I declare an interest as a member of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. I am pleased that we are debating Nantygwyddon today. We have waited a long time to debate what is an important issue for the people of Rhondda. Investigating this site and holding an inquiry will benefit not only the regulatory authorities, the Government and Rhondda Cynon Taff, but also the people. The people of Rhondda should benefit the most. They deserve to know the truth about the scandalous mismanagement of this landfill tip and the effect that it has had on their communities.

From the beginning, residents have opposed this tip. It is sited on a mountaintop on the Gelli Camp site between two narrow valleys in the Rhondda—cwm culach na cham ceiliog, a valley narrower than a cockerel’s step—above thousands of people’s homes. An independent local councillor opposed its being sited there because the mountain was unstable and there was a fault running across the site. I was a member of Rhondda Borough Council at the time and I supported him, but all opposition was ignored and the decision was taken to establish the tip.

During the planning process, people were told ‘you will not see it, it will not affect you’. The two planning consents granted by Rhondda Borough Council in January 1991 and September 1983 were conditional upon the final height being agreed prior to the site’s operation. The tip can clearly be seen at present from the valley floor all around the Rhondda. It has come to light that no height restriction was ever specified for the tip. Why was this allowed to happen and who is responsible? These questions need to be answered.

Stability problems were encountered during construction, which escalated the cost of the tip to over £2 million. Rhondda council was pleased when it obtained a grant from the European Community to get it out of a financially embarrassing situation. However, this grant was given on the condition, crucially, that Nantygwyddon became a regional landfill site. That meant that waste would be accepted at Nantygwyddon from anywhere, not just Rhondda. That changed the whole nature of the site and was done without public consultation.

Tipping started and residents were informed that there was an impervious liner so that the site could accept more hazardous waste than—

Is Geraint Davies aware that on 29 March 1999 at a special meeting of Rhondda Cynon Taff’s environmental services committee, a Plaid Cymru councillor said, ‘If Plaid controlled this Council we would close the tip tomorrow.’ He ought to be, because it was him.

When we fought the election our manifesto clearly stated that we would have an action plan for the closure of the Nantygwyddon site. That will be included in Rhondda Cynon Taff’s waste-management strategy, which will be published shortly. We will close the tip much sooner than the Labour Party ever would have done.

Residents were told that the tip could accept more hazardous waste than a conventional tip because of this liner. Years later, it was found that this liner was missing in many areas of the tip. Why did that happen? That question needs to be answered. In the same vein, residents were concerned about the leachate pipe leaking a noxious cocktail in Nantygwyddon Woods, a site of special scientific interest. People and councillors complained but nothing was done. Why has that pollution been allowed to happen?

In the 1990s a change in legislation necessitated that the Council form an arms’ length company, Rhondda Waste Disposal Limited, which is when the real trouble started. Lorries were seen tipping at night, even though the tip was supposed to be closed at 5 p.m. Rumours were rife that Nantygwyddon would accept waste rejected by other landfill sites, with no questions asked. A plague of flies of Egyptian proportions literally got everywhere in the community, including houses, because organic waste had been inappropriately dumped.

The tip accepted filter cake from the Purolite factory in Llantrisant, which other landfill sites had refused. However, Rhondda Waste Disposal was happy to accept 36,000 tons of calcium sulphate filter cake. Against Her Majesty’s Inspector’s advice, calcium sulphate was disposed of with household waste. That generated huge quantities of hydrogen sulphide. It has been predicted that it will continue to do so for almost 1,000 years. Hydrogen sulphide is the gas with the characteristic rotten-egg smell and it affects wards even today, despite the taking of some remedial measures. The residents inhale this gas constantly. It affects their health and they feel sick and ill for much of the time.

During this time Rhondda Against Nantygwyddon Tip was formed. I pay tribute to RANT for the professional way that it carries out its business, obtains evidence and presents its case. It exposed the health problems in the wards around the tip.

In the light of Ieuan Wyn Jones’s comment yesterday that, to maximise the vote, Plaid Cymru is prepared to say one thing in one part of Wales, and another thing in another, do you agree that Plaid Cymru’s message on this has been very mixed, that you have changed your mind about the way forward, and have hindered the resolution of this problem by your inability to reach a decision on it?

I do not know exactly to what you are referring. However, we have always asked for the best possible inquiry for the people of Rhondda. We have been consistent about that. I congratulate RANT for highlighting the health problems. There were problems with congenital malformation and high rates of therapeutic abortions in the wards surrounding the tip compared with other areas. These figures were later confirmed by Bro Taf Health Authority. It is fair to say that the community ought to know about these figures. Bro Taf Health Authority should have passed on that information but the community highlighted the issue because of the action it took.

Local feeling against the tip was so intense that a blockade was organised that stopped tipping for five months. It only ceased when seven people had High Court writs against them and a threat to be sued for £1 million. Their only crime was that they were trying to protect their environment and their children’s environment.

Several reports and investigations have been commissioned. The Entec report stated that the hydrogen sulphide level was 5,000 time above the normal level for a landfill site. It forced Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council to put in an abatement notice on the company. The Professor Palmer report studied the health problems and called for further investigation. In addition there was the Casella London Limited report. The Casella report, a council commissioned report, went back and forth between Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council and the authors until a suitable form of words was agreed. Local people believe that it is a case of ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’. The Bro Taf Health Authority study confirmed that people suffered more illness in wards that surrounded the tip. Those two reports were supposed to be run concurrently. Scandalously, the study did not coincide with the environmental study. There was a tremendous opportunity missed to link symptoms with the level of pollution. There was also the Eurohacon study on hazardous waste dumps in Europe. Dr Dai Lloyd will later expand on the health fears of people living near the tip. However, despite all of these reports, no one is prepared to state that the tip is safe.

In view of the adverse environment many residents want to leave the area. People have tried to move house but they are astonished to find that their houses have depreciated in value because of the tip. This has been confirmed by a valuation tribunal for council tax banding. They cannot move, yet living in their property makes them ill. These are not the only people who have lost money. Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council has lost money, and millions have been lost from the public purse in general. In the last year the company has been in administration to avoid being prosecuted for not adhering to the site licence. As a consequence, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been lost to the public purse.

A full public inquiry is a necessity to address the concerns of the people of Rhondda. An investigation proposed by Labour does not have the authority to compel witnesses to attend and subject them to cross-examination. A public inquiry will be chaired by a judge or a Queen’s Counsel of authority. As I have mentioned, we have had many investigations into Nantygwyddon. The full picture never emerges, and often there are more questions posed than there are answers.

Nantygwyddon was imposed on a community by a council. It was expanded by the European Union. It has been mismanaged both technically and financially, and the regulatory authorities have been found wanting. The Assembly has the opportunity today to make a difference to people’s lives. We can do something constructive to prevent another Nantygwyddon ever happening again and make people accountable for their actions. I do not expect the Labour administration to support this inquiry. Perhaps it is afraid that it would be embarrassed by the findings. However, even at this late stage, I expect the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to support the motion and to honour the pledge that they gave to the people of Rhondda. We in the Valleys have paid the price of coal. We are now paying the price of Nantygwyddon. We need a public inquiry. Cost should not be a factor, only justice. We hope that you will reject both amendments.

Since taking over the environment brief a few months ago, I have been studying the concerns of people from Rhondda on the setting up and operations of the Nantygwyddon landfill site. I have had numerous discussions with Assembly colleagues. I hope everyone will agree that I have done so in good faith because I, along with other Members, want answers. I have had many meetings with officials and local residents and have considered how to look back on the development of the site as well as looking to the future and learning some lessons for the benefit of local residents and for wider application in Wales.

I visited the site to improve my understanding of people’s concerns. I appreciated talking to representatives of RANT because, as Geraint says, they are extremely knowledgeable. Their points were very moving. Although we have agreed on the principle to an extent, there is a difference of opinion on how we achieve this. We want answers but it is a question of how to get those answers.

To put this in context, we have inherited huge waste problems in Wales, particularly landfill problems. Ninety-five per cent of our municipal waste goes to landfill. We all contribute to this problem daily. We need to drastically change our approach. Local government has the primary responsibility for dealing with locally produced waste, but the Assembly is setting the strategy for Wales. We must face the reality that there are a large number of landfill sites throughout Wales. Many, like Nantygwyddon, are located close to local populations. It is only natural that the local community in the Rhondda wants answers to the cause of the problems. Members of RANT should be proud of the way that they have represented their community in seeking to find answers. I endorse what Geraint said.

How do we get to the answers? First, I take the health concerns very seriously. Work has been undertaken to investigate the possibility of health effects from exposure to contaminants from landfills. Further studies are ongoing and we hope that they are near completion.

Members of RANT want a public inquiry on the development and operation of the tip. I understand that wish. A public inquiry is the traditional way of dealing with issues of major public concern. However, inquiries have their drawbacks. The inquiry would be of an adversarial nature as it would be conducted in public with legal support for those attending. It would inevitably focus on the past, sometimes at the expense of learning early lessons to help us to move forward. Historically, we have learnt that all public inquiries take considerable time and money. As Assembly Secretary for the Environment, Planning and Transport, I urgently want answers on issues concerning Nantygwyddon. I endorse that because it is important to me that we learn lessons from Nantygwyddon. My proposal is for an Assembly investigation, using section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. Devolution makes this option possible. We have the opportunity within the legislation to do something that is particular to Wales. This is a better option—for a quicker or more focused investigation, which will give better value for money—than a traditional public inquiry. I have drawn up a proposal that plays to the strength of the Assembly. It will be more responsive to the needs of this case. The key feature of the investigation will be to summon and draw conclusions on the issues of planning, waste management and public health at the site. It will be carried out by an independent investigator, upon whom all parties will decide. We can play to the strength of the Assembly by using the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee. There could be public sessions, which provide the opportunity for representatives of RANT to attend and to present their concerns. The investigation will develop policies that ensure the health and wellbeing of communities throughout Wales as well as the communities around Nantygwyddon in the Rhondda.

On Michael German’s amendment 2 involving—

If Sue is considering an investigation and not a public inquiry, will she tell the Assembly whether or not people can refuse to give evidence, as Geraint suggested? If that is the case and the investigation concludes that we are not getting to the bottom of the matter, is she prepared to have a full public inquiry to ensure that we get all the facts and information necessary to reach a conclusion?

I have never hidden the fact that one of the drawbacks of an investigation is that it cannot subpoena. That is one of the differences. This method has its strengths and weaknesses. However, we are dealing with the Environment Agency and Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. I hope that members of the Council are present. They are respectable people—I have known Pauline and Geraint for a long time—and I am sure that if they were invited to attend an investigation they would come along.

Regarding a public inquiry, I have always said that if the investigation revealed serious concerns and recommended a public inquiry or a partial public inquiry, I would not object. I will accept the recommendations of the investigation. That would be fair and I wish to stress that.

I turn to Michael German’s amendment 2, which develops some of the points of the investigation that I have outlined. I am content with these proposals. However, in taking them forward, the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee must avoid creating a procedure that amounts to a public inquiry.

In supporting amendment 2, we must ensure that the rights of individuals are protected. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats want that as well. However, that depends on the Committee’s co-operation. Perhaps Richard Edwards, as Chair, would elucidate on that.

I strongly support the need for early answers at Nantygwyddon. I appreciate the urgency and the issues that Geraint outlined. Our innovative proposition for an investigation is appropriate and effective. Hand on heart, I could not endorse Plaid Cymru’s suggestion of spending between £3 and £5 million on a public inquiry. Much of this money would go into lawyers’ pockets, when it could be devoted to developing better ways of managing waste and improving the lives of people in the Rhondda and across Wales. This must be our priority—in Geraint’s words—‘making a difference to people’s lives’.

I will respect the outcome of today’s vote and I expect all other parties to do the same. Let us make the health and wellbeing of the people of Rhondda a priority and let us work together to achieve that.

The presumption is that the investigation should:

be held in public, except where it was considered that this would prejudice the outcome of the investigation;

meet and take evidence locally, where appropriate;

ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to present oral, as well as written, evidence to the investigation;

be able to recommend further action including, if necessary, a public inquiry in accordance with section 35(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998;

be able to make specific recommendations for subsequent consideration in Plenary.

This is a sorry saga that has gone on too long. Nantygwyddon would not feature as one of the best examples of landfill sites in the United Kingdom. There are some fine examples of landfill sites in the UK. They are lined, they have leachate trapping and they use the methane gas which escapes to generate power. This site exhibits none of those procedures.

I pay tribute to RANT for keeping this matter in the public eye. Action is needed, not more reports. Our job in this National Assembly is to provide solutions. It is scandalous that this tip has not yet been capped. That, to me, is at the heart of many of the issues before us.

The purpose of this amendment is threefold. The investigation should be public, quick and should be guided by an independent investigator.

As Liberal Democrats, we do not believe that an independent investigation should be set up giving autonomy to the investigator and the relevant overseeing body—which in this case would be the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee—and then set out prescriptions as to how to proceed. It seems to me that the investigation must be in their hands.

I wish to draw your attention to the word ‘presumption’ in amendment 2. At the end of the day, within the spirit of the conditions that we have set for the investigation, its openness, its transparency, its local relevance and the ability to recommend further action, this amendment is intended to end the deadlock that has hung over Nantygwyddon for far too many years and to move nearer to a solution. I draw everybody’s attention to Standing Order No. 9, which refers to Subject Committees being able to summon witnesses and require them to take an oath, and to order the production of documents. I hope that we realise that this Assembly has authority and that we ought to seek that authority and use it well.

Amendment 2 does not in any way contravene the intention of having some form of public investigation. It is not intended to bind the hands of the Committee, the investigator or even the Assembly Secretary beyond the reasonable expectations expressed in the last five clauses. To do that would defeat the object of the exercise and fail to give the relevant people the discretion they need to ensure that the investigation is as thorough as possible. The intention is to ensure that this process is as watertight as possible and, above all, that the Assembly is beyond reproach, working within the established legal context of section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. The investigation must be opened up to relevant bodies, groups and agencies that have evidence to present to the investigation to ensure that they can submit that evidence for consideration and that their voices will be heard by the Assembly. I ask the Assembly Secretary to guarantee also that the evidence and information that the Committee needs to carry out its job will be available to it before it starts. To do that, we need to be certain about what is inside that tip. I hope that she will guarantee that she will use her powers with the Environment Agency to instruct it to provide appropriate technical information to the Committee in its investigation so that we are in no doubt as to what is inside that tip.

The important presumptions in amendment 2 are openness, transparency and being public. The important point about this amendment is that it means the Assembly will be in the driving seat, making recommendations to Plenary, to the Assembly Secretary or to any other body. We must remember that the Assembly has a great deal of control in these matters. The Assembly has authority. We must exert that authority and use it. I recognise that there are time pressures on the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee. However, if the Economic Development Committee can take evidence from everybody in Wales who wanted to address it on the matter of Objective 1 in three sessions, I am sure that the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee can make similar progress.

I am sorry that the Tories have tabled an amendment about speed and do not intend to support amendment 2. They are speaking with two tongues. They state that they want something done speedily—

I was going to give way after finishing my sentence, but in that case, I will not. I will take your advice, Presiding Officer. David Davies can speak in his own time.

The Tories are asking us to move speedily, but they reject an amendment that would enable us to resolve this issue by the beginning of next year. It is important that the Assembly finds new approaches. We cannot be bound by the past. We must find Welsh solutions to Welsh problems. We must deal with issues of public concern in a way that suits the Assembly. Standing Order No. 9 gives us powers that we have not thought of expressing before. If we have a full investigation, I cannot see a problem. We can subpoena witnesses and require them to take an oath. They might not turn up but that also applies to the other form of public inquiry. Amendment 2 will ensure the resolution of this issue. It leaves an open door for the Committee and the investigators to propose any actions they see fit. I commend the amendment to you.

I will give way to Carwyn Jones, but I will not give way to David Davies as he will be speaking after me.

I want clarification on two points of which I know you are aware. Amendment 2 states that the investigation should

‘ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to present oral, as well as written, evidence’.

Can you clarify that you do not expect the Committee to be proactive in looking for interested parties and that, rather, interested parties can approach the Committee after receiving an open invitation? Can you also clarify whether a written statement of the evidence should be provided beforehand when oral evidence is to be presented?

The most appropriate procedure for this matter would be for the independent investigator to advertise that the investigation would be taking place. People who wished to participate could then write in to express an interest in being involved in the investigation. The second issue that Carwyn quite rightly mentioned is how people present oral evidence—

I will give way to Cynog Dafis after I finish answering the first intervention. I will not give way to David Davies as he is speaking next.

It is essential that anyone who presents oral evidence provides a written statement first. The Assembly has had experience of this in committee. Those people will then address themselves to their written statements and can be questioned on them. That means that the Committee has all the documentation in front of it and can make a full, proper inquiry.

Awgryma Mike German nad oes gwahaniaeth rhwng pŵer archwiliad i wysio tystion a phŵer ymchwiliad i roi subpoena ar dystion. Mae’n rhaid bod gwahaniaeth. Os ydych yn gwrthod subpoena, yr ydych yn euog o ddirmyg yn union fel pe baech mewn llys barn. Gallech gael eich cosbi am hynny yn yr un modd â chyda dirmyg llys.

Standing Order No. 9 is clear on this matter. It states that a Committee can

‘summon witnesses or order the production of documents’.

It also states that

‘a person who has been summoned to attend may be required to take an oath (or make an affirmation).’

The wording of the oath is included in the Standing Orders.

What if they do not turn up?

If someone does not turn up, that allows the investigation to draw its own conclusion. It is the same if someone refuses to participate by sending documents. We can find a new approach and a new method of working forward. With that one crucial, small distinction, we have the Assembly’s power in our hands. We should use the Assembly’s power to create new, Welsh solutions for Welsh problems.

I do not intend to speak for long, as I know that many other Members want to speak. I take a slightly detached view of this, as I come from Monmouthshire. I know that residents in the area adjacent to Nantygwyddon tip have been complaining for many years about noxious smells emanating from the site. People, and especially young children, have various health problems that they believe may be associated with the site. These concerns have been fuelled by Bro Taf Health Authority’s finding that a rare medical condition, sarcoidosis, is more prevalent among families living near the site. Bro Taf’s explanation is that this happened before, as well as since, the commencement of industrial waste disposal in 1995. People in the area have also reported a higher incidence of illnesses. The official explanation for this is that these people are more likely to report illnesses because they are concerned about the site. I am not a medical expert and do not pretend to be—

Absolutely.

I do not pretend to know the answer to everything, as I am not a New Labour spin-doctor. I know that many people have serious and genuine concerns about this site. Alun Pugh may want to take that into account, as those people are sitting behind him in the public gallery. Given their concerns, I would not want to live next door to the site. I suspect that many people in the Labour Party feel the same.

You will never have to live next to it, David.

No, because I will keep winning elections in Monmouthshire. One possible reason why people are concerned is because certain politicians have fuelled their fears by calling for a public inquiry. I respect the fact that, to some extent, they were reflecting what the public wanted. If Plaid Cymru changed its mind before and has now changed its mind again and is supporting a public inquiry, perhaps the people of Nantygwyddon can thank the fact that a Plaid Cymru leadership contest is taking place at present.

We will be consistent in supporting the public inquiry. The Conservative Party of Wales has consistently supported a public inquiry, ever since we were first approached by the members of RANT, which has been doing such an excellent job. We reject the half-baked, half-hearted approach of having an investigation that will not do the job properly. As Geraint pointed out, it will not have the power to call witnesses. More importantly—

It will have the power to call witnesses.

It will have the power to call them, but not necessarily to compel them to show up.

First, do you accept that Standing Orders clearly indicate that Committees have the power to call witnesses and the authority to ensure that their evidence is truthful because they can request that an oath be sworn? Secondly, do you accept that the motion states that, if the investigation discovers a matter that it cannot undertake to investigate, a public inquiry can be held in due course? Thirdly, do you accept that you are completely inconsistent in proposing an amendment that calls for speed while opposing the amendment that allows for it?

There were about three questions there.

There were not ‘about’ three questions. There were three questions.

I have allowed you to intervene, even though your party leader was not prepared to allow me to do the same. If you would allow me to answer you—

If Jenny wants to talk to me about consistency—

Are you asking me to sit down?

If Jenny wants to talk to me about consistency, why did Mike German write to RANT promising a full public inquiry at the end of January?

Read the letter if you want to know.

I have the letter here. It states that RANT will be pleased to hear that the Liberal Democrat group in the National Assembly has backed calls for a public inquiry and will continue to do so until the issues surrounding the tip are resolved. The issues have clearly not been resolved. We want to resolve them—

I will not give way—

We want to resolve these issues in a way that will put people’s minds at rest. That is why we back a full public inquiry. We do not accept any concerns about the cost. If the Liberal Democrats were worried about the cost, why were they prepared to spend £32 million on a new building when they are not even prepared to spend £3 million on putting those people’s minds at rest?

I declare an interest as a member of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. I stand before the Assembly today not only as Assembly Member for South Wales Central but also as the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taff. It is the second largest council in Wales. Nantygwyddon landfill site is the bête noire of Rhondda Cynon Taff. I use those words advisedly. They convey the gravity of the issue and I cannot and will not hide the gravity of it from the Assembly.

As leader of the council, I am concerned, appalled, dismayed and even frightened by what appears to have taken place in and around Nantygwyddon mountain. All Members should support a public inquiry. Why are Labour and the Liberal Democrats so reluctant to do so? I understand why Labour is nervous. It presided at local government level over the choice of the site at Nantygwyddon, which is on top of a mountain overlooking several communities. It was easy for Labour to choose that site because an independent councillor represented the area at the time. In the days of the former Rhondda Borough Council, that was almost as rare as the golden eagle. It was strongly opposed by Geraint Davies because he predicted that it would have an intolerable impact on the community.

Labour dumped on a community that was politically unsympathetic to it. However, as David said, the Liberal Democrats submitted a letter to Garod Owen, the chairman of RANT, noting that they would support a call for a public inquiry. Their change of mind is for them to explain. Another reason—

Perhaps I could explain—

I am sorry, there are other Members in my party who must speak. This is our debate. Another reason why Labour is reluctant to have a public inquiry is because the conditions attached—

I accept your ruling on that and how you choose to select speakers. However, I hope to rush through my contribution so that others may have an opportunity to speak.

Another reason why Labour is reluctant to have a public inquiry is because the conditions attached to the two planning consents that it granted in 1981 and 1983 were not fully enforced until recently. Following complaints by RANT about the conduct of the penultimate Labour leadership in Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council relating to claims of alleged ultra vires expenditure specific to Nantygwyddon, the district auditor concluded that the former leader’s liaison group had no legal status and appeared to have had no conscience in bullying and attempting to discredit officers in that process. Will those former Labour councillors volunteer to give evidence to an investigation? I doubt it.

The European Union gave a £0.75 million grant to enable the development to proceed, subject to conditions that were intended to control the site. Where were the Environment Agency Wales, the former Welsh Office and the European Union? How did they find it so easy to abrogate their regulatory role for almost two decades? As Geraint said, in January 1998, Bro Taf Health Authority announced the findings of health information collection clinics held in the relevant communities. The clinics operated between 20 April and 12 June. However, air quality sampling, which Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council requested to take place concurrently, did not start until 27 July to 8 August. Therefore, when Bro Taf Health Authority published its descriptive survey of ill-health around Nantygwyddon in January 1999, it stated that it could not

‘prove that the higher frequency of symptoms was caused by the landfill site because concurrent monitoring data is not available.’

The council received Casella London Limited’s report on air quality in December 1998 but kept it secret until after the health authority survey was published. That blatant act of political sabotage not only broke the vital link between local ill-health and tip gases but wasted over £100,000 of public money. The former Welsh Office refused to intervene. We want to bring to book the individuals who carried out this callous and cynical act of public disinformation.

In conclusion, and as leader of the council, I put it to the Assembly that a public inquiry is the most effective way to manage a full and thorough analysis of the issues surrounding the Nantygwyddon landfill site. An investigation goes so far, but will it go far enough? A public inquiry sets the stage for witnesses and experts to be subpoenaed and for their evidence to be taken under oath. An investigation leaves the burden of attendance on personal choice and co-operation.

This issue will not fade away easily. It must be tackled head on. A public inquiry is the only realistic way forward. Please do not speak to me of prohibitive costs. The people of Gelli, Ystrad and the entire Rhondda Valley will not listen to that argument either. I place no price tag on the health and wellbeing of the people of the Rhondda Valley. I call on the Assembly to follow the only possible and morally correct course of action and support the motion calling for a full public inquiry.

This afternoon, the Assembly must find the most effective way forward in investigating the Nantygwyddon tip. Much has been said about whether or not the Committee has the necessary power to carry out a thorough investigation. The Assembly has the power to summon witnesses. If those witnesses do not turn up, they can be arrested and imprisoned. The Assembly also has the power to require witnesses to take an oath. That is included in Standing Orders Nos. 9.14 and 9.17. The Assembly cannot summon everybody. In this case, there is a list of bodies that can be summoned in schedule 5 of the Act, one of which is the Environment Agency. A public inquiry would have no more power to summon the Environment Agency than a Committee inquiry. That much is clear from the Standing Orders and from the Government of Wales Act 1998. There is no direct power to summon individuals. However, what kind of effect would it have on the inquiry if people were asked to attend and did not do so? Their positions would be extremely weak. I suspect that most people would want to co-operate for fear of the consequences if they did not.

Looking at the first and second options put before the Assembly, we must bear in mind that we require the co-operation of the Environment Agency and have the power to force it. We do not have the power to force the co-operation of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council but I hope that it would co-operate and that we are not suggesting that it would be forced to co-operate. That cannot be the case.

What is the quickest way forward? There is no reason why the independent investigator, mentioned by Mike German—

In order for this investigation to be effective, do you agree that it is essential for the Assembly, particularly when considering planning issues and so on, to have the full co-operation of Rhondda Cynon Taff council in seeking a rapid and clear explanation of what happened and how we can move forward?

I fully endorse that view.

There is no reason why the independent investigator cannot be a Queen’s Counsel. A QC would be appointed, as a matter of course, to a public inquiry. There is no barrier to that. It is a matter for the Committee.

The question of cost has been well rehearsed, but a public inquiry could take years. There is no way that it would conclude matters as quickly as a Committee inquiry. If the recommendation was that the tip be closed, it could be open for far longer than it would be if there were a Committee investigation. I am not pre-judging the final decision of that Committee investigation, but if it is a question of speed, openness and transparency, there is no question that the Committee inquiry route is a far quicker route than a public inquiry route.

I declare an interest as a general practitioner in Swansea. I have read all the studies on the Nantygwyddon tip over the last four or five years and one word crops up—gastroschisis. In the affected ward there have been four cases of babies born with their intestines hanging out. That is a drastic, tragic and devastating state of affairs. Four cases and no explanations for them. Most doctors never see a case. I have never seen a case and most of my colleagues will never see one. However, there have been four cases in the ward that is next to the tip. Arguments about cost disappear when you consider the devastation of those parents and children. Please support the call for a full public inquiry now.

I emphasise that I speak as Chair of the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee and not as a member of the Labour group. I do so because I am anxious that Members appreciate the impact that a decision today will have on that Committee’s ability to achieve the objectives set out in its strategic work programme. I will outline the impact that I believe that the motion, as it stands and as amended, would have on the Committee. To give the background, at no point during the considerable ongoing discussions regarding the possibility of either an investigation or inquiry was I approached by Members of any party with a request to involve the Committee. The possibility of involvement in an Assembly investigation was first discussed by the Committee at our meeting on 8 June. The Committee agreed in principle to consider draft terms of reference for any review, though Members reserved their position on the outcome of their considerations. I was not advised of the contents of this motion nor the amendments. I am surprised that my attention was not drawn to an amendment, which, should the motion be passed as amended, would have a significant impact on the work programme of the Committee that I chair.

On the impact on the Committee’s work programme, I understand that the motion as tabled calls for a full public inquiry. This would not have a significant impact on the Committee’s work, although I expect that Committee members would wish to allow some Committee time to considering the public inquiry’s progress. The motion as amended by Andrew Davies’s amendment 1 instructs the Assembly Secretary to proceed in liaison with the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee. Details of the proposed investigation set out in the paper tabled on 29 June require the Committee to dedicate one meeting to gather evidence and a subsequent meeting to consider the independent investigator’s report.

Michael German’s amendment 2 calls for the Committee to conduct the investigation with the assistance of an independent investigator. It is not clear to me what this would involve, as Michael has not discussed the matter with me. However, I anticipate that the requirement to hold the investigation in public would require the Committee to hold a considerable number of evidence-gathering sessions. The investigation could therefore be accommodated only at the expense of other areas of the Committee’s business. It is not a fair comparison with the Economic Development Committee seeking views on Objective 1 as part of a policy development role. The Economic Development Committee did not undertake an investigation. How could an investigation on this sort of scale—given the requirements for oral evidence—be accommodated in three Committee sessions?

We would also have to curtail our work on the implementation of the provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill in Wales—an area where the Committee has agreed to explore fully all the powers that the National Assembly would posses under the Bill when it is passed and seek the views of experts and interested groups. We would also have to cut back on our scrutiny of waste and planning policy as well as compromising our review of public transport policy. Those are all considerable undertakings.

Papers have been tabled outlining the estimated costs of a full public inquiry and a National Assembly investigation. Figures have not been tabled in support of Michael German’s amendment 2. I ask Members to note that a Committee-led inquiry, as suggested by Michael German, could require significant additional resources for the Office of the Presiding Officer.

To conclude, as Chair of the Committee, I am not entering into the party political aspects of this debate. However, I must stress to Members that Michael German’s amendment 2 would have a detrimental effect on the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee’s ability to achieve the objectives set out in its strategic work programme. I end by echoing Jonathan Morgan’s—

I will be brief. I had wondered what point Richard would make. Surely this debate is about what is good for Nantygwyddon and the people of Rhondda, not what is good for the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee.

The Environment, Planning and Transport Committee has agreed a strategic work programme focusing on key areas of strategic concern for the Committee and for the Assembly. I echo Jonathan Morgan’s and Val Feld’s earlier points when they warned about the danger of Plenary undermining Committee work programmes. Michael German’s amendment 2, if passed, would set a dangerous precedent for all the Assembly’s Subject Committees.

On behalf of Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales, I congratulate Geraint Davies on how he has represented his constituents’ interests in the matter of Nantygwyddon. He gave his constituents an assurance that if elected in May 1999, he would call for a public inquiry into the landfill site. Shortly after his election, he and other colleagues tabled a no named day motion calling for a public inquiry and he has pursued this matter with tenacity and determination. True to his word, he has today proposed a motion calling for a public inquiry with the full support of the Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales group. It was rather instructive to see in the nature of their interventions during Geraint’s speech how vulnerable, sensitive and touchy some Labour Members feel about this matter.

The issue is not whether nothing should be done in respect of Nantygwyddon, but whether there should be an investigation, as proposed by Sue Essex on behalf of the Labour administration, or a full public inquiry, which Plaid Cymru has demanded from day one. I acknowledge Sue’s work on this matter and that she has spent much time speaking to people and concerned residents. However, it is a shame that it took eight months, Sue, before that work was done. We must remember that whatever the merits of the investigation—and I am sure that the kind of investigation that has been proposed would be a vehicle by which these matters could be considered—it is clear that it lacks the authority that only a public inquiry can have in terms of the problems at Nantygwyddon. In fairness to Sue Essex, she outlined the pros and cons of both methods and acknowledged that a weakness of the investigation would be that we could not subpoena witnesses. Mike German and Carwyn Jones told us that the Assembly has powers to call witnesses, but under our Standing Orders, those powers are limited. Everybody, including the Labour administration, acknowledges that in terms of compelling witnesses to give evidence and ensuring that they can be cross-examined, the public inquiry route is the only one that will satisfy the people of Rhondda.

The Liberal Democrat and Labour amendments also acknowledge the weakness of the investigation, because they call on interested parties to participate in it. If an investigation had the same powers as a public inquiry, there would be no need to call on people to participate in it, because, like a public inquiry, it could demand that people give evidence. David Davies made his usual robust contribution to this debate. However, I am not sure that anybody should take lessons from the Conservative Party about the speed with which these matters are to be determined.

Pauline Jarman made some interesting points setting out local people’s concerns about how the original site was chosen by the former Labour-controlled local authority. A public inquiry would need to look into that issue. We have had the debate and heard the pros and cons. Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales has decided that we should go down the public inquiry route because that is the only way that we can be certain that all these matters will be thoroughly and properly investigated. That is why we ask the Assembly to support the motion.