National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this hybrid meeting of the Petitions Committee. The meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. Aside from the procedural adaptations for conducting proceedings in a hybrid format, all other Standing Order requirements remain in place.

Vaughan Gething is joining us online. Would any committee members like to make any declarations of interest? Please do so now, if you want to. Vaughan, have you got a declaration of interest, or might you be leaving the meeting a bit earlier?

Yes. Apologies, Chair, I’ve just been unmuted. The last petition item concerns me directly. Just to be clear, I’ll be leaving the meeting and won’t be taking part in the petition deliberations on that issue.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so if we now move on to updates to previous petitions. We have 2.1, P-06-1379, from Joseph Pashley, with 455 signatures, which was, 'Ban the sale of single-use vapes'. Could I invite Luke to discuss?

Great, diolch, Cadeirydd. I think this is one that we should be congratulating the petitioner on. It’s been quite a successful outcome. Of course, we’ve got new legislation coming in next year in Wales and the rest of the UK. I think, given that we are where we are with it now, we should close the petition and congratulate the petitioner.

Yes, thank you. Is everybody in agreement? Yes. Well done, a really good petition. Thank you. We’ve agreed to close that petition.

Item 2.2 is petition P-06-1431, 'A Beacon of Hope at Risk: Please Support Bronllys Well-Being Community Hub!' That was from Jacqueline Wilding, with 407 signatures. Could I invite Peter to discuss this petition?

Thank you, Chair. We know this because it’s obviously been before us before. It was considered on 16 September. The Welsh Government has been consulted and their response has been shared with the petitioner. We have received late correspondence this morning with further points raised by the petitioner. We thank them for furnishing us with those.

Members will remember from previous discussion that the Powys Teaching Health Board say that they are in the process of setting out how they will work together with Bronllys well-being park through a joint memorandum of understanding. The chief executive of that health board told the committee that there is currently no land available on the hospital site for development. She says the health board is committed to agreeing a development plan for the site as part of a wider discussion with patients and communities regarding the future shape of safe and sustainable services in the county. That response also provided assurances that a range of mechanisms for engagement will take place and there will be consultation with the wider community groups and members of the public as things move forward. So, it seems very clear, the position of the health board.

The response from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government sets out how the petitioners can access guidance and support from Ystadau Cymru and from third sector support within Wales. The response from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care also addresses the appropriate avenues for engagement. So, all of these responses have been shared with the petitioner. They may be still slightly unhappy, but that is the position. I think there seems to be little more that the committee can do on this petition, so I suggest we thank the petitioner and close the petition.

Okay, thank you. Are Members in agreement with this? I see nods. Okay, so we agree to close the petition on this one. Thank you.

We move on to agenda item 2.3, petition P-06-1435, 'We’re calling on the Welsh Government to commit to implementing targeted lung cancer screening'. This was submitted by Simon Scheeres, with 5,339 signatures. Can I invite Rhys to take us through this, please?

Yes, thank you very much, Cadeirydd. This is the second time we've considered this petition. On the last occasion, we wrote to Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board for more details regarding the pilot, and it's very exciting, what we've received back. The interim evaluation of the pilot is extremely positive and extremely good news. That's been shared with the petitioner, and also the chief executive of the Cwm Taf health board, both of them have mentioned issues with regard to the implementation, and issues with funding. They're asking for a commitment from Welsh Government for funding beyond March 2025. So, can I suggest that we write to the Cabinet Secretary, and copy in the Health and Social Care Committee, with the health concerns of both the chief executive and the petitioner? Diolch yn fawr. 

Okay. Are we in agreement? I thank the petitioner as well. Thank you very much. We'll move forward with that. 

Item 2.4 is petition P-06-1451, 'Keep the name "Wales" and not waste any more taxpayers money on pointless exercises'. I was thinking that we could take this with the following petition as well. That one was submitted by Michael Hampshire, with 5,439 signatures. The following petition, item 2.5, P-06-1446, is 'Abolish the name "Wales" and make "CYMRU" the only name for our country'. That was submitted by Arfon Jones, with 12,101 signatures. So, I thought it would be quite appropriate to take them both together. Could I ask Vaughan to lead on this one, with your views and thoughts?

Yes, thank you, Chair. We have two petitions urging us to take diametrically opposite action in the name of the country. Wales is a proudly bilingual nation. I'm pleased that the view of the Welsh language has moved on significantly since before I got elected, when I first got elected, with both languages belonging to all of us. The petitions respectively ask us to opt for the name of the country being one and not the other. I'm not sure that if the Senedd determined that, it would actually make people stop using the word 'Cymru' or 'Wales' in either context. My own view is it would be a divisive and unhelpful debate. I don't think it would help make anyone feel more or less Welsh to have this debate. It seems to me that whilst—. And I recognise that Arfon Jones is happy to keep us occupied as a regular petition provider, but my view is that, whilst the 10,000 mark means we should consider whether a petition should be debated, I don't think it would add much to the life of Wales or the work of this committee. People who have opposing views will continue to have them, and my own view is it is not the best use of Senedd time and resources to keep on moving this matter around and forward. I think our work is best occupied by making a difference to the lives of people in Wales, and I don't think these petitions do that. So, my recommendation to fellow members of the committee is that we should thank both petitioners for their interest, but come to the view that we won't be taking either petition forward for a debate.

Okay. Thank you, Vaughan. Would anybody else like to come in on this? Any strong views? No. I think people are naturally starting to use 'Cymru', aren't they, in the conversation as well? So, it's evolving, and people have got used to using Eryri and Bannau Brycheiniog as well. It just becomes part of our vocabulary of slotting in Welsh amongst English as well, which is really good. And it's good that it's accepted as well, that we can do that these days. We can try. So, moving forward, if we close the petitions. Thank you.

If we move on now to new petitions. We have 3.1, which is petition P-06-1459, 'Wind farm developments are akin to the drowning of Welsh valleys and old slate industry. Stop them.' 

'The exploitation of wild Welsh hilltops for the use of giant coal mining companies and other energy companies is akin to the drowning of Welsh valleys and Victorian slate industries. These developments are not being permitted in wealthy parts of England but the poorer Welsh communities must carry the burden. Climate change should not be an excuse to cut out carbon storing peatland and pour millions of tonnes of concrete into the habitats of Curlews and other endangered flora and fauna.'

So, this was submitted by Luke Brady-Johnson and has 389 signatures. Could I invite Luke to discuss this petition?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I've got sympathy with this petition on a number of levels. I think I've particularly got sympathy with something that the petitioner had said around these sites being developed and installed for profit of shareholders. But I think there's a wider debate there is to be had there, which we are currently having as a Senedd. We're going to have that debate when the GB Energy legislative consent motion comes through the Senedd process, so I think there's going to be plenty of opportunity for us to have those debates and to have those conversations about whether or not certain sites are suitable. Of course, it is a matter for local people as well, on a case-by-case basis, which sites are suitable.

Just because we're going to have these debates over the next couple of months, I think, in terms of this petition itself, that we should close it, thank the petitioner, but also highlight the fact that there are going to be debates now around energy production, community benefit, as well as, then, protection of biodiversity. So, all this, I think, is going to get handled in the next few months through the debates we will be having.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else have a view on this? No. Okay. I agree with you—we need to have that debate on energy going forward. And it does feel like sometimes we have some policies that are at odds with each other, such as restoring peatland and then putting windfarms in peatland. But, okay, going forward, I agree we're going to be debating this a lot. We'll thank the petitioner and close the petition. Thank you.

Item 3.2, petition P-06-1463, ‘Continue to fund school police officers who educate children and support schools’.

‘School Beat Cymru allowed for 68 school police officers across Wales' four forces to deliver lessons on substance abuse, safety, safeguarding and behaviour. But the Welsh Government is to stop funding the scheme in order to save £2m a year from April.’

This was submitted by Cai Gleaves, with 5,717 signatures. Could I bring Peter in?

Thank you, Chair. Can I thank the petitioner for raising this? A lot of people may not realise what work has been going on between the police and schools for the last 21 years. And let's bear that in mind—21 years, that's a huge length of time where relationships have been built, close relationships have been built with the school. Clearly, the essence of the petition is around that educating role that the police have within the school, and I can see that. I'm sure my own children have benefited from that over the years. But also, the petitioner points out the other additional elements of the relationship that help with policing-type issues within the school community, which is sad, that they would have to be called on, but, clearly, there has been this evolving, maturing relationship.

Obviously, it is concerning, recognising that this scheme has been running since 2004. I recognise that Governments have to make very difficult decisions as well, and it is always difficult to make these decisions, I'm sure. This seemed to me as a relatively—. I mean, £2 million is a lot of money, but in the scale of a country, it doesn't seem a huge amount of money to me personally, dependent on the outcomes from it. And I think that's where there is a need for us to understand what the outcomes have been from this investment over those years and how this will affect school communities moving forward.

We understand that Dyfed-Powys Police and North Wales Police will continue their school programmes. What that will look like, I'm not sure. And Gwent Police have also got a model of trying to build closer connections with communities. So, I think there are a few questions that perhaps we as a committee need to ask. So, I would suggest that the committee write to all four police forces in Wales to highlight the petition and ask for clarity on if and how their schools programme has changed, as well as their views on the impact of the cut to Welsh Government funding in this regard, and keep the petition open pending those responses. We can't just turn our back on something that has been there for 21 years without some depth of understanding of the implications that this will have for the police, for wider society. So, I would suggest that way forward. 

Okay. And Rhys. 

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Peter. I agree with what he said. All I'd want to say is to congratulate Welsh Government for doing this for 21 years because this is a perfect example of the jagged edge in Wales. It's not clear that it should be funded by the Welsh Government in any event, as policing is a reserved matter. So, I think it should be noted that Welsh Government has stepped up with regard to this important initiative, and I hope it can continue. I would reiterate Peter's views that it will continue because children need that support, and we often lose people at that age to the criminal justice system. So, any initiative that can help stop that I'm a huge supporter of.

Okay. Anybody else like to come in? Vaughan, would you like to come in? 

Yes. Look, it's been funded for over 20 years in an area that isn't straightforward in terms of devolution, and it's an area of constant pressure in the Welsh Government's budget. And the last budget that the Senedd voted for included the reduction in this area, and I think the Petitions Committee should be careful about looking to reverse decisions made by the whole Senedd in a clear-sighted way. This wasn't an accident; it was a choice—a regrettable one, but a choice that was made. And the financial context of the Government is such that these choices were made across a whole range of programmes. 

The easiest thing to do is to call for relatively small amounts, in global terms, to be put back into place without then seeing where additional reductions need to be made. Anyone who served on a local authority setting a budget will see that in that budget-setting process, because there's nothing comfortable or easy about taking money out of services. I don't have a problem with asking the police forces what they're doing, but I would take a great deal of persuading, beyond asking them what they're doing and what they're moving forward with, to keep the petition open for another term. We are into another budget cycle where different choices will be made. People will need to make choices about how they vote on that budget and what parties and party leaderships talk to each other about in terms of budget priorities.

So, for me, I think there needs to be a healthy dose of scepticism about whether this is something that should occupy lots and lots of our time beyond wanting to take an interest in what each police force is doing, not just with its specific work around schools but this side of community engagement.

Do you want to come back? 

Yes, I'll just come back and I thank Rhys for his comments and, yes, I'll support that addition of recognising that that was innovative thinking and a good way forward. I'm not necessarily saying that it needs to be—. I don't think I said that it should be reinstated. I want to understand what are the implications of removing it. Sadly, when we're under financial pressure, be it in a local authority or in a Government, everything is aligned to financial currency. Sometimes, there is a social currency that has to have value, and I think we're weak as organisations in valuing social currency and the consequential benefits or implications of disinvesting sometimes. I wish there was more work done on that. That doesn't answer the real difficult challenge that Governments have in prioritising where they spend, but it should always be done in light of the information and the assessment of how disinvestment will affect a service.

I think that does happen; in fact, I know that happens from being on the other side of the table in budget setting. It isn't just a matter of the numbers; you always know that there are consequences to changing those numbers to what gets delivered and the value of what has previously been delivered. It's what makes the choices so difficult. 

Yes, I agree. 

Okay. So, going forward, it's been suggested that we write to all four police forces to highlight the petition and the clarity regarding the schools programme. And if we could just keep the petition open, pending those responses. Is that okay? Everyone in agreement?

Sorry, is it the police forces or is it the police and crime commissioners we should be writing to?

Actually, the police and crime commissioners—sorry. Thank you for that clarification.

Yes, good point.

I remember the discussion with the north Wales police and crime commissioner regarding it.

So, the police and crime commissioners obviously set the budget and things, but the operational outcomes—would they be aware?

Quite.

It's almost both.

So, maybe it's worth writing to chief constables and the police and crime commissioners.

Yes, okay. We will write to the relevant—

Sorry. [Laughter.]

—party, to seek clarification, and just keep the petition open, just pending that response. And we'll note the value of it over the last 21 years—building relations, actually, between schoolchildren and the police force, which is really important, as a social currency. Thank you, Peter.

So, if we move on to 3.3, P-06-1467, 'Instruct NHS Wales to add Adenomyosis'—I hope I said that right—'to its 111 A-Z webpages'.

'April is Adenomyosis Awareness Month and Fair Treatment for the Women of Wales (FTWW) would like to see that awareness extend to NHS Wales. Adenomyosis is one of the most common menstrual health conditions—yet many have never heard of it. Unlike NHS England and NHS Scotland, the NHS Wales 111 website A-Z does not feature adenomyosis, despite it affecting more than 1 in 10 women and people with a uterus—the same as the number of women living with diabetes or asthma!'

 This was submitted by Dee Montague-Coast, with 324 signatures. Could I invite Rhys to discuss this petition?

Thank you very much, Cadeirydd. If we needed another example of where a petition and this whole petition process can change things, well, this is a perfect example of that. I think the web page was updated less than a month after the petition was submitted, so a clear success story, and something that clearly had to happen, and once it was shown, it happened very quickly. It is now on the A-Z website of NHS Wales 111. I'd just like to thank both the petitioner, and, of course, NHS 111 for acting so quickly afterwards.

Now, the petitioner has raised some concerns with regard to funding updates, and perhaps to make sure that the information is Welsh, or specific to Wales. So, perhaps, before we close this huge success story, we could write one more time to the Cabinet Secretary, just raising the concerns of the petitioner. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay. Any other thoughts? Okay. So, our action is just—. It's been very successful, the petition, which is good—good news for raising this awareness. So, that's been actioned. The concern is the cost of—

Updating.

—updating it.

And to make sure that the information is specific to Wales. I think those are the two concerns. I know the second one's maybe slightly out of the original petition, but if we're writing for one we might as well write for both.

So, once we've done that, then, we could close the petition. Okay. So, if we write, and then close the petition. Okay.

Maybe if we shared the response, then, with the petitioner, and then, if the petitioner's happy, close the petition then.

Yes. Okay. So, we'll await the response, share that with the petitioner and then we can close the petition.

Great. Diolch.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

The next one is 3.4, P-06-1475, 'Urgently improve the safety of the A458, Middletown, Powys in light of continuous dangerous driving'.

'Following many crashes & the tragic death of a local resident on the A458, Middletown (outside Bank Farm), the Community Council & Local Councillor has called for urgent safety improvements on this stretch of road to help prevent dangerous overtaking where there are two hidden dips. A recent response from the Minister for Transport states "we don’t have any current plans for road safety improvements at this location". We cannot wait for another death. We urge the Welsh Government to act.'

This was submitted by Amanda Jenner, with 311 signatures. Could I invite Vaughan to discuss this petition and any actions you wish to take?

Thank you, Chair. Since the original petition came in, there has been a response from the Government. The Government has had some surveys undertaken on the area in question, and there's been a site visit from officials. Some of the CCTV monitoring indicated that it was inconclusive, but there's an indication that they're going to relook at the survey evidence, and, once they have procured new evidence, they'll then make a choice about the priorities. The Cabinet Secretary does, though, to be fair, indicate that some of the measures that the petitioner wants to see enacted would actually be in conflict with other measures on the same stretch of road.

None of us on the committee, I believe, are highways or road safety experts in terms of the technical part of this. I think our job is, with the petition that's there, to understand what action is being taken. Given that the Cabinet Secretary has said that further work will be done and the petitioner has asked us to keep the petition open, I don't see any harm in writing to the Cabinet Secretary and asking for an update when that further work has been undertaken, and indicating what measures the Cabinet Secretary and his officials propose to undertake, because it is part of the trunk road network, not part of a local authority network, and then, at that point, we can consider any further action is required or not. It may well be, at that point, that we close the petition.

It's also worth noting, of course, that, even in cases where action is recommended, there's also then a priorities programme as well that deals with the resources through the country as well. So, rather than saying, 'We want this to happen before anything else', I think we need to understand what the Government response is and how those priorities will be taken through. So, that's my recommendation to the committee: write and ask for an update once the further work indicated by the Cabinet Secretary has been undertaken and what proposals for action the Government are going to take at that point.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else like to come in? Okay. Are you happy to take that forward as a recommendation? Okay, thank you very much.

If we move on to item 3.5, P-06-1479, 'Stop the detention of learning disabled and autistic children, young people and adults in hospitals.'

'There are people with learning disabilities and/or autism from Wales who are living in hospitals. This is a human rights scandal which has been ignored for too long.

'Many people with learning disabilities and/or autism are trapped in hospitals due to a lack of appropriate housing and support in their community. Many are sectioned due to placement breakdown and they have been inappropriately placed.

'Welsh Government must recognise that sectioning people under the MHA'—

the Mental Health Act—

'is not the solution.'

This has submitted by Stolen Lives, with 1,754 signatures. Could I invite Luke to discuss the petition?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I know that a lot of work has gone into the petition, and I think we should recognise that. From what I have seen on the order paper, Hefin David has a debate on this topic on Wednesday, as part of a Member's legislative proposal, so I think it's worth drawing attention to that debate, in terms of telling the petitioner. I'm not sure—. Again, I've got a couple of things I think we could do here, and I'm not sure if you're going to appreciate this, Chair, but perhaps an opportunity just to take a minute of time in that debate just to highlight the petition and maybe raise some of the petitioner's concerns directly within that debate, given that it's happening; I think that would be appreciated. We should as well, I think, share the petitioner's comments with the Minister, and ask for some answers to the questions that have been posed by the petitioner, and, as well, copy any correspondence to the Health and Social Care Committee and, as well, the cross-party group on learning disabilities, just so they're aware of what this committee is doing. I think those are some solid actions we can start with. Obviously, we'll keep the petition open then until we have responses.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is everybody in agreement with that? Okay. Did you note all those: take part in the debate, write to the cross-party group and to the committee as well, the Health and Social Care Committee, and we'll keep the petition open for now? Okay, thank you.

If we move now on to item 3.6, petition P-06-1480, 'Make menopause a mandatory part of the curriculum for all healthcare sciences and medical students'.

'Menopause is experienced by approximately 50% of the population. There are a wide variety of symptoms and long term health risks associated with it which can significantly impact physical and mental health, and which for some people can affect their ability to work, socialise, and maintain good health and wellbeing.

'In spite of this, education about menopause during healthcare and medical training programs in Wales is minimal, and there is no mandatory requirement for including this topic.'

This has been submitted by Nico Campbell, with 540 signatures collected. Could I invite Peter to discuss the petition?

Yes, thank you. And can I thank the petitioner for raising this, because there are so many people I know who suffer, not only with menopause, but perimenopause? I really do understand that.

The petitioner makes it very clear that there are more than just GPs who look after or come face to face with patients who may be suffering in this regard, and makes the case well that the variety of people who engage in the health system, be it nurses, physiotherapists, dentists, optometrists—I can't even say that—pharmacists and others all could benefit from a deeper understanding of the condition so that they could help signpost accordingly.

This is the second petition on menopause that we've considered, because there was a petition, I think, P-06-1444, 'Women of North Wales have the right to have a Menopause Services/Clinic in Ysbyty Gwynedd', and we will recall that that was back in September. So, this is clearly an ongoing concern for many people, quite rightly. So, despite affecting over half of the population, the British Menopause Society, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Society for Endocrinology—I'm terrible at pronouncing difficult words, Chair. Do forgive me.

Endocrinology.

Thank you. Thank you for that, Vaughan. But all of those areas suggest there has been a lack of support for women going through this phase of their life. We know that, in February, there was a menopause task group set up, and it led to a quality statement of women and girls’ health from the Welsh Government, setting out what Welsh health boards should deliver. But an NHS discovery report later in 2022 found that respondents felt that they were not always listened to or heard by their healthcare professionals, and more work was needed to improve education and training of health professionals. And it noted also that, as I touched on earlier, there are a lot more other areas of the health system that ought to be trained. But the Welsh Government's responsibility only really stretches to doctors, and those wider groups of practitioners would fall under the General Medical Council to provide additional training. So, in that regard, Chair, can I suggest that we keep the petition open, pending the publication of the women's health plan, which has been alluded to in the briefing, and refer the petition to the Health and Social Care Committee for consideration in scrutiny relating to that plan, as was agreed with the previous petition we discussed? I might also add that it may be worth us writing to the General Medical Council to see what the constraints might be on them, or the appetite for them to consider what the petitioner has suggested.

That's a good suggestion. Anybody else like to come in on that? Okay. I remember this being discussed. I think it was my first committee in September, discussing the menopause, and there we discussed that women don't always like to take time out do a health check or know what is available to them regarding the menopause. And if they are accessing healthcare, whether it's to have their eyes checked, physiotherapy and nurses. It's like, every time you visit a health person, they can just ask these questions, like a general health check, at the same time, for anybody, which I think would be really valuable. I'd like for there to be an opportunity for anybody over a certain age to be able to just have a general health check, because, otherwise, if you're not asked, you don't always know what's available and what to use, or make the time. 

So, going forward, we're in agreement, then—keep the petition open pending the publication of the women's health plan, and also write to the General Medical Council as well. 

I think that would be helpful. 

Okay. You're in agreement. Yes, thank you. 

We move on now to agenda item 3.7, P-06-1490, ‘We feel there should be a Referendum before the Senedd has a further 36 members.’

'The Senedd costs a lot of money. Local Authorities are struggling with funding. We don’t feel that more money should be wasted on Members of the Senedd when we need improvements to NHS, Education and Social Care.'

This was submitted by Nanette Davies, with 10,800 signatures collected.

Could I invite Rhys to discuss this petition?

Thank you, Cadeirydd, and, I think, from the outset, we need to acknowledge, from the support for this petition, but also from talking to people and reading things online and social media, and also following articles, that there’s clearly this point of view that there should be a referendum for 36 Members, with the implication that that referendum would fail and that the additional 36 Members would not be implemented, and it does have its supporters. Many people don’t agree with the policy of an additional 36 Members, especially when they’re feeling the pinch themselves, or reading about other cuts in Government and local government budgets. They clearly see additional politicians as being very unpalatable. So, I think we need to acknowledge that.

Now, this has been debated significantly, in the Senedd and outside, on the media, on television and in the papers. There have been reports published on the matter. I think we probably could publish as many reports as we want, and use as many international comparators as we’d want, and we would still have a significant part of the population against additional politicians. So, I think we have to acknowledge that, and it will be up to politicians in the next Senedd to show that the 36 Members were needed and have added a huge benefit to scrutiny et cetera.

Now, we have debated it significantly in this place. We’ve aired all the arguments. I don’t think there are new arguments to be made on either side. And I don’t think there has been a material change in circumstances since the vote on a referendum failed by a large margin here, by 40 to 14. If we reran that election—if we reran that debate—the numbers would be broadly similar yet again.

When Vaughan Gething mentioned the replace 'Wales' with 'Cymru' only petition, that had also crossed the threshold, and Vaughan Gething recommended to us that we didn’t take that on as a debate in Plenary, as our Plenary times are limited and what we can debate is also limited. So, having a rerun of the same argument, when nothing has changed, nothing new will be said and the outcome wouldn’t be any different, in my view, would be pointless.

Now, whilst I acknowledge the strength of feeling, it is my clear recommendation to the committee for the reasons I've mentioned, that we thank the petitioner, that we acknowledge what she has said and what the other signatories of the petition have said by their signature, but not to take this on to a debate and to close the petition. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Rhys. Peter.

Thank you. First of all, can I thank you, Rhys, for the balanced way in which you presented that? I think you did capture things very well. There is a strong feeling out there, as you identified. Very rarely a day goes by without somebody mentioning the need for more politicians here at the moment, especially whilst we are constrained in so many other areas of service provision across Wales. So, you can see why people are quite mobilised by this discussion. I was one of the 14 who lost the debate on this previously in the Senedd. There is a lot that has gone on in the Senedd in conversations, and it will continue, no doubt, as we move towards the next election, about the folly of taking this forward. I tend to agree that those of us who are opposed to it will struggle to change the mind of the majority of this place.

I can understand why the petitioners will still want this debate. However, I dare say we won't be able to get into a position to have it, and if I'm totally honest, I don't believe that those of us who are against will be able to sway the direction of this Parliament in its quest for this. My desire would still be to have a referendum, because it's always healthy to talk, to have a conversation or debate about it. However, I can see what my colleagues have said, and I'm trying to be sensible and realistic, so I don't expect it's going to prove much. However, at every other opportunity we have in the Chamber, I'm sure people like myself will be trying to persuade our colleagues that this wasn't the right way forward, and perhaps a step in the right direction would be at least to offer a referendum to the people of Wales.

Sorry, Chair. I should have mentioned—I had it down in my notes—the mechanics of a referendum. To try and organise a referendum before May 2026, to pass legislation et cetera, would be nearly impossible, so that's an added reason against debating this before the May 2026 election.

Would anybody else like to come in on this? No. Thank you. As has been said, the Bill was passed to extend the Senedd in June 2024. There was a vote on 6 March, where there was an amendment regarding the referendum. That was a vote of 40 to 14, so it's already been debated, discussed, voted on and passed. So, to hold a referendum now would be very difficult to organise before the next election. Listening here to what's before us and to the views of the committee, it sounds like the amount of Senedd business time that has already been given to the issue—. It's already happened, basically, the vote. We've had lots of debates. Another vote wouldn't change the position, most likely, and there's the time needed as well. The likelihood of being able to actually have a referendum is very minimal before May 2026. So, are we in favour, then, not to recommend a debate and to close the petition, as a majority of the committee are in agreement?

I will abstain from this.

Peter will abstain because he was one of the 14 that voted for it but he understands that it would be very difficult to do.

As much as I would like to have a referendum, I'm trying to be realistic. But it's against my policy position. I can't support not trying to at least move forward with it.

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to item 3.8 now, P-06-1466, 'Call for an early Senedd election'. It says:

'Now there is a new "unelected" First Minister running Wales, the public should have the right to vote for who they want running the country.'

This was submitted by Dave Musto with 4,602 signatures. Could I invite Luke to discuss this petition?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I understand the points of view set out in the petition. We do have an election in 18 months' time. After that election, the terms will be brought down to four years, so they'll be even more frequent again after that. Realistically, I don't think we're going to be able to progress this petition, so I would recommend that we close the petition and thank the petitioner.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to comment? There are no more speakers. So, moving forward, we'll close the petition. Thank you.

The next one is—. Vaughan, would you like to leave now? I think we're coming up to that petition.

Yes, Chair, I'll leave the meeting at this point.

Thank you. Thank you for attending. This petition is P-06-1481, 'The people of Wales require a public inquiry into the £200,000 donation made to Vaughan Gething'. 

'The people of Wales require a public inquiry into the £200,000 donation made to Vaughan Gething. A donation of £200,000 was made to Vaughan Gething in pursuance of his bid to become First Minister, even though this essentially only involved canvassing votes from Labour unions. The company making that donation also received a substantial loan from the Development Bank of Wales, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Welsh Government. A full public inquiry should be held to determine details of the loan, its purpose, the subsequent donation and how that donation was spent.'

This was submitted by Wayne Croot, with 7,284 signatures. Could I invite Peter to discuss this?

Thank you, Chair. The petition closed on 29 October, and a response was received from the First Minister on 12 November, and we haven't had any response as yet—. Can I be clear on that? On 12 November a response was received from the First Minister, and then it says, 'Response not yet received'. So, we wrote to the First Minister, but we haven't had the response?

This petition was fast-tracked, so that—. Oh, no, it wasn't. Sorry, I'm getting it confused with the other one. 

We've received a response, but no petitioner comments.

That's my mistake. Sorry. We have received a response.

No problem. It's very clear that this issue has been discussed at length: in Plenary, way back in First Minister's questions in February and in June, and in the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister in April, and there have been three opposition debates in May and June on it. So, Members have had quite a lot of opportunity and have discussed this at length. There is a ministerial code in place that provides guidance to Ministers, Deputy Ministers and the Counsel General on expected standards of constitutional and personal conduct. Under Schedule 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, regulated donees, including Senedd Members, are subject to controls on the acceptance and reporting of donations. The Electoral Commission keeps a register and the relevant donations were declared and can be viewed on its website. So, that's accessible to anybody to look on the website. 

The petition also refers to the company making the donation having been provided with a loan by the Development Bank of Wales, and calls for a public inquiry into that. The Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee’s recent inquiry into the Development Bank of Wales, which reported in July 2024, included discussions on the loan in question to Dauson Environmental Group. The bank’s chief executive confirmed to the committee that it has 'full independence' from Welsh Government Ministers. The Welsh Government’s response to the committee report accepted the recommendation to task the Development Bank of Wales with reviewing its diligence processes as a result.

In February 2024, the BBC reported then, as we know, that the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, found that Vaughan Gething had not broken the ministerial code, as the code

'does not govern the process for the receipt of donations to Senedd members',

adding that

'these are set and regulated by the Electoral Commission'.

Vaughan Gething was nominated, as we know, First Minister on 20 March. On 23 April, he said that he would

'not commission any further advice or an independent inquiry'

on his decision to accept the donation. He said the Development Bank of Wales are wholly independent of Welsh Government, and that there was no conflict of interest. In her response to the petition, the current First Minister states that

'This matter was considered by the previous First Minister, Mark Drakeford who concluded that there had not been a breach of the Ministerial Code'

and that she does

'not intend to revisit that decision, as there is no additional evidence available as part of this petition submission.'

So, Chair, this matter, it is very clear, has been subject to sustained and extensive scrutiny in the Chamber and within Senedd committees, as well as everything that has gone on in the media. Matters have moved on significantly since the petition was opened back in April. We are all aware of what's happened. The First Minister’s response is very clear, and, in light of it, Members may feel there is little more that this committee can do, and I support that. I absolutely support that. I think this has been dealt with enough, and I suggest that the petition is closed, and that we thank the petitioner.

Luke, would you like to come in?

Just very briefly, Chair, in relation to the report by the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee. The recommendations that were within that report didn't just focus on due diligence within the Development Bank of Wales, it was on a wholesale review of the Development Bank of Wales's operations. So, that, in addition to reviewing its due diligence process, I hope, will provide some assurance that the committee took some of the allegations that we heard seriously and that we look forward to scrutinising the Development Bank of Wales's work and the Government's work around those particular recommendations.

Thank you for that extra information, Luke. It's helpful when we're on different committees, bringing that knowledge here. So, the proposal is to thank the petitioner and close. That's what we will do. Thank you very much. That's the last of the petitions.

Now there's a motion under Standing Orders to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting for the remainder of today's business. The next meeting will be on 6 January. It will be to exclude the public from the rest of today's business and that meeting on 6 January, which is going to be busy. We're taking evidence regarding petition P-06-1482, 'Ban smartphones in all schools in Wales with exemptions for exceptional circumstances.' So, it's going to be a stakeholder event on 6 January. Is everybody in agreement with that? Yes. Thank you very much. We'll close the meeting.