National Assembly for Wales

I apologise that we've started late. We did have some technical issues at the beginning.

I'd just like to welcome everyone to this hybrid meeting of the Petitions Committee. As a reminder, this meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual.

Today we have an evidence session, and it's regarding the inquiry into petition P-06-1510, 'Direct NRW to revoke the environmental permit and ensure the closure of Enovert’s, Hafod Landfill Site in Wrexham'. We have two panels this afternoon, and the first panel is Wrexham County Borough Council and Natural Resources Wales. Thank you for attending today. If you could introduce yourselves. I'll just call you by your first name and then if you could introduce yourself and who you're representing, please. So, Charlie first.

Hello. My name is Charlie Pope. I'm a senior minerals and waste planning officer with the north Wales minerals and waste planning service.

Thank you, Charlie. And Sara.

Hello, all. I'm Sara Pearson. I'm the operations manager for north-east Wales for NRW.

Thank you. James.

Hi, all. I'm James McClymont. I'm a senior advisor at Natural Resources Wales.

Thank you. And Hugh.

Lead member for community safety and planning.

Diolch, Hugh. Matthew.

Hi. I'm Matthew Phillips. I'm the head of the development management service in the planning team at Wrexham County Borough Council.

And I can't read the final name.

Toby.

Toby—thank you, Toby. And Toby, who are you representing? And your job title, please.

Yes. Toby Zorn. I'm the team lead for environmental health and housing standards within public protection at Wrexham council.

Thank you and welcome. I should have said at the beginning that we do have two apologies from Luke Fletcher and Vaughan Gething, who aren't able to attend today.

So, we will go on to our first set of questions. I'm just going to ask you some questions about the background to the inquiry. Could you briefly outline your regulatory roles in relation to Hafod landfill? We'll go to NRW first, then. Any response?

Yes. James McClymont. So, Natural Resources Wales regulate Hafod landfill under environmental permit PP3139GB—so, under the environmental permitting regulations.

Okay, thank you. And also from the council as well; could you tell me about any regulatory roles that you have? Toby.

Can you hear me okay?

I can, yes. Thank you.

Our regulatory responsibility is with regard to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, statutory nuisance. Obviously, in this case, it would be odour and perhaps smoke as well.

Okay, thank you. And Charlie, with the minerals and waste planning service, do you have a regulatory role as well?

Yes, sure. So, the north Wales minerals and waste planning service carry out programmed monitoring visits for Hafod on behalf of Wrexham County Borough Council. The role is within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, I think chargeable under regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act. So, I'm responsible for going out, monitoring the site in terms of the planning permission and the conditions attached to that planning permission. So, just to be clear, for the avoidance of doubt: there aren't any conditions on that planning permission that specifically relate to odour. However, mud on the road and other aspects like that, it's my role to enforce conditions related to that planning permission on that. Also, within that role, I attend the liaison group meeting that occurs, I think three to four times a year, to the community as well as Enovert.

Okay, thank you. And to NRW now: what are the conditions that Enovert need to uphold as part of the environmental permit in relation to air quality and public health?

So, the permit includes a condition that requires the operator to prevent odour offsite, or where that isn't possible, to keep it to a minimum. And so the operator will describe how it will achieve this in a document called an 'odour management plan', which must be kept up to date, and each revision is assessed by Natural Resources Wales officers to ensure that it covers key areas of operations in relation to odour management.

Okay. Do you believe that the conditions are proportionate, and are there any circumstances under which you would be able to or would consider altering these conditions?

The conditions are standard across all landfills in the UK as part of the environmental permitting regulations. So, we can revise a permit, but we wouldn't necessarily revise a permit condition that is a standard condition across landfills in the UK.

Okay.

So, as it stands, the condition is as it needs to be.

Okay. So, what actions are Enovert required to take as part of its odour management plan? To NRW again please, to James or Sarah.

Yes. Just a second. So, the odour management plan needs to be kept up to date, as I said, but our officers would assess compliance with that odour condition by verifying the presence, type and intensity of odour in the vicinity of the permitted site, and identify whether the site is the likely source of odour and, if proven, going on to site to determine the cause of any odour and whether the operator's taking appropriate measures to control that odour.

Okay. So, the plan describes how Enovert will keep odours to a minimum, but if there are any changes it must be approved by NRW officers; so, there could be changes.

That's correct, yes, and it would cover various elements of site management, so including gas infrastructure on the site, all of their monitoring requirements as part of the permit, any offsite monitoring that they need to do in terms of the odour management plan, and they'd also need to do their own odour investigations when we get odour complaints regarding the site.

Okay. If we move on to our next set of questions about landfill gas, and Rhys.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I think this next question is probably appropriate for NRW, for either James or Sarah, but Wrexham, if you feel you have something to contribute, please say something. I do apologise that these questions seem a bit silly, but I know nothing about landfill sites, so that's my starting position.

So, my first question would be: are bad odours inevitable in a landfill site?

So, landfill gas—sorry, I've got a bit of feedback there—landfill gas contains predominantly methane gas. Approximately 65 per cent of landfill gas is methane, and the other proportion is carbon dioxide, which is 35 per cent, but both methane and carbon dioxide are not odorous gases. So, there is typically another range of compounds that are relatively low concentrations within landfill gas that we call trace gases. The trace gases contain substances that cause landfill gas to be odorous, so those include hydrogen sulphide, which is a trace gas that causes the rotten egg smell, and then it can be smelled at much lower concentrations than levels that could potentially cause harm. It's these trace gases that are the odorous component of landfill gas. 

So, is it inevitable, the bad smell?

If landfill gas escapes a landfill site, then it would normally be detectable in the odorous range. So, the key is to maintain gas control so that landfill gas doesn't escape the site. But in an open landfill site setting, obviously, it depends on the management. Sometimes it can be difficult to keep all of the landfill gas maintained within the site, and that's where the appropriate measures come in in terms of capping and landfill gas infrastructure, and the sealing of landfill gas infrastructure.

Just be clear: you could have a landfill site without bad odours, is that correct?

I don't know whether that would be the case at any landfill, actually. Most landfills will have an odour. It's trying to minimise the emissions that cause that odour that is the key to management.

Thank you very much. And what are these trace gases? What causes these trace gases?

So, the trace gases are caused in the same way as the methane and carbon dioxide, and it's from the breakdown of biodegradable waste. It depends on the mixture of wastes that were put into the landfill and it depends on the volume of the trace gases and what constituents there are.

So, by way of mitigation, when would you start the mitigation, when the rubbish arrives at the landfill site, do you just decide what arrives there, or does the mitigation then start after it's there? How do you mitigate these bad odours?

There are several methods. So, a landfill has a contained cell where the landfill waste is deposited. As it's deposited, it should be covered with a layer of cover material every day, so they cover the fresh waste, and then, as the waste breaks down, it starts creating the landfill gas. So, that's through the biological reaction, and the microbes break down the waste matter and that causes the gases.

To mitigate that, you start putting gas wells into the waste, which then, by extraction, remove the gas from those areas of waste through pipelines. At Hafod landfill, those pipelines lead to a landfill gas engine, which burns the gas and generates electricity. If it can't be directed to the engine, if the engine's offline, it will go to a flare that will burn off the methane gas. So, the mitigation starts as soon as the landfill gas is generated within the waste, using the gas wells. But also, once the waste has reached a certain height, you would then temporarily cap that waste. So, you'd put a clay layer on top of the waste to try and mitigate any fugitive emissions of landfill gas from that waste area.

Once there's been a temporary cap in place for over six months, we would then require that the operator puts a permanent cap in place, which would be a geosynthetic textile layer that effectively seals the waste, and then more gas wells could be put in to further depths to extract the landfill gas.

So, the gas wells and the cap, those are the two main areas of mitigation with regard to nuisance odours.

That's correct, yes.

Are you satisfied that has been done correctly in the Hafod landfill site?

In October 2023, when we started getting a rise in complaints, we attended the site and we did find that there were areas that needed improvement. So, we actually issued an enforcement notice, which required the operator to undertake certain actions, and part of that was to increase the temporary capping at the site and to look at adding new gas wells to extract the gas. At that point, we gave them a long list of actions that we wanted to see in terms of extra gas management, and the operator complied with that.

We went back the following January to check that they'd completed those actions, and they had completed all of the actions we required on that enforcement notice. If they hadn't undertaken those tasks, then it would have led to a prosecution, because they would have failed on the enforcement notice. Since that point, we've been inspecting the site on a regular basis, so we've undertaken 16 direct onsite inspections since November 2023. Ordinarily, for a site with poor management, we would visit at least four times a year, so we've actually gone over and above in terms of our visits to the site, to keep track of the actions as we've been asking them to put more actions in place.

And when was the last visit?

So, we actually went earlier this week to check the site, and we found that we were satisfied with the mitigation that's in place at the moment. We detected there is one area of odour, which we detect quite often, on an adjacent road to Hafod landfill site. There are no residents living in that area; it's a road directly adjacent to the site. So, there are still some offsite odours that we detect at that location, but we haven't detected any in the communities of Johnstown and Ruabon on our recent inspections of the area.

Both NRW and Wrexham have mentioned a decline in the number of complaints. From your point of view, is that because of the mitigating factors that have been put in place after the enforcement notice?

Yes. We believe that since the enforcement notice and a subsequent landfill gas audit that we completed in November 2024, which cited several further actions for the operator, and since January 2025, when we had 240 complaints in one month, we are now down to 22 complaints to date during September. So, there has been a definite decrease in complaint numbers. It's definitely encouraging to see that decreasing trend following regulatory actions, but we recognise that there are still odours being experienced in the community. And there are certainly further management works and actions that can be completed by the operator, and there are action plans for enhanced landfill gas management and enhanced leachate management, which I'm sure the operator will go through with you at the next session.

Because we've heard evidence or we've read evidence from members of the public that they believe there's a link between rainfall and the nuisance odours at the landfill site. They are of the view that perhaps the warm summer, the dry summer we've had has led to a decline in the complaints, because the lack of rain has led to the bad odours not being so obvious. Do you see any merit in that argument at all?

We have got complaints data running back to 2007, and there isn't evidence in that data to suggest that odours are particularly worse in the winter months. So, it doesn't appear that that has an impact, although there is a link potentially between leachate levels and fugitive emissions of odour. And that's why we are progressing those leachate action plans and we're asking the operator to focus on leachate management, so that we can eliminate that as a source of those odours.

Thank you. I know my colleague Joel James wants to come in as well. Just before that, can I just have one follow-up, because I should have asked beforehand? You visited last week; when is the next inspection due? 

I should say that those inspections are the onsite inspections. We also undertake visits to the locality when we don't necessarily go onsite; we'll go to the local communities to do our individual odour assessments. Since October 2023, we've almost been on a weekly basis to Johnstown and Ruabon to do our odour rounds and assessments. We also respond directly to odour incident reports from the public, so they can be quite ad hoc. But at the moment we've been attending on a fairly regular basis—so, at least, normally, once a week. 

And that will continue.

Yes. 

For how long? Can you foresee how long that will continue? 

It will depend on odour incident numbers. So, if there is a requirement for us to visit, then obviously we will continue visiting. As I said earlier, with a poor performing site, we would usually recommend that we'd visit at least four times a year to do an inspection, but with a site where we've got active actions in place we do go more regularly to check that those actions are being completed. 

Thank you very much. 

Joel, do you want to come in? 

Thank you, Chair. It was just to come back on the responses you said there—is it James; I can't really see the writing, sorry—

Yes, it's James. 

—about the enforcement action you took in December 2023, and you mentioned then that there was a further audit in 2024, that highlighted a few issues. Can I just get a better idea of what sorts of issues those were? You've also mentioned that Enovert were working through several actions that you identified that would address issues at the site. I just wanted to get a clearer picture of them. And so, my final question on this would be about—. In the past, you've mentioned about taking action about concerns about leaching on the site—leachate is it; how they say it—and I just wanted to get a better idea of what sorts of actions those could be to try and tackle that, really. Perfect. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you, Joel. If you'd like to respond, please.

Sorry. My screen froze then. Can you still hear me?

I can, yes. Thank you. 

Okay. Yes, good. So, the audit in October/November 2024 was by—. We've got a specialist team at NRW that's a Wales-wide team called the landfill emissions reduction project team, and they visit all of our landfill sites. So, they've been visiting them over the last two years, and so we invited them to come to Hafod to do an in-depth audit and also a bit of a consistency check against the management of the other landfill sites in Wales. So, that audit found that there were further landfill gas and leachate management actions that could be taken, based on that kind of consistency of view across other landfills that that team had visited within the previous year.

Sorry, when did you say that happened, James? When did they visit, sorry?

So, that was in October 2024.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry, was there anything else before I interrupted then? You were saying that there are further actions that can be taken.

It was November 2024, sorry, just to confirm that date. Yes, so, there are two action plans in place at the moment, and we receive updates from the operator regularly about where they're up to with their action plans. So, the landfill gas action plan has numerous actions that they're working through. I can give a few quick examples of those. So, in terms of landfill gas, it's a regular programme of reviewing new gas infrastructure, installation of new gas collection mains, installation of new gas wells in closed areas of the site. They look at—review—previous reports and data, review and monitor gas pressure, so there are quite technical lists of things that they are progressing with. But I think they boil down to the two control measures that we've mentioned earlier, in terms of capping and landfill gas extraction infrastructure. And sometimes those things need repairing and they need to revisit areas that have already been capped to make sure that they're still fit for purpose and that there are no issues with those previously installed mitigation measures.

In terms of leachate management, they are carrying on with permanent capping. So, they've got plans to install another 5,000 sq m of capping at the site. They are looking to install a fully automated pumping system to abstract leachate from some of the more active cells. They've undertaken a closed-circuit television camera survey on existing leachate infrastructure to make sure that those leachate wells are working as they should be. And they are reviewing their leachate management plan, which is something that they are required to have as part of their environmental permit, and outlining progress towards meeting their permitted leachate levels at the site.

Okay, thank you. Would you like to return to the questions?

Thank you, Cadeirydd. One more to NRW—I know you're doing a lot of answering of the questions at the moment. I was just interested to read the Wrexham council submission, where it said that its officers were responsible for investigating what was most appropriate—the appropriate technology for air quality assessment. Would you, as NRW, usually have air quality assessments at a landfill site?

The environmental permit doesn't require offsite air quality monitoring, but, obviously, we've been supporting Wrexham and Public Health Wales in the installation of the air quality monitoring stations that they've put into the community. Although those monitoring points do not have permitted limits, we're still very much involved in those discussions and looking at the thresholds, to which Public Health Wales have inputted, in terms of a nuisance level and whether there's any harm to human health at higher levels. So, although it's not a requirement of the environmental permit, NRW have been involved with Wrexham council and Public Health Wales in determining the best locations for that monitoring.

And that's because of the complaints, then—it wouldn't be an automatic thing you do.

No, it would be something that we would—. We're always in correspondence with Wrexham council, so it may be something that we would enact, even if we weren't getting complaints. If we were finding that there were odours within the local community, we would, potentially, still enact that, but through Wrexham, through the local council. It wouldn't be NRW that would lead on the air quality monitoring.

Okay, thank you, James. Can I turn to Wrexham now? I'm going to ask about the monitoring stations around and within Hafod landfill. I was interested in your comment in your submission that your data collection is qualitative rather than quantitative. I just wanted to know: why have you taken that approach?

Yes, that was something that we were advised on by the actual manufacturers. Essentially, it's not a reference-standard monitoring kit, which costs thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds; in fact, a lot higher than that—perhaps £10,000 to £20,000. So, it just gives a general idea—a bit more than that, because it does detect down to a very low level, but it isn't to the same standard as a reference standard.

So, cost was an issue, then, in making that decision—is that correct?

Yes, it would be, yes.

Can you determine, then, from the data whether the thresholds, the safe exposure thresholds, have been exceeded or not?

Yes, we could determine from that. The level that we used initially when it was first installed was 4.7 parts per billion. That was an odour threshold, so the threshold when 50 per cent of a population would be able to discern the odour, essentially, but that also means, again, that 50 per cent wouldn’t be able to as well. So—

Fine, and would you—? Sorry.

Sorry, go on.

Would you be able to determine where the odours come from, because I've read some suggestion that it might be agricultural odours involved? Could these monitoring systems tell you where the odour comes from?

You couldn't tell definitively. However, one of the ones on the Hafod site does have an ultrasonic wind direction and speed monitor. So, that would be able to tell you the direction that the odours are emanating from, for want of a better expression. So, from that, you may be able to—. It wouldn't necessarily be definitive, but you would certainly be able to have an educated estimate as to where that was coming from. So, obviously, if you're getting a high odour level in the west of the site and there's a strong easterly wind, then it would be not definitive, but quite clear indicating that the site would be the most likely cause.

You mentioned cost earlier; who's responsible for these monitoring stations and who pays for them and collects the data?

It was a split cost. It was myself who did the initial research and contacted Enovert. Enovert offered to pay for the four monitors that you may have seen in the report on the Hafod site, essentially to cover all possible wind directions. The local authority, the team that I lead, paid for and installed and maintain the Johnstown Community Centre monitor. We're also installing—in the next, hopefully, maximum, two weeks—another one in the Nant Parc area of Johnstown, the bowling green.

I've found the note you're referring to, Rhys. In a submission to the committee's inquiry, a local resident says that NRW and Enovert often tell residents

'that the odours are agricultural in nature or they have been caused not by the landfill, but by any one of a number of factories on the nearby Vauxhall Industrial Estate.'

You said that the monitors can show, in some ways, the wind direction, so they can tell, roughly, where it's coming from.

Yes. Obviously, in that case, we're talking north of the site, so if you had a—. No, sorry, it's south of the site. So, if you had a southerly wind, which was not blowing over Hafod, then that may indicate that there's another source, perhaps the Vauxhall site.

Okay.

So, the monitoring costs are split between you and Enovert, not NRW at all. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And who collects the data?

Well, it's collected remotely, and it's held on the servers of the company, AQMesh. Obviously, we can access that data for the community centre, and obviously Enovert will access the same data but for their four pots. We do also share data on request as well.

Fine. So, you can see the data from those four monitoring sites?

Five, in total.

Five, sorry.

Soon to be six.

So, you're not concerned about any potential conflict with regard to Enovert collecting the data and having ownership of the data.

Well, the data is submitted directly to the air quality consultants. Admittedly, it is themselves that engage those consultants, at their cost, but it isn't, if you like, submitted via them. It's submitted directly to the consultants.

And just quickly, because I know we're running out of time, what has the data shown thus far? You've mentioned some evidence about—. You've mentioned about the wind, but what have you read from the data up to now?

It's indicated that there have, on some occasions, been breaches of the odour threshold, but absolutely nothing on any health indication standards. For instance, the World Health Organization standard for 24 hours, which is 150 parts per billion of hydrogen sulphide, we've never been anywhere near that standard.

And will you make that data available to the campaigners and the local community?

That is our intention. There's currently a calibration exercise that involves Enovert, ourselves, the consultants and AQMesh. The idea of that is to have a gold-standard pod that will be running and installed on the Hafod site, and all the other pods can be calibrated against that, so that would massively increase the reliability of the data.

Any idea when that data will be available to the local community? Are we talking about this side of Christmas, or the next side of Christmas? Any brief idea when? 

I don't, unfortunately, because that exercise is currently under way, and I don't know what the outcomes of that are as yet. So, there could be something that comes up that means we have to do a lot of extra work, to make clear sense of the data, or it could be, 'Right we're ready to go', and we would be able to make that data clearly available.

Thank you very much, Toby. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Thank you, Rhys. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. It was just a couple of questions I had on the broad themes of community engagement, really. We've seen from the evidence—and I think I'm correct—that there's a Hafod stakeholder group that's been set up, but I'm conscious that residents aren't involved in that. And I was just wondering about the rationale behind that, and if there were plans in future to bring them on. Because one of the concerns that I have—and I suppose I speak as a former councillor—is it's quite easy to lose the trust of the community in situations like this, where they all talk about brown envelopes or that the decision's already been made before it's been made. I was just wondering if you're worried that you might lose the trust here of the community, and what steps could you take to try and regain it, I suppose. Thank you.

Can I answer that? The stakeholder group is a new organisational set-up. There has been in place for many, many years, well before I even was employed by Wrexham council, a Hafod liaison group, and there are a number of local residents that sit on that, along with the local councillors as well—that is, the admin et cetera. It's attended by Enovert as well, attended by ourselves, by Charlie, as she as she previously indicated, and also NRW. That direct information has been there, to the best of my knowledge, for well over 10 years. The stakeholder group has had two meetings so far. The idea of that is that it's a high-level group, if you like, which would be informed by one of many areas of information, and also by the liaison group as well.

Thank you. With that, then, you'd be confident that you're bringing residents with you, as they say, when looking at monitoring the landfill site, so they're fully kept up to date. I'm conscious of situations in our areas. I look at Craig-yr-Hesg quarry. There are concerns there from residents that they're not being kept in the loop of what the council is doing. You're pretty confident that residents won't have that to say about Wrexham, I suppose.

Obviously, there will always be concerns, and we try to address those concerns as much as we possibly can. In addition to the stakeholder group—well, mainly the Hafod liaison group—NRW also has a citizens' webpage, where there are reports et cetera, and that's freely accessible to anyone, there's no login or anything like that. Obviously, my colleagues in NRW know the detail on that, but certainly that's something that I'm aware of, and obviously we're in in regular contact with local councillors and the leader of the council as well with regard to this matter, and obviously Councillor Hugh Jones as well, who represents our department.

I could add a little bit from NRW's perspective—

Sorry, could I just, Chair, respond to that?

Yes, please. Hugh first.

Obviously, as chair of the landfill stakeholder group, I think, in terms of the terms of reference, the first term of reference is to ensure that all partners and stakeholders work together to address community concerns. So, we are focused on community concerns. And if I give you an indication of the membership, I think it answers the question in terms of our involvement with the local community. Apart from myself as chair, there are the local members for Pant and Johnstown, the local member for Ruabon, the chair of Ruabon Community Council, the chair of Rhos Community Council, representatives of Enovert, the constituency Member of the Senedd for Clwyd South and the Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr. So, there is a very local focus to the stakeholder group, albeit it is a strategic group, because we have the liaison group.

In addition to that, the local members are constantly raising issues as a result of local member involvement. We have the stakeholder group established, and also the scrutiny committee continues to work on this issue. So, there is a real understanding of the need to liaise with the local community, and I think by demonstrating the objectives and the membership of the committee, that shows our commitment to the local community. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.

Thank you. Matthew—sorry, James, did you want to come in first, and then Charlie?

Yes, just briefly on the citizen space webpage for the local community, we update that with regular updates with regard to our management or our regulatory work at Hafod landfill site, and there's also an opportunity via that page for residents to sign up to a newsletter that goes directly to e-mail addresses with updates about our regulation and actions taken by Enovert. As mentioned, NRW attend the liaison group meetings with local residents, so there's quite a lot of community liaison work, over and above the norm for our regulated sites.

Okay, thank you. And Charlie. 

Yes, okay, hello. Just to add on to that about the liaison group meeting that I'm a participant of—as are a few people in this room as well—the last one was actually last Tuesday, 16 September, and the one prior to that was 17 June 2025. In attendance at that—as I said, I always attend, and usually someone from Wrexham public protection, two representatives from NRW, and three councillors on behalf of Wrexham council, two on behalf of Enovert, and then we have two residents on behalf of the Rhos Community Council. A stand-alone resident also attends, as do two people considered as Hafod environmental group. So, just to be clear in that, I suppose you would suggest that maybe one third at least would be less elected and more just community members. Certainly, we've never had a restriction on whether people did want to join or participate in it. But the stakeholder group, as I understand it, was set up as a stand-alone that was specifically to address other issues.

Okay, thank you for that, Charlie. It's good to hear that residents themselves can join that and speak out as well. Could I go back and ask a question about enforcement to Wrexham council, please? You described your enforcement powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under what circumstances would you consider exercising these powers of enforcement?

Yes, we do have the power to serve an abatement notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act from specific nuisances, which are outlined in section 79 of the same Act. To determine a statutory nuisance, you must look at the frequency, i.e. how often it happens and the level of the nuisance—obviously, the level of odour in this circumstance—are probably the two main areas. To determine that, if we are satisfied in law that there is a statutory nuisance, then we can serve notice.

Now, however, the problem that arises there is if the—. At the point of serving a notice, we have to specify what works are required to abate the nuisance. Now, if that work is already under way, then there wouldn't be anything further that we have to add to that. In addition, we wouldn't be able to take any further legal action, i.e. prosecution for non-compliance, without the express permission of the Secretary of State, because the enforcing authority, if you like, the permitting authority, is NRW in this case, and part of the function, as described by James, is the odour side of things as well.

Thank you. Are there any more questions? Yes, Joel.

Sorry, just one final question. I know last year—and apologies if you've already touched upon it—if I remember rightly, there was a notice of motion passed by the council about doing a community concerns assessment, or something like that. I just wanted to know if that's started and what's been discovered so far, if that makes sense?

No, that hasn't been started as yet, because, obviously, we're still at the data collection stage, and we also need to take on board the comments, specifically from NRW and Public Health Wales.

Okay. Is that the end of questions? Thank you. I'd like to just thank you all for attending today. There will be a transcript of the session that will be shared with you, and that should be checked for accuracy. Thank you for attending. We are going to take a short break now before we start our next panel, which will be with Enovert. Thank you.

Thank you. 

Thank you. 

We are returning back to the committee inquiry into Hafod landfill site. We now have questions to our second panel, who are Enovert. If you would like to introduce yourselves, please. If we start with Ian.

My name's Ian Craven. I'm the regional manager for Enovert North. One of my sites is the Hafod quarry landfill. I've been involved with the site since 2008, first as site manager, and more latterly as area manager, and now regional manager.

Thank you. And Mark, please.

I'm Mark Silvester, chief executive officer of Enovert. I've been with the business for 20 years, or thereabouts. I look after all of our operations, including those at Hafod, as part of Enovert North Ltd.

Okay. Thank you. I'm going to start the questions, with just a bit of background, please. So, can you describe your approach to engaging with Natural Resources Wales and with Wrexham County Borough Council?

Sure. Obviously, with NRW being the environmental regulator for the site, we do have quite detailed engagement with them, in a regulatory capacity, both in terms of their site visits and inspections, and wider discussions around the performance of the site in that regulatory environment. Similarly, with Wrexham as well, who, as well as being the planning authority, are also—. We have engagement with them in respect of environmental public health matters as well.

Okay. Thank you. How would you describe your relationship with the community around Hafod landfill? Do you think that you need to do more to build trust in the local community?

Yes, I certainly think, given recent criticism of the site coming through—odour complaints—and also through various media coverage and contact directly with the public, I think it's clear that any further engagement with members of the public, communities around the site, could only be of benefit to us and the community.

Could you tell us what kind of waste material is disposed at Hafod landfill?

Sure, yes. We take solid waste only. We take non-hazardous biodegradable material. So, they could typically be anything from waste plastics, transfer station material that's been pre-sorted, or material coming to site from those facilities, and all pre-sorted. We do accept some material that are classed as 'LOI fine'—so, again, material that's been segregated from various waste streams. But it's largely a mix of industrial, commercial waste that we accept.

So, it's not usually municipal waste, then?

No, we don't take any municipal waste directly. But, as you're perhaps aware, we do take material when their incinerators shut down. So, the site effectively acts as a contingency for when energy-from-waste plants may go offline. Or, if there's a problem in that supply chain into the EFW plants, then waste may be diverted to us, not directly from the local authority, but maybe through one of their contractors, for example.

Okay. One of the conversation points is where is the waste coming from. Enovert's data shows that 54 per cent of waste disposed at Hafod's landfill in 2024 came from England, with the remaining 46 per cent coming from Wales. So, how does this compare to earlier years?

It's very typical. So, that split is broadly typical year on year. What will make a difference is the downtime on the waste-to-energy plants, for example, because those tonnages can be significant, if diverted. So, it can impact the overall percentage split at the year end.

So, just for clarity, normally the municipal waste, or the black bin waste, that can't be recycled ends up at the energy-from-waste facility, except for Wrexham's, and it's only when it has downtime, which is rarely, I believe, in that county.

Yes. We don't take any material from Wrexham themselves. I believe their material goes into Yorkshire for incineration. So, the material we would take would be typically from the border counties, border authorities, to Wrexham.

Okay. Thank you very much. If we move on to Rhys now.

Is there any reason why that is the case? Why does Wrexham go to Yorkshire to dispose of their waste, rather than use landfill on its doorstep?

I suppose the main difference is—. Obviously, we're a landfill site, and the facility that takes that waste is waste to energy, and I think it's just an example of where there is capacity to accept that material and at a price that works, when that contract would have been procured. But, obviously, that's really outside of Enovert's remit.

Okay. That's very interesting.

North Wales authorities work together, except for Wrexham, who have their own—.

Wrexham's the outlier. Thank you.

A long time ago.

Thank you, Cadeirydd. Now, we've read and we've heard about your odour management plan. We've read about it and we've heard about it. I was pleased to hear you saying that more public engagement can only be a good thing, because when the public think that decisions are done behind closed doors or when they feel excluded, we can reach this problem. Now, are there any plans to publish that plan to the public?

I don't think there are plans to publish the odour management plan, but we have committed to publishing the data from the current assessment work that's being done, and sharing that. Obviously, we provide that to the Senedd in evidence, and I believe that's been published.

Thank you for that, and we've asked Wrexham council about the data. But is there any particular reason why you wouldn't publish the plan?

Like I said, it's just that we hadn't planned to publish it. There's no issue with doing that. The document's a pretty standard form.

Okay. Thank you for that.

The odour management plan is actually on the public register, because it is a document as part of the environmental permit for the site. So, that is available. 

If I wanted to read it, I would be able to find it.

Yes. It should be available.

Thanks for that.

It's something that Enovert will have, in the past, submitted to NRW for approval, which was the case back in 2023, yes.

Thank you for that clarification, Ian. I was interested to hear how you measure progress when it comes to the plan.

The plan is reviewed every couple of years, and that will be based on what's happened in the intervening period. So, of course, on the things that Enovert have done in conjunction with public protection and NRW, one of the things is the onsite odour monitoring and offsite odour monitoring. That's something that will probably be detailed within the plan in the future.

Okay. Are there any specific measures in the plan on how you assess progress?

I would say not within that plan; it's more the action plans that we continually provide to NRW. We have landfill gas management plans that are regularly updated and reported upon in various formats.

Moving on, we've heard from NRW about mitigation factors at the landfill site to try and mitigate the bad odour. They talked about gas wells at the site. What else do you do to minimise the emissions?

So, just generally, in terms of odours and accepting that odours can be from landfill gas and/or the waste operations directly themselves, in terms of waste disposal, we identify at the pre-assessment stage any malodorous materials. Those would typically be treated to deep burial and ensuring that they're covered at the end of each working day. And more broadly, in terms of landfill gas, we obviously have the landfill gas collection system, which is the series of wells that we install once there's a suitable depth of waste to put those in. So, they're typically vertical wells retrospectively drilled into the waste, but also, ahead of being able to install those wells, we would also install horizontal collection. So, the horizontal collection can be installed in much shallower bodies of waste. So, it allows us to abstract gas much earlier on than waiting to put in the deep wells.

We also use what's classed as intermediate cover. So, in areas where we may be operating—for example, as each lift of waste comes around, it may take a number of weeks to come back over that—we would use layers of very low permeability material to reduce the risk of odour emissions. Temporary capping—so, on those flanks or areas of site that can't be permanently capped because they've not reached the finished operating levels, we would install temporary capping either as a plastic or a mineral cap, so using clay. And then, obviously, there are the permanent capping works as well.

There we are, just as NRW told us. So, what have been the main issues in the past, then, and what steps have you taken to deal with those?

The main issues in respect of gas control? Sorry, I couldn't hear you then. Sorry.

Well, the bad odour, really. What's been the main issue causing that in the past and what specific steps have you taken to mitigate that? 

Historically, the sites had quite low numbers of odour complaints, and certainly our experience onsite has tallied with that. There seemed to be a peak in late 2023. Some of our works were delayed slightly by weather. It was particularly challenging onsite to install some of the capping and drilling works. So, I think some of that led into the onset of the odour complaint period at the very beginning. In order to mitigate that, we have tried to bring works forward, so ahead of schedule. So, increasing temporary capping, and rather than installing mineral capping, which is highly weather dependent, we've turned to using plastic capping, which can be deployed in a much wider range of weather conditions—installing that throughout the recent years.

So, you're saying you're taking active steps not to get into the same position you were in back in 2023.

Yes, we have done. And whilst NRW have been involved at the site and they've increased their inspections of the site generally, taking a much more proactive approach, I think, in reaction to complaints that they have received, we've never waited for NRW to come to Enovert to say that we need to undertake actions. We have generally been very proactive in providing those action plans ahead of time, and, quite often, when NRW have then written the compliance assessment report forms, we've actually, usually, already developed the action plan.

So, I think the other point I would make around that is that the landfill tends to operate in a cyclic manner, in that some of the works that we undertake are seasonal, and we can only undertake those seasonally, but equally we can only undertake them at certain times. For example, permanent capping works would typically only be completed once the site had reached its final fill levels. So, there are some timings that have to be represented in the work plans that we provide.

Thank you for that, but—

[Inaudible.]—the compliance notice that was issued in December 2023, so it could have been because you were late capping. 

Residents suggest that the odour issues are linked to rainfall, but in the previous session, they said it wasn't, so I just wondered why they seemed to think that. I think it's because we had an unusually dry spring and summer, and then when we had the rain, the odours appeared to get stronger. So, just your views on that, please.

I don't think we've particularly noticed that on the operational site. We obviously have been collecting data, both at the site boundary and in the community in terms of hydrogen sulphide emissions. For many years, obviously, we've had an operational weather station on the landfill site, so it certainly wouldn't be hard to actually do a comparison of the two data sets against the weather conditions, to see if there are any patterns. I'm quite happy to do that.

Thank you. Rhys.

Thank you. Following on from that question, in your helpful submission you had the graph showing the slight decrease in the quantity of gas being processed at Hafod landfill, particularly since spring 2025. I'm just wondering what's the reason for that. Is there any particular reason for that decline, which has increased since the spring of this year?

There's always some natural decline in areas of the capped site, just because the gas resource is dwindling over time. So, I think it generally reflects that trend, but of course we're landfilling ahead of that, so over time, very broadly, we're actually maintaining pretty flatline extraction, in terms of extraction rate from site. We have trialled with trying to pull more gas, so pulling harder, in effect, on the gas system, and we find the point at which gas quality then drops off and is therefore technically classed as overextraction, which we're not permitted to do under the permit. So, yes, it is a fine balance and we do balance the gas field routinely on the Hafod site, to make sure that the extractions are maintained at optimum at all times.

In your answer to the Chair, when she questioned you about the increase in odour when there's an increase of rainfall, you said that that is something that you don't recognise in your trade. So, are you telling us there is no correlation between increased rainfall and an increase in bad odours being emitted from the site?

There's certainly no link between that and gas extraction. There's no reason why gas extraction would be impacted by rainfall, particularly instantaneously; if it started raining, we wouldn't expect any impact on the gas system. I suppose from a waste odour perspective, it could be influenced, much like rainfall falling on a manure pile or something else. I suspect that does have the same influence. But certainly from a landfill gas perspective, I would say there is no link. But like I said, we are collecting data for hydrogen sulphide. If people are reporting smelling landfill gas, then they're detecting hydrogen sulphide, and therefore with us collecting that data and having the weather database, it would be quite easy for us to see if there was any correlation.

Have you looked into that already, or is it too early to—?

No, we have not. 

When do you think you'll be able to look at that?

We could do that straight away. Like I said, we've been collecting data since March or April of this year, and so we could take the weather data for the same period and compare it to the results that we've seen on the diffusion tube monitoring and the AQMesh data that we're collecting.

Great. Thank you very much, Mark. I'll pass you back to the Cadeirydd.

Thank you. We'll move on to Joel now.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks ever so much for coming in online this afternoon. You mentioned that you've been collecting data now since March or April. I'm conscious you've provided us with that, but I just wondered if you could summarise yourselves what that data is showing you, if that makes sense.

Sure. We have two sets of monitoring devices being used. We consulted with Wrexham public protection in terms of which units to use. We have the AQMesh devices, which effectively monitor in real time. Whilst we've collected through from March, the data and the units require some calibration, and we've been required to collect a bank of data in order to allow the consultants to assess the performance.

One of those devices has gone off to undertake what's classed as a gold calibration. So it's being calibrated against other devices that are deployed elsewhere in the UK as part of our consultants' work in order to come back and verify the data at Hafod. That is taking us, admittedly, a little bit longer than we would like, because I appreciate that the public want to see the results of the monitoring.

But alongside that, the primary monitoring has been using the diffusion tubes. Those measure, to a health-based criterion, exposure over a period of time. That data has come back to show that all of the readings, when compared to the ATSDR/USEPA criteria, are below the relevant limits.

You mentioned there the short-term calibration and that you've had to send them off to be calibrated. I was just wondering if you've got any timescales for that. Because what I'm conscious of is that, in the report, especially with hydrogen sulphide—Geotechnology, you've mentioned that—the monthly average doesn't exceed safety levels, but there are pockets where, under short-term calibration or short-term assessment, they do. And obviously, there's concern there that that needs to be looked at. Obviously, if you're having issues with the calibration of the detectors, for want of a better word, that doesn't necessarily bring much confidence. I just wanted to get your views on that, if that's okay.

Sure. When Wrexham public health issued the initial data set, I think it was back in March or April, it was issued on the basis that it certainly wasn't to be relied upon, but there was some pressure, if I'm honest, to provide data externally before we'd actually had a chance to collect enough data to undertake the calibration. I think that that's why we found ourselves in the position where that data is being questioned. But, like I said, we have got a pod that's gone off for calibration currently. I expect that that will be due back within the next week or so and, again, we will ensure that the data and the remaining pods are then calibrated as soon as possible beyond that. 

Perfect. Thank you. Staying with data, there are two final questions that I have. With the transparency of that data, what steps are you taking to make that publicly available, not only to organisations but to members of the public who might want to request it, if that's okay? [Interruption.] Sorry, I meant three questions. Do you foresee that you'll publish all of the data or will there only be certain things that you think would be relevant to be published, if that makes sense?

In terms of publishing the data, I believe that NRW can't necessarily host the reporting, because it's not part of the requirements to report under the permit, but they have offered to allow a link on Citizen Space, which will mean that we can actually provide a link directly to the summary report data. In terms of what we report, the initial request to undertake that monitoring from the Wrexham environment and homes scrutiny committee was very much based around health impact assessment, and so we will be ensuring that the data that is reported can provide confidence in answering that question and provide data sufficient to give transparency on the conclusions that that draws. 

Perfect. The only final question I have, Chair, if that's okay: I'm conscious from the evidence we've had from Wrexham County Borough Council that Enovert is helping to meet some of the costs of this monitoring. I just wanted to get a better idea about that—the percentage costs there, if that's okay. Thank you.

We have four monitoring units based on the site. They're based within the permit boundary, at the boundary of the site, effectively at the four compass points, and currently there's a unit provided at the local community centre, offsite. Enovert pay for all of the monitoring that's within the site boundary, and then Wrexham are covering the cost of the hire of the unit that's at the community centre. Effectively the data from that pod is Wrexham's data and Wrexham supply that data through to us, so that there is at least some oversight of the community data. And equally, we share our data with Wrexham, so there's visibility of that.

Thank you, Chair.

In regard to your approach to monitoring, what criteria did you use to select Geotechnology as the organisation to analyse air quality data? Did you consult with NRW and Wrexham council regarding the process?

We certainly spoke with Wrexham and NRW around what we were intending to do. In terms of the selection of Geotechnology, we became aware that they were working elsewhere, undertaking similar monitoring on another landfill site in Wales, and so with that experience, we felt they were well placed to undertake the work.

Thank you. You said you installed additional monitoring stations around the landfill on the advice of Geotechnology. Why was this recommendation made, and do you believe the new data will allow for holistic assessment of exposure?

Geotechnology's recommendation was to install the diffusion tubes so that they could sit alongside the AQMesh monitoring, but also so that data can be reported against the ATSDR/EPA health criteria as well.

Wrexham council told us you're investigating the implementation of quantitative air quality monitoring data, in contrast with the qualitative data acquired by AQMesh pod devices.

Yes.

Can you just elaborate a little bit more about that—the difference and how it works?

The diffusion tubes provide an assessment of exposure over time. The tubes are exposed for a period of four weeks or thereabouts, and then the tubes are changed out. So, every four weeks, you can make an assessment of the total exposure during that period. The AQMesh data provides the real-time monitoring. I think it is in the report, so I hope I don't misquote this, but it takes a—. Ian actually may be able to clarify; can you just recall—? I think it takes a reading every minute and then records that every—

As an average, every 30 minutes.

Yes, so you get much more qualitative data from the AQMesh device.

Thank you. That's the last of the questions we've got, unless you can think of anything else. No. Thank you very much for taking part in this today. There will be transcript of the session that will be shared with you, and it should be checked for accuracy before we publish it. Thank you very much for taking part. We will take a short break now before we proceed with the rest of our Petitions Committee, looking at new petitions coming forward. Thank you very much.

Welcome back to the Petitions Committee. If we move on now to new petitions that have been received. So, this petition is P-06-1515, 'Urgent installation of CCTV at Porth Train Station and bridge'. The petition reads:

'Urgently request the installation of CCTV at Porth Train Station and the bridge that spans the train tracks. This area has increasingly become a hotspot for antisocial behavior, groups of individuals bullying and intimidating young children, passengers, and local residents. Reports have highlighted incidents of intimidation, substance abuse, vandalism to shops and the throwing of bricks at nearby properties. This is creating an unsafe environment for those who live, work, or travel in the vicinity.'

This was submitted by—have we got the petitioner's name here—Emma Cawston, with 255 signatures. Thank you. So, could I ask Joel to take us through this?

Thank you, Chair, and thanks ever so much for this. I'm quite conscious of the issues that residents are having, especially with Porth station. I know from the evidence that we've received from the Minister, the Minister has highlighted—or the Cabinet Secretary, I should say, has highlighted—the steps that the Welsh Government are taking to try and address funding to provide police community support officers, et cetera, and also highlighted that there are closed-circuit television cameras installed at Porth station. But I just wonder if we could contact Transport for Wales, just to get an idea of what the data they have is showing in terms of anti-social behaviour, because I think that would help in trying to get an overall picture here. Because I regularly see the social media posts about the station and, you know, residents are quite concerned by it.

Okay. That could be a step forward there. So, if we can get an up-to-date report from the British Transport Police. So, yes, the Cabinet Secretary says there are CCTV cameras there; there are no plans to upgrade them. And there are a number of measures being taken to address the petitioner's concerns. It appears that Transport for Wales are alive to concerns as well, and they've got their contractors, Silurian Security Services, who have established regular direct patrols of the station. Okay. If we write to the British Transport Police. Do we just want to keep it open for now, while we wait for the response before we close it? Okay.

So, if we move on to 4.2, P-06-1516, 'Enable Cardiff University to keep the Nursing degree course'.

'Cardiff University’s intention to cut the nursing degree programme is a huge loss to the future of nursing and the NHS. The loss in staff will have a significant impact on current students' studies. In 2023 Cardiff University's nursing programme ranked 1st in Wales and 5th in the UK. Cutting the course is not the solution nor is it in the best interest of healthcare in Wales. Nursing needs to be supported to be a viable degree option through improved student bursary funding.'

This was submitted by Cerys Flavey, with 7,589 signatures. Could I invite Rhys to discuss the petition?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Well, this gained a lot of coverage, and the petitioner and campaigners are to be congratulated that the university has reversed its—. Well, certainly, the consultation was to close the school, but it has not made the decision to close the nursing course at Cardiff University. Maybe the details are not available at the moment, but I think this will be scrutinised by both the health committee and the education committee. I don't think there's more that we as a committee can do on this except for, again, congratulating the petitioner, thanking her, and closing the petition.

Okay. Thank you. Joel, would you agree with that? Yes. Thank you. We were all concerned, weren't we, when we heard about that at the time? I think Welsh Government were surprised as well by that announcement, and worked with them to ensure that the nursing course is continued. So, yes, we thank the petitioner and we'll close the petition.

Petition 4.3, P-06-1517, 'Help Cardiff University to keep their Modern Languages degree courses'.

So, again:

'Cardiff University's Executive Board proposes to cut all Modern Languages degrees. Losing Modern Language provision at Cardiff will severely impact student recruitment, student life and degree possibilities, and ultimately will damage the University's reputation and international standing. It will also damage language learning in Wales, and any opportunity for Welsh people to study languages degrees in their capital city.'

This was submitted by Christie Margrave with 2,531 signatures. Rhys, again, can I invite you to speak?

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Like the last petition, things have moved on since the petition was submitted, perhaps not to the same degree as with the nursing course, but I know the culture committee is looking at this, and looking at perhaps some of the reasons why we've come to this position—why so few pupils are studying modern languages in schools at the moment. That's a big question, but perhaps not a question for us as a committee to grapple with. That is a matter for other committees in this place. So, again, I would thank the petitioner and close this petition.

Okay. Thank you. There was a concern raised with me about other universities, like Bangor, losing German as a degree as well. But the Children, Young People and Education Committee, I'm a member of that; they're looking at it as well as the culture committee. So, that's good. So, moving forward, Joel, do you agree?

Yes. Like you, Chair, it was worrying to learn of those languages that were going, and I've got to admit, I've got to declare an interest: I took advantage of Portuguese when I was going to the centre for lifelong learning at the university as well. So, it's a shame that that's no longer probably going to be taught there now.

Yes. Okay. So, moving on, we will close the petition as the other committees are taking this forward. Thank you.

Item 4.4, petition P-06-1519, 'Implement safety measures at the A477 Red Roses junction to reduce accidents and stop any fatalities'.

'The A477 from St Clears west into Pembrokeshire is a busy route used by local residents, holiday traffic, ferry traffic and deliveries throughout West Wales. The Red Roses junction is a 90 degree turn at the bottom of a hill with no slip road. You can take it at no more than 20mph, with trunk road traffic behind you travelling downhill at often 70mph, and no way to move off the main A477. It is frightening. We ask the Welsh Government to make this a safe junction before lives are lost.'

This was submitted by Victoria Mitchell with 554 signatures. Joel, could I invite you to speak?

Thank you, Chair. I'm conscious from the response we've had from the Cabinet Secretary that they have identified short-term safety measures that can be taken, and they have added those to a funding programme for 2025-26. But I know the petitioner has then raised further questions as a result, and I was just wondering if it's okay with the committee for us to go back and raise those directly with the Cabinet Secretary, to get maybe a longer term picture as well.

Okay. I noticed that, with the budget, they're looking at the transport grants changing as well to local areas. So, maybe there might be more funding available to do some work here. So, if we write back to the Cabinet Secretary with a response and just keep the petition open for now. Are you in agreement, Rhys, as well?

Yes, happy with that.

Okay, thank you. So, if we move on to 4.5, P-06-1520, 'Stop all foreign aid payments from the Welsh Government including to "Size of Wales"'.

'The Welsh Government has this year given £775,000 (up from £670,000 last year) to a Charity called Size of Wales, chaired by ex-First Minister Carwyn Jones.

'According to its annual report filed with the Charity Commission Size of Wales lists it spending to include:

'Securing indigenous land rights in Brazil & Kenya

'Building "ecosystem resilience" for orangutans in Indonesia

'Promoting gender work in Kenya and Peru

'Building a solar powered boat in Peru to enable Wampi people navigate the river'.

This was submitted by Robert Leggett with 1,423 signatures. Rhys, could you—? 

Thank you, Gadeirydd. Well, this is a topical issue at the moment, but we have received a detailed response from the Welsh Government, which clarifies how the money is spent. It's spent on lots of renewable work, and also with education work in this country, and I can attest to that, because last Friday I went to a presentation with Gwauncelyn Primary School, from, I think, Llanilltud Faerdref—Joel, near your patch—and it had been arranged by Size of Wales, to do with renewable work, and to make sure that the food they ate at school was sustainable. Now, it's clear from the Welsh Government response that they're not going to change their position. Of course, the electorate, in a few months' time, will have an opportunity to elect a new Government if they so wish, and it'll go to the electorate at that point. Therefore, I cannot see what else this committee can do other than to thank the petitioner and to close the petition.

Thank you. I was interested to hear about the project a while ago, where for every child born or adopted in Wales, one tree is planted here and one in Uganda—it's the Mbale project—and that the planting of trees on the equator, where growth rates are more than four times that of our own, brings benefit to the people of Wales as we attempt to fight the climate crisis on a global scale. And then the funding is reported here, that half the funding actually goes on the education of our young people here regarding climate change and being a globally aware citizen, which I guess is really important for our young people. Okay, so we'll close this petition.

Chair, can I just ask a couple of quick questions, if I may? As you know, in my previous shadow brief, I shadowed the Wales and Africa programme, and I was quite surprised to read here that the response has come from the social justice Cabinet Secretary, because it's within the remit now of the First Minister. I was just wondering why the First Minister hasn't responded, because one of the concerns I have, and I had them at the time, when it transferred from social justice to the responsibility of the First Minister, is that since then I think the ability to scrutinise that wider Wales and Africa programme has diminished, because I remember that there was always an oral statement coming to the Chamber, and also you had an opportunity to ask spokesperson's questions and that. But I think since it's been transferred to the First Minister, I'm failing to recollect anything coming into the Chamber about this. I was just wondering if it was possible to get some further information on that, really.

I suppose we could still close it and then ask just that question why it came from the Cabinet Secretary rather than the First Minister, and maybe raise some accountability questions.

Yes. That's one of the concerns I have, because there's a lot that I think needs—. I've seen the work that the charity does out in Uganda, and I've seen the communities it brings together for that. Obviously, there's always a wider discussion about international development, and whether that is really the responsibility of this institution, but as Rhys said, save that for the electorate next year, and they have been quite vocal about it. But I do think from a scrutiny point of view, I think more needs to be done on it, but I think there's an inability to be able to do that at the moment, when it sits within the remit of the First Minister.

That might help with making sure the right information is in the public as well, having that transparency and scrutiny and accountability.

Yes, definitely. It's an important point.

Okay. I sit on the committee that scrutinises the First Minister, but it's not something that's come up there. So, we'll close the petition, but ask those questions about why it's the First Minister and regarding accountability and scrutiny as well, and as it comes under the First Minister, so why the Minister for social justice has responded. Thank you.

If we move on now to 4.6, P-06-1531, 'Mandate Comprehensive and Specific Food Labelling to Support Dietary Needs and Allergies'.

'Imagine navigating daily life knowing that one wrong bite could jeopardise your health or the health of someone you love. For my son, and countless others worldwide, this is a constant reality. He has a severe allergy to potatoes—an ingredient that often hides behind vague terms like "starch" on food labels, and sometimes not labelled at all.'

This was submitted by Jessica Davies, with 308 signatures. Joel, could I bring you in?

Thank you, Chair. I've got to admit that I think that this is an extremely important petition. I can well sympathise with the petitioner's needs here. We meet the various charities that come here and hear the difficulties that residents have in trying to navigate that. I'm conscious of the role that the Food Standards Agency plays within this. Can we try and get some idea from them as to what their thinking is and what their future plans might be?

Yes, I think that that would be a good idea, and we'll keep the petition open while we do that. I've also noticed lately that Becky Gittins MP has been doing a lot of work in Westminster regarding allergies and really raising the issue about labelling. She's been looking at make-up, baby food and other things as well. So, perhaps we could also put the petitioner in touch with Becky. I think that, sometimes, if you're joining people up it helps, doesn't it, to raise the profile of all of these issues to do with allergies. Potatoes, starches—it's not something I've come across before and it might help if she also speaks with Becky Gittins and adds it to the list of what they're looking at at Westminster. So, if we highlight the petition with the Food Standards Agency and we could write to Becky Gittins and the petitioner and put them in touch with each other to see if we could join them up and raise the profile of it going forward. Thank you.

Moving on, item 4.7, petition P-06-1536, 'Introduce inflation cap to all Local Authority council tax increases in Wales'. 

'Local Authorities routinely apply above inflation increases to council tax rates whilst reducing services, often to fill shortfalls in Welsh Government settlements, which is unfair on working families. This puts unsustainable pressure on household budgets, increasing child poverty (Programme for Government priority). Limiting increases to inflation would alleviate unsustainable pressure on household budgets whilst allowing fair inflation linked increases to local authority council tax revenues'.

This was submitted by Dewi Davies, with 286 signatures. Joel, can I bring you in on this one?

Thank you, Chair. Again, in my mind, this is another important petition and it's one that's actually quite frustrating for me, because I've seen the Government's response and they've said, 'Oh, well, it's a local council matter', even though they have the power themselves to take direct action. What really frustrates me is the amount of financial reserves the councils sit on. My own council sits on £250 million in reserves, which is an astronomical amount. I think that, if we put the three together in my region, that's nearly £0.5 billion. And when people see that, and then they see, 'Well, hang on now, my council tax is going up again this year', and we're not talking about 2 or 3 per cent, it's near the 5 per cent threshold. And then when you take into account community or town council charges, obviously they're minuscule in relative terms, but then the precept as well, that always goes up by 5 per cent, I think that people are rightly annoyed and angry at that. And again, I'm just so disappointed with the Government's response here, because they've just washed their hands of it. You just feel that, yes, council tax, apart from your mortgage, is the biggest bill that you have, and just to be so blasé in dismissing it and saying, 'Oh, it's for local government', it's really disappointing. I don't know what steps more we can take as a committee, purely because of the way that the Government's behaving on this, I think.

This is discussed quite a lot. I know that, as a group, you bring it forward, don't you, for debate quite a lot, and then we always have a debate about how much reserves each council has, because I know some councils have very little reserves. And then the big councils that do have reserves, they say it is allocated funding that's used as well. So, that's part of the debate. I don't want to get into a debate with you—

I know, but this is my frustration with that response, because those reserves very rarely go down, so when they say, 'Oh, it's allocated funding', okay, you expect that to be spent, but when I first became a councillor on RCT council, they had reserves of £120 million. So, clearly, they've got some sort of investment or saving programme there to bring that right up within the space of just a decade, maybe, to nearly £0.25 billion. So that's what I see. If they say, 'Well, that's allocated for spending', well surely they shouldn't have financial—. It should be, by law, you need to keep a certain amount, but then anything else, well, you spend it, you know? And that's a concern. I think a lot of these councils judge their financial competency on the amount of reserves that they have rather than the results that they achieve. But as you say, Chair, we could have a full debate about this. So, I think the only thing that's left, really, is probably just to close it, but it is disappointing.

Thank you. I agree that, moving forward, there's little more we can do except debate it in the Chamber, as we do, and close the petition.

If we move on now to item 4.8, P-06-1539, 'Use English before (or instead of) Welsh in important public messages in Wales'. 

'The 2021 census results show that around 80 per cent of people in Wales can not speak Welsh. 

'Yet important information is given only in Welsh, examples include: 

'Billboard public service information only in Welsh, 

'Variable message road signs only in Welsh, 

'NHS TV adverts on English TV channels in Welsh,

'Welsh options first in public service phonecalls. 

'Prioritising the language that 80 per cent of the country can't understand in these cases is dangerous. English should be prioritised for safety.'

This was submitted by Curtis Thorpe with 373 signatures. Can I invite Rhys to discuss the petition?

Thank you much, Cadeirydd. It's interesting to see that the petitioner is from Cardiff North. I was reading recently about a campaign from the 1960s to change the name of Heol Llanishen Fach in Cardiff North to an English name because they argued at the time that phoning an ambulance and saying the name 'Heol Llanishen Fach' would be dangerous. But the name remained, and I've heard of no danger being caused by the name of the street. So, this is not a new argument. The link between the use of the Welsh language and danger has been said several times before. I haven't seen any evidence of it or tangible examples of it, but we have heard it. We have heard it in this place from time to time. However, the response from the Welsh Government is clear, it's robust, it quotes the pertinent legislation—the Welsh Language Measure 2011, the duty to treat both Welsh and English languages equally. So, that is the position in Wales. There is therefore no scope for this committee, in my opinion, to take the matter further. Therefore, I would thank the petitioner and close the petition.

Okay. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. I slightly, not disagree, but diverge—is that the right word—from my colleague Rhys here. I know it's come up in the Chamber before. I think Natasha Asghar brought it up about the M4, and it's one of the things that really bugs me as well. When I'm driving down the M4 and I'll see a warning sign and it's in Welsh, and it's some time then until the English one, and sometimes I don't even pass an English sign. So, I think there is scope for those signs to be bilingual rather than monolingual.

I'll just regale you with an example I had that, again, caused me a lot of frustration. I think I was on the phone to the local surgery, so obviously, it was an automated message. I can understand a little bit of Welsh, and clearly it said, 'If you want to continue the call in Welsh, press 1.' And so then, as it's going on into English, I'm pressing 2, and the phone is cutting out. And I go, 'Why is it cutting out?' So, I listen, 'If you want to continue the message in Welsh, press 1', and then English press 2. It cuts out again. So, I listened to what the English message then said. It said, 'If you want to continue in Welsh, press 1. If you want to continue in English, press 9.' And I think, 'What?' I'd be amazed if I'm the only one doing that. 

I think there's definitely scope, in terms of the motorways, especially the speeds cars are traveling, to look at whether or not those signs need to be bilingual rather than in one language. Because it'd be the same, I suppose, for someone who's more proficient in Welsh than in English. They'll see an Welsh sign, maybe they've not necessarily paid attention, and then they see an English sign, and they say, 'Oh, I don't necessarily know exactly what that's telling me. Where's the Welsh?' I think that's something I would like, if we are able to, to raise, because I think that is dangerous. I think there will be a time where an accident will happen, and that would be the reason. And then the signage will be bilingual.

So, how do you feel about writing to the Cabinet Secretary, just about making road signs bilingual?

My suggestion is we don't. The Cabinet Secretary made his views very clear when this was raised by Natasha Asghar in Plenary. We won't have a different response from that. The Welsh Government were very clear in the response to us. My suggestion is that we just close the petition.

So defeatist. [Laughter.]

So, going forward, we'll close the petition, and Joel can write to the Cabinet Secretary. [Laughter.]

Can I have it recorded, though?

Yes, absolutely.

Moving forward, we have updates to previous petitions.

Item 5.1, P-06-1258, 'Make individuals in Wales with Hidden disabilities eligible for the Blue Badge'. This was submitted by Non Angharad Williams, with 86 signatures. We've got two here. That's the first one, just so it's not mixed up with the second one. Joel, do you want to just take us through this one on hidden disabilities?

Thank you, Chair. This is something that's quite close to my heart, because I'm getting—and I think Rhys is probably the same—a lot of correspondence regarding blue badges, especially within Cardiff, because of the delays in issuing new ones. I've had residents who've applied months in advance of theirs being expired, to only find out that their blue badges have expired or are expiring. And then they're receiving letters from the council saying, 'Your blue badge is expired. You can't use your old one until you get a new one.' And so these people, some of them are housebound—. I think that's something—. I'm going off tangent there a bit, and I know I'm bringing that up, hopefully, with the First Minister tomorrow. But, yes, with regard to this, I definitely think there's scope to write to the Cabinet Secretary, because I know that the Welsh Government’s currently doing a review on the eligibility criteria for blue badges. Whether or not we can just see what they say there, because I know this has come into a lot of debates we've had in the past about how you personify disability, if that makes sense. Is it purely mobility? You see the sign, it's the wheelchair. Well, as you say, there are hidden disabilities. There are other disabilities that do affect movement.

Cognitive as well, and neurodiversity.

Yes, and I definitely think, if we are able to go to the Cabinet Secretary, just to get that sort of update, that'd be brilliant.

I think in 2017 or 2018, 'cognitive' was added to the list, thank goodness, but it's still an outstanding issue. So we could write to the Cabinet Secretary.

We've also got this other one as well, which is item 5.2, P-06-1380, 'Make Blue badge Applications Lifelong for individuals who have a lifelong diagnosis'. This was submitted by STAND North Wales CIC, with 1,618 signatures. They've been doing an awful lot of work, and I've had meetings with Julie Meese, who submitted it on behalf of STAND North Wales CIC, with Mark Isherwood as well, as chair of the cross-party group on disabilities. We've met with Jane Hutt, because we believe it's a social justice issue, as well as a transport issue. We met with Ken Skates as well, as Cabinet Secretary. And we've also had meetings with the WLGA representative, Kaarina, who's a new officer taking this on board. So, a lot is happening regarding this. We've also got a really good—at the back of this report—survey that was conducted by STAND North Wales CIC. I think that there were about 650 responses to the survey, which was just done in a few weeks. This is impacting so many people. 

Yes. I've been going through it today and it's really comprehensive. And I was just wondering—has the Welsh Government had sight of that, because it might be something that we could look to, as a committee, send to the Welsh Government?

I don't think they have yet. 

If we could, I think, just to see what the views are on that. I'm conscious of the work that you've been doing as well, Chair, with a separate committee. Is there scope there to maybe keep this open until we get some—? I'm conscious that that might be some time, but—.

I think that, because—. I feel that we're slowly moving forward with this; there are so many things that we've learned and we're trying to get across. So, we believe that the 'not for reassessment' criteria could be used on a local database. At the moment, people have to apply every three years; it's a UK Government database. And very often those who should have a blue badge are refused, even though they've got really bad mobility or cognitive issues. But, applying every three years and having to get medical records, evidence and letters from GPs—

It's pointless. 

—and very often for parents to actually say all the time how bad their child might be, how poorly they are, it's really demoralising, and for older people it's really difficult. So, we've asked for this 'not for reassessment' to be there on a local database so that all they have to do in three years, if they have a lifelong condition, is just upload an updated photograph and proof of address, like you do for a passport. We need to have consistency as well, because some councils offer assistance, and then some have no right of appeal. They could have one-stop shops where people could go. So, they want consistency as well regarding it. So, there are lots of things here.

And then the report itself has some really good recommendations. So, to introduce a lifetime award to

'individuals with lifelong, non-improving conditions, eliminating the need for reassessment'.

'Improve Communication and Reminders'.

'Implement an automatic reminder system to inform individuals before their badge expires.'

Because, as you said, you should reapply with six months left on your badge, but people forget, don't they, you know? 

'Address Hidden Disabilities'.

'Ensure assessors are appropriately trained to consider a wide range of disabilities, including hidden and non-mobility related disabilities'.

'Reduce Bureaucracy'.

'Streamline the application process'.

'Uphold Rights and Dignity'.

Some of the cases we've heard have been terrible, really, asking people to prove their disability. 

'Design policies in line with equality, human rights, and social justice obligations.'

So, we'll send that off. There's a lot here, and I really would like to thank the work of STAND North Wales CIC and all that they're doing, persisting with this—all the parents and everybody involved. It is an issue across Wales, I believe; as you said, in Cardiff, people are getting in touch with you too, at the moment. So, we'll keep it open and send the survey and the results to—. I think that it needs to go to both the Cabinet Secretary for transportation and also the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, because it's a social justice issue. And also if we can send it to the WLGA, to Kaarina at the Welsh Local Government Association. Okay.

So, that now takes us on to item 5.3, which is petition P-06-1525, 'Preserve the unique character of the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal for the future generations of Wales'. I believe we've got two representatives here in the gallery. Could I invite Rhys—?

Thank you, Cadeirydd. I know that one should not have favourite petitions, but certainly this is one of my favourites, and I know that the three of us had a brilliant time down by the canal, didn't we? And I thought that we had a fantastic debate in Plenary here on the matter. And because of that, because of the work of the campaigners, two of whom are present today, the task and finish group has been established. I think we were supposed to meet earlier this month—that's been postponed. Part of me would argue that maybe now is the time for us to close this, but I'd be interested to keep it open just to see—just to have an update from the task and finish group for us to see how effective that group is and whether it is moving matters forward in a positive way. So, I would suggest that we keep it open.

Yes, unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary couldn't make it. He had strong reasons why not. He does want to be there to chair the task and finish group. He really feels he needs to be there as well, so didn't want it to go ahead without him.  And there are so many elements to this—that became apparent at the site visit, didn't it, the impact of it. So, I really think it is something that we should keep open as well, Rhys. Do you agree, Joel, as well?

Yes.

Do we have a date for the next—? 

No, not yet. The Cabinet Secretary has not returned officially to—. He's been doing remote working. But we can write to the Cabinet Secretary and get another date—ask for when they are meeting again. Okay. Going forward, we'll keep the petition open.

So, that brings us to the end of the petitions and to item 6, papers to note. So, there are several papers to note there. Are you content to note the papers? 

Yes.

Okay, which takes us to—. Sorry, we have got—. Can I just draw your attention to item 6.7, which is correspondence to Mark Isherwood on the fifth Senedd petition, 'Prescription drug dependence and withdrawal—recognition and support'. So, Members may wish to write to the Welsh Government for an update on implementing recommendations in the fifth Senedd Petitions Committee report in 2019 that were accepted. Okay. So, Mark Isherwood has written to us. I think we need to just have a look at this a bit closer, if that's okay. So, Mark Isherwood has written to us regarding a fifth Senedd petition, 'Prescription drug dependence and withdrawal—recognition and support', petition P-05-784. So, Members may wish to write to the Welsh Government for an update on implementing recommendations in the fifth Senedd Petitions Committee report in 2019 that were accepted. So, Welsh Government undertook to take account of this issue in its updated substance misuse strategy, but the substance misuse strategy has not been updated since 2022. Alternatively, Members may feel it's more appropriate for individual Members to pursue the issue, which relates to a closed petition from the previous Senedd term. So, I'm not quite sure, going forward—. It relates to a previous Senedd term, so, we can either do it individually as Members or we can write—

If we're allowed to—

I think as a committee.

As a committee—I agree.

Because if it's—

It's recommendations of the committee.

I don't think there's anything to stop us, under our terms and conditions and Standing Orders.

And it is important that previous Senedd reports aren't just put on a shelf and forgotten, really, especially if the recommendations are accepted.

Okay. So, if that could be followed up, then—. I'll take that forward and let Mark Isherwood know that we're doing that. Thank you.

So, that moves us on to agenda item 7. So, that concludes the public business, and 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 to go into private? Thank you. The committee will hold its next meeting on 6 October 2025. And that concludes today's business.