Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. There were no apologies.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition for the first time and agreed to:

• write to the UK national screening committee asking for details on the recent public consultation that informed the Minister’s decision to put the age up;
• write to the Minister asking for statistics on how the HPV vaccination programme is expected to decrease the number of cancer patients over the next 10 years; and
• await comments from the petitioner on the Minister’s response.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition for the first time and agreed to write to:

• write to the Minister for:
• a response to both Action for Children and the petitioners’ comments;
• to ask how the funding they supply to local authorities is calculated; and
• what recent assessment they have made of whether funding is sufficient to cover costs;
• Action for Children to ask how much more funding they would need to be able to continue provision at the current level; and
• Neath Port Talbot Council to ask:
• whether replacement provision will be in place by September;
• whether the petitioners’ concerns that there may be a considerable gap in provision has foundation; and
• why alternative provision was not put in place earlier given the amount of notice given by Action for Children

Bethan Jenkins declared an interest in the petition.

This item was withdrawn and will be considered at the meeting on 14 July.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to:

• request a legal note in light of the Minister’s view that the matter is non-devolved and that he has no powers or remit; and until then
• await the petitioners’ views on the Minister’s correspondence.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to close the petition. 

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to close the petition.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to close the petition if a response from the petitioner is not forthcoming within six weeks.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to:

• await further comments from the petitioner; and
• write as suggested by the Minister to Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board seeking further clarity on the funding they would need to provide robotic assisted procedures within North Wales.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to:

• write to the Minister to:
• welcome his engagement with the petitioners;
• welcome the steps to implement recording of gender details of parents by CAFCASS;
• ask for his views on the petitioner’s comments.  In particular:
• why CAFCASS in England does not seem to feel that publishing the CAWAC assessment tool is problematic in the way suggested by CAFCASS in Wales; and
• whether any requirement to record gender information can be placed on local authorities in Wales.
• Ask the petitioners to expand on the reason for their concern about the use of the CAWAC tool.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed given the petitioner’s concerns to:

• write directly to WEFO asking for a response to the points made; and
• copy the letter to the Minister.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to write to Children in Wales asking them to respond to the petitioners’ specific concerns, particularly around location of meetings.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to close the petition. 

The Committee agreed to close the petition.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to await the promised further update from the Minister.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to write to the:

• Minister for Health as suggested by the Minister for Economy, Science and Transport, including whether this issue could be addressed in the Public Health Bill; and
• The Welsh Local Government Association for their views.

The Committee considered correspondence on the petition and agreed to close the petition.

The above petition will be considered again at the meeting on 14 July. This is due to a piece of correspondence that was inadvertently not brought to the Committee’s attention prior their decision to close the petition.