National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon. In accordance with Standing Order 17.22, I invite nominations for a temporary Chair for today's meeting. 

I second that.

Diolch yn fawr.

I can confirm that Rhianon has been elected temporary Chair for this meeting.

Thank you very much. We have some IT issues, so we're going to temporarily recess.

Welcome to this meeting of the Petitions Committee. The meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. We will not be in hybrid format as all our Members are present, and all of the Standing Order requirements remain in place. We have no apologies, no substitutions. Any declarations of interest, please, from committee members should be made now, or at any relevant point during proceedings. Are there any declarations of interest, committee? Thank you very much.

So, we're going to move straight on to item 3, which is new petitions. Item 3.1 is petition P-06-1425, 'We ask the Welsh Government to reverse its decision to stop T2 buses calling at Garndolbenmaen', and it reads:

'On 5th of November 2023 a new bus timetable was introduced by the Welsh Government and all the T2 buses which pass through Garndolbenmaen were withdrawn and T2 buses are by-passing the village.

'The ability of people in Garndolbenmaen to travel to work, to school or to hospital appointments will be all but impossible.

'There has been no consultation whatsoever with the people of Garndolbenmaen on these changes to the T2 bus service.'

The submitter is Steven Churchman and it has had 282 signatures online and 139 signatures on paper, making a total of 421 signatures. So, at this point in proceedings I'd like to invite Rhys to discuss the petition and any actions that you wish, Rhys, the committee to take, before bringing other Members in. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. I'm not sure if it is a declaration of interest, but my great-grandfather was born in Garndolbenmaen, and I used the re-routed T2 service a few weeks ago, going from Cricieth to Porthmadog, so I have some idea with regard to this matter. Garndolbenmaen is a rural area and the bus is very important to the people living there. I think the real issue with the petition is the lack of consultation and the important nature of this bus service. The T22 has been introduced. It doesn't stop in the village on Sunday, so there doesn't appear to be an alternative service there. The petitioner has helpfully provided two alternative options for the T2, which will require a short detour. I expect it's worth these suggestions being fully considered, so my suggestion would be that we write to the Cabinet Secretary, asking for an update with regards to the service, and ask for the suggested alternatives by Mr Churchman to be fully considered by Cyngor Gwynedd and Transport for Wales. Diolch.

Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other comments by Members? Okay, thank you very much. So, we're going to keep the petition under consideration and, pending that response, it'll be brought back. Thank you for that, and thank you to the petitioner.

And we're going to move on to item 3.2, P-06-1429, to 'Install a roundabout, not traffic lights, at fatal Nash Junction, Pembrokeshire'.

'The Welsh Government has approved traffic lights instead of a roundabout to be installed at the fatal Nash Junction in Pembrokeshire junction, following many collisions and the death of a young motorcyclist...Many residents of Pembrokeshire and also the Council feel a roundabout would be more appropriate, considering Irish Ferry traffic and that it is the main road for the south of the county.'

The submitter is Laura Griffiths. It has 439 signatures, 432 from Wales. And at this point, I'd like to invite Luke to discuss the petition and the actions that you wish the committee to take. Luke. Thank you. 

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I'm pretty sure that this has been a subject that the Petitions Committee has touched on before, and I know as well that there was a debate around I think it was the general principles of road safety, but with a specific focus on this area. And I know as well local Members are bringing it up at regular intervals. To be fair, Sam Kurtz, I know, has been quite a passionate advocate for safety on this particular stretch of road, especially after there was a young motorcyclist that sadly passed away as a result of an accident on that road. 

I am struggling to see where we can take this now as a committee, given that we've considered it in the past, and there has been a debate in the Chamber. I do think that this is potentially something that local Members should continue to advocate for. So, I'm just wondering—. Because I'm not sure where we can take this, I think as a committee we should probably close the petition. However, I would like that the petition be made available for the relevant Welsh Government Minister, so that they're aware that, again, this has come to committee and that there's considerable concern in the local area around the actions that have been taken so far by Government, but that we also as well pass this on to some of the local representatives for the area, so both the constituency and regional Members, so that they're also aware, because at this point now I think it's probably a campaign for them all to work on together. I think that would probably be the best route forward then, rather than coming through this committee at this point.

Diolch. Any other comments? No. Thank you. I think that's a sound way forward in terms of that being made available to local Members in terms of their direction of travel on this important issue. So, we are recommending that we close this petition and take the actions that have just been stated. Thank you, Luke. 

We're going to move on to petition P-06-1431, which is item 3.3, and the petition is entitled 'A Beacon of Hope at Risk: Please Support Bronllys Well-Being Community Hub!'. The petition goes on to state:

'We call on the Welsh Government to:

'-Support the transfer of underutilised land at Bronllys Community Hospital site to Bronllys Well Being Park CLT Ltd for a nominal sum to develop a community well-being hub.

'-Encourage Powys Teaching Health Board to respond to community issues and concerns with respect, transparency, and support for the proposed community-led initiative.

'-Embrace the long-term objectives of this carefully researched proposal, which aims to improve local people’s lives.'

The submitter is Jacqueline Wilding. It has 407 signatures; 339 of those are from Wales only. At this point, to give a little bit more background, I'm going to invite Peter Fox to discuss this petition and the actions that you would like the committee to take. Peter. 

Thank you, Chair. Bronllys Well Being Park Community Land Trust was established in 2016 as a community benefit organisation, dedicated to improving the lives of local people in the area, such as affordable housing, employment and well-being, real commendable things. We know that the Welsh Government is committed to supporting community asset transfers. However, there is also—. We have to note that there are a number of reports that have identified barriers to moving forward with that. Following recommendations from the Senedd Local Government and Housing Committee in March 2024, Welsh Government set up a community asset commission, although there do not seem to have been any further announcements by the Welsh Government relating to developments in the commission, its membership or its remit. 

A 2021 feasibility study identified that the Bronllys hospital site has many structurally obsolete buildings and estate land not being used to its full potential, and which, as a result, has become a maintenance burden for the health board. The petitioners believe that the health board have failed to engage appropriately with the community on plans for future use of that. The former Cabinet Secretary, when engaged, their response says that this is not a matter for which she can intervene as it's the responsibility of the health board; the local petitioners don't believe that the Cabinet Secretary's apparent inability to intervene is really acceptable, and feel that there is more that could be done.

I think that the petitioners are also perhaps under a wrong opinion of what our committee can do in addressing these things, or discussing these things. I think there is a concern that this whole process is a Welsh Government petitions process, and that it's under the control of Welsh Government. Well, clearly, it isn't, and we must note, for the record, that the Senedd petitions process is completely independent of the Welsh Government—I must stress that—and its rules have been developed over time, with the agreement of the committee and the Llywydd. The Senedd's role is to hold the Welsh Government to account, and the petitions process does this by raising petitioner concerns with the Welsh Government and seeking answers from the Government, as well as from other relevant organisations. The Petitions Committee is not responsible for Welsh Government policy.

So, whatever opportunities may have been identified for land or transfer to community ownership, the former Cabinet Secretary's response states that there is now no land on the hospital site surplus to requirements. So, we've got a few anomalies here and concerns that the petitioners clearly are frustrated about. So, I think we have come to an impasse between the petitioner and the board itself, and with the Minister not willing to intervene. However, I do feel that there is an opportunity, or, rather, an action, that we could write to the health board for confirmation that there is no land available—so we can be clear on that—for a hub to be developed any time soon, and, if so, when they will be next reviewing their area. And we could also establish what mechanism is best for community groups, such as the petitioner, to engage with the health board, recognising that there seems to be inadequate consultation, or it's felt that way, at the moment. So, I don't necessarily believe we can do too much more, but I do think that, before we close, we should just write and try to clarify those couple of points, and try to help the petitioner at least engage more proactively, or suitably, with the board.

Thank you very much. Before I bring Luke in, I think we may have members of the petition in the public gallery, so, welcome—croeso—to the Senedd, and thank you very much for the time and effort that you have put in to this petition, to get it to this stage. Luke, did you want to come in on that, in terms of your comments?

Yes. It was just to come in on what Peter said around the need to establish what are the avenues the petitioners can take here then, in this instance. They'll understand why, not just in this particular case, but I think other cases, in other constituencies, where people are feeling completely powerless as to actually influencing what happens in their own community, and it's fairly easy for Welsh Government to say, 'We're doing this, x, y, and z', or, 'It's not our problem, because it's nothing to do with us', but I think that we need to establish clear avenues for people to go to to be able to influence on projects like this. Because we're in a situation right now where things are happening in communities, those communities don't have input into them, in many cases, or in some cases that's against the will of the community itself. So, I wouldn't just write to the health board on this—I would like to also write to Welsh Government as well, to make the point that there need to be clearer avenues for communities to go down than what are available right now.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. I think that the will of the committee is quite clear, in terms of both writing to the health board, in terms of what Peter Fox has stated, and also Luke, in terms of acknowledging this petition, by writing to Welsh Government. Gareth, did you want to say something on this?

I just want to clarify Luke's point. Are we writing to the Welsh Government about community transfer or are we writing about health board consultation or both?

I'd say both. Yes.

Okay.

Yes. The mechanism as well, I think, will be important. Okay, thank you, and thanks again to the petitioners.

We're going to go on to the next item, which I'm going to group together. They are two petitions with a contrary view. So, we'll start off with item 3.4, which is P-06-1432, 'Hold a Wales-wide Public Poll to establish the true level of public support for the 20mph limit'.

As Members know, public opinion throughout this has been mixed, and I'm going to go on to read the statement:

'Public opinion throughout both social and mainstream media now shows that the vast majority of the people of Wales are strongly against the new 20mph limit. Yet despite this, the Welsh Government insists it has the support of the majority. Official surveys to date are from very limited numbers in specific areas and can in no way be taken as representative of the feelings of the entire Welsh population.

'Claimed support is now widely seen as nothing more than statistical manipulation.'

The submitter is Anthony Charles Marshall; signatures 4,307 from Wales and a total of 4,371 signatures. At this point, I don't think we've received any petitioner comments, but I would like to invite Rhys to discuss this petition and any actions that you want this committee to take forward and progress.

So, it's items 3.4 and 3.5 then—

So, I'm going to take the first petition first, as an entirety, and then I'm going to move separately on to the second one. So, if you can speak to three point—let me double check—

Three point four, yes?

Three point four; it would be very useful. Thank you, Rhys.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I think, as you've alluded to, it's fair to say that this policy has garnered a lot of discussion, a lot of strong opinions. I've spoken to people who have very moderate opinions about nearly everything else in life but have very strong views on the 20 mph policy. I think it's fair to say that I can think, and I'm sure other members of this committee can think, of local examples where we cannot understand why a certain road is 20 mph, but I'm sure many of us would also agree that roads should be 20 mph in certain locations, such as outside schools and hospitals.

Fresh off the press is a written statement by the Welsh Government, published an hour or so ago. They've three phases with regards to the 20 mph policy. They've conducted a listening programme—which seems to be popular with the Welsh Government at the moment, a listening programme—and then a partnership with highway authorities. So, they're moving on to the third phase now, and that is making changes, by using the expertise of the local highway authorities, and comments made by local communities, to review some of the 20 mph roads. So, we thank the petitioner for his petition, but it is very unlikely that the Welsh Government will hold an expensive public poll with regards to this matter. They've made their views on the 20 mph very clear: they see the benefits, the life-saving benefits, of 20 mph, but accept that implementation could have been done better and could have been done with more consultation with local communities—a message we hear in many different petitions on a biweekly basis. Felly, diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.

Diolch yn fawr. And if there are no further comments before I move on to the grouped petition, we're going to close the petition and thank the petitioner and those who've submitted their signatures to this place.

Item 3.5, P-06-1438, 'Start a public enquiry into to the reasons, justification and evidence for 20mph'. And it states:

'The reports and feedback from the public in general, since the introduction of the default speed limit, seem to contradict the justification given by Ministers. I believe it is an unnecessary expense to no proven benefit. Where is all the evidence, not selective facts. Where are the facts on the positive side of keeping the 30mph, specifically on the benefit to the economy.'

The petitioner is Geoff Martin, with 732 signatories from Wales, 747 overall. There have been no further petitioner comments received, and obviously we note the previous petition and have closed that one. I'd like to invite Rhys again to discuss this petition, 3.5, and any actions you wish the committee to take, please. Rhys, again.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. If I could adopt what I said earlier with petition 3.4 also with regard to petition 3.5, public inquiries are infamously expensive. We've seen several examples of these over the years. Welsh Government will not commission a public inquiry with regard to this, but as I've already mentioned, they're now in the third phase of looking at certain roads to revert some roads back to 30 mph or whatever local communities and local highway authorities find appropriate, so if we could again thank this petitioner and close the petition.

Thank you very much. If there are no further comments, we as a committee will close this petition and again thank the petitioner for submitting this to this committee. 

Item 3.6 is petition P-06-1439, 'Improve vital late night public transport infrastructure in South and South West Wales'. The petition goes on to state:

'Grassroots music venues operate within shoestring budgets despite providing vital platforms for emerging talent. Music Venue Trust has warned that approximately 10% of GMVs will close by the end of 2023. Due to a lack of vital late night travel links, audiences are being stopped from attending venues that they would otherwise actively support. Welsh Government must act to improve vital late night travel links and ensure that grassroots culture is accessible and protected for years to come.'

The submitter is Lisa Mart on this important petition. The signatures are 8,226; 7,812 from Wales. I'd like to invite the committee, via Luke, to discuss this particular petition and any actions that you wish this committee to take. Thank you, Luke.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I think, actually, this goes a lot further than just the ability to attend different music events or concerts; this goes across multiple different areas. From a work perspective, those who work in the hospitality industry are often finishing late at night. I remember when I used to work in the bars, I'd be walking home at 2 o'clock in the morning along long stretches of road with no light, which then feeds into a safety element, so this is something I'm quite passionate about, actually, in terms of ensuring that there is public transport available late into the night for those reasons. In terms of where we go from here, it does to me seem like this is something that a specific policy committee should be looking at, so perhaps it's worth us raising this petition with the relevant committee—I think it would be the climate change committee, unless committees have changed their portfolio areas; I'm pretty sure it's still climate—but we should potentially look at contacting the corporate joint committee for south-west Wales, because I'm pretty sure there's a consultation open at the moment on regional transport. Actually, that might have closed, but it might be worth just submitting it anyway—

Of course, yes.

—just in case they might take some evidence at a later stage.

They may.

I'd also as well highlight it with the relevant Minister, because I think this is important. If we want more people in work, if we want more people contributing to the local economy, whether that's working or getting involved in some cultural events, you have to put the transport on, don't you? It's as simple as that.

Thank you. I don't know if there are any comments from other members. I would agree that this is wider, but obviously specific with regard to music venues, but obviously NHS staff on shift work or others in the private sector on shift work also. I think, yes, we will take that to the corporate joint committee for south-west Wales and hopefully they will be able to include that somehow into their consultation, but if not it will be for their notice anyway, and to also write to Ministers to make them aware of this important petition. I'd like to thank the petitioners and the signatories. Thank you.

I'm going to move on to 3.7, P-06-1441, and it's entitled 'Oak tree—'. It's a very good title, actually: 'Oak tree at the Gate of the Dead, should be given statutory protection by Cadw, as an ancient tree'. And I know that whoever's going to speak to this will be giving a little bit of context and background with regard to this matter, but I'm going to read the petition statement:

'Over a thousand years old this ancient Tree, is now very vulnerable after several trees recently have been targeted by criminals. The tree holds an important place associated with the Battle of Crogen in 1165. The tree should be placed under the protection of CADW.'

The submitter is Karl-James Langford FSAScot, and the signatures are 269, and 226 of those from Wales only. And, obviously, we're all very well aware of the not-so-far-in-the-distant-past case of the tree that was cut down. I invite Peter Fox to discuss this petition, please, Peter, and any actions that you wish this committee to take forth.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks for outlining, and it's commendable to bring this forward. These wonderful things need to be preserved—1,000 years old, this tree. They are vulnerable at that age, and there is a responsibility on everybody to show concern, and that's why we were so shocked with what we saw in the news recently, as you just referred to. So, it's commendable that this has come forward because we all need to do what we can. And, as you shared, this oak tree, at the Gate of the Dead, is located in Chirk castle grounds near Offa's Dyke and, as you've said, at the site of the 1165 battle of Crogen. Over 1,000 years old, that tree has seen an awful lot of things, so it's right that it's discussed and given some time.

In 2014 the oak tree came ninth in the European-wide Tree of the Year competition. It was entered into the competition by Woodland Trust Wales. Now, whilst Cadw has no powers to protect specific trees, the oak tree at the Gate of the Dead sits within the park of Chirk castle, as I said, which has been included in the statutory register of historic parks and gardens maintained by the Welsh Ministers at the requirement if the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016. But that Act does not impose any legal restrictions on Wales's historic parks and gardens to introduce a new consent regime. Registered sites continue to receive the current level of protection through the planning system, and we've all heard of TPOs, tree preservation orders, which Welsh Government says are currently in place and are the most effective protection for a tree, because the TPO is quite extensive in what it prohibits. You cannot uproot. Topping, lopping, wilful damage—there's a whole range of different things that a TPO protects against.

Now, back in 2023 we discussed a similar sort of petition, which was looking at ancient and veteran trees in Wales, and I think that was called, at the time, 'Stop the Chop', which called for greater protection for these vulnerable trees, these old trees. Members, when discussing that petition, were reflecting on the Forestry Act 1967, where greater protection of ancient trees was a key thing, and the committee at that time reflected on that, and the Minister has also noted that the national planning policy has been updated on the back of that to strengthen the protection of all trees, including ancient woodland.

So, it's commendable. We need to do more. It seems that the TPO is the only real tool to make sure that this valuable tree is preserved. So, I suggest to Members that the protections in place already are robust, and we have to trust those TPOs and make sure that they are always in place to protect these valuable assets. We may also note the work that’s going on by the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, who was calling for greater consideration of ancient trees during the scrutiny of the Agriculture (Wales) Bill.

So, I think, with everything, Chair, recognising the work that the Cabinet Secretary is doing again, I think we can confidently thank the petitioners for highlighting the situation, and the importance of these ancient trees, but close this particular petition. 

Thank you very much, and I’m content to close the petition, but I do think this committee should be updated if there is to be any strengthening under the considerations that are currently taking place. So, perhaps we could ask for that to come to this committee if there is change, because, as we all know, Natural Resources Wales prosecutes regularly those who fell TPO trees and ancient hedgerows, and I think it’s an area of interest. And I’d like to thank the petitioner for this very important petition in terms of our ancient landscapes that we do need to preserve for the future. So, we’ll close this petition and get the update if there is any in the future. Thank you very much, Peter.

We’re going to move to 3.8, P-06-1444, 'Women of North Wales have the right to have a Menopause Services/Clinic in Ysbyty Gwynedd'. We have had contact from the petitioner, who has asked us to delay this particular petition until a point in the near future, and if Members are happy to do so, then we will take this petition forward at a later date. Are there any objections? Thank you very much.

And I'm going to move now to item 3.9, which I’m going to take together, but treat each one as an independent item, which is P-06-1446, 'Abolish the name "Wales" and make "CYMRU" the only name for our country'. The petition states:

'Wales is a name imposed on Cymru and is essentially not a Welsh word at all. The world knows about Wales because of its English connection since 1282. Hardly anyone has heard of Cymru or realises that we have our own unique language and culture which is totally different from the other countries within the United Kingdom.'

The submitter is Arfon Jones, and the signatures are 12,101, with 10,008 from Wales only. And I’m going to straight on to the contrary petition after this one, but I’d very much like to invite Luke to discuss this petition and any actions that you would want to the committee to take.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I’ve made my views on this in the past fairly clear. I support the use of 'Cymru' exclusively. This isn’t something that’s new or not practised elsewhere in the world. We know there’s similar debates happening in New Zealand and India. But, of course, I think, here in Wales, what’s crystallised this a lot for people is the Football Association of Wales. We’ve seen it with the national parks as well, although there are some national parks that still use the bilingual name.

One thing—. It’s a pretty well-established debate at this point, and I know that questions have been asked several times in the Chamber. I believe there was a short debate as well in the Chamber, so I’m not going to propose that we perhaps take this petition immediately to debate, but what I would be interested in maybe exploring—because I know the Welsh Government haven’t changed their name—I wouldn’t mind actually exploring whether or not we can contact the Senedd itself—I imagine that would be either the Comisiwn or the Llywydd—to see what the Senedd’s view on this policy is, and perhaps changing the use of the word 'Senedd', to use 'Senedd' only over 'Welsh Parliament'. I remember that was a debate that happened when we had the name change from 'Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru', but perhaps it’s time to just maybe re-explore that, especially with the number of signatures that are on this petition.

So, I’m just trying to think here of a way forward without going to debate straight away, because I’m also conscious that there are a number of other petitions that we’ll be asking for a debate on as well, which are time-sensitive.

So, in terms of what you’ve just said, Luke, are you saying that you would like the committee to write to the Llywydd in this regard to explore the issues that this petition has brought forth?

Yes. I'm just considering at this point, where the Welsh Government haven't changed their view, that perhaps there might be another avenue here via the Llywydd's office or the Commission, to see at the very least if we can start using 'Senedd' over 'Welsh Parliament'.

Obviously, in terms of this, it's about 'Cymru' and the word 'Wales', but I understand where you're going with that. Are there any other comments before I move on to the grouped petition? No. Thank you very much, Luke, and we will do that.

Item 3.10, P-06-1451; 'Keep the name "Wales" and not waste any more taxpayers money on pointless exercises' is the heading of the petition, obviously in direct contrast to the one previously, which is why they've been grouped. It goes on to read:

'This is to counter the petition to abolish the name "Wales" and to only refer to our fine land as "Cymru"'

in terms of explaining the title.

'We are proud of our Welsh roots but this would be a pointless waste of taxpayers money. Cymru OR Wales-let people refer to God's country however they want and not impose an ideology on anyone.

'Let the silent majority be heard!'

It's obviously in direct contrast to the prior petition that we've just listened to and discussed in this committee, and obviously in regard to that, that's interesting for us. I would like to invite again Luke Fletcher to discuss this particular petition and actions further you wish this committee to take. Signatures were 5,439, and 5,341 from Wales only. Would you like to comment, Luke?

Yes. Diolch, Gadeirydd. I've got nothing really additional to add to that, other than that I don't think there's any discussion about abolishing the use of the word 'Wales' in this sense. I mean, I slip in and out of saying 'Cymru' or 'Wales', just by virtue of coming from a non-Welsh-speaking family. That's going to happen, whether or not 'Cymru' is the preferred term used by the Welsh Government or whether 'Senedd' is the preferred term of use of this institution. Given that I haven't said to close the previous petition, I'm not minded to close this one either, given that they are on the same subject and that we await to hear a response on the previous petition. 

Thank you. And no further comments—no. Thank you very much, Luke. We will adopt that same approach in terms of the previous petition. Thank you.

We're going to move on to 3.11, P-06-1449, 'Designate the Tywi Valley as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)'. The petition reads:

'We, the undersigned, urgently petition the Senedd to designate the Tywi Valley as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

'This designation will be in line with the recent decision (November 2023) to designate all AONBs in the UK as "National Landscapes."

'The imminent threat of pylons and wind turbines'—

I can never say this word—

'necessitates urgent designation to safeguard its integrity and to protect and preserve its cultural and historical, as well as ecological, significance.'

The submitter is Veronika Hurbis. The signatures are 4,109, and 3,196 from Wales. I would like to call on Peter Fox to discuss this petition and the actions that you wish the committee to progress, please. 

Thank you, Chair, and I thank the petitioners—a significant number of them. I think we'd all agree that the Tywi valley is a wonderful area. I spent a lot of my life in the Tywi valley, or very close to it, as a young man, and I understand its beauty and why people are so passionate—and fearful—in the light of some of the comments that they've made, and plans that might come to pass, so I understand why they are concerned as they are. However, I think it's been made quite clear by the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs. He made it very clear that Natural Resources Wales is the responsible body for undertaking the process of designating AONBs and national parks in Wales. He also made it clear that currently they're examining the case for designating a new national park in north-east Wales, which is an extensive and exhaustive process, he says, which will be their priority for the remainder of this Senedd term. So, a very clear message there that this is their priority at the moment.

But I was pleased to note that the Cabinet Secretary offers for his officials to request that NRW officers discuss some aspects of the proposal with campaigners in greater detail. The petitioner argues that the response is inadequate and that the document so far fails to explain why NRW is limited to the consideration of only one issue at a time. They're concerned that the Tywi valley could be destroyed forever. Well, obviously, NRW are focusing all their efforts on the other area in north-east Wales. However, I can see little more we can do. I think Members should welcome the offer of NRW officers to discuss the proposal with the campaigners in greater detail, but I also go back and point out what the Cabinet Secretary has said, and it's very clear the NRW's focus is in the north-east for the remainder of this term. So, it's unclear, really, what we as a committee can do further, and in that regard, I think we need to agree to close, but thank the petitioner and wish them well.

Thank you very much. I think we are saying, then, to close the petition, in the comments that have just been made, but to write to NRW to make contact with the petitioners to locally correspond on this matter. Are we all content with that as an action? Thank you so much.

Item 3.12, P-06-1453, 'Provide funding and support for the adequate provision of accessible and clean public toilets'. I think this is a really important petition for many vulnerable groups and others across Wales. I'm going to read it:

'Wales Seniors Forum research shows that many older people do not go out or reduce the time they are out of the house because of a lack of public toilets. This can lead to isolation and loneliness. Inadequate provision of facilities is a public health issue that affects all of us, preventing some from fully accessing their communities.'

The submitter is Gareth Parsons, with 1,172 signatures, 947 on paper. I think that's important, because it shows the demographic of those who have taken their time to submit a paper signature. Sometimes, numbers are misleading. It's a total of 2,119. Obviously, we are aware of the national statutory framework around this, but I would like to invite Rhys to discuss this particular petition and any actions that he would wish us to progress forth from this committee, if any. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I agree with you: this is an important petition. From a selfish point of view as a father of a three-year-old and a one-year-old, I realise the incredible importance of public toilets; I'd be lost without them. But we all are aware of many shutting over the past few years. Like my local bank, the two nearest public toilets to me are now trendy coffee shops, which are great for a certain demographic, but not for others, as you mentioned, Chair. The Welsh Government recognises the importance of public toilets; they say that the lack of public toilets is a real public health issue. We've got to acknowledge that and recognise that.

I'm very grateful for the research and the evidence presented by the Wales Seniors Forum; it's clear from their evidence that the provision across Wales is very patchy, that the strategy across Wales varies geographically a lot, and I think it's clear from their evidence that there needs to be greater oversight from the Welsh Government. If they believe that this is a public health issue, then they need to show more leadership with regard to this. So, my suggestion, Chair, is that we write to the Welsh Government, we raise the concerns, we raise the evidence that the Wales Seniors Forum has mentioned to us, and we await a response from the relevant Minister. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr ichi. I absolutely think that's a good course of action, and I'd also like to thank those who signed the petition, and the Wales Seniors Forum, for their proactivity in this area. And so, we will write to the Welsh Government and ask for clarity around that, including the oversight necessary to enforce the framework that we currently have. There are two more comments to be made. Who was first? I didn't see. Luke Fletcher, please, would like to comment, and then Peter Fox.

Diolch, Gadeirydd, a diolch, Peter. It is one of those things that you only realise you need when you need it, in my case at least, but there are plenty of people out there who need it on a far more regular basis. I agree with what Rhys said and the recognition, actually, that this is a public health matter that is negatively affecting people's ability to go out and socialise and to lead fulfilling lives. We talk about wanting people to go out and exercise more. Well, as you get older, one of the ways of exercising is to go out walking, and you can't really do that if the facilities aren't available.

One thing I just wanted to raise additionally—and there's a recognition in this petition as well—is that the service is patchy across Wales. There are some good examples of town and community councils, some local authorities, that are doing some good work to keep these open. My closest public toilet is actually run by Pencoed Town Council. I think they should be commended for keeping that public toilet open. I'm not sure if it's worth us actually just reaching out to, for example, Pencoed Town Council to see how they are able to operate it and to see if there's something that we can send to the Welsh Government as a framework or good practice as to how other local authorities might be able to look again at their own provisions and see if it is feasible for them to carry it forward as an interim step before the Welsh Government, hopefully, adopt a more national framework.

I want to agree as well. Perhaps in your younger life you don't recognise the importance of these places so much. Even as a council leader, or prior to, faced with large challenges, and, actually, on paper the costs of running public toilets, you make the decision on finance. When you get older, you see your own parents are not going out because they're frightened they won't be there—they're on water tablets, or they may not be able to find a place to stop. They stay at home, and it has a negative effect. I would urge council leaders not to make their decisions all around finance. There's a social value to toilets and a well-being value to toilets, as this petition is pointing out.

There is great work going on, with engagement with those community councils who want to engage, take on, and support, and we have many great examples. In Monmouthshire, for instance, we have many great examples. But there are pockets where there aren't any because those other community and town councils perhaps haven't embraced the opportunity. So, I think there is a need for that strategy, really an important strategy, because it is definitely affecting many people who already feel isolated from the community as it is.

Thank you very much, both, for those comments, and I would agree in entirety. Obviously, we've not mentioned those with disabilities, and the social isolation element, I think, is really, really important. So, we will do that, and we will write, as we've just discussed, and we will seek some clarity around the patchy infrastructure that there is now and how that is being assessed pan Wales. I'd like to thank, again, the petitioners. 

We're going to move to item 3.13, P-06-1452, which is entitled, very interestingly, 'Meat-free Monday in every school in Wales'. I'm going to read the petition heading:

'We are calling for the following: Meat-free Monday in every school in Wales for environmental reasons, and for the welfare of animals.

'It reduces your carbon footprint and saves the lives of animals. Additionally, it takes 2,350 litres of water to create one beef burger'—

that's a really interesting fact—

'so this will save a load of water.'

That's interesting. The submitter is Manon Rebeca Bellin Thompson, and it's got 271 signatures, 249 from Wales. I'm going to stop talking and I'm going to ask Peter to discuss this petition and any actions that you wish the committee to take. Over to you, Peter.

Thank you very much. I was quite surprised that I was given this one to present. I might challenge elements of it. However, we need to present the petition as it is there. I think there is some—. I would like to understand the rationale around 2,350 litres to create one burger, because if you think an average animal will drink, say, 20 gallons of water a day, when it's an older animal, yes, that's quite a lot of water consumed, but there are an awful lot of beef burgers in an animal as well. However, the point has been put. But it's worth noting that the statutory guidance of 2014 requires that there are four categories—of protein that can be used, meat, fish and other non-dairy sources of protein—and they must form part of the school lunches, and they can include meat, fish, eggs, nuts, pulses and beans. And there are already many—. Well, let's get—. It's a council's responsibility to oversee its menus within schools and many of them do a huge amount of work on trying to make the best-balanced menus that they can for our young people and it's important that they do that by limiting access to more processed food as well. Many are doing that. There are already many councils across the country that already have days when there is no meat within their meals and they balance that meal in a different way.

We know how the Government, in fairness, here is looking hard at healthy eating in schools and the regulations around that are based on scientific research, which underpins it, around nutritional standards. So, I know the petitioner welcomes the work that the Welsh Government is doing on that but would also like to understand which local authorities are actually providing those no-meat days. So, I suggest that we write back to the Minister seeking responses to the questions posed by the petitioner, specifically around which local authorities are already offering meat-free days and the timetable for any review of the guidance that the Government may be putting in place. 

Thank you very much. I know that Rhys wants to come in, but I would like to thank Manon very much for this petition before I invite him to comment. I was just going to state that I presume—and I don't know if Rhys has any more information on this—but the production of animal feed is very water-intensive, so it does depend on the framework in which you look at this. So, Rhys.

Thank you. I probably should say at the outset that the petitioner's father is a friend of mine who worked with me, and, in fact, I think he's worked in this building continuously since 1999, before the first election. Luke will know Ioan, the petitioner's father, very well also.

In saying that, I do support this petition. I know we in our house—and I know many other families—try to go meat free at least once a week. I see no harm in it being introduced in schools and, of course, we can support our local farmers by using locally grown Welsh vegetables in our schools. So, I support this petition. I'd be very interested to learn more, and I support Peter's suggestion; it would be very interesting to see what's happening already and how that can be developed. Diolch. 

Thank you very much. And what an interesting petition, so thank you, again, to Manon. And our course of action will be to write, for that clarification, to the Minister to assess what is happening in this regard.

Moving on, we're going to go to item 3.14, P-06-1454, 'Calling Welsh Government to provide urgent mental health support for New Dads'. The petition states that:

'Fathers with perinatal mental health problems are up to 47% more likely the risk to be rated as a suicide risk than at any other time in their lives'.

And that says that's from Quevedo et al, 2010 research.

'New research also shows that a new father has a 22% risk of anxiety and depression during the perinatal period. Birth Trauma effects at least 30,000 women in the UK and fathers are witnessing the trauma and not getting help for PTSD. Fathers also go through baby loss and need to support the baby on neonatal wards.

'We want the Welsh Government to set up support for fathers in perinatal mental health teams across Wales. We also want fathers to receive support with finance up to six weeks.'

The submitter is Mark Williams. It has 295 signatures, 261 from Wales only. I would like to ask Luke Fletcher to discuss this and a little bit of context around this petition, and the actions that you would put forward for this committee to progress. Thank you, Luke.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I know the Welsh Government have done some recent consultations in relation to the draft mental health and well-being strategy. There's also the suicide and self-harm prevention strategy. So, these are things that, I think, we are still waiting on a report from Welsh Government on. So, I think it would be worthwhile asking for an update on that. I think, perhaps, as well, asking for an update once the best practice guide from the 'Fathers Matter Too' event has been published would be a good step forward here as well. That's where, I think, we as a committee can perhaps add value to this petition, and then that's purely down to that we're still waiting for some stuff to come from Welsh Government on this particular topic. So, I think it's quite timely. I also think it's very important as well. So, if we can keep that open pending responses from Government that would be much appreciated. 

Yes, excellent. Thanks. Yes, and it's a very live issue. And, I think, in terms of keeping that open and awaiting what's being produced at the moment, that would be the right course of action, and it's also a very important matter to come to this committee. So, I would like to thank Mark Williams for submitting this petition, which we will keep open, pending those actions. 

We're going to move then to item 3.15, P-06-1474, 'Stop Natural Resources Wales closing Bwlch Nant yr Arian, Coed y Brenin & Ynyslas visitor centres', and it reads:

'Closure of these centres runs contrary to the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 2015.

'The closure of these visitor centres would have a far-reaching negative impact on the local economy, environment, and community well-being.'

I'm going to take this petition regarding Natural Resources Wales's visitor centres back to back with item 4.1—thank you—which is about the singular Ynyslas national nature reserve, but I'm going to speak to each one individually. So, the submitter of this petition is Gareth Jones. It has 13,245 signatures, 8,720 from Wales only. And there is some background to this, so I'd like to invite Peter Fox to discuss this and the actions that you wish the committee to take, please. Peter. 

Yes, thank you, Chair. Another really important one to an awful lot of people, as you pointed out. It's worth noting that this petition hasn't come with a research brief, because the petitioners were very keen that we got an opportunity to discuss this early doors because NRW are apparently going to be meeting later this week to make some decisions, and it's quite important then that we have an opportunity to say perhaps what we feel ahead of those decisions, so I respect the reasons for that. I know we're doing a back-to-back petition, and I know that the next petition, which is focusing just on Ynyslas national nature reserve, has got more detail and—

I'm going to come to that. 

—more depth around it, when we get there. But we also note the unprompted correspondence from the UK MTB Trail Alliance, who support the petition and recognise the importance of the parks and are alarmed by the proposals that are coming forward and concerned about—as all people are—concerned about the knock-on consequences to the local economy. This petition, as we note, has passed well over the 10,000 threshold for consideration for a debate, but we know that it's unlikely for a debate to happen before November, and so we need to act quite fast if we can be helpful and supportive of this group in their endeavour to keep these parks open. I would recommend that we do write urgently, today, highlighting the petition ahead of the final decision, so NRW can make their decisions with due consideration of the feelings that the petitioners have and I'm sure we probably share. We could ask for a debate in the future, but we know that NRW have promised to write to us with their conclusions and we might want to perhaps think and reflect on those before, perhaps, calling for that debate. However, I do think the key priority for us today is to make sure we air this petition to NRW in advance of their meeting later this week.

Okay, thank you. Luke.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I mean, what a signal to send, that Wales is closed, by closing some visitor centres. I think, in the particular case of Coed y Brenin, it’s got recognition globally as one of the top places to do mountain biking. Now, I don’t know too much about it—I’m not the right build for mountain biking—but I do know a number of people who have used it in the past, who know of it and know of the recognition it has worldwide. I think it would be real shame, actually, to lose that asset, especially in the area where Coed y Brenin is situated.

I perfectly accept that if we ask for a debate now we won’t be having that debate in time for the decision that is made by NRW, because, as Peter has already highlighted, that’s towards the end of this week. I still do think it’s worth asking for a debate on it, whilst also keeping an eye on actually what NRW decides, because there potentially will be an opportunity for us as Members then to make the case for NRW to change its mind or to reconsider some of those areas that it might designate to close. Of course, we don’t know what those areas are yet, but perhaps it’s worth putting in that request for a debate now, just so we have it locked in and we can have that debate as soon as possible. I’m not sure if that’s something that would work, but—

It's a marker in the sand.

Yes, exactly. We put it down. We also as well, by doing that, express the strong feelings of this committee to NRW.

Yes, I'm—. Rhys, yes.

Thank you, Chair. Just to reiterate what Luke has said, like Luke, I haven’t motorbiked in Coed y Brenin, but I have been there. I’ve had a burger there, actually. The food was very good there. So, rather than exercising, I was actually eating there. [Laughter.] But it’s a stunning location. When I was there, I met a group of people from the Manchester area who’d come—it was the first purpose-built motorbiking place in Britain—they’d come purposely to Coed y Brenin and after that they went to the Ysgwrn, Hedd Wyn’s birthplace, which is nearby. So, it’s great. It attracts people, and then they taste a bit of Welsh culture because of it. If Coed y Brenin wasn’t there, I wouldn’t have met these people, and they wouldn’t have gone and heard and learnt about Hedd Wyn. So, I just reiterate that there's great importance to these areas, and I’d like to stress that in any letter to NRW. I’m sure they know this. We appreciate the pressures on them, but some places are just worth saving. I would reiterate Luke’s suggestion that we do just try and go and get a debate, because, even if NRW do decide to save Coed y Brenin and the other locations in their meeting later on this week, the places are still under threat, and I think it’s worth having the debate on the principle of this matter.

Thank you very much for those comments. We will write to NRW to state that we’ll be seeking a debate, because the committee takes the seriousness of this determination on board in terms of the impact that closure could or would have in these regards. And then in regard then to the outcome of their consultation, we would ask to be updated, and we will therefore keep this petition open until we get the desired contact. Are we all happy with that? Okay, thank you.

Item 4.1, P-05-1447, 'Stop Natural Resources Wales closing the visitor centre at Ynyslas'—. I can't say that. Ynyslas, is it? How do I say that, folks? 

Yes, fine.

Yes. 'National Nature Reserve'. This has been to us previously, I believe, hasn't it? The petitioner is Kim Williams. Obviously, it's related to the previous petition. It's had 2,422 signatures, 915 from Wales only. It's been kept open, and I'd like Peter to take this forward across the same theme, really, as what we've just been discussing.

Thank you, Chair. It was discussed before in this committee on 8 July, and it was agreed there to write to Natural Resources Wales seeking clarification regarding whether a decision had been made to close Ynyslas, and when that might have occurred, and the committee agreed to copy the Chair of the Senedd's Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, to make them aware, as they have previously made recommendations on NRW and on the issue of visitor centres. It's important to note, I think, that the NRW chief exec, Clare Pillman, wrote that

'The National Nature Reserves and forests around visitor centres are key sites for us.'

She said then that

'There is no question that we want to conserve and protect these sites so that nature can recover, and we are unequivocal that public access to these sites will be maintained. We will continue to carry out all statutory duties and will consider the indirect effects of any recommendations.'

I know they're running a consultation—. Well, it ran until—. When was the thirteenth? Last Friday. So, they will be making their decision very soon—that's what was said in the previous report.

There is a suggestion that NRW needs to make quite a lot of savings, yet the savings made from closing something like this are minimal in closing that gap. I know the petitioners feel it's difficult to justify why such actions were taken, recognising their benefit to the local economy and businesses in the area. So, again, similar to the last one, there is concern—a significant concern—about these parks, and the effect it will have on the local economy of closing them.

So, as possible actions, I would suggest we agree to write to NRW, urgently highlighting again the petitions and the responses, both from petitioners and from the likes of the mountain bike community, ahead of their decision. We could also follow up and write to the CCEI committee, sharing the petitioners' concerns also.

Thank you very much. So, we will write to the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. Obviously, we've got the date of 20 September, but in this regard, and with regard to the response from NRW, are there any further comments on that? No. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to thank Kim Williams for raising this initially. Thank you.

We're going to move on to item 4, which is updates to our previous petitions and petitioners, and I'm going to move on to item 4.2, P-06-1344, 'Moderate quality agricultural land (grade 3b) should be used for food security not solar farms'. The submitter is the Campaign Against East Vale Over Development—CAEVOD is the acronym. The signatories are 271, with 256 from Wales only. I'd like to ask Luke Fletcher to discuss this existing petition and any actions further you wish us to take.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I should say from the outset that, in this particular case, as this is outside the area that I represent, I'm not entirely across it, though I do have some sympathy for what's being said. One of the things I think is absolutely crazy that doesn't happen is the mandating of solar panels being used on public buildings, to generate electricity that way. There is a concern here, I think, especially in the way in which the world is going at the moment and things are changing, that we give up land that could be used for food security. I think sometimes there's maybe not enough consideration being given to what the future impact of that will be alongside, of course, climate change.

I can see that there haven't been any additional comments from the petitioner, and I do think that, as a committee, we've probably taken this as far as we can at this point, and perhaps it's now for local Members that represent the Vale to take this forward. So, whilst I do have sympathy with this particular case, I do think we should perhaps close this petition, but also make those Members that represent the Vale aware of the petition.

Okay, thank you for that. So, if there are no further comments, we're going to close this particular—. Sorry, go on, Rhys.

Just quickly, the Vale of Glamorgan is famous for the quality of its agricultural land. I don't want to upset Peter here, as a Monmouthshire representative, but they have lost a lot of land over the decades for various reasons. It's so important that we protect this type of land, and it seems to me ludicrous that we don't mandate putting solar panels on public buildings with huge roof areas, but that we do use good-quality agricultural land. So, I think it's a very important principle that we really need to be pushing.

I absolutely support Rhys on that. There is a lot of ground that isn't suitable for highly productive food production, which, yes, we can utilise that, but there are so many opportunities—car park shelters, there are loads of things. We need to start futureproofing how we're going to create renewable energy without having to put it on productive farmland, because I think food security—. It was demonstrated when the war started in Ukraine how food security should be fundamental to any government, and actually trying to find steps to protect that, and not covering vast swathes of land with these things where they could be utilised for something else. I'm also concerned at the end of their life how long it takes to remediate that land back to quality farmland, because there is an awful lot of salvage and different things that have to go on in that regard. So, I think there could be a far better way of trying to sustain renewable energy without having to do this. So, I absolutely support Rhys.

Okay. So, what I was going to go on to say—thank you so much for those comments—is that I believe we should close this petition, but I think it wouldn't be remiss, bearing in mind the volatility that we are facing across the world at this moment, and the importance, the growing importance, of food security, as this petition points to, and the points that you've made about public sector buildings, mandation, or words to that effect, or a possibility around—two different things—putting solar panels on those buildings as a priority, rather than going down this route—. I'm wondering whether we should write to Welsh Government, the appropriate Ministers, to say this committee, off the back of this petition—although closed—is very concerned about why this is occurring when there are other ways forward, or words to that effect. Would you approve of that?

I think the only thing that we've got to be mindful of is that, when solar farms do go on land, you put them on many, many acres, and it would be very difficult to replace that necessarily on a public building. We could go a fair way towards it, but between using mandated public buildings to hold these things, and the siting of what additional solar farms are needed, that should be going on the least productive ground, and they should be exploited, all of those areas should be exploited, before we cover huge areas that are generally put there because of proximity to connect to the grid, and things like that.

I understand what you're saying, and I think if we can capture that in terms of the balance between those two points, that would be really useful, off the back of this petition, and it's been interesting to have that discussion today. Thank you. So, I'd like to thank the petitioners in that regard.

We're going to move on to 4.3, P-O6-1378, ‘We want farm subsidies to be extended to small scale and market gardeners’. The submitter is Karen Schneider, signatures 413, 349 from Wales. This is the open petition in front of us. I invite Rhys to discuss the petition in front of us and the actions further. Rhys. 

Thanks very much, Chair. This is the third time we've considered this petition, and it appears that the petitioner in this petition is happy with the consultation they've received, small-scale market gardeners, and hopefully it shows the benefit of a public-facing committee like ours, because the last time we discussed this it was unclear whether they would be consulted. And, in fact, we wrote and suggested that they should, and they have. So, hopefully, we've played a small role in that. Now, the result of the consultation is due to be published in 2025—I'm not sure when in 2025—but can I suggest that we keep this petition open until we know what the publication says, what the scheme says, because I think it's important that we know that before we close the petition?

Thank you, and I agree. Any further comments? I think it's sound that we keep that open until the scheme details are published, but I think perhaps we could find out when it's going to be published as a timeline. Thank you. 

Item 4.4, P-06-1389, 'Introduce a 30mph limit on the trunk road through the villages of Eglwys Fach and Ffwrnais'. And the submitter is Catherine Ruth Stevenson, with signatures of 419 online, and I think there may be a written number of signatures. I'm looking around me. Is there?

We weren't sure. There's been some office movement, so we couldn't get access to the file.

Okay. We can update as necessary. So, I'd like to invite Peter to discuss this petition and further actions for this one. 

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I think the first time it was considered by the committee was 29 January this year, where it was agreed to write back to the Deputy Minister sharing the petitioner's detailed responses and seek an explanation of why the current concerns cannot be addressed under the current policy, as highlighted by the petitioner at that point, and ask about the timescale for publication of the new setting of speed limits. And we know that there is guidance being worked on or is being produced on setting local speed limits in Wales, and that's been updated now to take cognisance of the changes in devolved speed limits to 20 mph. I think the latest response of 2 July said that

'Priority is now being given to guidance for speed limits on roads where people live, with guidance for other roads to follow.'

And Welsh Government says it's in listening mode. I've got some real sympathy here, because these people are trying to get a reduction of speed limit on a trunk road. Now, some of us are arguing to get speed limits reviewed back to where they were on trunk roads, and these two similar issues are being conflated under this 20 mph big debate. Yet, if that 20 mph debate had never happened, somebody could legitimately make a challenge for a reduction to 30 mph where it was on safety grounds. Yet, those now are stifled because everybody is looking at this wider picture, so these people will have to wait for the consideration of their plea to when these things are taken forward. 

Now, I'm trying to suggest that a trunk road running through Chepstow, which is currently 20 mph, should be reversed back to 30 mph or 40 mph, and we're told that it will be 18 months, once the consultation is over, before it gets to be looked at. So, similarly, for these people, as it says, the focus will be on where people live, and so it's highly likely we'll be waiting some fair time for this to be considered.

Forgive me, Chair, I have some sympathy with the frustrations when people are genuinely looking to reduce speed limits for all of the right reasons, and our focus now has had to go to all that wider debacle that has been kicked off by that stupid 20 mph legislation. However, the possible actions before us: Members may wish to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales and ask for a further update on what priority will now be given to the issue, and the likely timescales, as well as what further arrangement is planned with the petitioners, and to keep the petition open pending a further response. I don't think that it's acceptable that people have to wait so long and that there is such a long, truncated—no pun intended—process to be able to assess the needs of these sorts of roads, and to give some hope to petitioners who are making a strong case.

Thank you, Peter. I'm currently working on two separate cases within the constituency—one to make a road go down to 20 mph, and the opposite. So, it's obviously a very contradictory issue at the moment. But, yes, in terms of a further update on that priority given to the issue, I agree; I think we should be asking about the timescales and the engagement as well. So, any further comments, or are we happy to keep that open, pending that response? Yes. Okay. Thank you so much.

We're going to move to 4.5, P-06-1400, 'Fair and Adequate Resourcing of General Practice in Wales'—a very important subject matter. The submitter is Lewis Williams, BMA; signatures, 21,620, and 21,275 are from Wales. That's obviously a very considerable amount. I'm not sure how many times this has been back to us, but, in terms of context, I'm going to ask Luke to discuss, sorry, just the petition and further actions that you would like us to take forward, and I will also ask for any comments as well.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. It's a very important petition. GP practices are one of the two areas that I personally want to see a lot more work done on within the health service. Just in the context of this petition, I know that the health committee has announced that it's going to be doing an inquiry into general practices across Wales. So, I'm just trying to think of where we take this forward now. We could obviously go down the route of doing maybe a joint debate with the health committee, but I just want an idea of the timings of that, because if they've just started, then we're going to be waiting a couple of months. So, I'm minded to ask for an early debate on it, which could help inform the health committee's inquiry, to get some of those topics out there in the open now—potentially, some of them will be ones that the health committee haven't considered yet and might therefore consider as part of the inquiry. I think, to give this the actual space it needs to have, and the ability for Members to weigh then the problems in their local areas, I don't see a problem with having a debate on this petition, then a debate on the committee's findings when it comes to the Senedd, later down the line.

Any further comments, or are you all in agreement?

I agree with Luke. I'm sure that all of us have been inundated in the past few weeks by e-mails along the same lines. So, it's not just the petition, there's obviously a strong feeling out there, and every GP we talk to says exactly the same thing. So, I think there are strong views out there that something has to be done, that we are near collapse, and I don't think that is an exaggeration, because every GP I speak to say that they are. I spoke to one practice manager last week who's actually leaving the profession in two months' time because of the strain. So, I think it's very important and we need it to be aired as much as possible, really. So, I agree with Luke.

Okay. That's clear. I'm sort of in between in this regard, because there are arguments for both, in terms of either informing the committee's findings and airing it early, or waiting for their conclusion and then seeking a joint debate, which you could argue would be more powerful. Equally though, we don't know the timescale of that, and, on that particular point, it is such an important matter, it has so many signatories attached to it, that I am content to go with that, in terms of an option, and seek that early debate, to inform the committee and to highlight the issues that are within.

Could I just—

Yes, absolutely.

Rhys is right. We're in a crisis period right now when it comes to GP practices, and I think that's why it's important to have that early debate. But, of course, I think some work from this committee or between this committee and the health committee, even in that early debate process, might be beneficial as well. So, just a request that both clerks in both committees—

So, a liaison on any presumed—

Yes, so at least there's some feed in from us into those initial stages of that inquiry.

Okay. So, how do you want that to take place? Do you want communication from this committee to the clerks?

I'd imagine the clerks would communicate between each other.

Yes. Okay. I'm more than happy. What do you think?

Yes. Happy with that.

Thank you so much for that contribution, and yourself, Rhys. So, we will agree to that and move forward. And in terms of keeping this petition open, I presume we're keeping it open.

Yes.

Thank you so much. Item 4.6, P-06-1403, 'Reconsider cuts to Postgraduate funding and increase Doctoral Loans to match UKRI Stipend'. The submitter is Micaela Panes. It has 2,026 signatures online, 130 on paper, 2,156 in total. I'll ask Rhys to discuss this petition and further actions. Rhys.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I found this petition to be troubling. The Cabinet Secretary reiterated the reasons for the cuts, which are well known to all of us, and then mentioned that the increase in student debt will not necessarily lead as a direct result to an increase in repayments, because it's dependent upon salary. But I don't think enough emphasis is put on the impact that having large debt—and becoming even larger—would have on an individual at the beginning of their career.

To be stranded with such huge debt is bound to put people off from postgraduate study, which is so important for our education sector and for the economy, but the mental health impact, and the impact on an individual's ability to do different things when they're straddled with such a huge debt, cannot, in my view, be underestimated. And I'm concerned, maybe, that it has been underestimated, just by saying, 'Well, they're not necessarily going to pay more because it's linked to their income.' I'm very worried about the impact.

I'm not sure what more we as a committee can do, but I certainly think we should raise these strong concerns with the education committee, and the concerns we have about people getting larger and larger debts at the beginning of their careers, and the impact that will have on people wanting to study postgraduate degrees, and the impact that'll have on individuals and on universities, and to ask them to highlight these concerns in their upcoming scrutiny of the next budget. Diolch, Gadeirydd.

Thank you. I mean, it has been acknowledged that there will be an impact on those with protected characteristics, and despite the fact that, on a low income, that won't be expected, pro rata, to impact directly, it is that notional expense that you would be carrying around with you that's impacting. We feel that perception.

I think, then, in terms of actions moving forward, yes, obviously we're going to thank the petitioner, and I'm hoping that we can agree to write to the Finance Committee, the Children, Young People and Education Committee, the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee to highlight those concerns. Are we all content with that in terms of that acknowledged impact in this regard? I'd like to thank the petitioner, Micaela Panes.

I'm going to move on then to item 4.7, P-06-1404, 'Increase clarity and rights for people on direct payments or WILG to live independently'. This is from Nathan Lee Davies. There are 377 signatures, 294 from Wales—a very important petition. I'd like to ask Peter to discuss this and other actions to flow.

Thank you, Chair. This is the third time we're considering this petition. It comes following the correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care about the guidance being developed on control and spending of direct payments and advocacy issues. Two reports have highlighted issues with the operation of direct payments in Wales, including a divergence of practice between local authorities and away from the intended principles of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. We know that the Health and Social Care (Wales) Bill, introduced in May, contains a measure to improve the interface between continuing healthcare and direct payments, but we know that the Bill's at Stage 1 of scrutiny. I think the petitioner welcomes the Bill, but its timeline is too far on, really, to get to grips with some of the issues that recipients are dealing with.

Members were also told that Welsh Government will be introducing new guidance requiring local authorities to self-assess their performance and delivery against eight quality standards, including evidencing how they promote voice and control of those using direct payments to help them live independently. The latest Government response points to existing guidance and says that further guidance will be required if the provisions for direct payments for NHS continuing healthcare in the Health and Social Care (Wales) Bill are passed into law. The petitioner says that the Minister is over-confident about how appropriately the existing legislation is being applied by local authorities on the ground, and urges the Minister then to engage and learn the lessons.

Regarding advocacy, the Welsh Government, with the support of the learning disability ministerial advisory group, has commissioned the Association of Directors of Social Services to carry out a study of advocacy and self-advocacy in Wales, and a draft report entitled 'My Voice, My Rights, My Life—Advocacy and Self-advocacy' has been prepared in collaboration with the people with lived experience. The petitioner notes that this is being prepared by local authorities, but is concerned that local authorities will mark their own homework, he says, because they're looking at their own self-assessments. So, there is a concern then that the proposed advocacy arrangements are not independent or strong enough, and the petitioner wants to see a trade union of direct payment recipients. He points to the significant clawbacks of his own direct payments and needs to see these issues resolved now, and not wait well into the future.

So, there are two or three different things we could do. We have three possible actions down here. I would advocate that there's a need to do, perhaps, the three of them, because there's certainly a bit in each that is important. So, the first option we had was that Members may wish to write back to the Minister for social services to highlight the petitioner's response and ask whether the Welsh Government has any plans for a commissioner for disabled people. We can write—. I haven't heard of any suggestions of that coming forward, but it would be interesting, and the petitioner might feel that his voice has been heard in that regard. And then, Members may wish to forward the latest correspondence to the Health and Social Care Committee for consideration as part of its scrutiny of the Health and Social Care (Wales) Bill, and I think that is a fair suggestion. So, definitely option 2.

And then the issues raised by the petitioner, we accept that they are very important and Welsh Government appears to be taking much of this forward via legislation and is working with the disability rights task group, so in that regard I think we can take quite a bit of confidence that this is under scrutiny, it is being acted on, and in that regard I struggle to know what more we can do than to thank the petitioner and close. But I think, in closing, perhaps option 2 is also adopted, and if Members feel that it's worth writing again asking about a commissioner, I'm happy to support that, if they feel so. 

Are we in agreement? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, we're going to take all three of those recommendations forward as a committee, and we will write back with a response to the Minister for social services from the petitioner and ask around the provision or conversation or planning for a commissioner for disabled people, and also in regard to the Health and Social Care Committee, and, I think, in terms of that, given the importance that this matter deserves, we will await, obviously, any conversation around that. But I think it is right at this point, then, in regard to the Government taking all of the actions that Peter has taken on board, and moving them forward, I think it's right that we do close this petition at this stage and thank the petitioner, Nathan Lee Davies, for a very important petition, which has sponsored many actions. So, I'd like to thank him very much for that.

I think, if there are no further comments, I'd like to close today's business. Items to note: on Wednesday there is a Plenary debate on petition P-06-1455, 'Protect the junior departments of the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama from closure', and then there will also be the election of the permanent Chair to be confirmed. Our next meeting is 30 September. I'd like to say 'thank you very much' for the contributions from the Members present at this committee today. Diolch yn fawr.