Petitions Committee

So, if we move on, then, to new petitions. So, the first one is 2.1, P-06-1492, 'Maintain 24 hour access to the Minor Injuries Unit (MIU) at Prince Philip Hospital, Llanelli'.

'Hywel Dda University Health Board are proposing that the Minor Injuries Unit (MIU) at Prince Philip Hospital (PPH) in Llanelli be downgraded to a 12 hour service from a 24 hour service.'

This was submitted by Alexander Bryant-Evans, with 969 signatures. I'd just like to add as well that, on 12 November, I met petitioners from SOSPPAN, which is Save our Services Prince Philip Action Network campaign group. They have a separate, non-Senedd petition, which had gathered 10,000 signatures, which shows the strength of local feeling. And some of them have also been camping outside the hospital as well. So, I'd like to invite Luke to discuss the petition and any actions you think the committee could take.

Yes. I've a lot of sympathy with this petition. I am struggling to see what we can do at this moment in time as a committee, though. The relevant Cabinet Secretary and, I believe, the health board have said that they're monitoring the situation, so there's a need to allow them to do their work, to do their monitoring, but I also don't think that we should close the petition either. So, could I suggest that we keep it open until we hear what the monitoring of the situation comes up with, and that we just make sure that the Cabinet Secretary and the health board are aware of this petition and perhaps the 10,000 one as well?

Okay. Thank you. Is everyone in agreement with that?

No. I think that we should close the petition. I think that this is an issue that is bound to generate lots more interest when the six-month time comes up. It will definitely be reported, not just in Llanelli, but further afield. I am robustly confident that, regardless of what this committee chooses to do, it will be on the Senedd floor again with a number of politicians with an interest when the six-month period of time comes up, and we'll then see what developments there are. I don't think that holding open the petition will make any difference to that. It will mean that we have to come back to it and generate more work, but I don't think it will change the outcome and, if you asked politicians or local residents of any and every shade, they'll definitely be interested in what happens during the six months and at the end of the six months as well.

Anybody else with any views here? No.

I think the only reason I would maybe suggest that we keep it open is that, if Vaughan's prediction is right, that it will generate a great degree of interest in six months' time and there'll likely be another petition, it will generate more work for those petitioners and for the team here. Maybe that's the only benefit I can see to keep the petition open, that we don't duplicate work for residents or the clerking team here.

Okay. So, listening to everybody's views and those of Vaughan as well, I agree with what you said there, Rhys, that we've got a petition that's open now, and also what Luke said, and the way that petitions operate, I agree we should let the Cabinet Secretary know that we've had this petition, and about the other one as well, SOSPPAN's 10,000—a lot of feeling and concern there—so they're aware of it. Hopefully, they already are anyway. And I think we should keep it open, as a majority view, until we know what's happening with it. It's being monitored, so we'll keep it open until that six-month period is over. Yes? Everybody happy with that, then, except for Vaughan. Vaughan, would you—

I'm happy to accept the majority—. I still don't agree, but there's a majority in the committee, so proceed on that basis.

Would you like to put that you don't agree with it, or shall we just say majority view?

The minutes will record that there is a majority in favour of the action. I'm happy with that.

All right, thank you.

I don't want to overly extend the meeting. [Laughter.]

Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Moving on to 2.2, P-06-1495, 'Create a structure within the Senedd to ban politicians convicted of intended deception'.

‘Adam Price Ms aims to uphold integrity and accountability in Welsh politics. Lying continues to be a controversial issue in global politics, this initiative is a noble effort to confront it directly. To build trust among the Welsh people, further discussion is warranted. In any profession, dishonesty typically results in dismissal; thus, it is puzzling that politicians, responsible for public funds amounting to billions of pounds, would oppose such measures unless they have something to conceal.'

This was submitted by Philip Cook with 254 signatures. Could I invite Joel to discuss the petition and any actions you wish to take?

Thank you, Chair, and yes, it's good to be back on the Petitions Committee. I know this has had a lot of headlines lately, especially when we were debating the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, and I know from the outset of that, it was decided that the Standards of Conduct Committee would look into it. As they are currently looking into it, I think it's probably best to put a pin in this until we know what the outcome is of that, and then we can let the petitioner know, then, really, and I don't think there's much for us to do as a committee other than that.

Okay. So, are you suggesting that—? Luke, would you like to come in?

Yes, I'm going to end up being Vaughan in this situation now, in the sense that I think, actually, we should probably close this one here, only because the standards committee's actually doing a body of work on it. Adam is also pushing this as an individual Member as well, with a number of other experts in the field on top of that, so this is going to progress, I think, pretty quickly. Whether it comes to actually implementing the law's a different thing and there will be people with different opinions, but this is certainly progressing, and there is no input that the Petitions Committee can actually have in this actual situation.

Okay. I tend to agree with you there. Is everybody in agreement?

I agree, Chair, and the Chair of standards did an interview round over the last week or so, setting out recommendations in a report and pointing out that there is a Welsh Government commitment on the record to legislate, with a range of options about what that will be, and Senedd Members will discuss this issue before the end of the term.

Okay. Thank you. There's consensus there, so we can close the petition because it's been taken up by the standards committee. Okay, thank you.

We move on to 2.3, P-06-1496, 'To make heart screening a mandatory requirement for membership of sports clubs and gyms in Wales.'

'Italy and other European countries have heart screening as a mandatory requirement for membership of sports clubs and gyms and we would like this to be imposed in Wales.'

And that was submitted by Sharon Owen with 1,344 signatures. So, Rhys, would you like to discuss this?

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I think, for me, the issue here with this petition is the word 'mandatory'. Now, I appreciate that this is an issue. Many of us will remember Fabrice Muamba, live on television, having a sudden cardiac arrest and, since then, we've seen the examples of the Welsh footballer Tom Lockyer and the Danish footballer Christian Eriksen, and thankfully both of them are on their way back. Eriksen's playing already, and Tom Lockyer is on his way back to play again. We've touched on this matter in two previous petitions, which dealt with younger people only. I know in Italy it is mandatory for people participating in representative sports to be screened, but we've had a response back from Jeremy Miles. In his letter, he highlights the advice from United Kingdom National Screening Committee. They don't recommend systematic screening for people under 39, or over, because for older people, they mention—I'm nearly in the 'older' category now—it's coronary heart issues, and, for younger people, the accuracy is questioned, they said it's not good, and there are no effective treatments available if this matter is highlighted and it could cause unnecessary anxiety. Of course, we want people to do exercise, and people not doing exercise causes a lot of issues in itself.

Now, I appreciate the sensitivity behind this. I can't even fathom seeing this happen to a loved one or the impact it causes individuals or families. But I'm not convinced that a mandatory requirement would be able to be implemented, and it's clear from the evidence of the experts that advise the whole of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom that they don't recommend this at the time being, and it's not something that the Welsh Government are looking to do in any event. So, it's my recommendation that we, again, thank the petitioner, it is an important issue, but I'm not sure if this is the answer to that important point. So, to thank and to close. Diolch.

Okay, thank you. Are we in agreement? Okay, thank you. Thank and close the petition. Thank you.

If we move on to agenda item 3, which is updates to previous petitions, item 3.1, petition P-06-1272, 'Ban the use of "no pet clauses" in tenancy agreements in Wales'. I've declared that I have actually signed this petition. That was previous to being a committee member. Vaughan.

Thank you, Chair. I think we've made a fair amount of progress on this, and I think there's a genuine cross-party desire to want to see us move on from the current legal position. That's both been set out in the housing committee's report, in the Government's White Paper proposals and in the debate that took place in January this year. So, it does appear that we are making progress on this. There'll be further movement, and, indeed, because the Government is setting out its proposals in a White Paper that mirror the provisions in the Renters' Rights Bill in England, this will remain a matter for debate, discussion and decision within this Senedd. So, I think we can thank the petitioner for their work, note that there is work in train that should come to a decision, hopefully, within this Senedd term. If not, I think it will certainly form part of manifestos for the next Senedd term, so I think we can thank them and close the petition at this point.

Okay. Anybody else with a view? Okay. I know that the suggestion has been to have insurance—to ask for insurance for people that want to enter accommodation. My concern is that it's an unnecessary barrier, 73 per cent of landlords have allowed pets with no problem, and people with pets tend to actually stay longer in them, but I've already raised these in debates in the Senedd, these important points, and I agree with you. We'll move forward, we can close this petition, and thank the petitioner for submitting it.

Indeed.

Thank you. And I will continue to raise it. [Laughter.]

I'm quite sure.

Okay. If we move on to item 3.2, petition P-06-1389, 'Introduce a 30mph limit on the trunk road through the villages of Eglwys Fach and Ffwrnais'. 'Ffwrnais', is that correct? Thank you, Rhys. So, can I invite Luke to take us through this, please?

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I can see that we've had this petition now for over a year, and we've had bits of correspondence back and forth between us and Welsh Government, so I am starting to lean towards potentially closing this petition, just in terms of what the committee can actually do, going forward. I think it does now tend to fall more on local Members to bring this issue up with Ministers directly, and in the Senedd as well, within the Chamber. What I would suggest, for this moment, is to pass on the petitioner's recent comments and to keep it open until we receive Welsh Government comments, but I would be minded, at the next time we consider it, to close it, and make the local Members aware that, actually, they need to start taking things forward as well.

I think that's a good point you've made. Local campaigns tend to work best, don't they, really, through the local Members and councillors, even.

I assume that the local Members are already aware of this petition, but could we at least just let them know, just in case? But I do think, now, it's starting to get to a point where it needs to be taken up by local Members.

Yes. That pressure. Okay. So, is everybody in agreement? We'll write to the Members, the local Members for this area, let them know the petitioner's view and ask them to take it up, basically, on their behalf, and then we'll close the petition.

So, the suggestion I made was that we share the petitioner's comments with the Government, we receive the comments back from Government, and, in the next session where we consider this, we consider closing it. But just to give time for local Members to get up to speed with the issue, if they're haven't already.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Are we okay with that? Thank you, Luke. Okay.

Moving on to item 3.3, petition P-06-1390, 'Stop all subsidies on food in the Senedd and for Welsh Government staff in general'. This was submitted by David Morgan, with a total of 436 signatures. Could I invite Joel to discuss the petition?

Thank you, Chair. I must admit, I was quite surprised when I read this. I know that it's a petition that predates my involvement in the committee, but the prices here don’t give me the impression that it's subsidised, and it's cheaper, if I want a pack of sandwiches, just to go down the road to the Co-op or Tesco, really. I know the Llywydd has explained that the prices here aren't subsidised, and members of the public pay the same prices as we do if they come and visit the cafe facilities at the front. So, I don't know what more we could do, really, other than, maybe, just to relay those comments back to the petitioner and then just to close, really.

Yes, okay. Everybody in agreement? Thank you. If we move on now to item 3.4, petition P-06-1394, 'Intervene in the development of the Penrhos Coastal Park into a holiday resort in Anglesey'. This was submitted by Madison Lorraine, with 11,992 signatures. As I said earlier, I did sign this petition before I was a committee member, and have been speaking out in support of keeping it as a coastal park rather than turning it into a holiday resort. Could I invite Rhys to discuss this, please?

Yes. Thank you, Cadeirydd. This is the second time for us to consider this matter. On the last occasion it was subject to a judicial review, therefore we waited until after the determination of that hearing. The judicial review, from the perspective of the campaigners, the applicants, failed, and I'm unaware of any appeal. Of course, they'll be subject to time limits of appeal, and, as far as I'm aware, that appeal has not been lodged. As far as I'm aware, work hasn't begun at Penrhos, a site of real beauty and historic interest. But I'm aware of a recent article that mentioned that an equity firm had purchased the area that would have money to develop it further.

Now, we have three options. It has passed the 10,000 mark for a debate, but it’s worth mentioning that only less than 6,500 came from Wales. Of course, it’s also worth considering what the Minister could say in response to a debate that the Welsh Government might become involved with, and what they say can only be very limited. So, a debate is one option. There was a discussion about Cadw becoming involved because of the historic interest, but there’s no evidence of that. I suppose we could contact Cadw to see whether that is correct. Or the third option is to thank the petitioner and close. I haven’t seen any comments from the petitioner recently. I might be incorrect. There was an e-mail I had via the Chair over the weekend, but I didn’t see any specific points in that with regard to this matter, but I may be incorrect, because it was a long e-mail. So, those are the three options. I know, Chair, that you have views with regard to the matter as a Member for the area and as someone who’s signed the petition. So, those are the three options, in any event.

Okay. Would anybody else like to speak on this?

Yes. I think we should close the petition. It's a matter of real and significant interest on and around the island. I don't think that you're going to see a future development without further comment. This, I guess, in the first place, was about just stopping any development. If a development proposal goes ahead, it needs funding, and it still has to meet a range of other tests about what sort of development and the detail of it. I think you can guarantee that, if there is a detailed application that gets submitted, if work starts, then you’ll certainly see more activity. And I don’t actually think the Government can intervene. For the Government to intervene and say, 'You can’t do this' would be a really significant move, and I actually think you’d probably give a potential developer a right of action in doing so.

There's a wider point about whether there should be any development, or what development that is sympathetic should take place here, but I don’t think the Petitions Committee is the place to do that, because you’ve got a full planning process that you’d need to go through with the local authority. And there is always the prospect of a call-in, so I don’t think a Minister is going to be able to comment, even if they want to, on whichever side of the debate, because Welsh Ministers could end up still having to determine what might yet take place on this island. I think Rhys is right that the time limit has expired for an appeal following the unsuccessful judicial review action.

As a Member representing north Wales, I have asked in the past if a Minister could intervene, because I've been concerned about the site. The coastal area of it is an area of outstanding natural beauty as well, a protected landscape, so I’m aware the petitioners have written also to the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee regarding their concerns about the loss of habitat and wildlife. It’s habitat for red squirrels as well. When I spoke with the Minister previously, they said that it’s a local matter for planning at the time, just as you have said.

And in all of those things, they have to balance the impact of a development. If they’re going to affect a particular area like this, there’ll often be requirements on compensatory work, around bringing forward other improvements in the area as well. So, it’s not as simple as, ‘The development takes place here’, it’s actually, ‘What’s the wider impact of that development?’, and that’s got to be taken account of during a proper planning process, where there's the specific shape of the proposals. And they’ll have to do their own assessments as well. They’ll have to go through more consultation with Natural Resources Wales and a range of others. They’ll have to go through the ecology of the site and the particular wildlife nature of it, where they’ve got other duties. So, this committee can’t do those. Being a former councillor yourself, those are things that the local authority has responsibility for. And in my experience, councils take planning matters really seriously. This is a significant local issue, and there is no world in which there won’t be further significant comment either way, from people who are either in favour of the development or not.

The council as well, I’ve spoken with them, and they have said that, if it came forward now to the present council, they probably would not have approved it. The previous administration that did at the time were going through some difficulties when they approved it. So, there are lots of issues going on here. What's the view of the committee going forward?

Well, I've got a clear a view—

You've made it clear.

—but it's up to others to make their own choices.

I hear what you say.

I think there are strengths to what Vaughan has said, and I would be minded to close this petition. Not that I'm saying—. There are some issues that need to be aired, but, again, probably this isn't the correct forum for that. So, I would, on balance, support closing the petition.

Okay. I see nods there.

My only concern there, really—and I recognise the Minister isn't going to be able to answer, because it's a planning matter—is they have reached the threshold, and have gone over it, for the debate. That's the only concern there, in the sense of what message does that send to other petitioners, when they're trying to get that to go to debate, and if they then say, 'Well, hang on, we've hit the threshold, and it still hasn't gone to debate.' And I know, when I was on the previous committee, there were a lot of conversations there because we did have that backlog of petitions waiting to be debated, but then, also, other petitions, which were equally important to be debated, not reaching that threshold, or anywhere near it. That's the only thing that I just wanted to add, really—the concern about the messaging there.

I think it's worth mentioning, because Joel wasn't here at the last meeting, that, a fortnight ago, we refused to take a petition to debate that went well past the 10,000 threshold also. So, we do refuse petitions that pass the 10,000 threshold to go to debate. I think it's worth mentioning that.

And I think Rhys, to be fair, in opening, did point out that under 6,500 of the signatures are from Wales. So, more than 5,000 signatures are from outside Wales. And with—

There are probably visitors enjoying it as well. It's very important.

We've got a duty to consider petitions that cross the 10,000 threshold, but it's not an automatic, 'They must be debated.' It's been given proper consideration now, hasn't it? It's not like it's just been dismissed out of hand.

Okay. So, with reluctance on my behalf, I see that the majority are suggesting that we close the petition. And it's another one that I will continue to fight for in my own way, as a Member for North Wales who feels very strongly about this one. Okay.

Moving on to 3.5, P-05-1448, 'Stop pollution at Watchtower Bay and Ogmore by Sea'.

'Watch House Bay and Ogmore by Sea were both classified as new designated bathing waters in 2023.

'Now both beaches have not met the minimum requirements for bathing water quality and were the only two bathing sites in Wales to be classified as "poor" in what the Welsh Government has described as "disappointing".

'Rather than putting up signs warning people not to swim at these beaches, the Council, Welsh Water and Welsh Government should be taking action to prevent this pollution.'

This was submitted by Robert Curtis, with 894 signatures. Could I invite Vaughan to discuss this petition?

Thank you, Chair. I know Rob Curtis, but I don't think that makes any particular difference about my view on the petition, given the length of time the petition's been open. The update is that Watch House bay has now improved from 'poor' to 'sufficient', but Ogmore-by-Sea remains classified as 'poor'. I know the area; my father was born at Ogmore-by-Sea—sometime ago, of course. The advice is not to swim, but it's not prohibited. Because it's been classified as bathing water, there are still duties to test, and Dŵr Cymru will need to meet those duties.

The challenge really is what we can do with a petition being open with the action that is already being taken. The Natural Resources Wales bathing report notes that there's work being done by NRW, the Vale of Glamorgan Council and Dŵr Cymru. I know the petitioner claims that the test regime is very human dominated, but that's the point about the bathing water designation. There are duties that go along with that, so I'd expect to see that, but also in the test results to consider the wider environment.

There's a broader point about bathing water quality in Wales, including river swimming, but I think that, in this case, given that all of the relevant bodies are both monitoring the situation and committed to taking action, and we've raised the issue with the Deputy First Minister, my own personal view is that I don't think there's more that the Petitions Committee can do, because I don't think there's more to be done until there are more results from the next phase of water quality testing, and this is a significant topic in the wider area. You don't need to live in Ogmore-by-Sea to be aware of this.

Before we come to determine this petition though, Chair, Ogmore-by-Sea is specifically mentioned in the petition under item 3.7, so my view is that there isn't a reasonable course of action that the Petitions Committee can add to that wouldn't otherwise take place, and I think this petition should close, but you might want to consider that in conjunction with petition 3.7, because there's a wider perspective being taken in 3.7 on NRW and their duties.

Okay, so hold that thought.

Indeed.

We'll come to that one after the next one.

I need to declare an interest in 3.6. I'm happy to stay in the room, but I won't be commenting or taking part in any vote, should that be necessary to determine the committee's view.

Okay, thank you, Vaughan. Item 3.6, P-06-1450, 'Welsh Government to take action to protect people from airborne infections in healthcare settings'. This was submitted by Anna-Louise Marsh-Rees with 330 signatures. Okay, Luke, would you like to discuss the petition?

Yes, diolch, Cadeirydd. There's quite a bit of work being done on this in the Senedd, as it currently stands. We have the Wales COVID-19 Inquiry Special Purpose Committee, which the Senedd will be voting on in the coming months. So, I just think, in terms of this particular subject, because of the nature of it, this committee isn't the best place for us now to be taking forward what the petition and the petitioner are asking, and the special purpose committee is probably better suited to this. So, in light of that, could I suggest that we close this petition, but that we do forward the comments on to the Cabinet Secretary and the special purpose committee, so that they can be aware of it? But they'll continue the work on this particular issue now, and there'll be many people in the Senedd asking questions, debating, and then ultimately voting on the work of that special purpose committee.

Okay. Thank you, Luke. Is everybody in agreement? Okay, thank you. We'll close the petition and report to the committee. Thank you.

Just on that one, it might be worth mentioning that you can also look at the committee's work on their website, just so people are aware of that.

Okay, thank you for that, Luke. Okay, yes. Thank you. To promote that.

So, we move on to 3.7, P-06-1478, 'Comprehensively review NRW and its failure to deliver its statutory obligations to protect Wales', and that was submitted by Alun Phillips with 367 signatures. And this is the one that Vaughan referred to as another one to do with NRW. Joel, would you like to just take us through this?

Yes, thank you, Chair. And probably in retrospect I'll declare—it's not necessarily an interest, but just for the record—that I'm the Senedd species champion for seagrass, and waterborne pollution is the major cause of them being decimated, really.

I note what Vaughan was saying on the previous petition, and I know that the petitioners raised similar points then with regard to this petition, especially hoping to hold NRW to account. One of the things I was quite interested in doing, because it makes reference to the Pen-y-bont waste treatment works, and then again the Ogmore river catchment, I was wondering whether or not we could write to the relevant Minister to highlight these, see what their response is, and to keep the petition open in the meantime, really.

Okay.

Can I just check as a point of information? I know, Chair, you're on the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. NRW are due to come in for scrutiny, aren't they—

Yes, they are.

—in the not-too-distant future as well?

In March.

It does seem to me that we could close the petition. That doesn't need—. We could ask the Deputy First Minister to write to Dŵr Cymru—of course we could do that—but given that NRW are in, in March, would it not make more sense to write to that committee to note that this petition has been here, we're closing it, but there are issues about NRW, and in particular the points that Joel's highlighted about waste treatment works? Because NRW and Dŵr Cymru are involved, and I'd expect that Dŵr Cymru will be in before the subject committee at some point in the not-too-distant future as well. This is a particular issue that is worth having on the radar of that committee, because I think this is fairly and squarely in the subject committee's scrutiny area. But if NRW weren't coming in until September, October, I might take a different view, but they're in in March.

In March, yes. Yes, that does make sense to me.

The petitioner is probably likely to get an answer more quickly through that forum, rather than us writing.

Yes, the committee is the place to do that scrutiny and to raise these issues. So, if we write to that committee with all these points being raised here by the petitioner, and then we can join the scrutiny and speak on all these issues. Okay, thank you, we're in agreement. If we move on to—[Interruption.] Sorry? And the previous petition as well. And the previous one that we discussed, that one as well.

It could improve—[Inaudible.]—in Watchtower bay, but Ogmore is still being monitored because it's still poor. That definitely comes down to, I think, the point around scrutiny around NRW: what are they doing with the different stakeholders they've got a regulated responsibility for? Let's be fair, the Ogmore bay classification ended up being an issue of national reporting across Wales and the UK, and it would be unusual if, when NRW are next in front of the scrutiny committee, it didn't get raised. And I think that's the right place to do it. So, my view is to close both petitions, but make the climate change committee aware of both of these petitions that we've closed, and ask them if they'll pursue those matters in subject committee scrutiny of NRW. And if they do have Dŵr Cymru in at some point—I'm sure they will—to see if further improvement has been made or not made when they appear.

Okay, yes. So, that's both of those petitions we'll do that with. Thank you. Okay.

So, we move on to item 3.8, P-06-1485, 'Introduce a network of Toy Libraries around Wales', and this was submitted by Bleddyn Lake with 297 signatures. So, Rhys, would you like to take us through again?

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I think this is the second time we've discussed this. I definitely spoke about this on the last occasion; I think Peter Fox, as a grandfather, has spoken also. I'm sure Joel as a new father—this is an opportune moment for us to formally congratulate Joel on becoming a father to baby Vincent on 21 January—will also realise that, in some families, there is terrible waste when it comes to toys, that a child will play with a toy for a while and then lose interest and move on to the box in which the toy came. On the last occasion, both Peter and I thought—and I think you did also, Chair—that this was a brilliant idea. This petition shows the benefit of this committee. It's enabled the petitioners' idea to be aired with the Deputy Minister. The Deputy Minister thinks the idea is interesting. They're in the process of evaluating the circular economy fund and the petitioner is very pleased with the response from the Deputy Minister, and has written to meet with the Deputy Minister.

So, can we just thank the petitioner for this interesting idea, for what I think is a good idea, and hopefully it will be able to work? So, thank the petitioner and close the petition. Diolch.

Okay, thank you. Everybody in agreement?

Just a point of clarification—it's the Deputy First Minister.

Oh, Deputy First Minister. [Laughter.] Sorry, I do apologise. I apologise to—.

So, we don't get 'Bored of Ogmore' writing in. [Laughter.]

I don't want Mr Davies from Ogmore complaining. The Deputy First Minister.

To be fair, he is one of the less precious Members—[Inaudible.] [Laughter.] I think he'd just be amused about it.

Yes. Can I apologise formally to the Deputy First Minister? [Laughter.]

I'm sure that won't be necessary. Thank you. So, we're going to close that petition. Again, it was another really good petition that brought change. Okay.

So, the next item is papers to note, which we will be discussing later—the ban smartphones report.

Then we move on to the motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the rest of the meeting. Does everybody agree? Okay. Thank you. We'll go into private.