Petitions Committee

Our first item is an evidence session in relation to the Hafod landfill inquiry. This relates to petition P-06-1510, which reads, 'Direct NRW to revoke the environmental permit and ensure the closure of Enovert’s, Hafod Landfill Site in Wrexham'.

So, this is the second inquiry session, and today we will be meeting with the petitioner, Steve Gittins. On 22 September we scrutinised the key stakeholders involved in the operation and management of the landfill, which were Wrexham County Borough Council, Natural Resources Wales and Enovert, the operator.

So, welcome, Steve.

Thank you.

Steve is online. So, we have some discussion topics here ready for you. I'm just going to start off the questions, so my initial question is about background, okay. Could you take us through the experiences of living next to the landfill? What are your experiences?

Well, I'm a lifelong resident of Johnstown, and it has been an issue for 20 years, or nearly 20 years. Daily, we smell the stench from Hafod landfill. Although I wasn't involved in the early days, because I worked out of the area, once I retired, I realised how bad it was, so I felt I needed to get involved in the campaign. That's when I started commenting on the Facebook page that we've got running, which is the campaign against Hafod landfill. I then was encouraged to submit the petition, because nothing was getting done. I think the meetings with the council and NRW are ineffective, so we felt the only way to deal with this was to bring it to the Senedd's attention, and, hopefully, you could scrutinise them and get this place closed.

Thank you. Do you feel that the nuisance issues have intensified at all over the time?

They have. They've got incrementally worse. In 2023, when they had a warning from NRW—. It hasn't got any better since then, and pretty much month on month on month it does increase, especially during the winter months, which I have an issue with regarding the two senior officials from NRW and Enovert, who claim they have no understanding of the correlation between rainfall and exacerbated emissions. It's the basic science of landfill. It's well documented globally that increased rainfall, which we will get with climate change, exacerbates the problem. And that has been the case over the last winter and continues now.

Enovert noted in its submission that the number of odour complaints has reduced significantly since January 2025, but you suggested that the fall could be due to complaint fatigue, where residents no longer formally complain because they don't believe it will have any impact. So, do you think that's the case, or do you think that maybe the odour has improved?

Well, I've done a lot of research on this, as I have done on a number of things regarding this Hafod landfill site, and it is a fact, it's well documented, especially with nuisance issues, where complaint fatigue happens. We've been complaining for two decades, remember, and the thing has never got any better. There's been inaction all along. And when you look at the number of complaints—. When there's a big incident and we get a protest and we raise awareness, then the complaints go up. I contacted NRW over that period, and more than—. Well, I've lost count of the times I've contacted NRW, and the response was rather apathetic, but I was told—. I said to them, 'This can happen eight, nine, 10 times a day', and they said to me, 'Well, what you must do, Mr Gittins, is report every one 10 times a day.' Well, what a burden that is on the residents of Johnstown that we've got to do that. We've got better things to do. And, interestingly, all the witnesses at the first inquiry who have said, 'There's nothing to see here', none of them live in Johnstown—none of them.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to move on to Luke now, who will ask you some more questions.

Okay. Thank you.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. You touched on, in your answers to the Chair, the intensity and the frequency as well of the odours that are coming off the landfill site, and therefore being experienced by members of the community. Could you give us a bit of an outline of how that has impacted people's lives?

The health risks have been publicised many, many times. When you get it over the one part per billion—and I'd like to talk about the results of the monitoring, which they presented to the committee on 22 September, because they are flawed—you get throat irritation, eye irritation, sleeping problems, and that's at one part per billion. When you get to five parts per billion, then it causes massive problems and quite considerable health risks, of which there are too many for me to go through. But everybody in this vicinity and location—Johnstown and surrounding towns or villages—are all complaining. You've only got to look at our Facebook. I couldn't repeat some of the comments that they make, because they're just—. We put up with this daily, and all we get is, 'There is nothing to see here', and that's wrong.

You mentioned there that you believe that the analysis they provided to the committee was flawed. In what way is it flawed?

Well, on page 1 of my submission, I've got a document entitled 'misleading presentation'. On page 13, table 4-2, of the joint submission with, I think it was Enovert and the council, called the 'Air Quality Monitoring Interim Summary Report July/August', they published the percentages below the threshold, which, by the way, Public Health Wales have agreed are the right thresholds to work by in ambient and public areas. On that table, they have put that they were below one part per billion 37 per cent. But what that table doesn't show is the opposite side of that coin, which means they're 63 per cent non-compliant. And again, on five parts per billion, they say that they are 66 per cent compliant below five parts per billion, but then that means they're 34 per cent non-compliant. They're above that. If you extrapolate that and look at the hours per day, the one part per billion means that they are exceeding the World Health Organization figures by 15 hours a day. And if you go and look at the five parts per billion, which the World Health Organization recommends again, they're eight hours a day above that level. That is totally unacceptable and it's not compliant.

And if you look at the graphs, which are also included in their report—I mean, I've got a copy here, but you can look at the report—those graphs are condensed down so badly, and they're reduced, they're zoomed out and condensed. They've got the framework of the graph going from nought to 100 parts per billion, and that graph is supposed to represent one part per billion and five part per billion. I question why they've made that graph so small, because it tells you nothing. And I'm sorry, but, for me, looking at that, and looking at these figures, I think there's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on here.

Okay. Perhaps those are questions we should follow up on, for certain. If I could just ask, in terms of the cause of the odours, what do you believe is the cause of those odours?

I think it's the mismanagement of the leachate levels. Again, the senior executives from Enovert and NRW were really reluctant to acknowledge the correlation between rainfall and the release of hydrogen sulphide. And it is a fact. I just don't understand that two senior executives of both companies have no idea of the basic science of a landfill. It permeates through the surface, especially during the winter months when the low pressure from above keeps that stench down, and it circulates all around the village. These are the results, by the way, on the community pod. Only one pod have we got in the community, so I would say that these figures that I'm looking at in this graph are underestimated.

Okay, diolch.

Okay, thank you.

Diolch yn fawr.

If we move on to Rhys now.

Thank you very much, Mr Gittins, and thank you for attending today. I'm sorry about what happened—

I'm grateful to have the opportunity.

And I'm sorry about what happened last time. It was partly my fault; I caught a bug from my daughter's nursery, so I was unable to attend last time. So, I'm very grateful that you're giving us a second chance.

You did me a favour, really, because some of the evidence I'm putting forward today I found on the night before the first meeting was due to go ahead. So, it's absolutely not a problem.

That's very kind of you, Mr Gittins. I wanted just to ask about the monitoring and maybe just follow on from Luke Fletcher's second question about your view about the monitoring and the analysis being flawed. What do you think is the flaw? Is it the monitoring itself, or is it the analysis of the figures coming back?

Well, there are two things. The analysis that came through in the first inquiry meeting was that they concentrated on the percentages below the threshold. We're not interested in the percentages below the threshold. We're interested in the percentages above the threshold. So, that table and those graphs were misleading and misrepresented the situation. In terms of—

Can I stop you there for a second and then you can follow up? You said that they've concentrated on the lower part. Why did they do that? Do you know?

I've got be careful how I say this, because—. All I'll say is: it's very misleading.

Okay. And why aren't you interested in the lower part of the analysis?

If I was Enovert, I would want to prove to you that I am below the threshold, and give you that percentage. But as a campaigner against Hafod, I am interested in the figure that goes above the threshold. And in the one parts per billion, they are 60—what did I say, 66, 67 per cent; sorry I've got it here somewhere—they are 66 per cent over the threshold. And for five parts per billion, they are 34 per cent, which equates, as I've said before, to 15 hours a day and eight hours a day. We're interested in what they're not complying with. To put their presentation in the context that those figures show of them below the threshold, that's fine, but if they're exceeding that, they're not compliant.

And of course, your clear evidence is that your lived experience, and your neighbours' lived experience, is that there is a problem here.

I remember when I first started on this campaign, and it was November of last year, and we had a couple of protests. I was interviewed by one of the tv companies and they said to me, 'Do you think it's compliant?' When I speak to the residents of this community and read all the comments on Facebook, it cannot be compliant because of the stench we get on a daily basis, and nobody is listening. Nobody is listening to us. Like I've said, none of the witnesses on the last inquiry live in Johnstown, so it's just so frustrating. I'm sorry, but the residents of Johnstown were up in arms about the first inquiry, because it was all about what they didn't say. When you look at these graphs they presented, it is misleading. I think there's enough on my first document to apply to revoke the licence, because they're not compliant.

You were going to make a second point before I interrupted with a question. Do you remember what you were going to say?

I think the monitoring system has obviously discredited the last however many years you want to go back of sniff testing. I joked in one of my interviews, saying that I don't know what the qualifications might be for a sniff tester, but I've researched it, and what they have to do is that person has to get calibrated with a sense of smell with what they call butanol testing. That was the case in 2003. In 2007, it changed. In 2017, it changed again. What they are saying is that the regulatory acceptance and quality assurance for testing for emissions in the community are now handheld digital devices that have got GPS and time stamps. One of the biggest claims they make is they're not tamper-proof—they are tamper-proof, sorry. So, you can go back over the years, and, from March to August, the figures that have come out from Enovert prove that the manual antiquated sniff testing was discredited. No wonder they've been coming back with noughts and ones and twos and ones and noughts. It's ineffective and it's not giving the true figure. The minute we put real-time monitoring in, hallelujah, we've got non-compliance. I would like to know, and I'd like the committee to ask NRW, if they can provide critical evidence of unredacted documents, of paper documents, of their sniff testing, because the senior member of NRW, James McClymont, said they did them every week. Sorry, I shouldn't have said that, should I?

No, no, that's fine. Don't worry. Now, you've obviously read—

He said they do them every week. Now, I'd like to see proof of that. I would also like to see what qualifications they have, because they should be updated every two years. So, every person who does the sniff tests—they've got a panel of these people, apparently—they should be retested every two years. Then, I would also ask the question as to why they haven't adopted the digital devices that have got GPS and time stamps on them. Because that now is the standard, apparently, and paper logs are no longer accepted as regulatory evidence.

You've obviously read the transcript of the evidence session we had. I think it was me that was questioning Enovert, and probably NRW too, about the accessibility and the independence of the evidence. I think you've touched upon that, about Enovert just marking their own homework, type of thing. What would you like to happen? Who would you like to monitor the site and the impact of the site? I suppose, as far as you're concerned, you want to see all the figures published, so that it's totally accessible and it's totally available to you as campaigners. Is that correct?

Absolutely. That is another main issue in my submission to you: the accessibility, the engagement, and the transparency. But in answer to that question, I'd like to see an independent review of all these figures. Because, again, I think Enovert are marking their own homework.

Who would you like to do that review?

An independent body. I don't know. Whoever they are out there who specialise in this particular field. Because, even as they are, they haven't been able to demonstrate to me that they are compliant. With their own figures, they're not compliant.

And without seeing all the figures, you're not in a position to say whether they are anyway, are you?

The raw detail, the raw data that they've taken off the monitors has been analysed and put into these graphs that were submitted to the first inquiry. So, I have no reason to—. Whatever they've put in there, it should be straight from—. I think it was a company called Geotechnology that did them. So, if that's the case, there's no hiding from it: they are not compliant.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Gittins.

Thank you.

Joel.

Thank you, Chair. Mr Gittins, I hope you don't mind, I just wanted to get some idea of what your current thoughts are on the current enforcement that has been taking place. Obviously, I know Enovert has been given various compliance notices, and NRW has undertaken unannounced site visits and site audits. I just wanted to get your view on how effective they've been and if they've helped, if that makes sense.

Well, if you just look at the evidence they produced at the inquiry, they haven't been effective, NRW. And again, this is about engagement and so on. I've been communicating with the public protection office at the council, and trying my best to research this. This shouldn't be up to me, a layman, to search all this stuff, but I have done. But I'm getting increasing problems getting an answer from anybody. One member of Wrexham council has written to me to say he refuses to communicate with me anymore and advised me to go to the public ombudsman, which I've done, and that complaint has been escalated. I complained to NRW, and they told me—I can't remember the phrase now—that whilst NRW had instructed them to make improvements to the site, they wouldn't accept my formal complaint. That's just placing a moratorium on everybody's complaints with the landfill. It's ridiculous.

Going forward, then, what sort of further action—? You mentioned right at the start you wanted to see the site closed down. Is there any other action other than that that you feel is necessary?

On behalf of the residents, I know how strong the feeling is across the communities, and they won't accept anything other than the site being closed, because they cannot manage it. It hasn't been managed efficiently for 20 years. And, do you know what, 20 years is enough. We've got another 35 years' licence on that landfill site. My children, my grandchildren are all going to suffer from this place. I just don't understand, when we get the stench we do across the village, why we should put up with that. It's not even our rubbish. Why should we be confronted with that type of problem? If you lived in the village of Johnstown, you would know what level of problem we've got and what we're having to cope with every day.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Joel. I'm just going to ask you some questions on community engagement. How effective have the regulators been at communicating with residents?

Again, as I said in my submission, if you spoke to the vast majority of our community, I don't think I could repeat the answer. I mean, there isn't. You've got the Hafod landfill committee, and I think the minerals specialist from the council said, at the beginning of the last meeting, that it was an open forum. No, it's not. I requested to join that committee and was told I couldn't. You've got NRW, who claim that they're making reports on their portal and keeping us up to date. In the last 12 months, I think it's been updated four times, and it just regurgitates the last report. All they want to say is that they appreciate the concern, they're taking it very seriously and they're trying to deal with it. But that happens every so often; they regurgitate that, and all it is is a promise of jam tomorrow.

There are two groups, aren't there, the Hafod liaison group and then the separate stakeholder group, which has been set up relatively recently. That doesn't include residents. We have had representations from a resident as well, following the last inquiry session, who is a member of the group, I believe, the Hafod liaison group. We have it there.

Is there anything else that you would like to respond to? We have got a lot of information from you in this pack, and I know we've probably duplicated by asking you questions, even though you've sent submissions in writing, but we just wanted to make sure you got your voice heard on record as well, as the lead petitioner.

In terms of the transparency and engagement, I feel it is extremely poor. You speak to everybody in the community, they say the same thing. Having written to the ombudsman, I'm waiting for—. They're that busy at the moment, they can't come back to me for another four weeks, and I sent it in 12 weeks ago. But it's funny, because just after I'd sent that in, in the media it announces that Wrexham council have had shocking results from Audit Wales. Given that I'm complaining of the transparency and engagement, you get a report from Audit Wales that says they refuse mandatory training, there's poor clarity of roles, bullying and harassment, strained and disrespectful relationships, ineffective governance, weak understanding of statutory roles—I mean, no wonder we're not getting any communication.

Okay. So, greater communication and transparency would be welcomed, then, by all residents.

Yes. Absolutely.

If you were able to join the Hafod liaison group now, would you join it as a spokesperson?

No. I've had that much hassle off them and non-communication, it's not a committee I could honestly sit at. I would upset a lot of people.

Okay. Thank you very much for making yourself available today. I'd like to apologise to you for having to cancel the last committee meeting.

That's okay. It served a purpose for me, so it's okay. Could I just ask what the next stage is?

We will consider the evidence. Following this session, you will receive a transcript of what was discussed just now with you for you to check for accuracy. Then we will have a look at all the evidence that's been submitted, both in writing and verbally from everybody, and then decide what to do, the next steps forward, and we'll be in touch with you regarding that.

Thank you for the opportunity to attend today.

Thank you very much.

We're going to move on now to the next agenda item, which is new petitions. We have one new petition for discussion, and that's petition P-06-1534, 'End Corridor Care in Wales'. It reads:

'In Wales, patients are currently receiving care on trolleys or chairs for hours on end, often days, in pain and suffering. Doctors, nurses, and

health care staff are forced to treat and care for patients in corridors, car parks, and other places where safe, dignified care isn't possible and where they lack access to life-saving equipment. The Royal College of Nursing Wales and the BMA Cymru Wales are jointly raising the alarm on patient safety for Welsh Government to eradicate corridor care.'

This was submitted by the Royal College of Nursing Wales jointly with BMA Cymru Wales—that's the British Medical Association. And 10,536 signatures have been collected. Luke, could I bring you in to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take on this?

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I think all members on the committee would have received some correspondence in relation not just to the petition, but before the petition was even submitted, around some of the waits that patients in Wales are facing and the conditions in which they're waiting. Again, I think it's important for us to say that I don't think that is necessarily a reflection of the care that these patients are receiving, I think that's structural issues, infrastructure issues, that we see within the NHS.

I think it's important that we put this to a debate, and so I would hope the committee would support a debate on this. The only question I had—and I've discussed this with Rhys—is around the timing of the debate. Is it better that we go straight for a debate as soon as possible or do we hang fire, wait until the December period has passed, which we know is normally the time where the greatest amount of pressure is on the NHS, and then have a debate with those figures available to us?

If the committee agrees to take this to a debate, I wonder if it's worth going back to the petitioner and asking what the preference is—do they want a debate as soon as possible or would they want to wait until we've got the most updated figures of that tough period that we know is coming, because it happens every year.

It was reported in the media that there would be a debate—I think it was in November, but we've got a slot available in December. But as you said, Luke—and Rhys—we could possibly wait for the winter figures, which sees an increase, doesn't it?

In the meantime, can we ask the Welsh Government about—? They must have data on this, but we don't see it, really. We don't see full data on it. Can we ask for data from the Welsh Government on corridor care? I actually tabled a written question last week about what's the definition of corridor care. It'd be interesting to know, because, for example, a father of a friend was sitting in a chair for over 24 hours, and I wasn't convinced whether that is considered corridor care. It would be interesting to know what's the Government's definition of corridor care, and, following on from that, what data they have on how many people are treated in corridors. That would be very useful before any debate.

It's a UK-wide issue as well, isn't it? I just saw an article that stated that since 2015—. I know cuts have been impacting on health, but there's also been an increase of 15 per cent, in England, of people being admitted to accident and emergency departments. I was actually, at lunchtime, dealing with some casework of somebody being treated in a corridor just now, but he is actually getting treatment, thank goodness, and has been admitted, but needs to have a bed. So, could we find out if people being treated in corridors is being listed accurately, is being recorded, as opposed to actually in a bed on a ward, or whether it's just classed as having treatment? So, is there data on that? And then, can we go back to the petitioners and ask them if they would like—? We've got a slot, possibly, in December, so if we should bring it for debate in December, or wait until, maybe, January time, when we have more figures. See what they say. Okay. And then we'll bring it back. Thank you. Are you in agreement with that, Joel, as well? Is that okay? Thank you.

Item 4 is updates to previous petitions. Item 4.1, petition P-06-1538, 'Protect full stroke services at Bronglais Hospital; prevent downgrade to Treat and Transfer'.

'Hywel Dda University Health Board's consultation proposes removing Bronglais Hospital’s full stroke service, forcing patients from Ceredigion, Powys, and South Meirionnydd into risky, long-distance transfers to hospitals in Llanelli or Haverfordwest. We urge the Senedd and Welsh Government to intervene immediately, insisting HDdUHB fully assesses these impacts and commits to maintaining Bronglais as a stroke rehabilitation unit, protecting vital health services in Mid Wales.'

We debated this in the Chamber. We had a really good debate on it. This was submitted by Bryony Davies, with an enormous 17,881 signatures. Joel, could I bring you in to discuss the petition?

Thank you, Chair. You're right, it's a lot of signatures, just over 17,000, I think, as you said. I think it's one of the largest we have, currently. I think it's about the sixth largest, if I remember right. And, yes, it was a really great debate we had a couple of weeks back, with a lot of cross-party support. And then there was also the demonstrations on the steps of the Senedd as well, which just really reiterates the strength of feeling there is with this petition. I was wondering if it's possible for us, because I know the decision is looking to be made in the new year, I think, if we can write, as a committee, to re-emphasise those strong, cross-party feelings that there is for this, and keep the petition open to see what the response is, I suppose.

Okay. I think I suggested, at the end of the debate, that we send the transcript to them. Is that something that we can do? [Interruption.] Excuse me.

It happens to the best of us. [Laughter.]

Good song.

I'm going to turn that off. That was my casework with the corridor care still going on.

Going forward, can we send the transcript, and not just the link either, because I just think it would be really good for them to read? There was lots of information coming from everybody regarding suggestions as well. So, that would be good. Okay, we'll do that and we'll keep it open. Thank you.

Moving on to item 4.2, petition P-06-1307, 'The Welsh Government should commit to the adoption of the maintenance of new housing estates by local authorities'. This was submitted by Eleri Lewis with 267 signatures. This was debated on 17 September. We did have a really good debate on this, and, again, there were some responses there to take forward, and a lot of work done by Hefin David, previously. Luke, can I bring you in on this?

I think it's mine, is it? Oh, you've got—. Oh, sorry.

I think we were both really keen to speak on this particular petition.

Oh, sorry. For some reason, I thought—

Well, I think both of you should speak on this.

I think we're both very keen, because I know Rhys, like me, is dealing with a lot of casework from some of the residents affected by this. I've got some places in Llanharan, Tondu, where the adoption of those estates hasn't been taken forward. And I think you're right, actually, to point out, Chair, the work that Hefin David did on this. In fact, he gave evidence to this committee, and, in terms of the quality of the evidence we had in that session, it really did inform, not just our deliberations, but the debate that we ultimately had on this.

The only thing that I'm seeing now, in terms of what we can do as a committee, is I think we've gone to the limits of what we can do to progress this issue. I was encouraged by conversations I've had with colleagues on the housing committee, who are really interested in looking at this further. I was encouraged as well by some of the comments by the Government, who are looking to finally grasp this nettle. This isn't something that's been a problem for this Senedd, it's been a problem for multiple Senedds. I remember back when Dai Lloyd was a Member raising this as an issue as well.

So, in terms of our part in this saga, I think the Petitions Committee has gone as far as we can. I hope that you know that I'm going to suggest that we close the petition in this committee, that we do write to the housing committee and we do write to the Government, just to remind them that this is an issue that is still alive, and has been alive for a long time, and that we would like to see it dealt with, if not before the end of this Senedd, definitely in the next.

Perhaps we could highlight it, then, for the next committee, as something that they could pick up as well. Rhys.

Sorry, I must have misread; I thought it had been allocated to me. I should say from the outset that I know the petitioner. Before I became a member of this committee, I encouraged her to submit this petition. But I think it's so old now, the petitioner has actually left the estate in question and has moved on. But I agree with Luke, we've taken this as far as we can.

I thought it was an excellent debate, with some fine tributes to Hefin David during that debate. I still receive regular correspondence about this, and so many different issues are being raised. It's such a Victorian a pre-Victorian set-up, and I think England and Wales are so far behind when it comes to this matter, and we just really need to bring it to an end.

If, going forward, we're not going to have parking on pavements, we need to make sure that the roads going into estates are wide enough to be adopted by councils, don't we? We need to make sure the drainage is adoptable by councils and is up to a good standard—street lighting, all these things. We discussed them quite a lot within our council, and at planning committee said that they needed to be up to an adoptable standard, with a committed sum of money for maintenance for the next 10 years. But we were told that we weren't allowed to actually force that on the developer, unless it was by law.

So, the Cabinet Secretary said that she agreed to learn from the situation in Scotland and referred to the forthcoming work by the Law Commission and, potentially, the UK Government in this area. So, let's hope that something will come through the UK Government, as well as a four-nation approach.

Okay, going forward, we'll close the petition. I think we'll all fight for this individually, perhaps get it in some manifestos. And we can perhaps add it to the list, maybe, for a future Senedd committee. Okay. And we'll write also to the Local Government and Housing Committee and to the Government. Okay. Thank you.

The next one is 4.3, P-06-1494, 'Welsh Government to protect funding in education from WG and Local Authority cuts'. This was submitted by Catherine Drews, with 11,040 signatures. Okay, Joel, could you discuss this petition and any actions?

Thank you, Chair. This is another large petition that we've been dealing with. I know that the petition talks about protecting funding in education, but I know that they were specifically concerned about additional learning needs and the impact that funding cuts would have on that. And I know from my time as a member of the Children, Young People and Education Committee that that's an item that they're currently looking into, and I wonder whether or not it's probably best for them to continue the work on that. I don't know if my committee colleagues feel the same, but it might be the case that we let them run with it now and see what they're going to come up with. I'm also conscious that it's budget season, as they say, so there'll be a lot of debate happening around that, and it will be interesting to see what comes of that in the new year. So, I think that's as far as we can go, really, as a committee. So, it might be the case that we close it and thank the petitioner.

The petitioner says here:

'There is little transparency in how local authorities allocate funding to schools, and significant variation in how the ALN Code is applied.'

I was talking to an ALN teacher in Conwy at the weekend, and she's aware that other authorities have more funding going into education still, because of historical decisions regarding where you allocate funds, putting up council—. It's that balance all the time, isn't it, of trying to balance the books. And so sometimes certain departments get a hit ahead of other council areas. So, she would like to see education being ring-fenced, but I guess it's the decision of that local council as well, isn't it, of what their priorities are. So, I think that that's an ongoing conversation. I'm on the CYPE committee and we are looking at the ALN reforms at the moment. I know that there has been a recent paper as well, which has raised concerns. Okay, so we'll close the petition and there's not much further that we can do as a Petitions Committee; it will be continued through the CYPE committee.

If we move on now to item 4.4, P-06-1423, 'Reinstate the 552 Cardi Bach coastal bus service in South Ceredigion!' This was submitted by Wyck Gerson Lohman, with 842 signatures. Could I invite Rhys to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take?

Yes, thank you very much, Cadeirydd. It's the second time that we've considered this, and it's to the real credit of the petitioner in this matter that he's kept the Cardi Bach at the forefront of the minds of organisations. Transport for Wales have been unable to find an operator willing to take on the route, unfortunately, but I can see that TfW and the council are working together now to have a larger retendering process across the county, and the Cardi Bach is included in that. So, there is hope still for the Cardi Bach bus, and I really hope with the larger tendering process, and maybe becoming more known for all operators, that an operator will come forward to tender for this important route.

I think we've taken this as far as we can. All I can do is to pay credit again to the petitioner, thank him, and close the petition. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay. Thank you. Are we in agreement? Okay. We'll thank the petitioner and then close the petition.

Petition P-06-1444, 'Women of North Wales have the right to have a Menopause Services/Clinic in Ysbyty Gwynedd'. This was submitted by Delyth, with 1,347 signatures. Could I invite Luke to discuss the petition and any action that you wish the committee to take?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. We've dealt with this petition for some time now, and a lot has happened in that time. Of course, we've had the women's health action plan from the Welsh Government, in which menopause is highlighted specifically as one of the key priorities or key focuses. We're still in the relatively early days of that, so it would be interesting to see how that progresses, again, towards the end of this Senedd, but also in the next Senedd term.

Just looking at the correspondence that we've had with the petitioner, I think we should be really grateful that the petitioner has engaged with the committee for as long as they have. Just looking at where we're currently at, it feels to me—and I'm not sure if members of the committee will feel the same—that we're starting to go a bit beyond the scope of our own committee, and that perhaps now it's starting to get more to the need for a more specialised committee to look into some of these concerns. And no doubt the Health and Social Care Committee is going to be doing some work on this over the next few months and next few years.

So, can I suggest that we, as a committee, thank the petitioner for their engagement, that we do close the petition, but again highlight it with the health committee, who I think are going to be in a better position than we are now to take a lot of these concerns forward? They'll have direct access to the Cabinet Secretary in scrutiny sessions, as well as the specialised researching team behind that committee as well. That, I think, actually, will mean that the level of detail the petitioner wants, as well as the quality of the answers, is going to be probably better got through that committee.

And I think it would be good for her to be—. There's a lot of information that she's submitted that she could become a spokesperson on and actually feed in directly to some of these consultations, which is what she's requesting as well, I think, in the evidence here. So, we'll close the petition, but any new information here will be sent to the Health and Social Care Committee to take forward. Okay, are we in agreement? Okay, thank you. Thanks Luke.

So, we move on to 4.6, which is petition P-06-1426, 'Install traffic lights at the McDonald's Pontypool roundabout'. This was submitted by Jenny Williams, with 256 signatures. So, can I invite Joel to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take?

Thank you, Chair. I think what's happened since the petition first came in is that there have been engineering works that have been undertaken on the roundabout. And I think, from what I gather from the correspondence that we've had from Gwent Police, accidents have decreased at that site. So, it looks like the petition has worked and has almost achieved its outcomes, even though it's a case on which we still have to monitor the situation from a police perspective. But I think there's not much more, as a committee, that we can do, and if my colleagues are so minded, I think it's just to thank the petitioner for what they've achieved and to close the petition, really.

Okay, thank you, Joel. Are we in agreement? Yes, okay, thank you. We'll close that petition.

Item 4.7, petition P-06-1440, 'Establish a Welsh under 18 gender service in Wales for Welsh children and young people asap'. This was submitted by TransVision Cymru, with 544 signatures. Could I invite Rhys to discuss the petition, please?

Yes, Cadeirydd. This is the second time for us to consider this petition. From the Welsh Government response, we see that they're still developing a pathway, but currently people on a waiting list can be referred to regional partners in England. I believe that the Bristol provider has opened a satellite centre in Cardiff. This information has been sent to the petitioner. We haven't received a response from the petitioner. Again, I think this is a petition where this committee has taken things as far as it can. So, I would thank the petitioner and close it.

Okay, thank you, Rhys. Are we in agreement? Okay, thank you.

Item 4.8 is petition P-06-1445, 'Change Land Transaction Tax for First Time Buyers in Wales to be in line with the UK Government'. This was submitted by Taylor Reynish, with 268 signatures. So, Luke, can you discuss this petition, please?

Yes. Diolch, Cadeirydd. So, we've had this petition for over a year now and the Government has, again, reiterated its position on LTT. There will be no change, essentially. I think this is going to be a particular point that's going to come up within the parties' manifestos going into the Senedd election. So, on that basis, and as well on the basis that the petitioner hasn't responded to the most recent correspondence, could I suggest that we close this petition? And again, I think this is going to be something that comes up within the election campaign, so there'll be a number of different parties offering all sorts of perspectives on LTT.

Yes, and I believe that the leader of the Conservatives did as well.

I wasn't going to say anything. [Laughter.]

Funnily enough, Chair, I was going to highlight that, actually. It is disappointing, the finance Minister's position here, because it has been proven that, if you get rid of land transaction tax for primary residences, that not only helps people onto the housing market, but actually increases house building as well. I think we're all aware of the targets that have been missed here from the Welsh Government in terms of house building. So, yes, just to highlight there, as far as I'm aware, it's the Welsh Conservatives that are the only party that are proposing to get rid of land transaction tax for primary residences. So, if you want to see change, then, I think you need to be voting Welsh Conservatives next year. [Laughter.]

Party political broadcast. But, on the other hand, the Cabinet Secretary noted that thresholds were updated in 2022, meaning most homebuyers don't pay LTT, as transactions are below the £225,000 threshold, and that's where he stands with that there.

True, but, if you look at house prices in his own constituency, it'd be very rare to find a house for that.

And some of the other constituencies.

And there we go—another enters the debate. [Laughter.]

I'm looking around, so I can attest to that. [Laughter.]

So, we'll close the petition, and it'll be a place for manifestos going forward.

Moving on to item 4.9, P-06-1487, 'Provide a pedestrian crossing on A4042 Llanover; make safe for bus users and reduce the speed limit'. This was submitted by Janet Butler with 269 signatures. Rhys, can I bring you in to discuss this?

Yes. Yes, again, a second chance—we've considered this matter, and the clerk took you and me, Chair, via this crossing on our way back from our canal visit just before the summer, and it was useful. So, I've got the picture in my mind. Now, it's good news to see from the Minister's response that they are now at stage 1 of the crossing investigation. It's clear this has cross-party support. It has broad support within the community. It's also good to see that this is a matter actively being taken on by local elected Members and that they themselves are in correspondence with the Minister. So, again, I think this is an example of a petition where we've taken things as far as we can. So, my recommendation would be to thank the petitioner and close.

Okay. And Joel.

Oh, thank you, Chair. Just to come in, I know of the petitioner, so I'll need to declare an interest there. And just following on from my colleague's views there, I know the work that Peter Fox, in particular, has been doing on this, actually, on the need for that pedestrian crossing here. Obviously, if there's anything we can do as a committee to still push that, that would be great. I understand we have taken it as far as we can, but it'd be great maybe if we can keep it open until we hear the outcome of the stage 1 consultations, just to see what's going on there, actually, just to make sure they're done in a timely fashion.

It sounds like there are lots of people pushing it on the ground now, aren't there, you know, if Peter's pushing it as well. So, what's the overall view of the committee, the overall view of Members?

I have no strong views, but I'd probably agree with you, Chair, that others are pushing it and others will make sure that it's kept within the agenda. And so Peter has a vested interest, before an election, to make sure he carries on campaigning on this matter.

Yes. I do think, Joel, that probably the Petitions Committee has taken it as far as it can. But it sounds like a lot of work is progressing now, and we leave it in the hands of local Members to carry on with that, which is at the right level now, going forward. Okay, thank you.

Item 4.10, P-06-1464, 'Allow Welsh families who have experienced Baby loss before 24 weeks to obtain baby loss certificate', submitted by Angharad Cousins with 749 signatures. There was a discussion on this recently, wasn't there, in the Chamber. Luke, could you discuss the petition and the actions you wish the committee to take?

I think it was actually Rhys who was the one that raised it recently in the Chamber, if I remember correctly. I think, in this particular case, there are two options for us as a committee. There has been progress. I think there are some technical challenges that have been highlighted by Government, which they are trying to navigate. But we've had positive signals from Government, particularly from the relevant Minister, Sarah Murphy, that they want to resolve this as soon as possible. So, I suppose that we could, as a committee, write to the Minister one more time, asking about a progress update, when can people expect to be able to receive some of these certificates, or that we accept that there are going to be Members, like Rhys, for example, who are raising questions in the Chamber around this, which will push this forward, and perhaps close it as a petition and thank the petitioner. I haven't got a strong view either way, but I wonder if the committee might have a view.

Maybe I'm not being consistent with what I said after the last petition. The difference between this petition and the last petition is that the last petition was a very local issue. This is a national issue, so you won't have, maybe, specific local Members pushing this forward as you do on the other one. All we need is a date now—that's all. I know you've been pushing, Chair, for a date for months, if not well over a year now. That's all we need from the Minister: a date. That's all the petitioner and many other mothers and parents want: a date when they can do it. Now it has been introduced in England, I'm not quite sure why it's so difficult to get that date, but I've asked Sarah Murphy and I've also asked the Prif Weinidog for a date, and we still haven't received it. It's now a month since I last asked. Surely—. Maybe we can write as a committee just to try and get that date.

I agree with what you said about that this is different, it's not a local matter. And I think, with us pushing as a Petitions Committee, along with your questions, it's helping to keep it at the top of priorities. They deal with lots of things, don't they? So, I think we need to keep doing that. The last response was really positive, but I was just listening for this date. I asked the Minister afterwards and she said she's hoping it's early in the new year. But I think it would help her as well, maybe, just regarding priorities, if we write again asking for a specific date, and just keep it open until we get that back.

I think the question everyone's asking is: what's the hold-up?

Yes. I think it was something to do with the Welsh language at first, or there was something technical, wasn't there? But let's see. Let's push this over the line. Great. Okay. We'll do that, then. Thank you.

Item 4.11, P-06-1489, 'Legislate to ensure swift bricks are installed in all new buildings in Wales'. This was submitted by Julia Barrell, with 10,934 signatures. We had a debate on this. Can I bring Rhys in?

Yes, thank you. I enjoyed this debate at the beginning of October, and I think there were slightly differing views from the three of us present who did take part in that debate. Maybe two of us would be disappointed with the response of the Welsh Government. The Cabinet Secretary was pretty clear on concerns that, if this is mandated, other biodiversity targets might be missed. I can't see that as a strong argument, but I suppose we can't take things any further now. We've raised the issue on the floor of the Senedd. The campaigners were very happy weren't they, Cadeirydd, that it had been given an airing. So, I suppose it's a matter for the parties now, those parties who want to push it, to push it in their manifestos.

And they also wanted to clarify that it's house martins that make a mess, not swallows.

[Inaudible.]—been corrected. [Laughter.]

Not swifts, I mean. Swifts don't make a mess. They keep them clean. I just want to highlight here the response from the petitioner. She says that:

'The current approach to biodiversity within the planning system relies largely on "avoid, minimise, mitigate, compensate".... This has not resulted in the routine use of swift bricks within new builds.'

Developers are driven by the economy, building those houses, so they might do the minimum of what's expected for biodiversity, rather than thinking in balance. So, it's something that I'd like to keep pushing for. I'd like to see more action with creating hedgehog corridors in fencing as well, and making sure that we have messy gardens as well—these swifts need insects too, actually, to feed on, as much as having nesting bricks. So, going forward, are we happy? We'll close the petition and then see what goes in manifestos and we can raise it individually.

Okay, thank you. So, that's been a long session of catching up there.

If we move now on to papers to note, are you happy to note the papers? Okay, thank you.

That leads me on, then, to item 6, which is the motion to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. So, I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42, that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content? Yes, thank you. So, we will now move into the private session. Thank you.