by the local community. And yet it is subject to a current appeal. So, I hope, in line with conclusion 2 of the report, that future policy will not only reinforce the Welsh Government's view on the future of fossil fuel extraction, but will respect the right of local communities to determine whether such operations take place on their doorstep. Because while we can't escape the history of mining in our past and in our Valleys communities—indeed, I think we take pride in it—it's also clear, as Mark Reckless said, that these communities have actually moved on from that type of industry, and it's clear that they do not want to see carbon-based and dependent industries resurrected that would both destroy the beautiful landscapes that they now have and damage the environment for future generations. So, at this point in time, Chair, I am reassured by the Cabinet Secretary's evidence to the Petitions Committee and the direction that the Welsh Government is taking on this issue. However, it is vital that, through due process, we see this followed up in the review of planning policy in Wales.

Thank you for this report. I have a longstanding issue, along with other AMs in this area, having chaired Wales Against Opencast Mining here in Wales, so that puts me perhaps in a unique position to talk about the ones in my area, but also knowing quite a lot about opencast in other areas as well. In my own area, for example, we still have Ochr y Waun and East Pit in Cwmllynfell, where we know historically mining has happened illegally, where extensions have taken place against the will of the people. In Kenfig, in Margam, in my region, we still have this huge void of water where there still has not been action with restoration, which is absolutely criminal in my view—that companies are able to get away with this. We see Merthyr, with Ffos-y-fran, we see the issues over the lack of paying from the company. They've now changed their name from Miller Argent to—what can I say—Blackstone, to try and perhaps get away from the bad press that they've had over the year. They should be paying those instalments for the restoration of that land so that the people of that town can get back to normality and not live a life of being worried about their health, continuously making complaints about the way that Miller Argent have worked in that area. The same goes for other operations across south Wales.

Now, while I'm pleased that we have this report, I am probably a little bit cynical as well as to, especially, conclusion 1, that there is so much faith being put into the Welsh Government that, even though they don't welcome it, potentially because of the policy changes, it would

'appear to make further new opencast coal mining developments highly unlikely'.

Well, I'm afraid, with this being policy, and with MTAN still being guidance, I am not entirely convinced that we should be as laid back as what this conclusion seems to reflect. I don't necessarily agree that we need to put MTAN into law, because I feel there are too many exceptions in the MTAN. I think we needed to have totally amended the MTAN and created a new legislative process whereby we defined those exceptions, we defined what it meant would be acceptable or not acceptable, and we made that law. For as long as it's guidance, for as long as it's policy, there will be planning inspectors out there, there will be local authorities out there, who will be able to say that, in these exceptional circumstances, which are quite big—they are wide-reaching, looking at UK trends in the industry—they could go forward in the future. So, I would like to be as positive as you, but, having had the experience that I've had, I don't feel as positive personally, which is why I would like to see the Cabinet Secretary go further. Pinning our hopes on this policy is fine for some, but it's not fine for me, I'm afraid.

In relation to restoration, I do agree with conclusion 3, you'll be pleased to hear, from the Petitions Committee, but, again, we need to be talking about restoration now. There are companies flouting what they should be doing here. They are companies that have money that should be being put into restoration. There are communities that have had this backdrop in their society for years and years and years, and the inaction by these companies should be an embarrassment for the local authority and for the Welsh Government for not acting sooner on this. There are laws already in place to hold these companies to account, and they're putting their money in offshore accounts, they're siphoning off their funds to different parts of the world. So, they can't be accountable, and I think that is absolutely unacceptable.

With regard to call-ins, I attended the conference that was initiated by the Welsh Government a few years ago with regard to competency in relation to local authorities' mineral planning authorities, and I thought it would have been a better idea to have amalgamated mineral planning authorities as opposed to straight away going for call-ins as an option, because, if we can have expertise on a local level, share that expertise, by all means, as opposed to going straight to that call-in process. Now, I know John Cox and others may not agree with me on that, but I think that to go straight to that national decision-making process should not be the first consideration, but we should try and build expertise through the local authority system, where that can be done, and I don't know if that was ever taken on when the portfolio was passed to somebody else within Welsh Government because, at the time, we were hearing from officials that that was something that they would seriously consider. It just doesn't seem to me to fit that the Welsh Government potentially would want to make these decisions when they've said anyway that they don't want to have opencast mining. So, if there is going to be that policy against opencasting, then I think that needs to be permeated through all of our policies. We do have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, we do have sustainable development policies at the heart of Welsh Government, and that means we need to practice what we preach in relation to this and ensure that opencast mining is a thing of the past.

Thanks to the committee Chairman for bring today's debate. A lot of issues have been raised. Bethan has a lot more knowledge than me on the actual opencast practices.

I'd like to address something that Lynne Neagle raised, which was the issue of why it has taken so long to get from a petition in 2013 to actually debating it here in the Chamber. I don't have all the answers. I was a member of the Petitions Committee for the first year of this term and I think that a problem we found on the Petitions Committee, which the Chairman, who was Mike Hedges at the time, attempted to address pretty swiftly, was that we inherited an awful lot of petitions. There are a lot of petitions, and some of them are pursued more seriously than others, and it appeared to us that the problem was that too many of them hadn't been closed down when they were beyond the stage where we could actually meaningfully do anything with them. So, we had so many different petitions that we couldn't see the wood for the trees, and I think that Mike tried to move more swiftly through the petitions, closed down the ones that we couldn't do anything with, and then we could look at the ones where we could actually do something with them. I think you're right that the process needs to be much swifter if the Petitions Committee is to work meaningfully. I think that it does work better now. Obviously, I'm not on it anymore, but I'm sure that it's working in a more streamlined way than it was before. So, hopefully that will address the problem, with petitions actually getting here a lot quicker, because as you say, it's ridiculous that it's taken so long for this issue to be debated.

Onto to the actual opencast issues, yes, clearly there are lots of problems. Bethan, Dawn Bowden and others have raised them. Opencast mining in many ways is worse than underground mining, because it's taking place above ground, so that the dirt and dust spreads into the local atmosphere, and it's also less labour intensive than underground mining, so fewer people are actually reaping any commercial benefits from it. Certainly we have a whole series of Valleys communities in Wales that were built on underground coal mining, but we don't have any communities in Wales that have been built on opencast mining. What we have had over the past 25 years is a lot of communities complaining about opencast mining, protesting about opencast mining and campaigning against opencast mining. Sometimes, those communities haven't had their voices properly heard, and they have been let down by the planning process, both in terms of the actual plans that have been allowed and also issues that have been raised today over restoration of the sites after they've finished working them.

Now, going on to these actual petitions, the two petitions we're looking at, the first one was instigated by Dr Cox, who wants to make the MTAN mandatory in law—so, when planning decisions are being made, it can't just be guidance; it needs to be mandatory. One of the points he's raising is that opencast applications are not supposed to be allowed unless the mine is at least 500m away from the nearest houses. Clearly, in the case of Varteg Hill, that was not the case, and the guideline was not applied. Now, Dr Cox claims that the adjudicating planning inspector at that hearing said that he wasn't minded to go along with MTAN 2 as it was only guidance. We do appear to have a problem with this. If the planning inspectors are not going along with Government guidance, who are they accountable to? Are they giving enough regard to local concerns? In UKIP we have argued throughout this fifth Assembly that the planning system is not very democratic. It is a technocracy in which planning inspectors who are simply unelected bureaucrats are able to ride roughshod over democratic decisions taken by elected councillors. Then we have the councillors being frightened of ruling against controversial planning applications on the advice of their own planning officers, who tell them that the application will surely win on appeal to the planning inspectorate.

We must bring these planning inspectors under some kind of democratic control. We have to try to democratise the planning process and in UKIP we say that the way to do that is to introduce a provision for legally binding local referenda where planning applications are of major local importance and cause a major local anxiety. We continue to make that call. So far we are the only party in Wales calling for that measure. Until we get democratisation of the planning system, we do agree that MTAN 2 should be made mandatory, as Dr Cox suggests, and as his petitioners agree. We also agree with the second petition that all opencast mining applications of a certain size and of a certain age should all be automatically called in by the Welsh planning Minister. The planning system is all wrong and needs to be urgently reformed. We are the only party saying that, but in the meantime we do happily support today's motion. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. I'd just like to begin by thanking the Petitions Committee, both the current one and the previous one, for its very thorough consideration of opencast coal matters, including the MTAN on coal. As Lynne Neagle alluded to, it has taken place over a number of years, and it has included various evidence sessions. What I think the result is is a very balanced and informative report, and I support the motion.

Before I turn to the conclusions of the report and the questions raised, I just want to, again, raise the issue of placemaking and its focus in the revised ‘Planning Policy Wales’ as the way to create sustainable, thriving communities. This absolutely embraces the principles of the well-being of future generations Act. It puts the well-being goals at the forefront of discussions that effect communities and the built and natural environment. You may ask why placemaking is relevant to today's debate, and I'd like to say why I think it's relevant. It's because it covers all types of development and the coal industry was the foundation for many places in Wales, which I think was the point made by Dawn Bowden, and it did provide very well paid and local employment. But we are moving to a future based on decarbonised technologies, so we must ensure we encourage high-quality developments with a positive impact on the economy, the environment and our communities. We need to thoroughly and robustly think about the many competing issues we have to deal with when considering development, including how best we use our resources. We must ensure we get the right development in the right place. This is the focus in the revised PPW, and it's applicable when thinking about all types of development.

So, if I could just turn specifically to the conclusions in the report. With regard to conclusion 1, I have consulted on a revised policy in ‘Planning Policy Wales’ to make sure it fits with the well-being goals and supports progress in terms of our decarbonisation agenda. As noted in the report, the proposed revised policy in PPW is restrictive and it will discourage applications for future opencast coal sites. If the policy is confirmed, it will apply to all planning applications for opencast developments that are yet to be determined.

Addressing conclusion 2 follows from the policy approach I've taken in PPW. If we discourage new sites for opencast coalworking coming forward in light of our decarbonisation aspirations and drive to secure renewable energy, then it follows that we would not have to consider the use of call-in powers. I would also draw Members' attention to the existing notification direction in place. This requires local planning authorities to refer applications to me where they are minded to grant planning permission for minerals development that is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan. Again, this brings us to the point of an adopted local development plan being essential. It is the LDP that allows for a planning authority to express its vision for an area and to provide a robust basis on which to make decisions.

Restoration is quite rightly raised in conclusion 3, and I cannot overstate the importance of restoration. Even though my proposed policy will restrict opencast coal developments, I've also taken the opportunity to suggest changes to strengthen policies relating to the provision of financial security to secure the restoration. Restoration is vital. Development without effective restoration plans and the means to secure and fund such plans is not and has never been acceptable. I also agree it's important to keep the effectiveness of planning policy under review. This is already done as a matter of course. It is also important for local planning authorities to monitor individual operating sites in a robust way. They should make use of all the mechanisms available to them, including the monitoring fees regime and by establishing liaison committees.

In response to conclusion 4, I can advise that the responses to the consultation on PPW are now being considered by officials and I intend to issue the final revised policy in the autumn. So, finally, I'd just like to thank the committee again for a very thorough and well-considered report, and Assembly Members for their contributions this afternoon.

David Rowlands to reply to the debate.

Diolch—I'm not sure if I should be saying 'Dirprwy Dirprwy Lywydd'. Can I thank all those who’ve made contributions to the debate? There are those, obviously, who have been involved in this for some period of time—both Bethan Sayed and Lynne Neagle have been very involved in these matters. Lynne Neagle mentioned the cost of appeals and the planning inspectorate flying in the face of MTAN regulations. Dr Cox pointed out that the opening words of the inspector in the Varteg appeal were, 'MTAN is only guidance, I make the law here', which sort of says that MTAN is not really as strong as it should be.

Mark Reckless spoke against making MTAN statutory on the basis that powers should be on a local basis. He also made the point that planning applications should take into account energy security for the country and its possible impact on those planning applications. Dawn Bowden mentioned, of course, Ffos-y-fran, as she would do being the Member for Merthyr, and of course she's raised that very, very important matter of restoration—that owners must restore the site after the end of operations. She mentioned there are also applications in for planning for another opencast in her area and how that was absolutely opposed by the local community.

Bethan Sayed spoke about the lack of restoration as well to former operations in her area, and that's an ongoing issue obviously in those areas. She also spoke of restoration in Wales in general. She mentioned the fact that perhaps we should rewrite the MTAN law completely. Maybe that is something we ought to look at. She called for greater expertise to be created in local authorities, thus keeping decisions at a local level, which I think is a very, very important point to make.

Gareth Bennett spoke about the delay of dealing with this petition and mentioned that there was a very large backlog in petitions, which was addressed first of all by Mike Hedges when he was the Chair of the committee, and it's an ongoing process that we're involved in. We are trying to speed up the process, but Lynne Neagle was absolutely right in saying that something that was brought to our attention as long ago as, I think, 2013 probably should have come before this Assembly some time ago.

If I turn to the points made now by the Cabinet Secretary, I think there is a general agreement from the Cabinet Secretary that we have to look very, very carefully at any new planning applications, particularly for opencast mining, and it is gratifying to hear her restate the Welsh Government's absolute commitment to a carbon-free Wales and therefore the likelihood of such developments being very unlikely in the future. 

So, today's debate concludes the committee's consideration of these two petitions. I hope that the process that has been carried out, which I acknowledge again was a lengthy one, has supported the petitioners and others to raise their concerns and proposals. It remains to be seen, of course, what will happen in the future in relation to opencast mining in Wales and whether we will see any new applications. What I can say is that the Assembly's petitions process will remain open for people to raise their concerns on national issues such as planning policy as and when required. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.