National Assembly for Wales

Welcome, everyone, to the meeting of the Petitions Committee. The meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. We have no apologies. Would anybody like to declare any interests for any of the matters here? I'd just like to mention I'm chair of the cross-party group on animal welfare, in relation to items 2.1 and 3.1. Joel, yes. 

Thank you, Chair. In relation to the petition under item 3.1, about the ban of the use of toxic lead in all ammunition in Wales, I'm a member of BASC, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation. 

Okay. Thank you. That's relevant. Thank you. 

So, if we move on to new petitions, item 2.1 is petition P-06-1497, 'End Welsh Govt funding of animal experiments and divert funds to modern, human-relevant technologies'. 

'Over 39,000 animal procedures took place in Wales in 2022, an increase on 2021. However polls show most people oppose animal research, favouring new technologies',

according to the South Wales Argus, April 2021.

'Four Welsh universities (Aberystwyth, Bangor, Cardiff and Swansea) conduct animal studies. Yet the Welsh Govt is being urged by the Senedd’s Cross Party Group on Medical Research (2023 inquiry report) to increase its QR funding to unis and to incentivize the sector in order to accrue economic benefits.'

This was submitted by Deborah Davies for Wales Against Animal Experiments, and it has gained a total of 13,931 signatures. We are aware that at least 7,000 signatures have come from England, where it's a hugely emotive issue. Could I invite Luke to discuss the petition and any actions we might like to take as a committee?  

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Just looking at what the petition is calling for, animal testing isn't devolved. I think there's a question around the funding being used for universities, but the Welsh Government position is also clear on that, and it's 'hands off'. We've heard that repeated several times on different issues as well. I know that it's reached the threshold but, as you've already set out, Chair, fewer than half of those signatures actually come from Wales. I do think that there is a role for individual Members who might take an interest in this to be asking some questions around the funding element. So, I wouldn't be in a position to suggest that we take this for a debate. I think, especially when we consider the amount of time that is left between now and the dissolution of the Senedd, we should be focusing in on those petitions where the Welsh Government has the ability to do things. So, what I would suggest is that we don't take this petition to a debate or ask for a debate, but that we do thank the petitioners and we close the petition. But I do think that, perhaps, if the committee is happy, we can at the very least write to the universities, asking about their position on animal testing and what they're looking to do to move away from that, but, as I said, still close the petition.

Okay. Would anybody else like to come in on this? Okay. Thank you, Luke. I'd like to support that. We could write to the universities, asking them about the testing on animals and if they have plans to move away from it, because we've had this petition, many people don't support it, or would like us to move away from it, and they do have Welsh Government funding. I can raise it in my cross-party group on animal welfare as well, and, as you said, we can raise it individually. I do acknowledge that we don't have much Senedd time left now, do we, for debates. Okay. We've got those actions, and then, moving forward, we will thank the petitioner and close the petition. Okay. Thank you.

We move on to item 2.2, P-06-1504, 'Save Pembroke Pool—Improve Don't Remove'.

'Pembroke Pool is under threat of closure due to huge funding gaps in providing services in Pembrokeshire. Whilst we recognise this is a Pembrokeshire County Council issue, it highlights the need for more funds to reach rural communities from the Senedd. We call on Welsh Government...to provide additional funds, ring-fenced to upgrade our tired leisure services that are such an all important social hub in all our communities. Without a commitment from WG the threat of closure looms over us with every annual budget consultation.'

So, this has been submitted by Rhian Cowen, with 513 signatures. Could I invite Joel to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take?

Thank you, Chair. I might not look like it now, but I used to be a member of a swimming club when I was growing up—I used to be a member of Pontypridd swimming club—so I know the value that amenities like this have for the community. I know that Pembroke swimming club has been there for nearly 50 years. It's disappointing that the council have looked at a budget for its closure. But one of the things that I'm a little bit unsure about at the moment is that I think the pool is still open, and I'd like to seek, if that's okay, further clarification maybe. We can write to the council just to see what its future intentions are for the pool before moving any further. I've got to admit this has been a fantastic campaign that they've run to try and raise awareness of this, and it would be good if we could do more to support them, but I think we just need to find out what the council's plans are for the pool first, if that's okay.

Okay. Would anybody else like to speak on this?

Can I ask if we need to keep the petition open to write to the council, because there's another round of budgets, aren't there? So, the council have set their budget for this financial year—and I think you're right, Joel, the pool is open. So, if we're looking proactively at what their plans are, that wouldn't really come to fruition until they're getting towards financial choices later in the year. So, I think it's a fair point Joel makes about writing to the council—they're the budget holder, responsible for funding or otherwise. But we could close the petition and report back on the letter, as opposed to needing to come back on another occasion to look at this again. Otherwise, I suspect there'll be another two meetings where the same issue will be discussed without—. It's the information back from the council that matters, and, if that comes here, it will be public as well, so the petitioners won't need to seek access to it because it will be published as part of the correspondence of this committee.

So, you're saying that we don't need to keep the petition open.

I think close the petition, and, as Luke suggested on the first petition, close the petition but write to the council, ask them about their proposals for the future of the pool, what they intend to do, how they expect that to come about in future budget planning, and then we'll have that response on record, and so will the petitioners.

Okay. The Welsh Government funds free swimming in Wales, don't they, but the biggest issue at the moment with that is transport, especially in rural areas. So, there are lots of things at the moment that are in the pipeline that could change. And then, I believe Ynni Cymru have been helpful for some leisure services, looking at changing their energy so that they use renewable sources and lower the bills, because swimming pools are so expensive, aren't they?

Yes. They're energy intensive.

So, I'm sure that—. I suppose Bridgend council will know about that funding stream, won't they?

This is Pembrokeshire.

Perhaps we could write and mention that to them as well, but as a suggestion.

I'm happy, Chair, for you and the clerks to draft an appropriate letter to the council, dealing with the steer given by the committee. I think that's fine.

Okay. So, we'll write to see what their intentions are and then close the petition. Okay. I'm sure, as we go forward, looking at budgets and manifestos, swimming is a big issue that comes up time and time again, and being able to keep our leisure centres open is hugely important. I think we all recognise that, don't we? We'll thank the petitioner. Okay.

If we move on, then, to 2.3, petition P-06-1509, 'Fund music education for future generations in the “land of song”'.

'Music is an inalienable part of Wales’s cultural identity. Our choirs, bands, orchestras & opera companies are world-class, & contribute to Wales’s international brand & tourist economy. Over recent years, free instrumental tuition has vanished from our schools. The loan of free instruments to learn on has gone. Now, Wales’s biggest university plans to close its music department due to financial pressures.'

This is another one impacted by public service cuts. It was submitted by Eluned Parrott, with 1,290 signatures. So, could I invite Vaughan to discuss the petition and any action you suggest?

Yes. This is a petition from a former Assembly Member, as we then were, and it opened following Cardiff University's consultation on reductions in a number of areas, including its music department. There are three petitions currently out regarding Cardiff University proposals. There are, of course, other universities in Wales with proposals on reductions. There are just under 1,000 signatures from Wales, so it doesn't meet the debate threshold. However, with the ongoing issues around Cardiff University's proposals, there's been a public update with a reduction in the number of potential jobs. There's also been progress on nursing as well, with the potential for an answer that involves the University of South Wales, since the consultation opened. I should note I am a member of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, and we are looking forward to the vice-chancellor attending committee this summer term to talk about the proposals, but also more than that, about the wider picture for universities, and not just funding, but, course, the courses that students wish to study, which is partly driven by the world around us and how it's changing. But it's also driven by changes and choices that young people make in their school education as well.

So, I'm expecting that, regardless of the fate of this petition, there will be significant interest in Cardiff University generally, but also music education as well. It's also worth noting, of course, that there is now a national music education service, and there was not, in schools, in the previous Senedd term. That's come with new money, and I note the Cabinet Secretary has written, acknowledging that that service is being funded and is changing some perceptions and points around take-up of music education within school. That was a manifesto commitment for some parties. It was also a part of the co-operation agreement when it was in existence.

My view is that we should close the petition. We have a range of petitions that are already in train around Cardiff. There's already been debate around music education in the Chamber as part of the Cardiff University proposals. I do think it might be appropriate, though, for us, when we think about the wider group of petitions about Cardiff University, to write to the Children, Young People and Education Committee ahead of the vice-chancellor going, so they can be clear about the petitions that have come here that we've chosen to close, but they can raise them directly with the vice-chancellor. It may well be there's more than one vice-chancellor in that scrutiny session, because it's not just an issue about Cardiff; there is a wider issue in the sector here, which the petitioner highlights, with her opinion on how that's come about. It's not necessarily one that I think every vice-chancellor would accept, but there is a genuine challenge in higher education funding and in the subjects that children and young people are choosing to engage with. So, that's my proposal: close the petition, highlight the petitions around Cardiff University to our Children, Young People and Education Committee, and thank the petitioner for her efforts.

Okay. There is a suggestion to also write to the culture committee as well. So, both the CYPE and culture committees, as music education is being discussed there as well.

There's also the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama petition.

Yes. Okay. Is the committee in agreement with that? Thank you. Music education, I remember, when it was free, in Flintshire, there were 5,000 young people that used to take part in the county music services. Now, there are 2,500, which is still a lot, but it's halved now that young people have to pay.

Of course, in north-east Wales, you've got an anchor institution in Theatr Clwyd, and as part of their investment, they've agreed they want to take on music education in schools in north-east Wales. So, there's something there about the changing model that can take place, and I think that shows the value of the investment in the institution as well.

Yes. And I believe that the roll-out of the music education service has helped stop that leakage of people going. And even though they might be able to do the grades through school at the moment, they still take part—or do O-levels and A-levels—through the national music service and do the grades, thank goodness. But it's a concern for me as well about what's happening there. 

Right, so if we write to the CYPE committee and the culture committee regarding the petition, and then close it. Okay. Thank you.

If we move on to 2.4, petition P-06-1510, 'Direct NRW to revoke the environmental permit and ensure the closure of Enovert's, Hafod Landfill Site in Wrexham':

'The Hafod Landfill Site has caused community distress for 18 years, making it Wales' longest running environmental campaign. Despite efforts by residents and elected representatives, the site continues to emit noxious odours, creating an unacceptable statutory nuisance. NRW are responsible for environmental protection and has failed to take meaningful enforcement action, relying instead on technical justifications and vague assurances. This is not just regulatory inertia, but governance failure.'

It was submitted by Steven Gittins, with 1,125 signatures. Could I invite Rhys to discuss this?

Diolch, Gadeirydd. The petitioner in this case has gone to a huge effort to produce substantial evidence of air pollution and odour issues, and the impacts this has caused to residents in the area. Now, since this petition has been submitted, the Cabinet Secretary and Natural Resources Wales have attended the site, they've discussed with the company the issues on the site and the problems caused. Both acknowledge that there are issues; there have been non-compliance issues. But the Cabinet Secretary is very clear that this is a matter for Natural Resources Wales, and the Cabinet Secretary will not direct the closure of the site. This is a matter for Natural Resources Wales to deal with; they're quite clear on that. Now, Natural Resources Wales believe that appropriate measures have taken place to deal with the non-compliance, and a stakeholder group has been established. The petitioner is obviously unhappy with this response. The petitioner wants the site closed, but Natural Resources Wales and the Cabinet Secretary have raised potential issues if the site closes. There would be nobody to—. It would cause difficulties about who would manage the site after that. The petitioner doesn't agree with that. The petitioner is quite firm that the issue is there, that the issue needs to be resolved, and the only way to resolve it is to close the site.

Now, there obviously are ongoing issues. The petitioner and the local community are obviously very unhappy and are facing some huge problems. I think we certainly need to be in touch with National Resources Wales and the private company. We need to see what updates are happening, what is being done to try and resolve this issue, and find more out about this stakeholder group because the petitioner's very dismissive about the community engagement.

Chair, I'm in your hands and the clerking team's hands on what's the best way to do this, whether we write to National Resources Wales and the company, that we invite submissions and information from them, or perhaps we could even invite them to attend a future meeting. So, those are my suggestions.

Okay, thank you, Rhys. Anybody else like to come in on this? Vaughan.

I think the issue is how and where the committee sees itself as acting in relation to the subject committee. Rhys is right, I think, because of the lengthy detail provided by the petitioner of the long-standing nature of the issue, and the fact that, to date, the regulatory action hasn't resolved the issue, and I think NRW themselves acknowledge there is still an issue to resolve, it's really about how that should be undertaken and whether this is the issue that should lead to a wider inquiry on NRW's ability to function effectively. The alternative is, do you ask for direct responses or direct engagement in person at this committee? I think that only really works if it engages the business, the regulator, but also the role the local authority has as well, because I would expect that this would be an issue that is across the local authority's desk, both as local members and the cabinet members.

So, I think it's worth thinking about what to do. Either this committee wants to do more, and then I think that's a larger piece of work—essentially, a mini scrutiny session—and I'm not sure this is the place to do that. Or the alternative is to specifically ask a subject committee to look at this issue. And whilst NRW's annual scrutiny has passed, there's no reason they can't ask them to return. If there is a more significant issue about how NRW manages either the sector or its ability to effectively manage the sector—. Because when there are problems here, the business has not just got to respond to an enforcement notice—they've got to decide how they're going to go about it to comply with the notice, how much they invest, where they get that from, and how they manage to still be a going concern to do that. Now, that isn't always straightforward. It won't be exactly the same in every area, but there's got to be a plan about how improvement can take place and then how the regulator understands whether that's being done, because otherwise you simply ask communities nearby to put up with a nuisance on their doorstep, and none of us would say that for any of our constituents.

So, going forward, we could write to the clerks of the other committees to see if they would look at doing an inquiry into this. My concern is it's quite specific to this. I know we do scrutinise, at the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, NRW annually, but that does cover a wide remit of all that NRW are responsible for, which is wide-ranging, whereas this is one specific area that we would want to drill down on, involving NRW, the company and Wrexham County Borough Council, basically. And the community engagement group need to feel they're involved, don't they, as well, and they're being listened to, because it doesn't sound like that's happening at the moment. So, could I leave it in your hands as to the best way forward? She says, talking to the clerks. Is that okay?

We'll talk to the other committees and see what their workload looks like, because it may well be that, if there's legislation in their timetable, they're not going to get to it for months, and it might, naturally, come back to us, then.

Local government and housing—I think they deal with the waste and recycling side of things, which this might fall under, but this is not municipal waste, which normally local government and housing would deal with. Well, it's municipal waste not from Wales. So, again, I'm not sure whether they'd be keen to follow it up, but I'll leave it with you.

What might be interesting also is how and when NRW expect some improvement to be seen, what monitoring is in place, when and how that's published. So, not just the liaison group, because part of this is, in a vacuum, different narratives, some of which are not well founded in facts, which will take a hold, and so having information that is available publicly is, actually, I think, quite important.

Yes. 

It’s also about who’s paying for that information. So, if the business is paying to have monitoring devices installed, it's the assurance that NRW’s oversight means they can trust the data, that the data is published, and with that telling a story of an improving issue around the nuisance, as well as the reality that sometimes you have the nuisance of a smell, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s a health hazard that comes with it. But I think having that information, and being really clear on where that’s provided, is important, and how regularly NRW expect to receive that monitoring, and whether they’re going to determine whether the business is complying with the improvement notices involved.

All those things will matter, but that’s quite an involved piece to get there, and I’m not sure this committee is best placed to do that. But I do think it’s worth finding out and asking how that information is provided, because, otherwise, it will look like you're saying to the petitioner, ‘Well, because we haven’t got an answer, it’s taking too long so we’re off.’

It’s gone on for 18 years, and we need to make the best use of the Senedd, what’s left of the Senedd, don’t we, and try and resolve it somehow, or move forward in a more satisfactory way for the petitioner and the residents. Okay. So, we’ll take that forward with the clerks.

Yes, we'll report back.

Report back, okay, in the next committee. Thank you. So, we’ll keep that open.

Moving forward, we’ve got updates to previous petitions. So, 3.1, P-06-1184, ‘Immediately ban the use of toxic lead in all ammunition in Wales...lead is killing our wildlife!’ This was submitted by Robert Curtis, with 4,051 signatures; 1,534 were Wales-only. Okay, could I invite Luke?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. So, the UK Government, through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is doing a joint review with the Welsh and Scottish Governments, from what I understand. It’s either joint, or it’s in collaboration with the devolved nations. So, I would suspect that we would get a response to this petition via that review. So, could I suggest, in light of that, that we thank the petitioner and close the petition, and that we direct the petitioner towards that review that’s ongoing at the moment?

Okay. Thank you, Luke. Any other comments? My only concern is—but, then, I have declared that I am the chair of the cross-party group on animal welfare—that the Health and Safety Executive opinion on banning lead is still currently under review by the UK Government department. And a decision will be made in due course, with the final decision still pending. Yet, it felt originally that an outcome was going to happen. So, just sometimes it feels like you need to put pressure on to make sure it’s top of the agenda, don’t you? So, can we write, as well, to DEFRA, and say that we’ve received this petition, and take Luke’s advice that they also do that—write back to the petitioner and they maintain momentum with DEFRA regarding this, to make sure it’s top of the agenda? Is that okay? And then we’ll close the petition. Thank you.

Item 3.2 is P-06-1242, ‘Improve Endometriosis Healthcare in Wales’. And this was submitted by Beth Hales, with 5,895 signatures. The debate threshold was 5,000, and 5,004 were Wales-only. So, could I invite Joel to discuss the petition, please? Joel.

Thank you, Chair. And I’m conscious that it’s an extremely important petition, and we’ve had it for some time. And I remember discussing it when I was on the Petitions Committee before, before I was transferred. And I’m conscious that, at the time when it came in, the threshold for debate was 5,000, and I’m conscious that there’s still a lot more work that needs to be done on this. But I don't know whether or not a debate is the most appropriate course on this, because I’m conscious that the petitioners are still concerned about some of the issues in terms of tertiary care, for example. And I know that one of the things we could do is to wait to see what review is going to happen in the spring in terms of tertiary care and waiting times. But we've had a bit of a discussion about it recently, because of Endometriosis Awareness Month, and I just wanted to know whether or not there is scope to have that debate as well, from a petitions point of view. I was just keen to see what the rest of the Petitions Committee feels about that, considering, as Luke mentioned earlier, that there is not much time until next year, and there is a backlog of debates to be had.

Yes. Okay. Anybody else like to come in on this?

Yes. I think that, in the women's health plan, endometriosis care is one of the early and significant priorities within it, and for good reason as well. As a country, we haven't done well enough in terms of what is a not unusual part of women's healthcare. It's not an uncommon condition. I should declare, I should note, that the petitioner is a constituent, but also that I started some of this work when I was the health Minister, looking at endometriosis care in the country.

And look, there has been real progress. The petitioner acknowledges that there has been progress. But it's still early days to understand the significance of the impact, and she points out that, potentially, you'll get better access to care if you're in the Swansea bay area or the Cardiff area, so there is something about where the tertiary care takes place, how commonly available that's going to be needed, and making sure that women, when they need that care, have an easy pathway to get there. I think that's all entirely reasonable. But it's really about understanding how those are being worked through, and I don't think you'd really see the impact of this until some more time has passed.

So, I think that's what the challenge is; in roughly a year or so, and it should be within this Senedd term, you'll understand, following the start and over the first year of significant operation, what the figures tell us and then what the experiences of women themselves tell us about whether this care is being improved directly. I'd be really very surprised if major parties going into the next election didn't have something to say about the future of women's health. I also would expect that the Health and Social Care Committee would look at this again.

My view is that we should thank the petitioner, note that we can't give a guarantee on what the next Senedd will do, but that we're making the Health and Social Care Committee available, and we'd expect that this would come up in ministerial scrutiny within the committee, about the points about what is happening, what does the data tell you, what is the experience of women and how is it being collected. Those things, I think, are really important for service improvement and for ministerial understanding about whether the policy they're setting is actually making a difference or not. And I think that is genuinely best done in the Health and Social Care Committee. There is still room for a debate in the Senedd, and time in the Chamber, but I suspect that most of the effective scrutiny will be done in a committee with Ministers in front of them understanding, 'Have you met your own expectations on improving this area of care, and what more needs to be done?' And I don't think we'll get that as effectively here in the committee.

Okay. Vaughan has suggested we close the petition. We can refer the latest updates to the Health and Social Care Committee. We need to look at, maybe, a legacy report for the next Petitions Committee going forward. We could always do it as a suggestion, couldn't we, to keep a watching brief on the women's health care plan and particularly endometriosis as well. We can have that discussion, anyway, as a committee later.

I think that's an entirely reasonable suggestion, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Is everybody in agreement? Okay. Thank you. So, we'll close the petition and just forward this to the HSC committee.

Moving on, item 3.3, P-06-1335, 'Welsh Government should take steps to ensure vulnerable adults without bank cards can pay with cash'. This was submitted by Mencap Cymru with 1,926 signatures—. Sorry, that was just online. A total of 2,504 signatures. I remember meeting with them, and they really made a good case for this. We met with the Cabinet Secretary—both of them—for Social Justice and Trefnydd and Chief Whip— she came along when we were chatting—and then also the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, as well, and raised it with him. Rhys, could you come in and—?

Yes, thank you, Chair. The committee has done a lot of work on this petition, and it's one of those examples where the evidence sessions remain quite clear in my mind, and I'm surprised to see it was back in 2023, because I can still remember a lot of the comments said. They were very powerful. We published a report and debated it, and the last time the matter came to this committee, the issue had narrowed with regard to Transport for Wales and the use of cash to buy food and drink on their services. Now, we were told that there is discretion, that TfW have discretion, to allow cash purchases on their services, but this isn't advertised, in fear that it would be abused by people who don't need it. Now, the Cabinet Secretary has agreed to meet with Transport for Wales to discuss how they can improve the services to vulnerable adults, how, without it being advertised, people know that it exists, because, if they don't know it exists, they're probably not going to ask for it in the first place, are they? The only comment back from Mencap in that discussion is that they wanted vulnerable adults and their families to be part of the discussion between officials and Transport for Wales, and I think that is very important. So, if we can write to say that, and then close this very important petition. Diolch.

Thank you, Rhys. I think that's a good point to make. I raised it recently following up the petition regarding blue badges for people with lifelong conditions, and I was told that there is a workshop being set up between local government and Welsh Government officials, and asked that they also invite the disability organisations and the community interest company Stand North Wales as well. Really important, isn't it, that you've got the stakeholder's voice there as well.

Because until you speak to the people involved, you might not even have considered a real practical issue. Once you hear it, of course, that's obvious, but you just haven't even thought about it. So, that's what came across very clearly to me in the evidence sessions, that things that are very obvious, but of course we haven't even considered until it was—.

Yes, you need that user's voice, and then they need that confidence to be able to ask, I think. Okay, so, are we going to write back and ask that they be included in any consultation? Do we need to write to Transport for Wales as well, or is it all just through Welsh Government? [Interruption.] Through the Cabinet Secretary. Okay. If we can send that. I just feel maybe, as well, when the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales is dealing with such a lot, you just think should we actually be raising it with the organisations providing the service as well? There's no harm in doing it, is there? Okay. [Interruption.] Okay, thank you. Sorry, I didn't hear you, Vaughan.

They've got their own obligations as the body delivering transport as well, and if it is about how they apply some discretion, Ken can't remotely control the office, so it does—. I think it's a fair point about writing to Ken and TfW.

Yes. Okay, good, thank you.

Sorry, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales.

Moving on to item 3.4, P-06-1350, ‘Re-open Dyfi Ward at Tywyn Hospital now’, and it was submitted by Jane Seddon Barraclough, with 5,528 signatures. Who have we got down for this? Could I bring Vaughan in, please?

I understand this is the seventh time. I'm not sure if that's a record or not, but it's the number of times the petition has reappeared before the committee, and, at heart, it looks as if every time the health board says, 'We want to do the right thing and have safe staffing levels to provide a service,' broadly, the assurances they're doing the right thing aren't accepted by the petitioners and the campaign group. So, in the latest round of correspondence, the Cabinet Secretary for health says it's not a matter for him, it's a matter for the health board, it's an operational issue. The petitioners' predictable response is that's the Welsh Government abdicating responsibility and they don't believe the assurances given by the health board on what they're doing, and there's also some comment made around having heard NHS staff saying there's more than enough staff to reopen it, they just don't want to. And the problem in that sort of environment is it's very hard to know who and how people trust. The health board letter does say that in May—so, literally, we're a couple of days away from May as we sit here now—they're going to be re-engaging and looking at the way forward for developing the health service in the wider Tywyn area. Now, I think it's very hard for us to be writing, just as they're about to start that, saying, 'We don't believe you, just do what the petitioners want.'

And also we're not on a petition to understand the workforce models the health board are working to about what better care looks like, whether that's the same service in the same way or not. I think it is entirely reasonable, though, to expect that the engagement that takes place is real and genuine, and, even at the end of that, there may be people in the community who don't agree with the model the health provide moving forward. Even successful health boards in other parts of the country don't always agree with every part of their community about how to deliver better and high-quality healthcare.

It seems to me, though, that we either keep the petition going until the petitioners are satisfied, and it's entirely possible they won't be, or we simply say, 'This is a matter for the health board. They are indicating that they are going to engage over the next month on what future services should look like, and this should really be a scrutiny matter for the health board at both board level, but also in the subject committee, to understand whether or not the model they're engaging with—', because it's not just about Tywyn, I think. I think there is a broader point: how does this health board engage with local communities to take them on a journey about what current care looks like, and what successful, high-quality care will look like in the future in a way where they're engaged in how that will take place? I know there's this challenge of what needs to take place in hospital, what takes place in your community and what's the role of community hospitals in doing some of that as well.

I personally don't think this is a matter where we should maintain the petition, even though the petitioners are asking for that. I think this is a wider part of health board scrutiny, and we should write to the Health and Social Care Committee, confirming that we've dealt with this petition a number of times, engagement is about to take place. We should ask them, in their next engagement with the health board—and we're sure they will have—whether they'll go through this issue as part of how the health board is engaging with its local population and managing its issues around staff recruitment, retention and what future safe services look like.

Okay.

I think sometimes that not just having a general conversation, but a specific example of that can be helpful in scrutiny as the board is still going through its journey, hopefully at some point, out of special measures on a permanent basis.

Okay. Any other comments? Okay. So, going forward, if we write to the social healthcare committee regarding this petition, ask them, when they scrutinise the health board, that they raise this specific issue regarding the model going forward, how they're engaging with the community. I think they need to engage with the staff there as well. So, if the staff believe that the staffing levels are sufficient, and that's what they're telling the community, that's also important, and it's been raised before regarding—. They have actually said that that's one of the areas that are improving, going forward, that they're having meaningful engagement with their staff, so we just need to ensure that's happening.

The chief executive's also mentioned that Senedd Members engage, so, as well as constituency and regional Members, it's about whether we should, when referring over to the Health and Social Care Committee, note that the health board chief exec has said they'll update Members, and to ask the chief exec of the health board to directly update the health committee itself. Again, that means that update will be public, because it will form part of the correspondence and subject matter that the Health and Social Care Committee would consider.

So, their plan or their model, going forward, for this area, it's been presented to the health board, to the Members, but then would there need to be a consultation, a public consultation, before it's implemented, or can it just be implemented?

That would depend on the nature of the change they're talking about. But the chief exec of the health board has offered to keep Senedd Members updated on developments and to write with an update—

To the local Members.

—later in the year. So, I would have thought that, when we refer it to the Health and Social Care Committee, we note the offer from the chief exec of the health board and suggest that the update that the chief exec provides should go to the Health and Social Care Committee of the Senedd, because then it will be public and you can guarantee, knowing the membership, that there’ll be people who’ll take a direct interest in that. So, it’s part of the point about, from the petitioner’s point of view, knowing that this isn’t just going to disappear.

Okay. Because we don't want that follow-up to be lost, do we, by us closing the petition. 

Exactly.

I take note that it is, maybe, seven times that it's been re-presented to us and we need to move on. But it's just making sure that follow-ups do actually take place and happen, so if we make that quite clear with the relevant committee. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Petition 3.5 is P-06-1389, 'Introduce a 30mph limit on the trunk road through the villages of Eglwys Fach and Ffwrnais'—Rhys, help me with my pronunciation.

It's 'Ffwrnais', yes.

Thank you. It was submitted by Catherine Stevenson, with 419 signatures. It says, 'Oral update on written signatures'—what does that mean?

There were some provided in writing as well.

Okay. So, that's fine. Could I invite Luke to discuss the petition?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I can see that the Cabinet Secretary has responded to the petitioner and the petitioner has come back to ask him for specific timelines. So, can I suggest that we write back to the Cabinet Secretary asking for those timelines, and also consider, then, once we’ve had a response on the timelines, closing the petition?

Okay. Is the committee happy? Okay. Thank you, Luke, for that suggestion. So, we'll write back and get the timelines and then we will look to close the petition. Okay. Thank you.

Item 3.6 is P-06-1391, 'Introduce regulation of the dog grooming sector, to protect the welfare of dogs and rights of owners'. This was submitted by Brian Howell, with 284 signatures. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. I note that when we contacted the Deputy First Minister, they were unable to give us the timelines that we required, especially for the petitioner. But I understand that there’s a statement coming up in the spring that should answer all our questions. So, I was quite keen, maybe, to keep it open until we have that statement and then see if our questions have been answered.

I’m very keen to see the advancements of this Bill going through on the licensing of animal welfare establishments, activities and exhibits, and I’m a little bit concerned about how much time we’ve got left to deliver it. So, I’d welcome that. I think there might be a statement tomorrow on the delivery of legislation, so it should fall under that, shouldn't it, hopefully. Okay. Right. So, we'll keep it open and wait. Thank you.

Item 3.7 is P-06-1405, 'We want and need a Mental Health unit for men in North Wales with beds'. It was submitted by Lynda Leigh, with 261 signatures. Can I invite Rhys to take us through?

Yes, thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. This is our third time to consider this petition. We had a response from the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being. She noted the further comments by the petitioner and confirmed that the suicide prevention and self-harm strategy would be published on 1 April and it was, and that the mental health and well-being strategy will follow after the Easter recess, so hopefully very soon, unless the Cadeirydd knows something that I don’t. We’ve shared the response with the petitioner and no further comments have been received, so I’d like to thank the petitioner and close the petition.

You know, I was thinking, I really do welcome that we’ve got a Minister for Mental Health and Well-being, separate, who’s dealing with this. And I really do feel that she is driving through a lot of legislation at the moment. So, I welcome that and I feel confident about it. So, great, we’ll close the petition.

Good. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 3.8 is P-06-1430, 'Support deaf children by making a financial commitment to restoring Teacher of the Deaf numbers'. This was submitted by Rosamund Hannam, with 1,431 signatures. Could I invite Vaughan to discuss the petition, please?

Yes, Chair. At the outset, as I said earlier, I'm a member of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, and the Cabinet Secretary noted in January this year the development of a strategic education workforce plan. It's been part of the conversation in the CYPE committee for some time, especially as we have gone through Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Bill. Part of that is about the ability to have the right workforce to deliver against not just that part of the curriculum, but actually the wider curriculum itself and the diverse needs of learners. So, it's welcome that there is a review for a holistic education workforce plan.

The petitioners ask for the petition to be kept open, so that the plan can be published and scrutinised. I don't think that's necessary. The plan will be both published and scrutinised, certainly in the the CYPE committee. I'd be surprised if it was not a matter of debate in the Chamber, actually, once it's been published, with either a statement from the Minister or, indeed, I'm sure that, if not, there would be debates from different parts of the Chamber.

They do, though, make a point about the inclusion of the voluntary community sector in the development of the plan. Now, I would expect that because this is such a wide-ranging area not just for subjects, but a whole range of the different needs of children and young people, you would need to engage with a range of people across the community and voluntary sector. So, I think it is worth us closing the petition, but writing to both the Minister and the CYPE committee noting what we're doing in both closing the petition, but also asking the Minister if she would consider and confirm to the Cabinet Secretary how the community and voluntary sector will be engaged in the development of the plan itself, because there's quite a lot of knowledge, not just in this one sector, but actually quite a lot of it is where there are specific needs for children and young people and their families in context. So, I think it would be reasonable to deal with both the concerns the petitioners have, as well as making sure that we still have a holistic and, hopefully, coherent approach to getting the workforce that we need for the future of children, young people and, indeed, adults—many of us will need to reappraise or develop our skills at various points in our life.

When we met with—

I'm not looking at people around this room in particular when I say that. [Laughter.]

Okay. [Laughter.] I remember meeting with parents of deaf children as well, who were saying about—. They had such relevant points to make as well. So, hopefully, their voices will be heard as well about being able to access a sign language education. It's so important for parents to be able to do that, and it's not easy to be able to access it. We talked earlier about engaging with various people; it's so important isn't it? As a committee, when we actually meet with the petitioners and hear from them, it really brings it to life and it's very relevant. Okay, so did you get that? Going forward, we're going to write to the the Minister and CYPE committee about including the voluntary sector and close the petition. Okay, everybody in agreement? Thank you. 

Item 3.9 is petition P-06-1483, 'Give neighbours their say when holiday let owners start applying for licences', and it was submitted by Jacqueline Cullimore, with 2,060 signatures. Can I invite Luke to discuss the petition, please? 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I can see that the new correspondence that we have received has been shared with the Local Government and Housing Committee. I think, to be honest with you, this particular petition is probably better placed with the Local Government and Housing Committee, because this is going to be a contentious subject that's going to be going on for a while yet. There's very little more, really, we can do as a Petitions Committee. So, given that it's now on the radar of the Local Government and Housing Committee, and that the committee itself is actually quite interested in the subject, can I suggest that we close this petition and thank the petitioner, but also make the petitioner aware that the Local Government and Housing Committee will continue to look at this issue as it develops?

Okay, thank you. Everybody in agreement? Thank you, we'll do that. We'll leave it with the Local Government and Housing Committee and close the petition. I remember a resident in Llandudno raised this issue with me and asked for this to happen as well. So, it's not just this area, it's all over, isn't it? And I think I did, actually, when I was on that committee—. Okay. 

If we move on to 3.10, petition P-06-1494, 'Welsh Government to protect funding in education from WG and Local Authority cuts'. It was submitted by Catherine Drews, with 11,041 signatures. Could I invite Joel to discuss the petition, please? Joel.

Thank you, Chair. Again, this is another petition that we have had for some time. I note from the petitioner's response that they are still not really happy with the progression of this, especially from the Welsh Government. I also note that it has met the debate threshold. So, it's up to the committee whether or not we would like to debate that.

But I sense that there are other things that we could look to do in terms of linking up with the education tribunal and the Welsh Government—the Education Tribunal for Wales, sorry. I just wanted to get an idea of what the rest of the committee think, really. I think that there is scope, especially when it is expanded to cover additional learning needs. That is an issue that keeps coming up in my inbox quite frequently, actually. So, I'm just keen to know what everyone else thinks, really, before we make a decision.

It has been raised with me as well, when cuts to education—. As a local authority, when I was a councillor, we always tried to protect education as much as we could. It was the last thing that you would want to cut. Local authorities are facing such hard times, aren't they? Would anybody like to speak about this? What do you think? A debate?

I'm happy for it to go to a debate.

Move it to committee?

I don't have a problem with this going to a debate. It has reached the threshold. It's one of the three areas of priority that the Cabinet Secretary indicated—attendance, attainment and ALN. And the overarching thing was curriculum reform being successfully delivered. So, it's understanding where we are.

Just a note of caution for any and every Member: if you're serious about ring-fencing such a significant area of spend in local authorities, it will mean that when times are more difficult, they will have to make even more difficult choices in other areas of their budgets. But there is something about the transparency of what a local authority does with its money that is both about local scrutiny but then how Senedd Members are engaged on issues of national policy that are delivered by local authorities with their own democratic accountability and legitimacy.

So, any time you call for a more centralised approach, whether it is to ring-fence or to determine outcomes or spending, that is another area of potential conflict with local authorities of all political leaderships. I don't think it matters what party, or whether it is an independent-run local authority. There is something about what outcomes we expect for children and young people, and I think that it is entirely reasonable to ask for a debate, given that it is significantly over the threshold, and that it is an area, as I say, that the Cabinet Secretary herself has said is a priority for her. 

With some local authorities, the learner travel Measure—. The transport is taken from education budgets—[Inaudible.] It's quite complicated, really. I remember being told that I had to start charging for garden waste or cut education, and being locked in a room because of collective responsibility. You have to do it. It was awful, but that's what had to be done. These are the tough decisions that local authorities were making, going back four years, and it has gone worse.

The last budget was particularly challenging because of inflationary increases as well. So, local authorities increased the budget. They passed on the increase to the budget to education departments. But then, when you have got pay increases, pay awards, the cost of heating and everything, it doesn't quite cover all of the inflationary pressures as well.  But this can all be said in a debate, can't it, in the Chamber?

And the expected variance between different local authorities, for all of the choices that they are making, and then what you expect to be able to do from a national point of view. 

Yes. And the debate on music as well could even come into that, really—funding for music. So, are we happy for that to go for a debate? Yes. Can this be factored in, please, for Business Committee? Okay. Thank you very much. 

That brings us on, then, to agenda item 4—papers to note. Is the committee happy to note the papers? Okay.

And then, under agenda item 5, we've got the motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are you content to do so? Okay, the committee is content to do so. I'll just say that the committee's next meeting is on 12 May. Okay. Could we go into private?