National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to the 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. 

Everybody else is present in the room today. Committee members should note any declarations of interest now or at any relevant point during the proceedings, if they realise. Are there any declarations of interest? No.

Not that I can think of.

Okay. Thank you.

So, if we move straight on now to new petitions. Item 2.1, P-06-1457, 'Re-introduce the right to buy Scheme'.

'Reintroducing the Right to Buy scheme in Wales would stimulate economic growth and empower citizens. By providing individuals with the opportunity to purchase their homes at a discounted rate, the scheme fosters a sense of ownership and financial responsibility. This would lead to increased investment in property maintenance and improvements, revitalising communities in Wales.'

The petitioner is Ryan Hamill, with 259 signatures. So, could I bring in Luke to discuss the petition and any actions we may wish to take?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I do actually have some sympathy for the petition. My parents benefited from right to buy back in the day; a number of people in my community did. The only concerns I have around it is that, simply, we know there's a shortage of social housing at the moment. Right to buy led to people buying those properties and that money not being reinvested into building more social homes. I know the petitioner has sent some comments over, saying that that could be potentially conditioned to any new right to buy scheme, and there are some comments on what was happening in England. But I noticed that the Local Government Association says that six out of the 10 homes sold through the right to buy in England won't actually be replaced. So, I think there is a serious balance that we need to get to here, because I don't think anyone can deny that right to buy is something that was widely supported back in the day. Some people in my community say that's one of the only good things Thatcher ever did, if not the only thing.

I can't see where we as a committee can take this now. I think there's a conversation that does need to happen amongst parties and perhaps there are some questions that should be submitted by individual Members of the Senedd. Maybe this is even something that we could pass on to the Local Government and Housing Committee, to see if they've made any considerations in their inquiries. But, as far as this committee is concerned, I think, actually, we should probably look to close this petition, thank the petitioner, and potentially pass on the petitioner's comments to the Government. It's quite clear that the Government are not looking to change position at the moment.

But, as I said, I've a lot of sympathy for this. I think there's a balance that we need to get right when it comes to housing. In the first instance, I think we need to see more social houses being built, and then perhaps we can return to looking at something like a right to buy scheme. But, again, as I said, with this committee, I think perhaps we should consider closing this petition.

I was a member of the Local Government and Housing Committee until recently, and we'd been looking at the supply of social housing and rental properties, and because there's such a shortage of both, even private rental properties now are being used for social housing, and that's been pushing the rent of those up as well, as well as the cost of buying houses. So, they're doing a lot of work in that area at the moment. So, would anybody else like to come in on this? Rhys.

I just think I agree with Luke's suggestion. I like Luke's idea that we write to the Cabinet Secretary with the mitigation points made by the petitioner. Similar to Luke, my grandparents bought their council house with the right to buy scheme, and I can remember my grandmother, after my grandfather had passed, receiving the deeds of the house, when she'd finally paid it off, and how proud she was of that fact, thinking that she would never be able to own a house. So, it'd be difficult for me to say, 'Well, people can't have that again', but Luke's point is very powerful. It is a chicken-and-egg situation, isn't it, and we need to increase the amount of social housing, because we are falling into that trap, which you mentioned, Chair, of rent prices just going up and up and up. So, I just want to reiterate that I agree with Luke.

Okay, Peter?

Yes, I think we're in the same position. My in-laws, my sister-in-law, and other members of the family have all benefited from it in the early years—I'm talking right at the start.

They were sold off very cheaply then as well, weren't they, at huge discounts?

They were extremely cheap, but, as Rhys said, they were very proud, even though philosophically they felt, probably, it wasn't the right thing to do. However, there's been a mismatch of rebuild, as we're all clear. Don't forget, the councils back in those years hadn't done stock transfers, the registered social landlords weren't so developed, they weren't building houses like they are now. I think the machinery, if you like, is more set up now that could deliver more social housing, if it was to speed through local development plans. Because the trouble is, you see, an LDP gets passed for its next 10 years' worth of housing allocation, yet it might be five years before the spade goes in the ground, and we're always in this catch-up situation. But as we move forward, I think we're going to be in a position where houses can be built faster, satisfying the need, and create, perhaps, the opportunity to reopen in Wales that opportunity for right to buy, because I think it's a wonderful thing that most people do aspire to.

Yes.

The only thing, Chair, I'd like to mention quickly, with regard to the comments about being sold off cheaply. My grandparents had lived in their council house for a quarter of a century before they bought it. In fact, they had paid for it several times over, and that's the situation now. We have people paying rents that are much, much higher than mortgages, with nothing to show for it at the end. So, I think it's worth bearing that in mind.

There's a wider point there. People are able to pay their rent, and where it's private accommodation, they're essentially paying somebody else's mortgage. I think there's a wider conversation we should have on mortgages, but we're straying a bit off by here now.

I was talking earlier about student accommodation: £850 a month. But this is the conversation that's been happening in the Local Government and Housing Committee, and it's hugely important. I'd like to thank the petitioner for supplying all the information, which is really extensive as well, and really useful and good. So, it's been proposed that we thank the petitioner and close it. Perhaps we could send the information to the Local Government and Housing Committee that the petitioner has submitted, because there is a lot here.

Could we also send that to the Cabinet Secretary as well, please?

Yes, and the Cabinet Secretary. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.

If we move on to 2.3, it's petition P-06-1476, '1000 meter mandatory buffer zone for all new—'. Sorry, I'm rushing ahead here. I've turned too many pages. Excuse me. Right.

We're on 2.2 now, 'Scrap all Welsh Government policies from Agenda 21/Agenda 2030/Sustainable Development including Net Zero'. This is petition P-06-1462, and the petitioner says:

'Net Zero, as one example, is a destructive, unethical, extremist and anti-farming policy which also hinders everyone's right to live off Welsh land. Other examples from these Agendas include 15 minute cities and the clamping down on car travel and our personal freedom to travel as and when we want.'

That was submitted by the Sovereign Party/Plaid Sofren, and there are 579 signatures. So, could I bring Peter in on that?

Yes.

Thank you, Peter.

Thank you, Chair. There are always a lot of policies that many people would like to rethink and go over and repeal, but the reality is it's very difficult for that to happen when something is set in legislation, and there are so many different views on many of the things that have been captured in this petition. Obviously, the petition closed in August, and the Welsh Government did respond to it. We need to point out that Wales's sustainable development and net-zero targets are set out in both legislation and non-legislative commitments. The legislative commitments include the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and Agenda 21 is a non-binding United Nations action plan adopted in 1992, and by 178 countries. There’s a whole raft of science and views behind a lot of these policies that are now in place. Wales has its own legislative commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and we know there are interim reports through that for 2030 and 2040, so we are on a journey there. And the net-zero plan that was put in place fulfilled the Welsh Minister’s statutory duty under the environment Act.

So, there’s a whole raft of things that are in place and are unlikely to be undone, because the Government is very clear on that, having legislated for the well-being of future generations Act, for instance. Since that’s been put in place, there have been no calls in the Welsh Government—or the Welsh Parliament—to review their net-zero or sustainable development commitments. So, they’re pretty hard and fast; they're here.

So, I see and read the many comments that have been made by the sovereign party in relation to their views on everything. That’s politics; there are different perspectives, different philosophies on different things, and we will not be able to satisfy everybody’s desire, but we appreciate them being made and we have given them due consideration.

For possible actions, then, there’s that very clear difference of opinion between the petitioner and the Welsh Government on the sustainable goals, and it seems that there’s very little this committee can do but thank the petitioner and close the debate—or close the petition—and just accept that there is no more we can do with this.

Thank you, Peter. Are we in agreement with that? Okay. So, the action is that we will thank the petitioner and close the petition. Thank you very much.

Moving on now to item 2.3, P-06-1476, asking for a 1,000m mandatory buffer zone for all new and existing quarries. And it reads:

‘Ensure mandatory buffer zone for all new and existing quarries in Wales. We propose at least 1,000.00 meters buffer zone from all residential areas, schools, hospitals, and care facilities. Currently the law allows for quarries to be located as close as 200 meters away from residential areas and schools. This is affecting people's health and causing damage to property. The bigger buffer zone we can have the better.’

And that was submitted by Monika Golebiewska—I hope I've said that right; apologies, I should have checked—and the signatures total 11,473.

I’d like to thank the petitioners, who met Members earlier, including the young people who have worked really hard to gather signatures to support their campaign, and some of them are in the public gallery now. So, can I invite Rhys to discuss the petition?

Thank you, Cadeirydd. I’m sorry that I was unable to meet the petitioner and the supporters earlier on today, but I had a previous commitment. It’s clear—. The fact that they’ve received nearly 10,000 paper signatures shows the strength of feeling in the local area, and the hours of work it must have taken to receive such a high number of signatures—that doesn’t happen easily. So, I congratulate them on their work and on their campaigning.

The testimony we’ve read and the photographs we’ve seen are very powerful. Clearly, there’s something wrong in my opinion. Now, of course, this was recently debated in the Senedd in the middle of last month, with Heledd Fychan’s Member legislative proposal. Now, that motion was rejected. The Cabinet Secretary was of the view that it should be dealt with by a case-by-case basis and that every situation is different. But it's clear from the evidence that there's something not right in the Craig-yr-Hesg area—the pollution, the sound, the environmental impact, the impact on children and families. Something needs to be done.

Can I suggest that we write to the Cabinet Secretary and that we put to the Cabinet Secretary the specific detailed arguments we've received from the petitioner and the supporters? There was a promise, with regard to a point raised by Hefin David in the debate, that there would be a review of the guidance. Can we specifically ask where are we with that review: (1) is it happening, and (2) what's the timeline with regard to that review? Could we also write, Cadeirydd, to the council, again raising the specific issues with regard to this specific quarry?

So, those are my suggestions, and my suggestion is that we keep it open and we keep it open with a view to bring this back to Plenary, back to the Chamber, to try and have a debate on the specific issues of Craig-yr-Hesg. I remember Heledd Fychan quoting a child during that debate, and the impact that the quarry was having on his life. It was very powerful indeed. So, I'd like that we keep this on the agenda and we review it when we receive the responses from the Cabinet Secretary and Rhondda Cynon Taf council. Diolch.

What about writing to Heidelberg themselves, or the quarry manager, regarding community liason?

That sounds—. Again, I agree with that, Chair. That's a very good suggestion. The specific issue should be put to them too to see what plans they have to mitigate any issues and impact on the local community.

Okay. Luke.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Can I suggest that the letter that we write to the Cabinet Secretary is quite pointed in the sense that we want answers to specific queries? I think, during the debate—perhaps it was the nature of the debate, but—it was too easy, I thought, for the Cabinet Secretary to fob off particular concerns that Members had raised, so I think we should be using our letter, or the sort of stuff that we can do, to actually get specific answers here. Because, obviously, there are concerns around it. I mean, it was originally rejected as a proposal; it came back on appeal. So, clearly, there were concerns right at the start. I'd actually like to know: well, okay, it came back through on appeal—what did they do to address those concerns in the original proposal? Because it's not clear to me, reading through the papers.

I know Heledd Fychan has done a lot of work on this. Perhaps it's worth looping her in, in some way or another, into the work this committee does, but I would agree with Rhys. We did have a debate on it, back in October, which was Heledd's Member's legislative proposal. I think, before we take this to the Chamber, maybe we can get some specific answers. That means, then, when we have that debate in the Chamber, if it's next year, in January or February, whenever that may be, there are specific things we have—specific information—and we are able then to actually progress the debate in a good way, rather than going back to the Chamber and getting fobbed off every two seconds. Clearly, there is a strength of feeling here, so I think residents have the right to have those specific answers.

Could we perhaps include—? When we talked to the group earlier, they mentioned about contacting Public Health Wales, the Health and Safety Executive. They talked about setting up a community liaison group, which should already be in place. They should be in place for any quarrying facility such as this. So, perhaps—

So, there isn't one set up already. There isn't one set up already.

They're looking to set one up.

They're looking to set one up. Oh, right. I mean, there are questions right there, then, because this is standard practice.

Absolutely. So, we could include all this in letters to either Heidelberg or the quarry, that this needs to be in place. A regular meeting between the community and all the stakeholders, with the quarry manager and Heidlberg, needs to be in place as soon as possible so that issues can be fed in. And they did say that they're looking to record any issues as well, which is very important—the community themselves. And if we can be updated as well regarding any correspondence from Public Health Wales and the Health and Safety Executive, and we could perhaps ask the Cabinet Secretary as well, or raise issues such as their health as well with them.

Could I come back quickly? I like Luke's suggestion about including Heledd in any correspondence. I think Heledd has also spoken about this in a short debate, and Vikki Howells also took part as a backbencher. I know she's probably unable to now as a Minister, but it's probably worth including Vikki. And I think I've heard Joel James also speaking about this. So, it might be worth including the local Members to see whether they have any specific points that they want to raise. 

Okay.

Can I come in?

Yes, Peter. Sorry.

So, I absolutely agree with the way forward, and I thank the petitioners for coming in and taking the time to come in, and you have done a huge amount of work to bring this to our attention. I remember as a young boy living quite close to a quarry, back down in Carmarthen, and when they were blasting, we were probably a mile away, actually—nearly a mile away—but we could still feel it. You could feel it. So, it's easy for people to dismiss, perhaps, some of this, but I can only imagine what it must be like for you if you're really close to something and the effect that it has on your day-to-day life and the anxiety it causes, plus the actual knock-on consequences to the wildlife and everything else that is impacted by that. So, I commend the work that has gone into bringing this petition forward, and I support our colleagues. And, hopefully, when we do get to a debate in the Chamber, we can come forward with something that is strong and that the Government will listen to. 

I actually saw a video of young people at a youth club, which is in a rugby club that is very close to the site, and you could see on the video the shaking from the blast and people jumping. That's the impact. And then you also, on top of that, have the quarry lorries going down there. The quarry lorries are huge now and they cause vibration and noise. They go along the B road, where there's not a wide-enough pavement. The movement happens at the same time as school buses are trying to transport people. So, this is something that could be taken up, again, with the quarry manager, that they manage the times when the vehicle movements happen so that it's not happening during school runs. It's all that as well. The school is 134m away, that's all. There's a crusher that's just 50m to 60m away, so the dust from the crusher—. It's behind a shop and houses, so that dust, the impact—. And they're crushing silica as well, so the health of—you know, silicosis from silica. So, there's a lot here that we heard about. 

Can I just read a few of these comments? From Keanan, aged 26:

'Gutted my mountain has been taken away. We are left with a boggy path to take our dogs for a walk, memories of my childhood have been taken away'.

Hadley, aged six: 

'I miss the mountain being green and open. The blasts are loud and scary and there’s always so much dust.'

Now, the impact of those blasts on people with—people normally anyway, but, if you're neurodiverse, it's very scary. So, we need to make sure that the quarry gives warning of these blasts, because they don't do that all the time, apparently. 

'I hate the Quarry, fed up of having to fill in the cracks all the time. My husband has rebuilt the back wall 3 times, I make sure my granddaughter is not here when they blast'—

so maybe they do have a warning, I'm not sure—

'as she gets so frightened'.

That was from Denise. 

So, I think to have that human context is really important, isn't it, to represent the people who are really, truly impacted by this. So, we've got a lot here to do. Have you been able to capture it all? So, I don't need to sum it up. I've made notes as well. So, thank you to everybody for your contributions today. We will be keeping this petition open for correspondence, and then, hopefully, look to have a debate next year on it, when we've got further information. So, I'd like to thank the petitioner. They've collected an awful lot of signatures there on paper by hand. Amazing work from everybody involved. Keep up that good work; it does make a difference, and hopefully we can change things.

There was one extra thing I forgot to mention: the MTAN guidance needs revising, so if we can make that change in legislation. I hear that some countries already have that 1,000m buffer, so I'd like to find out about which countries have this. I think it's Portugal and Germany—Heidelberg is a German company, isn't it?

We can ask the Cabinet Secretary whether he plans to—or she, sorry; it's Rebecca, isn't it—review the MTAN guidance.

Because that's what's needed, I think, for the local authority as well, and to make sure it's not changed. You need to have that planning policy and legislation in place, don't you, to make sure that consistent decisions are being made. Thank you. Thank you to the petitioners as well for your work.

We move on now to item 2.4, which is petition P-06-1478, 'Comprehensively review NRW and its failure to deliver its statutory obligations to protect Wales'. It reads:

'For more than a decade, I believe that the agency mandated to protect the Welsh environment has seen a decline in its capacity to undertake its statutory purpose. Polluted Welsh rivers (the arteries of the natural world) should be rescued and given a new lease of life. A comprehensive review of failing prosecutions and inaction needs to take place in order to protect Wales for future generations.'

This was submitted by Alun Phillips with 367 signatures. If I could bring in Luke.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. There are very clearly problems with NRW. What those problems are, I'm not entirely sure. I think it is worth reviewing NRW's operations and how they do things. In terms of this petition, I think it might be worth us writing to the Deputy First Minister, because this does fall under his agriculture portfolio, and ask for his views on it, pass on the comments by the petitioner as well, and perhaps loop in the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee on this as well, because I know, again, the Chair there has a particular interest in NRW. This goes broader than what the petitioner is specifically referring to, but there is, of course, an interest in NRW's operations within the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee as well, with this interaction with farmers and wider environmental concerns. So, I wouldn't just stop at the climate change committee. I think maybe it's worth just highlighting this with the Chair of ETRA as well, because, again, I know that there are Members, given that I am a member of that committee, who are interested in NRW and its operations.

Thank you. I'm now a member of the climate committee as well. Would anybody else like to speak on this? Do you agree with the actions going forward? So, we'll write to both committee Chairs and send on the information that the petitioner has sent to us. We'll be keeping the petition open, awaiting further information. Yes? Okay, thank you. That's agreed. I'd like to thank the petitioner for submitting the petition.

We move on to item 2.5, P-06-1485, 'Introduce a network of Toy Libraries around Wales'.

'Children’s toys can be expensive, are often used only for a short time, can add to the clutter in homes and often end up thrown away, even if they aren’t broken. Toy libraries are an established way of helping provide access to lots of toys that children might otherwise not encounter due to cost or even space limitations at home. They offer cost-effective alternatives to buying new toys, can act as community hubs to bring parents and carers together and can help reduce our use of resources.'

This has been submitted by Bleddyn Lake, with 297 signatures. I believe Rhys can take us through this. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair. I think this is a very good idea. I'll say that from the outset, as a dad to two young daughters. In a way, we dread Christmas and birthdays, because we know about the additional toys and additional clutter in the house, and it's true that children do lose interest in toys after a while. It is a cliché, but it's true: quite often, the box is more attractive to the child than the toy that comes in the box. You do see, when you go to rubbish dumps, a lot of plastic toys there. The petitioner mentions that parents and carers spend on average £300 a year on toys, and that probably doesn't include toys received from other people, so the figure could be much higher than that, even.

I think it's fair to say, perhaps, that the Minister and the officials haven't quite understood the nature of what the petitioner wants in his petition. I think the idea is to set up some sort of toy library where you bring toys to a specific place and you swap with other parents, carers and children. Probably a good location for that would be our libraries, which are under severe pressure at the moment, and it would be an additional use of our more traditional libraries. So, perhaps we could just go back to the Minister with the additional points made by the petitioner and highlight what exactly the petitioner had in mind, a larger network of toy libraries, which do exist in England to a much greater degree, from what I've read, and see whether that can be rolled out more across Wales. Diolch.

There are two Ministers. 'Wales—A Play Friendly Country' comes under one area, doesn't it, like social justice and education, but then a library of things comes under the circular economy, which would come under the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs. We currently have lending libraries, don't we, in many communities, and there's been a pot of funding to help grow that under the circular economy fund. So, I wonder if that fund could be extended to help expand to toy libraries, and so maybe the libraries of things could expand to toy libraries, or maybe our existing libraries of books could be extended to a library of toys. I think that's the way it probably needs to go. We also have a Borrow Bus set up in north-east Wales that was set up from that funding as well, and that travels round Mold, Denbigh, Llangollen and Ruthin, and the rural areas. It would be interesting to see an evaluation of that, as well, actually. But I know Bleddyn says he is a member of Friends of the Earth and I know he's really concerned about the amount of waste. A lot of oil goes into making plastic, and it's all thrown away and discarded, as well, isn't it?

Chair, I think we all know that the Deputy First Minister is a big fan of the circular economy. Didn't he say in Plenary recently that he'd borrowed a power washer? So, I think that he'd be very interested and supportive of this.

Yes. So, perhaps we could write to him with a bit more clarity, really, a clearer message of what we're looking for.

I can empathise with what Rhys was saying. When we had four kids of our own, of course, toys weren't so prolific then. We had lots of toys, but nowadays I've got eight grandchildren, and I know how much stuff there will be this Christmas. A lot of it will be absolute rubbish, and that's the trouble. The quality of toys has diminished, so some of them won't lend themselves to this sort of library function. There'll be lots of things that could, some of those more solid and robust toys, which might be useful. But certainly, it would be a great initiative in those areas where people really will struggle to be able to buy toys at Christmas. And the peer pressure expectation on families to have so much is so great. But, of course, there is something about actually giving something and somebody owning something at Christmas, so it's probably a couple of years on, when those children have grown out of those toys, when they're really eligible to go into the library system, if you like, because you can't give something to somebody and then take it away. But there are so many surplus toys, we've all got them hanging around in our attics; I've got several generations of different toys in the attic and I've put a lot of those in the skip at times. There's got to be a way forward, so I'm supportive of anything that can help with that. 

My daughter always asked for wooden toys—classics. And we have a drawer of toys, but just a small drawer is enough sometimes, isn't it, when you go back to grandparents, I think.

We've got a bedroom full of them. [Laughter.]

I think if we write to the Cabinet Secretary in charge of recycling and the circular economy to get another answer and we'll keep it open for now. Is everybody agreed? Thank you.

We move on to item 2.6, which is P-06-1486, 'Grant BN(O) Hong Kong students'—that's British national overseas Hong Kong students—'home fee status after three years of residence'. 

'The British National (Overseas) visa, launched in January 2021 after the National Security Law in Hong Kong, offers a pathway to UK citizenship for Hongkongers. Many BN(O) visa holders and their dependents have since moved to the UK, including Wales. While the UK Government calls this visa a reflection of its "historic and moral commitment" to Hongkongers, classifying BN(O) students as international students undermines this, as they face higher tuition fees and financial barriers to education.'

The petition was submitted by Melody Lin, with 377 signatures. We met Melody earlier, and Ben as well, and they are here in the gallery, so I'd like to thank them for the petition and for meeting with us earlier and explaining it further, which was really useful. Could I bring Peter in to discuss this?

Thank you, Chair. Could I thank the petitioners? It was lovely to meet you briefly earlier and for you to help us even more understand the unjustness of the situation we are in, where we have many British national overseas people from Hong Kong in our country now, wanting to take forward their careers and their education and are being subjected to fees of double or three times the amount that they ought to be paying.

We know from our report that those students can't access our school fees until they've been here five years, yet we know that, in Scotland, I believe, it's three years. And that's a real challenge for people, recognising that a three-year degree course could be costing them £150,000, where, in Wales, it might cost £27,000. So there is something wrong with that. We know that our country, as the United Kingdom, can pull the stops out when it needs to to help those people who come to live with us and stay with us—absolutely correctly—and yet these students are having to wait some time.

The Minister has responded and is sympathetic and is doing quite a lot of looking into this and seeing if there is a way that things can be put in place, but we're talking, I think, about 2026-27 and we're conscious that that's still another two years away, that's another couple of cohorts of students who will be disadvantaged. I think it's only fair that we explore this out further with the Government, to try to understand why it will take so long—why it will it take another couple of years before we can consider making progress positively in Wales—and understand the review that the Minister is going to be taking forward, and try to understand also the barriers that are stopping things from moving forward at pace.

I think that we all agree that there is something unfair about this system, and that it needs to be corrected quickly. On the face of it, it ought to be able to be done relatively easily. So, I think that we need, as a committee, to understand what the barriers are to this being put in place much sooner than later. So, I think that those are my recommendations, actually, Chair—that we are fully behind what this petition is seeking to put in place, and that we do what we can to help that along.

Okay. Thank you, Peter. Rhys.

Chair, I don't like to correct you, but I think that you called the person with the petition 'Ben'. I think that it is 'Thomas Benson', so I can see where you got the 'Ben' from. 

I'm very sorry. Apologies.

He's from Hong Kong Watch. I'd like to thank him also for providing briefings for this specific petition. I just want to pick up on the word that Peter used: 'unjust'. This just feels unjust to me. I'm old enough to remember watching the handover on television. I can remember the promises made, and I can remember the concerns expressed by Hong Kongers at the time. But promises were made.

Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister in 2021, offered the visa to people from Hong Kong due to the clampdown on protesters in Hong Kong. So, in a way, we encouraged these people to come to the United Kingdom, to come to Wales, to make this place their home, to stay here. And then we put a huge burden in front of them, to carry on with their education. We are talking huge amounts of money, with no student loan to support them. They are ineligible for student loans. I genuinely do believe that we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces, because these are people who want to contribute to our society and to our country. 

I wrote to the Minister back in September on this issue, and she mentioned 2026-27 to me in that reply. I'd like to know, as Peter has already said, why two years? I would also like to know the numbers we're talking about. Because I would imagine that the numbers in Wales are much smaller, probably, than the numbers in Scotland. They're probably smaller than the numbers in Scotland. Scotland has already managed to do it. Why can't we do it in Wales?

There's no point in us describing ourselves as a nation of sanctuary and boasting about that fact, if we don't welcome people who have left their homes for specific reasons, because they felt they needed to. They have left their homes, and they have settled in Wales, and they cannot carry on with their education. I genuinely think it's a scandal, and I would like a strongly worded letter to the Minister, and perhaps us as individual Members seeing how we can continue with this cause in other ways. Diolch.

Okay, thank you. Thomas Benson mentioned again making it personable, about people. He mentioned a mother whose child had gone through the education system and done really, really well and wanted to go to university. She just couldn't afford that £45,000 fee. Where are you going to find that sort of money from? For young people that want to get a decent job, contribute to society, where many need degrees—to work in the health system, you need a degree these days—they are unable to do so and contribute to society. So, it's such an important issue. 

Chair, can I just mention one other thing, because I think it's a nice anecdote to say? When the constituent wrote to me, he greeted me in Welsh, and sprinkled a lot of his e-mail in Welsh. When I spoke to Melody today, she greeted me in Welsh. She said she's making an effort to learn words. These are people who are committed to Wales as a country, to our culture and language, and we should be doing everything we possibly can, after inviting them here, to make them welcome, and to enable them to thrive as part of our community here.

And then other people that have come over are entitled, aren't they, so, again, they feel left out. So, going forward, the action is to write to the Cabinet Secretary again to understand what the barriers are as to why there is a deadline—well, the 2026-27 academic year is being proposed—why it can't be introduced sooner, and also to analyse the amount of students, really, the amount of people, because the numbers might not be huge, and say that Scotland have done it, and also maybe refer that we are a nation of sanctuary here in Wales. Okay. Are we all in agreement with that? Okay. Thank you very much. And I'd like to thank the petitioner and Thomas for coming in today. Thank you.

So, if we can move on now to updates to previous petitions. The first one is petition P-06-1303, 'Create, fund and sustain sufficient affordable nursery and childcare places for all working parents', and that was submitted by Gill Byrne, with 260 signatures. Rhys, this is for you, I think—

Thank you very much. It is, Chair.

—as somebody who's experiencing it.

Yes, I should definitely declare an interest on this one, as a father of two, of a four and a two-year-old, and paying a lot of money for the—. There is, of course, support for my four-year-old, but paying a lot of money for childcare for—sorry, my one-and-a-half-year-old. This is the fourth time this has been considered, but we do hear—. There was an article only a few days ago on this point, so there is—. And when you talk to parents, this childcare, and the cost of childcare, comes up time and time again.

But to go back to this petition, the Senedd’s Equality and Social Justice Committee have published a report on this matter last year. This has been passed on, and the recommendations have been passed on, to the petitioner. We haven't received any further comments, so can I suggest that we thank the petitioner for raising this very important issue, very timely issue and a very burning issue to a lot of parents and carers—so to thank and to close the petition.

Okay, thank you. I was on the Equality and Social Justice Committee when we did that as well; it's hugely important. Many families rely on two incomes nowadays, don't they? And to keep that place of work open as well, to keep working there, it's a huge, huge issue. Is everybody in agreement with that, then? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

The next one is 3.2, petition 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 2,504 signatures. We had a really good debate on this, and a really big—. It was a good debate and a strong campaign, which is ongoing. Before that debate, I met with Mencap Cymru, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Partnership, Jane Hutt—she came looking for me, and she had a chat with them, and she's agreed to meet with them, to go through all the issues, and she wants to take it up, which is really welcomed. And at the weekend, I met them at conference, so was able to introduce them to Ken Skates as well, the Cabinet Secretary who's in charge of transport. So, they were able to talk to him about the issues when using the trains and Transport for Wales, because they don't take cash either, to pay for tickets, or to actually buy any items, refreshments, on the train. So, the Cabinet Secretary for transport has asked if Mencap Cymru could write to him, and I think we could also write as well to the Cabinet Secretary for an update.

The main ask was that any place that is in receipt of public funds, as part of that commitment to receiving the public funds, should ensure that people can pay with cash. So, that's something that we need to follow up with, and they are following up with, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice. And also about signage as well, so that people know, before they walk into a shop and feel embarrassed that they can't use cash, if that's not allowed inside the shop. It's really important. What I learnt as well was that the carers aren't allowed to pay on behalf of the person, so if the person cannot pay—. I learnt such a lot from this.

So, shall we keep it open and wait for the outcomes of all the correspondence in the meeting, and keep it live? Okay, are we in agreement with that? Okay. It sounds like there's a lot happening at the moment. [Interruption.] Thank you. We could submit a short summary, then, of the report findings to the Treasury inquiry on acceptance of cash as well. Yes, we could include that. Okay, so I think we should keep it open pending an update. Yes? Everybody's in agreement. Thank you.

Next one is petition 3.3, P-06-1396, ‘Introduce a vape licence for dedicated vape shops’, and this was submitted by Claire Ford, with a total of 9,035 signatures. There are an awful lot on paper here as well; nearly 8,500 on paper. So, could I bring Luke in?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I think there's a bit of a difference between what the Government came back to us with and what the petitioner was asking, similar to an earlier petition. But one thing to consider is that we've got this Bill now going through Westminster, which I believe the Welsh Government is supporting, so similar action will be taken in Wales. That might be the best place now to make some of these points. So, I'm wondering, in terms of our role as a committee now, whether or not we've sort of reached the end of what we can do, that we should consider closing this petition, encouraging the petitioner to lobby their MPs—and I think there are Members in the Chamber here in the Senedd as well who think this is important as well—and go through those processes rather than the committee continuing the work. I think it's worth also highlighting it with the Health and Social Care Committee, as a petition that has come through. Again, I know that there are a number of Members on that committee who are interested in where the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will go in Westminster, so I would imagine that that's probably the best place for this now. So, I would propose, therefore, Chair, that we close the petition, we thank the petitioner and we encourage the petitioner to get involved with the processes that are about to take place in Westminster.

Okay, thank you. I asked the Minister, Sarah Murphy, if it included licensing of premises, that all premises had to be licensed, and she said that it did include that. So, I'm just getting that clarification from her. If you want us to get it in writing, I think that—

I always think it's helpful to get things in writing from Ministers.

Yes, okay. So, if we could just write to the Minister, Sarah Murphy, just to say we've had this petition, and whether she could clarify for us that licensing of vape premises will be included in the Bill, and then just all the things that Luke said. Okay. Right, very good.

So, if we move, then, on to 3.4, which is P-06-1400, ‘Fair and Adequate Resourcing of General Practice in Wales’. This was submitted by Lewis Williams from British Medical Association Cymru Wales, and we had a massive 21,622 signatures. I met Lewis again at the weekend, which was a good opportunity to discuss this. We had a really good debate on it, didn't we, as well? I think the amount of people that actually wanted to speak on it shows how important this is. It was a very strong and lively debate. So, on the possible actions going forward, could I bring in Peter on this?

Thanks, Chair. You've captured a lot of it already. Obviously, this'll be the third time we've looked at it, but it went to debate on 6 November, which you opened and led a very lively debate on this. I think we are all extremely concerned about GP practices, going forward. We'll note from our briefing that BMA Cymru are still anxious. Whilst they welcome the debate and the content of the debate, they were still concerned that there won't be any immediate actions in the time frame they'd hoped for, which could safeguard their practices, moving forward. And I understand that, especially now in the face of their later submissions, which just shared their concerns following the budget, and following the contract offer for general medical services for 2024-25—they were concerned about that. They're concerned about the national employers' insurance issues, which are coming on board, so there's still in their mind, I think, a perfect storm of issues, which need to be faced. So, whilst they recognise the positive sounds from the Government and from our debate, they still have concerns. I think it'll be important for us to highlight those concerns as well.

So, as to my way forward, I would suggest, even though it would be normal practice to close a petition at this stage, recognising it's already gone through a debate, there are live issues here. So, I think it would be worth recognising that the Health and Social Care Committee is still doing their piece of work on it, and we perhaps can share the BMA's latest contributions with them, to help them, going forward. But I think, obviously, since the budget, we know that the Cabinet Secretary for finance and the First Minister are talking about how they're going to allocate the additional money that has come to Wales, and there is a significant additional consequential coming forward, which could be allocated to health. Let's hope that, whilst passing money on to the health service, it clearly recognises the pressures that the GP practices are under. So, I just wonder if we ought to actually share also the grave concerns they have with the Cabinet Secretary for finance, as well as the committee in doing its ongoing work, because now is the time when the finance Cabinet Secretary will be making and stewing over recommendations of how the budget may look. And whilst we wait to see a positive outcome from the committee, the reality is the time frame is now, so I would hope we could perhaps lend our support in helping general practices' concerns be heard, with the decision maker at this time, which is obviously the Cabinet Secretary for finance.

It sounds like a lot of the money is allocated to pay rises. There's substantial capital funding, but—

So, there's £500 million of the £700 million that will be going to pay and to be baselined. But there'll be £200 million-worth of revenue still to be allocated and £47 million-worth of capital to be allocated. So, the £200 million can go some way towards addressing some of the health problems and, hopefully, primary care as well as secondary care.

Okay. Thank you, Peter, and thank you for knowing your budget.

Having a briefing with the Cabinet Secretary helps.

Yes. So, from the Cabinet Secretary, at the debate, investment in primary health appears to be a priority as well for the Welsh Government, which is good.

Yes. It's got to flow through the health boards, though, you see, doesn't it? So, once it gets to secondary care, they need to make sure that primary care are looked after as well.

Yes. Yes, that makes good sense. So, further detailed work on the issue will continue by the health committee, I believe, next year. So, they're looking at the terms of reference this year, aren't they? So, that will start next year, when they will be doing an in-depth inquiry into it, I think, going forward, which will then feed in. So, there's been a proposal from Peter to keen this open for now, rather than close it, and to write to the Cabinet Secretary for health and also the Cabinet Secretary for finance.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. So, that brings us to the end of the petitions.

So, under Standing Order 17.42, can we move to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting for the remainder of today's business, which isn't much—I'd just like to say that. I always forget to mention: the next meeting is actually on 2 December. So, are you in agreement on that? Okay. Thank you.