National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon, everybody. I'd like to welcome you all to the meeting of the Petitions Committee here at the Senedd. As a reminder, this meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv, and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. 

Going through the agenda today, we do have a busy one, so we will try and canter through it as quickly as possible. Our first agenda item today is apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest. Are there any apologies from anybody else? I know that Janet Finch-Saunders has sent her apologies. She may be joining late. There are no other substitutes or declarations of interest. 

Item 2, new petitions, petitions being considered in the committee for the first time. I will invite Members to comment on these petitions as we go through them in turn.

The first one is P-06-1587, 'Ban the tethering of horses and get them help when neglected'.

'The suffering of tethered horses has gone on for long enough. They are tied up in unsuitable places, often along major roads. They have no shelter, veterinary help and often no food or water. This is neglect and needs to stop. How can we call ourselves civilised when this abuse is going on in full view of everyone?'

The submitter is Maria Lester. This has 13,944 signatures; 13,028 are from Wales. I invite Sara to discuss the petition and any actions she would like the committee to take.

Diolch, Chair. In the sixth Senedd, a petition similar to this had around 4,000 signatures, and was considered with input from RSPCA Cymru and Blue Cross on how to strengthen enforcement at the time. That petition closed in 2022, with the previous committee noting the then Minister's plans to improve the training and skills of local authority enforcement officers.

The Cabinet Minister's response to this petition explains the existing legal framework, placing an animal welfare duty on owners and setting out the enforcement powers of local authorities. It also notes the Welsh Government's code of practice for the welfare of equines, which sets out standards for care and is enforceable by local authorities. The response notes that

'Tethering is not illegal, but is not suitable for long-term management and our Code of Practice outlines strict conditions for tethering, including access to water, food, shelter and regular supervision. We encourage alternative management methods and have no current plans to review the welfare legislation in relation to tethering.'

The letter also points to specific guidance for local authorities, 'Guide to the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014'. The Minister says that members of the public are encouraged to report

'any welfare concerns relating to tethered horses directly to their Local Authority. If there's an immediate risk to public safety or concerns about disorder, the police should be contacted via 101.'

The British Horse Society also has online guidance for the public about reporting fly-grazing to the relevant local authority to take action. The petitioner's response sets out the welfare concerns about fly-grazing animals in Cardiff. They say that, as there is no intention to change existing arrangements relating to tethering, it's important that existing legal powers and code of practice are acted on by the local authorities.

Another campaigner on this issue has separately provided Members with a Friends of Swansea Horses report from 2015, outlining earlier research on the welfare of tethered horses there, and associated costs to the horses, the public and local authorities. And we've had that report shared separately with us.

Our possible actions here would be that, if we agree that stronger enforcement is needed, then we can write to the Cabinet Minister again to highlight the petitioner's concerns and ask what more can be done to encourage and enable local authorities to use their powers, including an update on progress with improving the training and skills of local authority enforcement officers and working with enforcement agencies. Either in addition to or instead of option 1, we could write directly to the Welsh Local Government Association to ask what is being done to co-ordinate the enforcement approach across local authorities. Then, if we are content with the Welsh Government response, we can thank the petitioner for raising the issue, set out the committee's views and close the petition.

I think it's important to note that there have been over 13,000 signatures from within Wales, and we should decide whether a request should be made to the Business Committee for a Plenary debate. But there are also others that we may need to consider. As I was reading through this, my preferred option would be for us to write directly to the local government association and ask what is being done to co-ordinate enforcement. But I'm happy to take any other options from Members. 

Would anybody else like to come in? No. Just from my point of view, obviously animal welfare is something that resonates strongly across Wales and it's something that we should be enforcing where we can. I think that the people of Wales will agree with that approach. I'm happy to go with option 2, if that's the recommendation. Are there any other comments to make on this one before we move on?

A horse was actually killed in my constituency in July of this year, on Rover Way in Cardiff, so yes, it's absolutely something that we should do. It's horrifying, to be honest. 

We also need a decision on this one as to whether or not to request a Plenary debate. I am minded to do so, but I would probably not do it immediately, not until we've heard from the WLGA on their current ability to seek enforcement. So, I think that we should write to the WLGA to see what their response is and then, if minded, approach for a Plenary debate. Are we agreed? Yes. Great.

We'll move on to P-07-1581, 'Urgent Pembrokeshire Healthcare & Resident Safety—Withybush Hospital & Health Board Intervention'. The petition reads:

'We demand immediate government intervention to oversee the Health Board at Withybush Hospital and restore essential services to ensure the safety and wellbeing of Pembrokeshire residents. The residents, GP’s, Ambulance Services & Voluntary Sectors do not need the strain or anxiety the health board is causing locally.'

The submitter is Ajay Owen, and this has 12,154 signatures, with 11,877 from Wales. I would like to invite Donna to discuss the petition and any actions you would wish the committee to take. 

There are a lot of discussion points, and some I will actually leave because I thought they were quite abrasive, shall we say.

This petition focused on Withybush Hospital has gathered enough signatures to be considered for a Plenary debate. It claims the current state of healthcare in the area is a threat to public safety. Plans for a new hospital in mid Wales are still some time away, as noted in Hywel Dda University Health Board’s 2026 strategy document. A clinical services plan, developed in response to the fragility of services post COVID, was consulted on extensively last year. It addresses nine service areas, including stroke services, which were the subject of a previous petition, and implementation plans are currently under development.

The Cabinet Minister acknowledges the strength of feeling locally, noting that service planning is a matter for Hywel Dda University Health Board, but

'it must ensure that decisions about service models are informed by clinical evidence, patient outcomes, workforce sustainability and engagement with local communities.

The Minister stresses that service change

'does not remove the obligation on the Health Board to ensure residents of Pembrokeshire continue to have access to safe urgent and emergency care.'

I'm missing out a couple of things here now because you all have the papers and I assume you've all read them. Noting the importance of maintaining public confidence, the Cabinet Minister concludes:

'I have...asked officials to continue monitoring progress against the Clinical Services Plan and the implementation of approved changes within the Health Board area.'

There were some things within the next part that I don't think it's worth mentioning. The Cabinet Minister's response rejects the call for further intervention and stresses that it is for the local health board to make operational decisions on health service delivery.

These are the possible actions. Option 1: if Members are not satisfied with the Welsh Government's response, they could choose to write back to the Minister to highlight the petitioner's views, or even take up the petitioner's suggestion to call in the Minister and health board to discuss the matter further. Members will recognise, however, that the Health and Social Care Committee holds the main scrutiny remit, and so if they decide on this course of action, they may want to consult that committee on its own plans first. Option 2: if the committee does not wish to take any further action on this petition, it would be appropriate to close its consideration of the petition.

The petition has gathered almost 12,000 signatures from the affected area of Wales. A decision is needed on whether to request that the Business Committee schedules a Plenary debate and the timing of any such request. 

So, we have two options on the board, and I'm open to debate on either option.

Thank you very much. Would anybody like to come in on that one? I'll start. I'm not satisfied with the Cabinet Minister's response. I do feel that this petition has been batted off slightly. There are 12,154 people who have felt the need to sign a petition stating that they're not happy with their health provision. I think we as a committee should stand up for these people and request further information from the Minister under option 1 here, and reach out to the Health and Social Care Committee to co-ordinate that activity, before sending for a debate in Plenary. Does anyone agree or disagree?

That's fine. 

Chair, if I could just add, I'm happy to go with the majority. However, it is down to the health board to discuss the planning and the operational. I think that is an issue here as well, so I wanted that on the record, but I will go with the majority of the group. 

Thank you. Noted. All agreed? Okay.

We'll move on to P-07-1611, 'Allocate the full consequential funding to Additional Learning Needs (ALN)'.

'We call on the Welsh Government to allocate and ring-fence the £500m in consequential funding from English SEND spending directly to local authorities and schools for Additional Learning Needs (ALN).

'While not legally bound to the same portfolio, this funding exists because of systemic education pressures that do not stop at the border. Ahead of the supplementary budget, this money must go straight to the frontline to support Wales’ most vulnerable learners and stabilise our schools.'

The submitter is Laura Tams, on behalf of NAHT Cymru. It has 11,451 signatures, with 11,228 from Wales. I invite not Janet but—checks notes—Vikki to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take. 

Thank you very much, Chair. We know that ALN provision has been a regular subject of Senedd petitions. This is a petition from the school leaders union, NAHT Cymru. It's calling for that ring-fencing of funding, specifically calling for the Barnett consequential for special educational needs and disabilities funding in England to be allocated to the supplementary budget that was published on 23 June. 

We can see that it has reached and exceeded that 10,000 threshold. We know that ALN funding is regularly raised in the Chamber. I think that shows how important a topic it is to people across Wales, with the huge increase that we're seeing in young people with additional learning needs, and the need to support them appropriately for the duration of their time in education. Here in this petition they're saying that the system is at breaking point. Without immediate earmarked protected funding specifically targeted at front-line school support, they say critical resources risk being even further diluted across wider central budgets while classrooms remain severely underresourced. They're calling for cross-party co-operation to break that deadlock.

There are several possible actions here for us. If there's anything specific we wanted to raise, we could raise that with the Cabinet Minister for education. We could highlight the petitioner's additional comments and questions with the Minister, and we could copy in the Early Years, Children, Young People and Education Committee, so that that committee can take that into account in its work planning as well. That's something I think we could do as a course of action. 

But also, I think the most important decision for us today is whether we wish to request a Plenary debate on the petition. We know that this is a topic that is very much in the news and does not look as though it's going to go away anytime soon because of the number of young people and families and teachers and support workers affected. So, I would like to recommend that we do request a Plenary debate on this petition.

I completely agree, from my point of view. Anybody else like to come in? Happy with that? Okay. Elwyn.

The only comment I would say, I think, is that I appreciate the emphasis placed on this funding continually. But when I see people saying that a certain budget has to be ring-fenced for a particular service because of Barnett consequentials, I do think there's a danger, if we're not careful, of that being seen as undermining the principle of devolved power and democracy and decisions at a lower level. And all public services, as we're all well aware, can argue the case for ring-fencing things. I think that's just a principle I have in terms of Welsh democracy. I just want to flag that.

That's noted, Elwyn. I think that, for me, is something that would be worth bringing up during the debate itself at Plenary. I think the decision for the committee today is: can we agree to take it forward so that those points can be brought out more fully? There are a lot of different political views around it, so it would be good to get a baseline on where the figures actually sit and to debate then, fully, in the Siambr, the pros and cons of each. So, I'm minded to agree with Vikki and that we recommend this is put forward for debate at Plenary. Unless anybody disagrees. No. Okay. Good to go.

Moving on then to P-07-1593, 'Support vaccine development to save red squirrels from Squirrelpox virus'.

'Squirrel pox virus is deadly to red squirrels. In autumn 2023, the Senedd debated vaccine development'—

under petition 24537, as shown on the link.

'Despite historical ministerial commitment to investigate the feasibility of protecting red squirrels, after 2.5 years, the Department of Rural Affairs has not decided how to deliver a promised pox vaccine feasibility project.

'It's time to move forward and support new pioneering vaccine research.'

The submitter is Craig Shuttleworth. This has 12,824 signatures, 4,543 from Wales. And I invite Vikki to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Thank you very much, Chair. So, I'm sure that all Members will be aware that red squirrels are in danger of extinction in Britain and that they've held that status for a number of years now. And while grey squirrels have developed some immunity to the squirrelpox virus, it remains fatal to red squirrels. This is not the first petition that the Senedd has received on this issue. There was a previous one in the sixth Senedd from the same petitioner, which gathered just over 11,000 signatures and was debated in Plenary in September 2023.

We can see that this petition has gathered a similar level of support. But I would point to the fact that less than 5,000 of the signatures on this have come from within Wales, although it has exceeded the 10,000 that is needed for that threshold for us to discuss whether to request another Plenary debate.

There are lots of issues within here. For example, the petitioner, who is an expert on red squirrels and squirrelpox, is asking questions around the vaccine feasibility study that had been announced in 2025 and who was invited to bid for that work. He clearly has some unanswered questions around that as an expert himself in red squirrel conservation, and believes, very firmly, that the squirrelpox vaccine research is the one strand of work most likely to prove to be the saviour of red squirrels and prevent them from becoming extinct.

So, the petitioner is specifically asking us to seek an explanation in answer to some questions here. For example, why it took two years for a vaccine feasibility procurement to be placed on Sell2Wales and why nothing has happened for more than a year since. He's asking if the Minister can explain why officials appear to have not taken forward re-advertising the vaccine feasibility procurement, and he's asking questions around when Natural Resources Wales requested that Welsh Government be invited to join meetings with UK Government agencies around the results of a new vaccine development study as well.

So, although we could at this stage request a Plenary debate on the petition, there are a number of outstanding queries, really, for the Minister here; that seems very clear. So, I would suggest, at this stage, that the most appropriate course of action looks to be to write to the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability to highlight the petitioner's latest comments and questions, seek a response to those, and then we could, at a later stage, decide whether we wish to refer it on to the Climate Change, Environment, Sustainability and Rural Affairs Committee, or if we feel that a debate in Plenary time is needed.

So, my recommendation, just to underscore that, would be for us to write to the Minister now and pose those technical questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to comment?

Just one question on this: I know that if we have over 10,000 signatures that we can ask for a Plenary debate, but considering that there's only 4,543 that are from Wales, and the rest are from outside Wales, would that—. Because, at the end of the day, it's not affecting Welsh Government; it doesn't affect what happens in England or other parts of the country; it's more affecting the 4,543 that are in Wales. So, I don't understand how it would have feasibility to go to Plenary, even if it did, even though Vikki's suggesting an alternative thing at the moment. I just find it should be 10,000 in Wales.

Yes, I accept that, and it's a good point. I think the fact that this has already been debated in Plenary once, I don't believe we should be forwarding this again, and I agree with what Vikki said there.

Yes, I agree.

Let's check on the progress with the Minister, and get it through the other committees, and see where they are. But I do appreciate that this gentleman's obviously quite passionate about it, so deserves an answer.

I would be as well, but—. You know, it's just—.

Okay. Are we all agreed?

Yes.

Good. Moving on, then, to P-07-1614, 'NRW to begin routine dredging of Welsh rivers with the support of the Senedd'.

'Our routine dredging programme was downgraded in the 1990's mainly due to the EU Water Framework Directive. Since then our rivers have gradually become clogged, with a reduction in water capacity as well as increasing tidal surges. This is now leading to regular and devastating flooding, overspill often resulting in loss of homes, business and sadly lives, as well as damaging land, farms, wildlife and livestock. Even our roads are now affected by our rivers overspilling and putting people's lives at risk.'

The submitter is Laura Grant, and this has 258 signatures, 247 of which are from Wales. I invite Joe to discuss the petition—wherever he is—and any actions you wish the committee to take. Has Joe just stepped out?

He's just stepped out, yes.

Okay. We'll come back to this one, then.

Moving on, then, P-07-1591, 'Put a referendum to Wales asking "Do you want to reduce the number of MSs from 96 to 40?"'

'In May 2024 the Senedd members voted against having a referendum on the subject of expanding the Senedd. instead they chose to themselves vote for an increase of MSs from 60 to 96. 43 of them voted for, 31 Labour and 11 Plaid Cymru along with 1 Lib Dem voted for the expansion and 16 Conservatives along with 1 Ind voted against the expansion from 60 to 96 MSs. The bill for the expansion needs to be rescinded/repealed.'

The submitter is Andrew Hovord, with 5,638 signatures, 5,604 of which are from Wales. I invite Elwyn to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Thank you, Chair. Well, to summarise, the petitioner has highlighted, using a formula based on population terms, why he thinks the number should be 40 rather than 96. Of course, the previous Senedd used to have 60 Members anyway, so more than what he proposed. The justification set is that the number of MPs in Wales has decreased from 40 to 32, and also the transfer of powers since devolution over the 27 years has increased, and increased demands on Members. There was detailed scrutiny of that process at that time.

In the response from the First Minister, it is clearly highlighted that there is a mechanism to review matters as and when needed. The Llywydd has that power and authority if need be. Personally, my own feeling is that the contents should be noted. It's clear that committee can look into it if need be, but I don't think, personally, that we need further action at this time.

Okay. Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to comment on this one? Okay. From my point of view, I agree with the summarised action. I think it's the right one. The debate has been had, the battle has been won or lost, depending on your view. But I would agree with Elwyn's summary there.

So, just going back, then. We will go back to P-07-1614, which is, 'NRW to begin routine dredging of Welsh rivers with the support of the Senedd'.

'Our routine dredging programme was downgraded in the 1990's mainly due to the EU Water Framework Directive. Since then our rivers have gradually become clogged, with a reduction in water capacity as well as increasing tidal surges. This is now leading to regular and devastating flooding, overspill often resulting in loss of homes, business and sadly lives, as well as damaging land, farms, wildlife and livestock. Even our roads are now affected by our rivers overspilling and putting people's lives at risk.'

The submitter is Laura Grant, with 258 signatures, 247 of which are from Wales. I invite Joe to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Thank you very much. So, people in Carmarthenshire want Natural Resources Wales to start regularly dredging rivers again to help stop flooding. Dredging was scaled back in the 1990s, partly because of EU rules and that, and rivers have clogged up since then, flooding homes, farms, businesses and roads and so on and so forth. Two hundred and fifty-eight signatures. The petition also criticises local councils for failing to keep drains and roads in good enough shape. The petitioner says locals blame the end of dredging on the Gwendraeth Fawr river 30 years ago for worse flooding, as well as riverbank erosion and problems for emergency crews using the river, but accepts that dredging is only part of the answer.

The Minister agreed that flooding is devastating, but says that dredging was cut back because experts now understand flooding better, because of rules protecting nature, so it's only done on a case-by-case basis where evidence supports it. The relevant committee's own research also said that there's no evidence that less dredging is a major cause of more flooding across Wales. Flooding has come up in several past petitions, and the committee last time flagged it as a key issue for this Senedd.

So, the options available to us: we could write to the Climate Change, Environment, Sustainability and Rural Affairs Committee to invite that committee to consider the issue as part of its work programme for the seventh Senedd, and revisit the petition following receipt of that committee's response. Then we can undertake further work to seek further evidence and better understand the risks and benefits ourselves.

Okay. Do you have a recommendation that you'd like to make? 

I think option 1 would make the most sense as a committee for this particular sort of thing; they'd have the necessary skills and expertise to apply them to this issue.

Okay. Would anybody else like to come in? Okay. So, option 1: the committee will write to the Climate Change, Environment, Sustainability and Rural Affairs Committee to invite that committee to consider the issue as part of its work programme for the seventh Senedd, and revisit the petition following receipt of that committee's response.

Moving on to item P-07-1599, 'Abolish 24 hours 20MPH default speed limit—if it is necessary keep it during certain times'.

'24 hours 20MPH speed limit on restricted roads doesn’t make any sense. It can be timed if it is mandatory. For example almost no body would be running or playing or walking at 2:00AM who can be in danger of getting hit by a 30MPH vehicle.

'Suggestion is to go back to old pre Covid speed limits. But if new limits are deemed mandatory then they can be timed.'

The submitter is M. Saleem, with 280 signatures, 274 of which are from Wales. I invite Sara to discuss the petition and any actions you would wish the committee to take.

Diolch, Chair. So, there have been numerous petitions submitted in respect of the speed limit changes introduced by the previous Welsh Government, and I know that Members have had these listed in our research brief.

The policy has received widespread media coverage, and a petition calling for the legislation to be rescinded received over 469,000 signatures, which is the highest ever received for a Senedd petition. And that was debated in 2024. Most recently, the committee considered a petition calling for a national poll on this issue. Consideration of this petition was completed in December 2025, with the committee concluding that individuals dissatisfied with the local speed limits could petition the local council and review the political parties' election manifestos regarding this policy. This petition is different to many others received on this issue, because it's calling for the 20 mph speed limit to be disapplied at certain times of the day, rather than fully supporting or opposing the limit.

The response provided by the Deputy Minister for Transport explains that:

'Applying different limits at different times across many roads would add complexity, risk confusing drivers, reduce compliance and make enforcement more difficult.'

It should be noted, however, that the legislative mechanism established to enable local authorities to revert the speed limit to 30 mph—traffic regulation orders—allows for the provisions of an order to be applied at certain times only.

So, our actions: the committee may wish to write to the petitioner to explain that local authorities are able to revert the speed limit on the road from 20 mph to 30 mph at certain times by applying the provisions of a traffic regulation order at certain times only. We may wish to inform the petitioner that, if they have concerns about a speed limit on a particular road or roads within their locality, they could contact the local authority to discuss the issue. And as there are not any other steps that we could take, we would then close consideration of the petition. So, I personally think it would be a good idea to let the petitioner know both of those options, to move forward.

Okay.

A lot of councils have already been contacted about reversing the 20 mph, and some of those reversals back to 30 mph have actually been agreed. So, I know that. I don't know if it applies to this gentleman, but the council is the best person for him to speak to.

Yes, noted. And I think the response from the Deputy Minister for Transport is—. I'd agree with it, actually, that it would add complexity.

Yes, definitely.

There is still the political debate to be had, certainly, you know, in the Chamber—and various parties, including my own, are making that case. So, as far as the petition goes, I would agree that we need to write back to the petitioner to explain that local authorities can change them on a case-by-case basis.

Yes. And I know he said about 2 o'clock in the morning, but you also have shift workers that are sometimes walking, you know, to get to their place of work at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Okay. So, I think we're agreed. Nobody else online has a comment. We're going to close this petition and write back to the petitioner with our findings. Okay. [Inaudible.] Sorry? [Inaudible.] Yes, closed.

So, the next one is P-07-1577, 'Pause and withdraw climate-based policies that damage nature, farms and daily life in Wales'.

'Climate-related policies in Wales increasingly affect farming, countryside, housing, transport and daily life. The UK produces less than 1% of global CO2 emissions, with local emissions far smaller still. Many residents question whether measures introduced in the name of "climate action" are proportionate, effective, or justified when they result in loss of farmland, trees, habitats, wildlife, higher living costs, travel restrictions and permanent changes to communities.'

This submitter is a Susan Jones. It has 3,034 signatures, and 2,891 of those are from Wales. I invite Donna to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Okay. This petition calls for the pausing or withdrawing of Welsh Government climate change policies on the basis that they are damaging people's lives. Climate and nature-related petitions have been discussed by the committee on numerous occasions. In November 2024, the sixth Senedd Petitions Committee considered a petition calling for net zero to be scrapped. The petition was closed on the basis that there was nothing more the committee could do about the issue, noting the clear difference of opinion between the petitioner and Welsh Government at the time. In 2019, the Welsh Government declared a climate emergency, and then, also in 2021, the Senedd declared a nature emergency. The Cabinet Minister's letter explains the steps taken by the Welsh Government to assess the impacts of the new climate-based policies on nature.

The possible actions are as follows. As this petition relates to an issue within the remit of the Climate Change, Environment, Sustainability and Rural Affairs Committee, our committee may wish to draw that committee's attention to the petition, invite it to take the petitioners' views into account when scrutinising the Cabinet Minister on climate change policies, thank the petitioner for raising this issue and close its consideration of the petition.

Option 2: alternatively, the committee could consider undertaking an inquiry into the effects of climate-based policies on nature, farms and daily life in Wales, gathering the evidence to achieve a better understanding. It should be noted, however, that the climate change committee may take the view that, as its own remit explicitly covers climate change and environmental matters, the Petitions Committee would not be the appropriate committee to undertake such work.

I would be opting for option 1 as a result of this. I think we all saw in summer, with the wildfires, the heat, that climate change is upon us, and I would go for option 1, personally. Up for discussion?

Anybody else like to come in? Okay, from my point of view, I think option 1 is fine. We do need to write to the climate change committee, as this falls within their purview, to draw their attention to this petition. I probably would like to see their response before we close it. I think that's appropriate, because, obviously, these policies do affect people up and down the country. So, if we could perhaps change option 1 to write to the committee, but keep it open to see the response before closing it, if we're all in agreement. Yes, great.

Okay, moving on then to P-07-1579, 'Erect a Statue for Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd'. The pronunciation was okay, I hope, Elwyn. 

'Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd is one of Cymru's greatest medieval figures and, certainly, one of our most important. As a warrior princess who died valiantly in battle in the year of 1136 against the Norman forces of Maurice de Londres, she deserves far more appreciation. Just as there is a statue to the other great, Brythonic warrior Princess, Buddug (Boudica) in London, so too should there be one for Gwenllian in Cymru.'

The submitter is a Niklas George. It has 1,971 signatures, 1,697 of those are from Wales, and I invite Joe to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Fabulous, thank you. Yes, the petition asks for a statue in Wales of Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd, a medieval Welsh princess who, like you said, died fighting Norman forces in 1136. The petitioner argues that she is one of Wales's most important historical figures and deserves the same recognition as Boudica, like you said, who already has a statue in London. It has 1,971 signatures.

The Government reply came from the Trefnydd, who is also culture and sport Minister. She agreed that Gwenllian is an important figure, and said that Cadw already recognises her, especially at Kidwelly castle and in its online material. She explained that the Welsh Government does not usually commission new statues itself. It has helped fund some, including statues of Betty Campbell, Elaine Morgan, Elizabeth Andrews and Lady Rhondda. Her view is that decisions about any new monuments are best made locally by councils, community groups and other bodies. She also pointed to Government guidance that tells public bodies to actively look at new ways to commemorate people, working closely with local communities.

So, in short, the Government supports the idea in principle, but will not lead or pay for it. The petitioner also made no further comment after seeing this reply. So, option No. 1 would be for the committee to thank the petitioner and encourage them to approach their local council and community groups and Monumental Welsh Women, the campaign group behind those earlier statues. So, that was option No. 1, I believe.

Option No. 2: if Members are of the view that there is justification, we could write to the Welsh Government to ask if it could make funding available for a new statue of Gwenllian at Kidwelly castle, whilst recognising that the development and establishment of a statue would need to be undertaken locally; the petition would remain open pending a response.

I think, on balance, option No. 1 would be more appropriate—so, thanking the petitioner first of all, and encouraging them to approach the local council and community groups and other campaign groups that would be able to take the lead on this. 

Thank you. Sara. 

I think as well—I think you just missed it in your notes, Joe—that we could also draw attention to potential sources of funding, such as the National Lottery Community Fund, as well, so that the petitioner will know of all the avenues there. Because I would love to see more statues of women across Wales, but I agree that the option there is the best way forward. 

Elwyn.

I agree, option 1 is the obvious one, but I was just going to suggest, would it be worth us sending this to Cadw also? Because, obviously, they're doing some work in this field.

Thank you. Vikki.

Thank you. If I could just offer a slightly alternative viewpoint, which also links into the next petition, which I'll be leading on, option 1 there references the fact that the petitioner could write to Monumental Welsh Women to discuss the issue further. Now, I've been involved with Monumental Welsh Women, the campaign group, and they had funding for five statues, and those five statues have now been erected, and it was Welsh Government that was one of the main contributors to that fund. So, might I suggest that we could, in addition to the other points, write to Welsh Government to ask if they would consider refunding that programme to possibly move forward in the future? Because it's great that we have got five statues of women in Wales; we had none previously. But there's still a massive gap between the number of statues of men and women in Wales, and my personal view is that there are many women worthy of a statue, and five is a good start, but there’s a long way to go. 

Yes, agreed. Good points. I think my perspective is that I think we should chance our arm a little bit and write to Welsh Government and see if there is any funding. Any opportunity we get to educate and celebrate people from Welsh history I think is important, and it doesn't hurt to ask for funding if there's any available. And I think, with the current Government, something of this nature could be justified. So, my opinion, for what it's worth, is that we would write to Welsh Government, ask for the funding, and, if there is no funding, then write back to the petitioner to offer the other options as we've suggested today. Do we agree with that approach, a kind of a hybrid between the two? Yes. Okay. Elwyn? Yes, happy. 

Can I thank Vikki for bringing that suggestion forward as well? Because I think that's really important. Thanks, Vikki.

Absolutely. Okay, thank you very much. Moving on then, P-07-1580, ‘Establish a Memorial to Catrin ferch Owain Glyndŵr at or near Harlech Castle’.

‘Catrin the daughter of Owain Glyndŵr. She spent some of her final years at Harlech Castle during the collapse of her father’s revolt. During the siege, she lost her husband and son, and in 1409 she, her mother, and her daughters were taken prisoner and removed to the Tower of London. Catrin has a modern statue in London, there is no memorial to her at Harlech, the place most closely associated with her life. Residents and visitors remain unaware of who she was, or her connection to the castle.’

The submitter is Andrea Bowen. It has 574 signatures, 435 from Wales. I invite Vikki to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Thank you very much, Chair. This follows on very neatly, doesn't it, from the previous petition, and shows the strength of feeling around lots of historical female figures in Wales. So, we've got the response to the petition from the Trefnydd and Cabinet Minister for Culture and Sport, which recognises the significance of Catrin’s story within Welsh history and notes that it is a story that's also reflected in online resources provided by Cadw, and that Cadw would consider opportunities to reflect more of her story as part of the future interpretation updates at Harlech castle.

That response from the Trefnydd also again highlights the onus on local communities and organisations to take decisions on new statues or memorials, and that’s in line, really, with the comments that I made just a minute ago about the Monumental Welsh Women fund, which was part funded by Welsh Government but then they took the decisions themselves about whom and where to place those statues. I know we've had further correspondence from the petitioner in recent days as well, just underscoring their view that it is a statue that they would like to see, rather than anything else. So, we've got the two possible options—the same as the last one, really—we could thank the petitioner for bringing the issue to our attention, direct them to support and funding organisations and then close the petition, or we could write to Welsh Government to ask whether they could make funding available for a new statue and keep the petition open pending a response.

It won't come as a surprise, after my comments on the previous petition, that my favoured approach would be option 2, but I do think it's important that if we write to Welsh Government, we ask about possible continued funding for the Monumental Welsh Women project, so that all these decisions can be taken in the round, rather, perhaps, than asking for specific funding for two specific statues when we know that there are lots more figures out there.

Thank you very much. I'm in full agreement—pretty much the same as the previous petition. It's something I would look to take forward with Welsh Government, if we're all in agreement. Great. [Interruption.] Yes, exactly.

Moving on, then, P-07-1606, 'Reinstate Welsh Government funding to ensure Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant surgery stays open'.

'Since the loss of MPIG (Minimum Practice Income Guarantee) in 2015, Llanrhaeadr surgery has been supported with extra funding. The necessity of providing medical services and dispensing from a branch in this large, unique and remote area of North Powys was the reason this additional funding was given. Powys Teaching Health Board are no longer going to provide additional funding to keep this branch open in the long term.'

The submitter is Rhian Briscoe, with 2,796 signatures, and 2,696 are from Wales. I invite Joe to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Chair, can I come in, first of all?

Please.

Can I declare an interest in this item, please? I have attended a public meeting in the community and have been in support of their endeavours, and therefore it wouldn't be appropriate for me to participate in this conversation today. 

Thank you.

Thank you. This is essentially local people fighting to save their GP surgery in Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant—I do apologise for my pronunciation. It's quite a remote village in north Powys. The surgery is one of three run by the same practice, but it's the only GP service for what is quite a large rural area. It used to get extra money because it was so remote. That money was gradually stopped, and now the practice wants to close it. Nearly 2,800 people signed the petition basically asking the Welsh Government to restore the funding and keep it open. The health Minister said that closing it's the health board's decision, not the Government's, but he admitted that the way GP funding is shared out has been criticised in recent years and that's currently being reviewed. There's one potential course of action with some additional things that we could petition for as well. 

The GP funding formula is firmly on the radar of the Health and Social Care Committee. We might want to draw this petition to the health committee's attention and request that it keeps us updated on further developments on this issue, including any further action to be taken following receipt of the Welsh Government's response to the report published in the sixth Senedd. We might also want to keep the petition open whilst we await that confirmation as well.

In addition, the committee may want to write to the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care to seek further details on the work commissioned to review the GP funding formula, including when the outcomes of that review are expected to be published, and then they can share those details with the petitioner and us when they are received. That seems like a fairly straightforward course of action for us to follow there. I think that would be appropriate. 

Okay. Thank you. Would anybody like to come in, or are we all happy with that course of action? Okay, we'll proceed with that. Thank you very much.

The last one we have here for new petitions is P-07-1592, 'Adopt Benedict’s Law and updated statutory guidance in schools'.

'Wales has fallen behind England in protecting vulnerable pupils with allergies and medical conditions in educational settings. Benedict’s Law and updated statutory guidance would provide stronger protections for these children in Wales. No child should suffer preventable harm because of inconsistent procedures, inadequate training, poor communication, or outdated guidance. These changes would help ensure schools apply robust safety and inclusion measures consistently across Wales.'

The submitter is Sarah Pattison and it has 1,648 signatures, 1,343 from Wales. I will invite Elwyn to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take. Before I do so, I'd just like to declare an interest in that I've met the petitioner for this and in the course of my role here as an MS have had discussions on it outside. Vikki. 

Yes, I declare the same interest. Thank you.

Thank you. And Sara.

If I could declare the same interest as well, as she's a constituent of ours.

Thank you very much. Elwyn, over to you, sir.

Okay, thank you very much. Diolch, Gadeirydd. Yes, this is an important proposal here. As the petitioner rightly highlights, she's of the opinion that Wales has slipped behind actions happening in England. The first message, basically, is the need to ensure the proper training, appropriate response times and reaction, and also a consistency of approach throughout Wales. The danger and concern is you might have different approaches between different local authorities. There's a need to overcome that and ensure that everybody's up to the same level of training and knowledge of how to react should one of the pupils need support suddenly.

The Minister for education has responded, and it's acknowledged as being a positive response. The petitioner agrees with that. However, there are a couple of issues, perhaps, that need further clarification. There's reference in the response about discussions already happening with fellow officers in England, and also work being undertaken, but perhaps the important thing is we'll need further clarification about the timetable for such action so that we know exactly where we are, and more importantly the petitioner and families know exactly the timetable. That's my proposal: we ask the Minister to firm up, basically, the time frame for all of this, so that we know exactly where we stand.

Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Would anybody like to say anything further? Vikki.

Yes, thank you. I agree with what Elwyn said, but I do think, then, thereafter it would be important for us to draw the attention of the petition to the children's committee as well. We know that allergies are really growing across Wales, not just in the number of cases presented but the complexity can be really very stressful for young people with allergies in a school environment. Also, speaking from my experience as a former secondary school teacher, it's really stressful for teaching staff and for all staff who work in schools as well. There is a really strong argument that strengthened guidelines would be really beneficial. I think it's worth us exploring all angles on this.

Thank you.

I second what Vikki said, please. Good idea.

Yes, absolutely. Seconded by Sara. As I mentioned, I met the petitioner, and I was deeply moved by her story. As a committee, we need to do what we can to move this forward. I'm in full agreement with everybody on this. I think we do both the options here, write to the Cabinet Minister and draw the petition to the attention of the Early Years, Children, Young People and Education Committee, and really do all we can from our perspective on this committee to enact this as soon as we can. All in agreement? Yes, great. Thank you very much. That concludes the section on new petitions.

We're moving on now to agenda item 3, which is updates on petitions previously considered by the committee. The first one is P-06-1428, 'Stop the flooding in Caenant Terrace, Skewen NOW!' The submitter was Susan Martin Kerslake, with 776 signatures, 763 from Wales. I invite Sara to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Diolch, Chair. Can I also declare an interest and just to put it on the record that my partner lived in Skewen for five years, so I stayed quite a number of times in the area, although I am not familiar with the street that is mentioned in the petition. The petition is one of nine referred to the committee by the sixth Senedd’s Petitions
Committee, and today is its fourth consideration. Members of the previous Petitions Committee wanted it to be kept on as the planned flood alleviation scheme by Neath Port Talbot Council was still in its planning stages at the time, with some uncertainty over future funding from the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government’s flood alleviation funding programme for 2026-2, published in February 2026, shows £96,371 of continued commitment from 2025-26 for detailed design and full business case. Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with what that means.

The petitioner has been in contact recently to ask about further progress on the petition. And she's also shared a video of the flooding from last December, and notes that flooding was also experienced again in March of this year. Although there is some information available on Neath Port Talbot Council website, including historical information about the flooding issues in the area, the last update the committee received on progress was last December.

So, our actions here are that we can write to the Welsh Government to seek further clarification about how the continued commitment to funding will translate into full implementation of the scheme at Caenant Terrace, and when it now expects that to be completed, or we could write directly to Neath Port Talbot Council again for a further update on progress in light of the Welsh Government funding commitment. And if we did go with option 2, we may wish to keep the petition open pending a response. A third option—we could just express sympathy with the petitioner but close consideration of the petition now. I would not be in favour of that option from the options available to us. And I just want to add, in light of the previous committee identifying flood management as a key priority for the seventh Senedd, the committee may want to highlight the petition with the new Climate Change, Environment, Sustainability and Rural Affairs Committee and ask about plans to consider the issue. So, I definitely think we could write to the council to see if there is a further update on that, as a first step maybe. I don't know if anybody else would want to do anything further at the moment, but I'd very much welcome comments. 

Okay. Thank you very much. I'm in agreement with you. We don't abandon people who are going through difficulties such as this, and I think, again, it's incumbent on us as politicians to stand up for people where we can. So, I'm minded to suggest we do option 1 and 2: write to the Welsh Government and to Neath Port Talbot Council. But I'd also draw Members' attention to correspondence received from Councillor Nathan Goldup-John, who's written to the committee as well, on behalf of the residents there. So, I won't go through that detail now, but just to note that we have received correspondence there that supports implementation of this.

Yes, same for me, Chair. We've also received it.

Great. 

Although it was late, thank you very much for that.

So, just to summarise, then, if Members are happy to go with writing to the Welsh Government to seek further clarification about the funding, how that will translate into implementation, and we'll write to Neath Port Talbot Council for an update on progress—. All happy? Excellent. Thank you very much.

Moving on to P-06-1464, 'Allow Welsh families who have experienced Baby loss before 24 weeks to obtain baby loss certificate'. The submitter is Angharad Cousins. Signatures are 749, 682 are from Wales. I invite Donna to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Obviously, this has been ongoing now since August 2024, and it's been brought for discussion on a number of occasions. The latest response says that

'We are currently reviewing the options with a view to finalising the delivery method and cost of the service.'

However, it raises a barrier to implementation that the committee was not previously made aware of—

'the fact that, unlike in Scotland, Wales does not possess its own national records. As such, the Welsh Government cannot complete verification of such certificates and must rely on external partners to do so.'

The Deputy Minister for Social Care, Mental Health and Women's Health says that potential options are being explored that will ensure that the relevant information is accessed securely and accurately, and that she will make a decision on the approach as soon as possible and inform the committee.

Possible actions: the committee may wish to keep the petition open until the Minister writes again to confirm that outstanding issues have been resolved. Obviously, I would benefit from finding that out myself. It's tragic, and it's been going on since 2024. So, yes, I'd be happy to support that option—wait to hear from the Minister.

Okay. Anybody else like to comment? From my perspective, this is absolutely heartbreaking. It's the last thing that people should have to go through after going through such a bereavement. Dealing with the Government is hard enough at the best of times, and having gone through something like that, we should be making this—I don't want to use the word 'easy', but—as pain-free as we can. So, I would probably be a bit more proactive and not wait for the Minister, but perhaps send a chaser out to them that we are expecting a response back. Vikki.

Thank you, Chair. This has been an issue that has done the rounds in the Senedd for a number of years now, and it's really difficult to understand why the bureaucracy around it is taking so long, when it seems to be a very straightforward ask that would really help families at a very, very difficult time in their lives. So, I would support the proposal you've just made there, and I think it is important that we keep an eye on this issue and we regularly chase it. Otherwise, there's a danger that it will just fall through bureaucratic cracks in the system, and we could be several years down the road with another petition coming forth on this. So, I think the firmer we can be on this with chasing and continuing to ask what the blockers are and when progress can be made, the better.

I agree totally with those comments.

Okay. Thank you, all. So, let's go back with perhaps a more sternly worded letter than we have done in the past and just express our frustration at the delays, and we'll, hopefully, get this one moving. Okay. Thank you very much.

Moving on to P-07-1564, 'Restore parental consent for Religion, Values and Ethics (RVE) lessons in the Curriculum for Wales'. The submitter is Samantha Carson, and we've got 614 signatures; 557 are from Wales. I invite Elwyn to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take.

Thank you, Chair. Well, yes, this arises as a result of the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act 2021, and, in essence, the petitioner wants the right to withdraw from religion, values and ethics lessons and, basically, wants to reinstate the parental consent principle.

There is ministerial correspondence in the file you've had, and I think a couple of things to note are the clear message that, and I quote from the Minister:

'Parents retain the right to withdraw their children from collective worship'.

So, that is one aspect that is already there. But I think there also is the clear statement that there are no plans to amend the Act, as things are at the moment. And that's as clear as can be, I can see. And to be honest here, I can't see what path there is, clearly, to take it any further, in that we've had such a concise response from the Minister. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay, thank you very much. Does anybody else want to come in and contribute on this one? From my perspective, this has come up as part of casework in my constituency. There's a genuine feeling, I think, from parents that they do feel a little bit disenfranchised from having the ability to withdraw their children where they feel there's a conflict with their beliefs. So, I think I would like more assurances from the Minister, before we go back to the petitioner on this, that either (a) we can't do anything further to assuage the parents who are concerned, or (b) that the Government are going to look at it at future iterations. And that's where I'm at with it, unless anybody disagrees. Okay, Vikki.

I think that the Minister's made the position very clear, in that I don't see how going back could really add any further value.

Okay, fair enough.

It's difficult. I probably would agree. I think it's been set out as plain and as clear as can be, and I'm not sure what difference that would make—just to add my opinion as well.

Okay, I agree. We are a committee; we do this together. On that basis, we will proceed with writing to the petitioner, having obtained a Government response, and consider closing the petition. Okay, thank you very much.

Moving on to item No. 4, motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting for the remainder of the meeting. That concludes the public business. So, I propose, as matters for discussion relate to the internal business of the committee, that, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of this meeting. Are Members content? Okay, thank you. The meeting is now going into private.