Petitions Committee

Moving on, if we look at our new petitions, 2.1 is petition P-06-1499, 'Stop the use of term "Universal Provision" as a reason to deny ALN.'

'Over recent months, there has been much discussion around the term universal provision. ALNET and Welsh Government have given clear guidance as to what this term means. Yet, despite this clarification, local authorities and members of Welsh Government continue to allow this term to be used to refuse a learner ALN status and provide ALP. There can only be one solution, and that is that this term is banned from use.'

This was submitted by Victoria Lightbown, with 1,454 signatures. Could I invite Luke to discuss this petition and any actions you wish the committee to take?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. It's important that we get the reforms around additional learning needs right, so I've got a lot of sympathy with this particular petition. But, from what I understand, the Cabinet Secretary as well as the Children, Young People and Education Committee are currently looking at this, and I believe, actually, the Cabinet Secretary is trying to address some of the concerns that have been raised within this petition and elsewhere. So, could I suggest that we keep this petition open and wait for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary to the Senedd, which I believe is coming, but also highlight the petition with the CYPE committee as well so that they're aware of it and then can have it in mind whilst they're scrutinising the ALN reforms?

Okay. Thank you, Luke. Would anybody else like to comment on this one? No. We're all in agreement. Vaughan.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I actually sit on the CYPE committee, and the ALN reforms and practice are a real issue. What I don't want is for the petition to take on a life of its own that is, essentially, running a dual track to the work that the CYPE committee is doing. So, I think this committee really does need to decide very rapidly after the Cabinet Secretary's statement whether it wants to do anything else, because the CYPE committee will carry on looking at this, not just through the summer but into the autumn as well. So, there is time to be able to correspond with that committee to influence it.

What I wouldn't want to see is that the CYPE committee are doing their work and then there's an alternative track that is, essentially, commenting on what the CYPE committee are doing. I think that would be very unhelpful and would get us into some of the concerns I've expressed before about where we add value to something that's happening, as opposed to where we repeat what is taking place in other parts of the Senedd. So, I'm happy to wait until the Cabinet Secretary has made her statement, and to correspond with the petitioner again then, but I do think we need to make clear that we're not going to try to run a twin-track approach to what is a significant piece of work that the Children, Young People and Education Committee are doing.

I would agree with that, Chair. It's important that subject committees are the ones doing the proper scrutiny of work, and that we don't duplicate that and confuse matters. So, I would agree with Vaughan on that.

Yes, good points. Thank you. Are the rest in agreement? Nodding heads. Thank you. So, going forward, we will keep it open, we'll wait for the statement from the Cabinet Secretary and we'll just follow the work of the CYPE committee. We'll refer the petition to the CYPE committee as well. Vaughan Gething and I are both members of the CYPE committee. Thank you, both.

Okay, if we move on now to 2.2, petition P-06-1500, 'Neath Port Talbot UNISON needs additional Funding for NPT Council.'

'Neath Port Talbot UNISON is requesting a much needed injection of funding to Neath Port Talbot Council to protect services, protect jobs, keep communities safe. Without this extra funding Neath Port Talbot Council will have to make decisions on both statutory and non-statutory services for example, close Libraries, Youth Services, Public Amenities’ also make staff compulsory redundant.'

This was submitted by Mark Fisher, with 355 signatures. Could I invite Luke to discuss the—sorry, Joel—petition?

Thank you, Chair. And no worries—it's an easy mistake; I and Luke do look alike. [Laughter.]

I'm not entirely certain what the petitioner wants, because the bulk of the wording is making reference to Neath Port Talbot needing more money, but then, in the additional correspondence we've had with the petitioner, they talk about the shared prosperity fund. Either way, I think it's probably something for us to, basically—. And I'm conscious that the council does sit on nearly £100 million in usable reserves; I think it's like £93 million. So, it's got substantial reserve account there that can be utilised. My gut's telling me that we just write to the council asking what their plan is for that shared prosperity fund, not necessarily for this year, but going forward, and how it fits within the parameters of the economic delivery plan, I think. I think that's all we can do.

Thank you. Vaughan. Vaughan, we can't hear you at the moment.

[Inaudible.]—just to confirm that I'm a member of Unison. I think we can close the petition, because SPF funding has been continued to 2026, which is in the clarification—apparently what the petition is asking for. Beyond that, of course, as a Senedd, we regularly get to look at local authority budgets, when we pass a budget for the Senedd, and we then have the local government settlement. I recognise that every local authority could make a bid for more money, and a reasonable bid as well. Local authorities have been through a decade and a half of retrenchment before money started to increase as well. There'll be real pressures in that. But I think the purpose the petitioner has clarified has been achieved, so I think, actually, it's safe for us to close the petition. And I'm grateful for the opportunity to put on record my specific point of interest as a member of Unison.

Thank, you Vaughan. Unison have had a really good campaign, haven't they? Members send e-mails every so often regarding funding for councils generally, public services generally, as they are struggling, aren't they, for funding. Thank you. So, it's been suggested that we write to Neath Port Talbot highlighting the petition and seek an update regarding plans for the 2025-26 allocation of SPF funding within the parameters of the regional economic delivery plan, by Joel. Okay. So, shall we keep it open, just pending the response, and then close it? Okay. Nods, nods—yes. Right. Okay, we'll do that then, moving forward. Thank you very much.

On to 2.3, petition P-06-1522, 'Convene a summit to accelerate sustainable and ethical investment by public sector pensions'.

'The eight Welsh Local Government pensions, managed through the Welsh Pension Partnership total assets worth £25 billion (31 March 2024). Although there is a Responsible Investment policy, there are millions of pounds of assets in people and planet harming investments such as fossil fuels, deforestation, arms and companies complicit in human rights abuses.'

This has been submitted by Heather Bolton, with 587 signatures. That's a significant amount of money, isn't it? Could I invite Rhys to discuss the petition?

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. I agree, it is a significant amount of money, and I think all Members have received some correspondence from supporters of this petition. I think it's fair to say from the outset that the Welsh Government position is clear—that they have no power over the operation of the scheme and the pension is not a devolved matter. However, it would be fair to say that they do have some influence and can bring people together. They mentioned that there had been a meeting convened in late 2023, but the petitioner said that that was with regard to a specific matter—fossil fuels, if I remember correctly. Now, the petitioners have five specific asks of the Welsh Government: for them to convene a pensions summit; to prioritise ethical divestment; to align investment with Welsh priorities; reinforce the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and net-zero alignment; and to demonstrate global leadership. The petitioners have also called on us as a committee to do specific things with regard to undertaking scoping with regard to the summit, to propose a summit agenda. I'm not sure whether that is the role of this committee. However, I am keen that we do something, because, as you mentioned, this is a significant amount of money. I think we'd all be in agreement that we want public sector pensions to be used and invested in areas that do align to Welsh Government and the Senedd's principles, and do align with the future generations Act. And what better timing than after a decade of the future generations Act that we do look into this?

So, I'd be interested in two things. I'd be interested to have an update as to what happened following the statement in late 2023. What are the follow-ups from that meeting? And I'd also be in favour of us having a look at a short inquiry to see how or if public sector pension funds are meeting the aims of the future generations Act. I've mentioned a few times before that I have some personal concerns that the future generations Act hasn't got the bite it needs. Well, this is an opportunity, perhaps, where we can see how we can align this important matter with the future generations Act. Of course, this is with the background of pension reform in any event at Westminster, so I think this is a good time for us to look at this. Diolch.

Okay. Would anybody else like to come in? Yes, Vaughan.

I think it's an interesting policy discussion that is out of the bounds of this committee and largely out of the bounds of Senedd competence. I think there are interesting questions that do get into Senedd competence about whether pension funds are going to invest more within the UK economy. But, fundamentally, on those pension funds, it isn't just that they're not devolved, but they've got duties in terms of the returns they get for members of those pension funds. And I think this is trying to take us in an entirely different direction that gets well outside of that.

I appreciate Rhys has a different perspective, but I just don't see how it is within the work of this committee to undertake the sort of wide-ranging exercise that is being suggested. I don't have any problem with asking the Welsh Local Government Association or the Minister if there's been a follow-up to the previous activity in their engagement with people responsible for managing the pension funds, on how much of the pension funds they currently invest or expect to invest in Wales. I think that's interesting and useful information that does get you into competence areas for the Senedd. But I think the broader, expansionist view that we just want to understand how far we can push the future generations Act into an area that is most largely and recognisably reserved is not something that I particularly want to spend the time or energy of this committee on myself. I think we have lots of issues that are plainly devolved that we could spend our time on. We talked about one earlier, and I'm sure we'll talk about more. I think that's where we should be focusing our energy and attention, and not getting drawn into what is a fairly small petition in number and areas where petitioners want us to do things that I think everyone recognises are not really devolved.

Joel.

Thank you, Chair. I've got to admit I agree with Vaughan wholeheartedly here. This petition has only had 555 signatures from Wales, and I don't think it's proper for us then to do even a short review on this, given the large amount of petitions that we deal with. I would say there are far more important topics that we can actually have a say on. As Vaughan highlighted, it's the responsibility of the pension administrators, or the people who pay into the pensions, to determine where that's invested into.

And I hold my hands up: I've always got issues here when people say about ethical investments, because that's subjective. I've talked in the Chamber before about tech companies and dark data, and the amount of energy that's wasted on cloud storage that has far more of an environmental impact than aviation, the energy sector and the car sector combined. Some people would be arguing that that's unethical. But those are my concerns there, so I agree with what Vaughan has been saying.

We could have an interesting debate on this one. Joel, do you want to come in on this? I mean Luke. Sorry, I'm getting you mixed up today. I don't know why. It's very strange. Sorry, Luke. It's my cold.

I disagree with some of the stuff that Joel said there, particularly about ethical investments, but I keep coming back to the devolved and reserved nature of this particular issue. If you go back to our last Petitions Committee, there was a petition with significantly more signatures asking us to do something in a non-devolved area that we rejected on that basis, and that the committee agreed that we wanted to focus on those things that were devolved and that we could have an impact on. But I don't necessarily think that means we shouldn't do anything at all with this petition. Could I just get a reminder of what Rhys suggested first? Was it to write to the WLGA?

Yes, write to them and the Minister to ask for an update with regard to their meeting in late 2023.

And to have a possible short inquiry.

I'm not opposed to us writing to the WLGA and the relevant Cabinet Secretary. I'm not so sure that I would go as far as to say that we should have an inquiry, though. Again, I base that on the fact that, just in our last meeting, we rejected a petition with significantly more signatures because it was asking us to do something in a non-devolved area.

I think we've got to be quite clear as a committee what are the things we actually can influence and achieve, and what are the things we can't. My worry is if we go down the route of having an inquiry here, we give the impression that we're able to have an influence on this particular issue, when we can't.

So, again, the spirit of the petition I agree with. It is an important issue, but I just can't see what we can do as a committee, given that it's a reserved matter. So, I would support Rhys's first suggestion in terms of writing to the WLGA for an update, but I don't think I'd go as far as to say that we should have an inquiry on it.

Rhys wants to come back.

Can Luke, the clerking team or the Cadeirydd remind me what was the petition that we previously rejected because it was a reserved matter? I can't remember that discussion off the top of my head.

We'll have a think about that while I just come in, because I've got a different view on this as well. I know that the policy of pensions is set in Westminster, but in Wales we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, we're a member of the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, the Mbale project, and we are a nation of sanctuary, so we would look to invest differently. We could invest pensions in housing, local renewables, regenerative farming; they were three things that were suggested. It's a lot of money, £25 billion, that could be invested in really good schemes.

I initially thought that the UK Government would look at all the pension pots—I'll come back to you, Luke, in a minute—or the UK pension pots were just going to be used together, including all the nations, but I've noted here that the Minister further notes that the Welsh Government was given

'reassurance that the UK Government recognises the benefits of a single Welsh LGPS pool, in which partner funds will have a mutual interest in investing in the Welsh economy, including in sustainable investments. It is my understanding that this is also part of the feedback to the consultation provided by relevant Welsh stakeholders.'

The Wales Pension Partnership, so key members of all those pension bodies, the board members, I think they have a representative that attends that meeting. I'm not sure, but I'm hoping so. So, I would like also to write to them regarding the investment of pensions in Wales and the direction that we would like the pension investment to go.

There we are. We've got differing views there. Luke, you wanted to come back in.

The petition we rejected last time for asking us to do something in a non-devolved area was the animal testing petition, specifically universities and their role in animal testing. So, we rejected that one, and that had a couple of thousand—I think it was about 5,000—signatures that were from Wales. So, there's an argument here for consistency in how we deal with some of these petitions, I think. I don't think it would be fair for us to have rejected that petition with that many signatures, and then to accept this petition with as many signatures as it does have. But, again, I'm not opposed to writing to the people that Rhys outlined, and you just now, Chair, because that's what we did with the previous petition as well. But we've just got to be clear here that there isn't much that we can do as a committee on this particular matter.

I think it might be helpful for us to have some clarity, maybe in the next papers from the clerks, around what would we actually be able to do, what is specifically devolved and what isn't devolved in this matter, because we can provide that then to the petitioners so that they're clear as to why we've said that it's not within the capacity of this committee or the Senedd. And perhaps then we'll find out that there are other elements that we can influence as well. But, again, I just think, in terms of consistency, we have to be consistent on whether or not we're accepting petitions in non-devolved areas.

Chair, can I ask a quick question? In the pack, we have an idea of what the Petitions Committee can do, and it mentions there:

'Engage key organisations: Formally invite and collaborate with relevant organisations'.

Where did that list come from of those organisations?

I think that's from the petitioner.

Right. So, the agreed action, going forward: if we write to the WLGA and the Cabinet Secretary for an update on the statement. I'd like also if we could write to the Wales Pension Partnership regarding our concerns. If we write to them regarding the petition and ensuring that Welsh pensions invest in line with Welsh policies, basically, that have been raised here.

But with respect, Chair, the changing policies in this institution can't always govern how trustees discharge their duties. Asking them for their future investment strategy and how they have taken account, if they have done, of, for example, the future generations Act and policy priorities in Wales, I think that's fine, but I think telling them, 'We require you to invest in this way' is getting beyond where we are and what we've said in this meeting. I don't think that's where we should be looking to use our own power and influence.

The petitioners are entitled to do this—they ask us to undertake a significant programme of work around priorities that they want us to focus on. It isn't just the devolved and non-devolved areas; it's also about understanding the responsibilities of trustees and how that investment is run. There's quite a lot in this policy area that I think is genuinely interesting about how UK public pension pots are used to support the growth of the economy in the UK, and obviously local government pensions in Wales are a part of that.

So, I have no problem at all in supporting the committee writing to the WLGA, to the Cabinet Secretary, and to the Welsh pension pool to ask what their current investment priorities are for funds invested, and what their future investment priorities are, how that goes into supporting the growth of the Welsh economy in a sustainable manner, and to draw their attention to the petition and ask them to address the petition as far as possible in their response.

I think that's fine, but I think saying that we require them to do something is getting involved where we shouldn't be. We should still get a response that is useful and will be published and shared with everyone. There will be what I hope will be a level of transparency in how they're actually investing their funds, without getting into something that I think would be difficult.

Is everybody in agreement? Okay. So, we can write and ask for their current investment priorities and draw attention to the petition and the well-being of future generations Act. Thank you.

If we move on now to item 2.4, petition P-06-1523, 'Reverse the Closure of Post Grad Counselling and Psychotherapy Courses at University of South Wales'. It reads:

'We urge the University of South Wales to reverse its decision to close key counselling and psychotherapy courses. These programmes provide vital training and support local mental health services. Their loss will reduce access to qualified therapists and force students to train in England. USW must consult with students and stakeholders, including the Welsh Government, to find a solution that protects these essential courses.'

It was submitted by Kelsey Young, with 584 signatures. Could I invite Vaughan to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I think that this is hopefully a positive and straightforward action for the committee. Since the petition was submitted, the university has indicated that there was a consultation, and they've taken an early decision, following the close of that consultation, to retain the courses that are mentioned in the petition as a result of alternative delivery models being proposed to reduce operating costs and make the courses financially viable. The specific issue in this petition has been resolved, so on this specific issue I don't think there's any need for the committee to do anything more but to write to the petitioner to thank them and note the positive outcome.

Again, more generally on the issue of a number of consultations across higher education with a number of petitions, there is work ongoing in the children and young people committee. We heard from Cardiff University this week, and there will be more engagement with the higher education sector about some of the challenges they are going through. But on this issue, I think we can thank the petitioner, note the progress that the courses are continuing, and close the petition at this point.

Is everybody in agreement? Yes. Okay, so it's a good outcome. Thank you, Vaughan.

If we move forward to item 2.5, petition P-06-1524, 'Erect a statue of Rachel Williams to commemorate her impact on Welsh language education in the Vale of Glamorgan'.

'Rachel Williams started her career as a teacher in an English-medium school. She received a phone call, asking her to start work the following day as a teacher at a Welsh-medium nursery.

'Upon starting the role, she learned that an education officer called Mr Angel would be visiting the school in order to test the children's Welsh. Some of the children came from English-speaking homes, and so they could not speak Welsh. Rachel taught these children a little Welsh, so that they could pass the test and would not have to leave the school.

'Years later, she was awarded an MBE to thank her for her work in supporting the Welsh language in Barry and the Vale of Glamorgan.'

This was submitted by Ffion Newland, who's a teacher, on behalf of a year 6 learner. It has 293 signatures. Could I ask Luke to discuss the petition?

Diolch, Gadeirydd. It's really important, I think, to commemorate those who've really committed their lives to the Welsh language and its continuation and revival in some of those areas. It's really great to see this petition submitted by a year 6 learner as well. I wish we had better news to give. We see from the Cabinet Secretary that he made clear that the Welsh Government doesn't normally fund statutes directly, but has pointed towards some places where they might be able to find some funding—Monumental Welsh Women being one of them—as well as then pointing to some guidance from Welsh Government around public commemoration.

I think, in this instance, it's difficult to see where we as a committee can take this, but I think that reiterating to the petitioner those other sources of funding that can be made available to commemorate people within communities is really important. And despite, maybe, this not being the outcome, maybe, that the petitioner would have wanted, this again is a good example of where people can raise some of those local issues within the Parliament and get involved with the Parliament and have that issue discussed as well. But in this instance, we as a committee can't do anything, but I think that it's important that we point them in the direction of those who can make things happen for them. And, of course, best of luck, as well, to year 6 as they move on to secondary school in September. It's a big step, but best of luck for that.

Okay. Thank you, Luke. Yes, Rhys.

Ie, gaf i ddod i mewn yn sydyn, Gadeirydd? Diolch i'r disgybl blwyddyn 6 am y ddeiseb bwysig yma. Dwi'n credu ein bod ni'n anghofio gymaint o arloeswyr oedd pobl fel Rachel Williams, a'r atgasedd roedd yr iaith Gymraeg yn ei hwynebu mewn sawl man. Pan gafodd fy ysgol i ei hagor yng Nghaerdydd, Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf, roedd yna brotestiadau tu fas, gyda phobl gyda phlacardiau yn dweud, 'Welsh go home'. Dyna oedd y meddylfryd yn nifer o rannau o'r de-ddwyrain. Mae hwnna wedi mynd yn llwyr bellach.

Dwi'n nodi hefyd waith arloesol Rachel Williams yn ceisio sicrhau bod disgyblion ag ychydig bach o Gymraeg er mwyn pasio'r prawf gyda'r ymwelydd o'r awdurdod lleol. Rŷn ni wedi anghofio, tan yn lled ddiweddar, oni bai eich bod chi'n dod o gartref Cymraeg, doedd dim hawl gyda chi i dderbyn addysg Gymraeg. Roedd pobl fel Rachel Williams wedi penderfynu anwybyddu hynny gan ei bod hi'n gweld bod yr iaith Gymraeg yn perthyn i bawb, nid dim ond pobl sy'n dod o gartrefi Cymraeg. Felly, roedd hi'n arloeswraig yn wir.

Gaf i gynnig ein bod ni'n mynd, efallai, gam hyd yn oed yn bellach ac nid dim ond hysbysu'r disgyblion a'r ysgol am fodolaeth Monumental Welsh Women, ond pam na wnawn ni fel pwyllgor gysylltu â nhw yn uniongyrchol, gyda Monumental Welsh Women, i ddweud wrthyn nhw am fodolaeth y ddeiseb yma? Dwi'n gwybod bod yna nifer sy'n aelodau blaenllaw o Monumental Welsh Women, fel y Trefnydd fan hyn, Jane Hutt, a Dr Sian Rhiannon Williams—maen nhw'n frodorion o'r Barri. Felly, gaf i gynnig ein bod ni'n mynd gam ymhellach i geisio dangos ein cefnogaeth glir i'r ddeiseb yma trwy gysylltu ein hunain â Monumental Welsh Women a dangos iddyn nhw waith arbennig y disgyblion yn fan hyn? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Rhys. I'd like to congratulate the year 6 learner as well on the petition and for raising awareness of Rachel Williams with us. So, the school has had a presentation from Monumental Welsh Women and been informed about the purple plaques, but we could write to them as well, couldn't we, in support, and mention the petition. I think it would be nice if we could write as a committee to the school to congratulate the learner on the petition, but also inviting Helen from Monumental Welsh Women, who actually discussed the purple plaques as well, to talk about it as well. So, they've obviously done quite a bit of research, which is really good. There's a purple plaque on the side of the Senedd building, isn't there, for Val Feld, who was a champion for equality, and then there's the wonderful Betty Campbell statue in Cardiff, which is amazing, but it must have taken quite a while to raise the money to build it. Okay. Luke, did you want to come in? Did I see your hand up? No, sorry, it was Vaughan. Okay.

It's great that they've already had contact with Monumental Welsh Women, so I don't think that we need to undertake the step that Rhys advocates, but in writing to Monumental Welsh Women and to the school, I think that it is worth asking them if they want to give us an update on their engagement with Monumental Welsh Women, because I think that the Petitions Committee would be interested if further progress is made. That doesn't mean the petition needs to stay open, but I think to respond to thank year 6 for the way that they've engaged. I think it's really positive that people want to engage in democracy, and I think that's really important, and I note that the teacher said that the next year 6 are likely to want to take the work forward, and I think us showing an interest in where they do get to with purple plaques and Monumental Welsh Women would be of interest to whoever is on this committee and at whatever point that update is provided. And oddly, I worked for Val Feld, and I stood in an election against Betty Campbell, and they were both significant women that were inspiring and you wouldn't want to cross, in either respect.

Well, thank you for that little story. [Laughter.] Right, so are we okay with those going forward? Thank you very much.

If we move on now to 2.6, P-06-1527, 'Review dog walking restrictions on Welsh beaches and issue guidance to relevant bodies'.

'In Scotland and Northern Ireland dogs are banned from beaches from 1 June—15 Sept (incl). In England, such as Cornwall, dog bans cover the shorter period 15 May—30th September for Blue Flag beaches and the school holiday period of 1 July—31st August for other beaches, but additionally allow out of hours dog access between 6pm and 10am. In not so sunny, rain and windswept Wales the banned period is 1 May—30th September or even longer (with NO out of hours’ time exceptions) and this applies for some general beaches, for green coast awards and for Blue Flag beaches. This is even 2 weeks before the commencement of the official bathing season on 15 May under England and Wales Bathing Water Regulations 2013.

'There is NO presumption that Blue Flags should cover the entirety of a beach or that their season should be fixed 15 May—30 September (or even from 1 May!) or to exclude out of hours access. Keep Wales Tidy (who classify Blue Flag beaches in Wales) say that it is up to the applicant body to decide how long the Blue Flag season will be within the timeframe of the Bathing Water season and other considerations.

'Responsible dog owners pick up and help educate and police others. They recognise the value of excluding dogs on busy beaches in the summer. But they

are fed up of being excluded from deserted beaches for 5 months of the year for no good reason whatsoever. Local Authorities have scarce resources and cannot afford to police dog exclusions from beaches unnecessarily. A better supported, shorter closed period to dog walking would reduce burdens upon them. A review of the timing of dogs on beaches is in keeping with the recent (November 2024) Bathing Water Regulations 2013 consultation. To aid flexibility Governments in England and Wales have supported a removal of regulation 4 (fixed bathing season) from the regulations to guidance.'

So, this was submitted by Philip Coates with 361 signatures. Okay, so could I invite Joel to discuss the petition.

Thank you, Chair. I've got a quick question. I know that you mentioned there about the England and Wales bathing water Act, and I know it's currently under review. Do we know the timescales for that, because a lot of this regulation comes from that, really? Do you know if there are plans within that review to look at amending it?

I don't know, but we could find out for you, yes.

I think that would be perfect, even if it's just for the petitioner's benefit. The concern I have here, and I think it's expressed by the Cabinet Secretary as well, really, is that this is mainly a decision for those on the ground, local authorities, to make, rather than—. And I know beaches—when I've gone away, you know—have different times, different, you know—. And I don't necessarily see any reason for us as the Petitions Committee to get involved in that, but we could keep it open to wait and find out a bit more about the review, but I'm guided by the rest of committee on that, really.

Okay, Would anybody else like to come in on this? Vaughan. You're muted still, Vaughan. Right, you're okay now.

Thank you. I think we should leave this as a matter. I think that it's fair enough to provide factual information about the review of the regulations where there's potential to move something out of the regulations into guidance. I don't think it's work for the committee to do, though; I think this is a local issue. I think it is for local authorities who understand where best to do this. I don't think we should go into that, and I say that not just as someone who uses beaches with my family, but my family is extended and now includes a dog, and I consider myself to be a responsible dog owner. I know that there are dog-friendly beaches at various points in the year around Wales as well. So, I'm not in favour of maintaining the petition. I think there's a clear position, it's well set out, but as a matter of factual accuracy and to help the petitioner so he's got an understanding of the progress that is being made on reviewing the regulations, we should find that out and write to them to confirm our understanding of the latest position on the review of the regulations.

Okay, thank you. Nobody else wants to come in. I remember when I was cabinet member in charge of street scene, and we had to look at the dog public space protection order, and we had huge discussions and lots of input from dog walkers, Keep Wales Tidy, and anti-dog people as well. But we did want to keep our local beach, Talacre, dog-friendly. It's not really a bathing beach, but it's a great expanse. Dogs need to have places to go where they can exercise as well and stretch their legs, as I understand are the petitioner's concerns here. Right, so—. But it is up to local authorities, isn't it, to manage their areas. So, we could find out regarding the legislation if there are going to be any changes, on the bathing water regulations, to see if that changes anything regarding blue flag beaches. Other than that, I think we can thank the petitioner and close the petition, because it's up to local authorities. Everybody's in agreement, yes? Okay, thank you.

If we move on now to agenda item 3, which is updates to previous petitions. Petition P-06-1443, 'Re-instate core funding for TRAC Cymru (Music Traditions Wales / Traddodiadau Cerdd Cymru)', was submitted by Owen Shiers, with 822 signatures. So, could I invite Rhys to discuss the petition?

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. This is the second time this petition has been considered by us, and I thought it was a pretty positive result. The reason, maybe, that we're delayed in discussing this again is because Trac Cymru have been so busy doing work internationally and promoting Welsh traditional music across the world. They've come back to us. They said they don't want to revisit the arguments for the cuts back in 2023. They've moved on from there. They're doing an incredible amount of work, and they've had a review of Welsh traditional music with the Arts Council for Wales. That's due for publication very soon, and the recommendations in that report will shape the debate of funding Welsh traditional music for the future.

So, I'd like to thank the petitioner, thank Trac Cymru for all the great work they're doing, promoting Welsh traditional music at home and abroad, and to wish them all the very best in the future, and close the petition. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay, thank you, Rhys. Is the committee in agreement with that, going forward? Yes, thank you. So, we thank the petitioner for the petition, all that it's done, and close the petition.

So, we're moving on now to petition P-06-1464, 'Allow Welsh families who have experienced Baby loss before 24 weeks to obtain baby loss certificate'. This was submitted by Angharad Cousins, with 749 signatures. This has been going on for a while, and I think it's been really important that we’ve kept this open. Vaughan, can I just bring you in on this? Did you want to discuss the petition?

Yes. I think I’ve been clear when this has previously come to the committee that I did some work on this whilst a Minister in the Government. I think I met on this both as health Minister and, indeed, as First Minister. I feel I’d be conflicted in participating in the committee’s decision, but I recognise that it’s an issue of real importance, and it’s helpful to have an update from the Minister, but I’ll leave it to the rest of the committee members to decide what they want to do with the petition.

I’ve spoken about this in the Chamber and we’ve written several times to the Minister, and I think the Minister’s actually been grateful that we’ve been pushing this agenda, so it helps with her conversations with UK Government, as well, to prioritise it. I feel like something positive will be happening now. It seems like she should be able to give us a positive answer soon and has suggested that we could write to her again, and, hopefully, that is what we’ll receive now, after this time. So, I suggest that we write one more time to the Minister, and let’s hope now that she’s been able to have that positive conversation that things are in place now to move forward, and we’ll keep it open, again, just for now, because it is really important. Okay, thank you.

We move on now to item 3.3, petition P-06-1475, 'Urgently improve the safety of the A458, Middletown, Powys in light of continuous dangerous driving'. This was submitted by Amanda Jenner, with 311 signatures. Could I invite Luke to discuss the petition?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. This is the third time we've had this petition in front of us now. From what I can gather, the Welsh Government is looking into this now, and that will be done in consultation with local people. I think it's a fair question to ask, 'Okay, well, what's the timeline for this?', but I think, as a committee, perhaps we should now be looking to close this petition, given that the Welsh Government will be doing some work on it, will be consulting with local people, but also highlight the petition with local Members, because I think it's really over to local Members now to ask the more finite questions around timelines and pushing for this to be done sooner rather than later. So, that would be my recommendation, Chair—that we thank the petitioner and that we close the petition, but that we also highlight this petition with local Members if we haven't done so already. As I said, those finite questions, now, I think have to come from local Members.

I remember, previously, when I was a local campaigner, that making sure that you get that evidence from the police and the support from the traffic police, should there be any accidents or issues, to support any changes to speed limits and restrictions or anything to improve safety of roads is so important as well. So, I think that they need to make sure that the police are on board and have evidence, and also that the police support changes going forward. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. It's just a quick thing. I'm happy to support what Luke said. I know the petitioner, so I have to declare an interest.

Thank you, Joel. Joel has just declared that he knows the petitioner and he supports, now, that we close the petition. It sounds like things are progressing. Okay. Good. Thank you.

We move on to item 3.4, petition P-06-1489, 'Legislate to ensure swift bricks are installed in all new buildings in Wales'. This was submitted by Julia Susan Barrell, with 10,934 signatures. So, Rhys, could I bring you in on this one, please?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. A second time to consider this. It's received nearly 11,000 signatures, with just over half the signatures based in Wales. The petitioner has had an opportunity to consider the correspondence from the Deputy First Minister. The Deputy First Minister is concerned about unintended consequences of mandating swift bricks. He also has concerns that maybe this isn't really dealing with a huge issue, that loss of nesting is just one issue, and that biodiversity, the insect apocalypse due to habitat loss and pesticides, that is a real issue. So, the concerns there are unintended consequences. I think it's fair to say, though, that the petitioner doesn't really understand those arguments, thinks that they aren't particularly strong arguments, and wants us to continue with this matter.

Now, I know we deferred this on the last occasion. It has crossed the 10,000-signatures benchmark for whether we have a debate or not. The question to Members is whether we do have a debate later on in the autumn. I think, probably, whatever we decide, we can maybe go back to the Deputy First Minister with the concerns raised by the petitioner to the comments of the Deputy First Minister. So, I think we can do that regardless, but I think the question for committee members today is whether we have a debate on this matter or not.

Okay, so, a fact for you: swifts eat 20,000 insects a day and they usually feed on the wing—basically, in the air—and we've lost 60 per cent of our flying insects over recent years, which is amazing, isn't it? You know, it's scary stuff. So, I understand what the Deputy First Minister is saying about implementing the net benefit for biodiversity requirements as a whole—setting that out—but sometimes you also need to specify, because developers will plant some lavender and a tree that aren't maintained in future years, or non-native hedges. Swift boxes are permanent. I've had the same argument regarding putting solar panels on all roofs, and the opinion is, 'Well, we need to ask builders to build houses of a certain standard and look at other things as well', but I just think defining swift boxes, and hedgehog corridors and other things, as well as biodiversity, is something that we could look at. The loss of biodiversity and nature and birds is really scary. So, if we—. So, going forward, we're going to write—. What are your suggestions, sorry, Rhys?

Write back to the Deputy First Minister with the concerns raised by the petitioner with regard to his response, and then whether we have a debate or not in the autumn.

Yes, I would like to have a debate on this, because—. I should declare it, because I do care very much about the environment and nature, and would like to see more in the planning and development of houses to have due regard, because I do have my concerns that it doesn't happen. Having these is something simple and it's something cheap that can be done and could have a big effect—a big impact—on one species at least. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else—can I take the views of the rest of the committee? Are you okay? Are you in agreement? Okay, nobody is not in agreement. That's positive—I'll take that. [Laughter.]

Moving on, petition P-06-1510, 'Direct NRW to revoke the environmental permit and ensure the closure of Enovert’s Hafod Landfill Site in Wrexham.' This was submitted by Steven Gittins with 1,125 signatures. I think we all should have had correspondence as well from the petitioner regarding this. Could I invite Vaughan to discuss the petition and any actions you may wish the committee to take?

Okay, thank you. So, we've had a range of updates since we last considered this petition. There's been a debate within Wrexham council as well, highlighting the issue and the fact that the mischief, the issues, still continue. When I still 'mischief', that, I guess, is a technical term. There's a level of regular public nuisance. My understanding is that there are relevant readings of substances that affect human health, potentially, that are still in circulation, and people think it's likely from this site. So, we could say that we're not taking it any further forward, we could write again in particular about the issues about adequacy of the data monitoring, or we could ask the relevant parties, in particular Natural Resources Wales, the council and Enovert, as the operator, to come to us as a way of having a short-form inquiry.

We talked earlier about matters that are beyond our remit. I think this matter is within our remit, and I think this is a better use of our time as a committee, because this hasn't been raised, because it couldn't be, because of the issues in NRW's general scrutiny before the relevant subject committee. Having regularly suggested that we should close petitions down in the past, I think this is an area where a hearing from this committee, inviting people to give evidence, would be of real value. So, I suggest that we invite the operator, Enovert, in, invite the council in to give their perspective, and we should ask them for written evidence as well as coming. We should also ask NRW, as the regulator, about its approach and what it proposes doing. And I think, after that, we should ask the petitioner for their views on what they've heard, because the petitioner will understandably put forward their views in a robust way, as they have done to date. I think that hearing matters from all three in front of a Senedd committee, then asking the petitioner their views, and then I think we'd need to take a view on whether there's more that we could do, and, whether, at that point, we close it down, depending on what we hear. And hopefully there'll be an action plan for the future about when and how the regulator, the operator and the council will continue to take measures and what that will mean in terms of publicly available information and when the nuisance issue for local residents will be resolved. As I say, I've regularly been on the side of saying, 'We've done enough; we should stop.' At this point, I think it is worth asking the relevant parties to come in to the committee.

Yes, I really sympathise with the residents and I would support an inquiry too. The leachate has been above permitted levels. As you said, the council has held a meeting regarding it, so they're trying to push forward as well, and they've put extra resources into dealing with it as well, but we need to help, I think, as well. We've asked the Local Government and Housing Committee and the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. They're too busy. So, I think it would be useful for us to do an inquiry, bringing in Wrexham council, the owner, Enovert, and NRW. We only scrutinise NRW once a year as well, as the climate change committee, so you can't really get into detail much on specifics. So, I think it would be helpful for us to get involved here. It's not good. The smell and odour drifts quite a distance as well, I believe. So, yes. Okay. So, is the committee in support of us having a short inquiry? Thank you. I've got nodding heads. That's great. Okay, we'll do that then, moving forward. Thank you, Vaughan, for that suggestion. Thank you.

Okay. So, that moves us on now to papers to note. One of the papers is in relation to the visit to the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal that we took recently, which was really good. And I'd just like to thank everybody that met us there; I thought it was a really useful visit. So, thank you very much for that. Does anybody want to raise anything about those additional papers at the moment? No, okay.

So, if we move to item 5, which is to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting, from the remainder of the meeting, are Members content to do that? Okay. That concludes the public business for today. Thank you.