Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

This meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual.

And Heledd Fychan is attending as a substitute. Welcome, Heledd.

Diolch.

Vaughan Gething is hoping to attend remotely. If anybody has any declarations of interest, could they say so now? Yes, Heledd.

Diolch, Heledd. At this point, I should have asked could we check the translation, which I'm going to do now, if that's okay. Could you just repeat something in Welsh for me?

There's no translation coming through. Many apologies. I should have checked all this beforehand.

Diolch.

Okay. I also need to declare that for petition P-06-1521, the lead petitioner is a part-time employee of mine.

That leads me on to new petitions. The first one is petition P-06-1561, 'Close the gender gap in Welsh women's football: fund a national equality plan'. It reads:

'Despite progress in recent years, Welsh women’s football still lacks equal development pathways, funding, and visibility. Girls face barriers to progressing beyond the grassroots level, especially after U19. We need a national plan that ensures parity across youth and elite levels by 2030. Wales cannot afford to lose more talent to inequality.'

That was submitted by Osamagbe Izevbigie—I think is the pronunciation; apologies if I've got that wrong—with 335 signatures. Could I invite Joel to discuss the petition and any actions he wishes the committee to take?

Thank you, Chair. The difficulty with this, obviously, is that the Football Association of Wales is a separate, independent organisation. I know that the petitioner raises really strong concerns here and I know that some of them are identified in FAW's strategy, 'Our Wales: For Her', which was published, I think, in 2021. And I know that, recently, they have been recognised for the work that they have been doing, by FIFA, to try and address this situation. The Minister has come back with a really good response outlining this, but maybe we go to the FAW just to reiterate it and see what more can be done.

Okay. Heledd, do you want to come in?

Yes, I think it would be definitely worth while pursuing with the FAW because, obviously, they work in partnership with Welsh Government. They've received significant funding to help promote participation as well, when it came to the Euros earlier this year. So, I think clarity from the FAW, whilst they have taken strides, obviously, it's taken a long time to try and get parity for women in football. So, I would like to see the FAW's response, certainly.

Okay, thank you. So, if we could write to the FAW then, please, and we'll keep the petition open, awaiting the response. Thank you.

If we move on now, there are two similar petitions, so I'm going to take them together. So, 2.2 is petition P-06-1533, 'Review and update Provisions 2-10 of The Learner Travel Measure (Wales) 2008'.

'We, the undersigned, request the Welsh Government to review and update provisions 2-10 of the Learner Travel Measure (Wales) 2008. Namely, local authorities’ duty to assess learner travel needs and transport arrangements, including travel limits. Post-16 and nursery education travel. Equality in travel arrangements and promotion of the Welsh Language.

'In 2021, Welsh ministers committed to reviewing the Measure, highlighting the issues; however, it remains unchanged.'

That was submitted by Rebecca Smart, with 2,185 signatures.

And then petition P-06-1555, 'To review all guidance on Home to School Transport for all of Wales. Free access to an education'.

'All Children attending an education should be able to attend a school or college without any struggle.

'Our streets are no longer safe to walk on their own, especially those who are under 19 years of age.

'With NO direct transport for an education for those who even HAVE to attend until their last day in year 11. These students struggle through underlying illness, hidden illness, or even undiagnosed.

'The students who live in poverty and struggle to even travel on a public bus.'

This was submitted by Tina Collins, with 11,790 signatures collected. Could I invite Rhys to discuss both petitions together and any actions you think the committee could take?

Diolch, Rhys. Heledd. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I would echo those sentiments. As I declared earlier, I have been closely involved with the campaign. But if we were to look at this, coldly even, the additional information provided by the petitioner outlines why there's still an ongoing impact, as well as the huge body of evidence that was previously presented as well. They've provided a really comprehensive report. We did have a Government-led debate in March, but a number of these changes have come into effect in this academic year, which follows that discussion.

Obviously, as Rhys ab Owen outlined, a short debate is not the same as a petitions debate. I'm also aware that they closed the petition early because they'd reached the threshold. This is an issue that impacts people across Wales, and I think, as the petitioners have outlined, the bus Bill is currently going through the Senedd, so this is very much a live issue. I think, if we do have an opportunity to debate it, it allows us to put forward the arguments made and try to influence some of the guidance changes as well.

Okay. I think it would be really good and I would support having a debate, going forward. I used to be cabinet member in charge of transportation, school transportation, and I'm aware of how much it costs to transport children. It rose from £700 per pupil, on average, per year to £1,200, and then, recently, it has increased again. I remember being on the Local Government and Housing Committee; we took evidence then, I think, from Rhondda Cynon Taf, saying that it had increased by 40 per cent recently, the cost of school transport. It often comes out of the education budget as well; I remember, in Flintshire, it was like 25 per cent of the education budget.

I think a debate is really good, because it will help people understand. We can debate the importance of children's safety and how far they're expected to walk, but also the understanding of restrictive budgets, year after year—you know, public service money. I think it would help to draw all of that out as well. So, yes, I would support both of you in having that debate, going forward. Could we ask the Business Committee, please, to table this? Thank you.

Can I just clarify—? There are two petitions, so we're keeping them both open, pending the debate.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes.

But as one debate, then, because, obviously, they cover the same issues.

Only one has reached the threshold for debate—

Yes, of course.

—but they'll both be kept open, pending that debate.

Diolch.

We could refer to both, couldn't we—

Absolutely.

—during the debate, and the reasons for them? Great, thank you very much.

pOkay, if we move on, now, to item 3.1. Again, there are two similar petitions, so I'll take them together. So, petition P-06-1258, 'Make individuals in Wales with Hidden disabilities eligible for the Blue Badge', was submitted by Non Angharad Williams. Sorry, I should have said before this that these are updates to previous petitions, so this is a previous petition—it's not a new one. Petition P-06-1258, 'Make individuals in Wales with Hidden disabilities eligible for the Blue Badge', was submitted by Non Angharad Williams with 82 signatures. We also have, under item 3.2, petition P-06-1380, 'Make Blue badge Applications Lifelong for individuals who have a lifelong diagnosis'. This was submitted by STAND NW CIC with 1,618 signatures.

This has been live for almost two years, but, during that time, it has evolved, and I believe it has gained awareness and publicity. We've done a lot of work on this, myself, representing the petitioner and the Petitions Committee, and I've been working with Mark Isherwood as chair of the cross-party group on disabilities. It became evident that it was also a social justice issue, as well as delivering transport. 

I would like to just welcome Vaughan Gething to the meeting—hello, Vaughan, hi. I'll just continue with this introduction, if that's okay, and then bring you in, Vaughan. So, we had meetings with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice as well as the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, and met with the Welsh Local Government Association, and the WLGA have appointed a dedicated officer also to lead on this, which is very helpful. We've also raised awareness about having the 'not for reassessment' criteria applied as a tick box. I don't think that was thought of earlier. All this has come out through work on this and discussion as a way forward on a local database that could be delivered in Wales, basically, and maybe move on to the other nations.

I did check on the Senedd website and, over four years, there have been 79 contributions regarding this by 19 Members in reference to blue badges. Sometimes people will raise it and then not understand the developments that have happened and how it's progressed over the years. Initially, it started off as just being assessed on mobility, on how many steps somebody could walk, but not all disabilities are the same. Learning disabilities, people with profound and complex needs also need blue badges, and so that's developed as well over the years. I think it was added to a couple of years ago for people being assessed, but we've discovered that not all officers delivering it realise it. We need to have more consistency going forward. So, it's a work in progress.

The petitioner would still like it to go to debate. The petition itself didn't reach the normal threshold, but she would just like to say that they did a recent survey. It was only open for 25 days and had 636 responses. So, she thinks, if the petition was live or new today, she would be able to reach that threshold. I'm just presenting that to you today, and I open that for discussion. Would anybody like to come in on that? Vaughan, would you like to come in on this?

Yes, please, Chair. I think that the progress that has been reached on both of these petitions is significant, and they've both been open for a considerable amount of time. The first petition, with a smaller number of signatures, has been open for more than three years now, and the second petition, with a larger amount of signatures, has been open for nearly two years now.

I think it's one of the points where the committee can consider that the point and the purpose of the committee to raise issues that don't otherwise get raised I think has been satisfied. There's been a lot of conversation in the Chamber about this, a lot of statements on the record by Government Ministers, as well as the correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, and, indeed, the response from the leader of the WLGA as well.

I think it would be difficult to put this matter forward for a debate, because it hasn't reached the threshold. I'd be pretty sceptical as to whether the Business Committee would schedule a debate given the length of time that the Chamber has had to have questions answered and comment on it, and the fact that we've only got, I think—our notes suggest—10 sitting weeks before we go into dissolution.

I don't think this committee can do much further than we've already done, with pretty extensive consideration as well. It may be an issue that the committee wants to put in its legacy report to see what has actually happened with a new system for a future committee, but I don't think this is an issue that committee should return to within this Senedd, given the amount of other petitions we still have and the extensive consideration, and, indeed, the progress that the petitioner herself has noted. So, I think this is a matter where this process has made a difference and has raised issues in the Chamber that wouldn't otherwise have got the same amount of consideration and a constructive response from the Government.

Thank you, Vaughan. Anybody else? Okay. Are you in agreement with what's been proposed by Vaughan? In agreement with what's been proposed by Vaughan, we will thank the petitioner. I think it would be a good one to put in a legacy report, just to monitor that it has been delivered, what's been proposed. I'd like to thank the petitioner for the hard work. It's made a huge difference. That means we'll close the petition going forward, but I'm sure it won't be the last we hear of it. Thank you.

We move on now to item 3.3, P-06-1476, '1000 meter mandatory buffer zone for all new and existing quarries'. This was submitted by Monika Golebiewska and had a total of 11,473 signatures. Heledd, could I ask you to take us through this? I know you've had a lot to do with it, so I think it would be good for you to take us through this and what action you think the committee should take.

Thank you, Chair. As I declared at the beginning, I have been closely involved with this, but I have also been following closely the work of the committee. The one thing that strikes me is the response from the Welsh Government to date. I note the Cabinet Secretary's response in our papers, which is a similar response to what I received in June from her, in terms of saying that it’s up to Senedd Members to provide evidence if we believe MTAN 1 needs to be reviewed.

I know a number of Senedd Members have, on the floor of the Senedd, asked the Cabinet Secretary to engage with them on this issue, because it’s an issue that impacts not just Craig-yr-Hesg quarry in my region, but other areas in Wales. It does strike me that having that clarity from the Cabinet Secretary would be really helpful in terms of what kind of evidence, in what format, and would she meet with interested Senedd Members who have constituents raising concerns to outline. Because all of us could be submitting all sorts of things, but it may not be the best use of resources, and it may be difficult for the Cabinet Secretary to assess where else to take this.

The one point I would like to make on the record is MTAN 1 dates to 2004, but the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 has been in place since then. I am aware in MTAN 1 that one of the aims is to reduce our reliance on primary aggregates, but I’ve failed to see the data on that, to see how much of a reduction there’s been. The Deputy First Minister recently, on the floor of the Senedd, in response to a question from me, had said and acknowledged that more needed to be done on this issue, and to use recycled materials. I think there are a lot of questions around this that are not just about the buffer zone, but around aggregates. Given the amount of evidence that has been presented and the concerns, I would worry about us just noting the end of a petition when it is actually unsatisfactory, I believe, where we have reached.

I would also like to note that the consultation has recently been launched on the air quality target regulation for fine particulate matter, which does relate to this. I wonder if something we could do as a committee would be to write once again to the Cabinet Secretary asking for the threshold and further information in terms of what would she like Senedd Members to be presenting to her for MTAN 1 review, and suggest that a way forward would be for her to meet with Senedd Members who are working on this matter.

In terms of any legacy report as well, given that this is an ongoing issue, I would suggest that any future committee would want to see that work is progressing on this, and that the lived experiences of communities are reflected in any review of MTAN 1 and similar regulation in the future.

Thank you, Heledd. Anybody else? Vaughan Gething.

I don't agree with Heledd's submission. I think this is a matter that has been extensively considered in the committee over a long period of time. It's reached the threshold for debate in the Senedd, it's had a debate, there are continued questions being asked. Again, I think it's beyond the time for this particular committee to keep on pursuing the issue. There is a point at which, even when people have made their submissions, there is a simple difference of view, and I think we've reached that point in time.

I think the Cabinet Secretary's letter is really clear. If there are different matters that Members who are not satisfied with the current approach want to take, then that is a matter for Members. The Petitions Committee serves a different purpose, and that's been reached. If you consider the submission we've just heard from Heledd, that was introducing other issues that are not part of the petition. So, I don't think this is an area where we can essentially take up a different sort of scrutiny exercise. I just don't think that is what the Petitions Committee has been created for, or the purpose of the petition. 

It's also worth bearing in mind that, as in other petitions, there are live issues where people have continuing views and continue to raise those, including with and through their elected representatives. Those other issues where we have been clear that there are opportunities for those matters to be raised, and those matters are being taken up, that doesn't require this committee to take action as well. The suggestion that Heledd makes that the committee writes to ask the Cabinet Secretary to meet with community campaigners and/or Senedd Members shows we're well beyond where the Petitions Committee has been created to give a platform for issues that are otherwise not going to get ventilated in the same way.

I think this is a matter of normal democratic engagement where this committee doesn't need to carry on acting. That also means the time that we would take on this is time that we can spend devoting to other matters that probably wouldn't have the same amount of attention as this one will continue, quite justifiably, to get. I think Senedd Members can be trusted to make their representations and lobby for changes they feel are required without this committee continuing to consider matters long into the future.

I think we have a difference of opinion here. We had a really good lively debate in the Senedd with lots of contributions—cross-party contributions, actually—from different Members of the Senedd. I remember Hefin David requesting that we should look at MTAN 1—that was raised—and we should have a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary, and people had requested it. It did, for me, feel quite one-sided that the lived experiences of people impacted by quarrying are not taken as part of any consideration. Heledd, when you've been asking questions, are working groups being referred to, who the Cabinet Secretary consulted with regard to reviewing MTAN 1? Do you know who's in the working group and what it is?

I don't have the clarity on that. From what I understood, it was people involved with aggregates, so it's industry led, rather than that. I take on board Vaughan Gething's points in terms of what's appropriate for the Petitions Committee or not. I know the Petitions Committee can flag up issues to other relevant committees as well, because, obviously, this is a planning matter. Because I've not been part of the committee, I don't know what engagement has been with both relevant committees. There are two, aren't there, but mainly the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. Because, obviously, this is an issue around regulation. I still think the Cabinet Secretary's response does not provide the clarity of what's needed in terms of additional information. 

The point on the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 has been mentioned. She does say:

'Members and stakeholders need to determine themselves what matters they feel are relevant to demonstrate'

and asks for information for consideration. I don't know—we've had two proposals here. I feel that we could still write to the Cabinet Secretary and ask to meet with her to find out what information is needed for a review of MTAN 1 to be taken forward. I don't see any issue with that. I know that other committees are really busy now. There is not much time left, and if we can do that work, that would be helpful going forward. 

If I may, Chair, I think that would help inform the legacy report then, if anything was needed for other committees to take forward.

Yes. We have done some some work as the Petitions Committee on other petitions such as the blue badge—I've done a lot of work on that—and other ones as well. Okay, so we're going forward. We can write to the Cabinet Secretary. Joel. 

All I was going to say was I support what Heledd wants to do on that. 

Thank you. So, Joel supports what's been proposed by Heledd, that we write to the Cabinet Secretary, but we do know that Vaughan has concerns about us following that route. And then we can gather information and it can be part of a legacy report. There was a suggestion about maybe writing or raising it with the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. I'm not sure that they've got time, but we could—

It may be in the legacy report as an issue that they may want to look at in a future Senedd.

Okay. Thank you. So, we've got four of us that support that and one who's raised concerns about that report. Okay. If we can—. Are we okay with that? Thank you.

If we move on now to 3.4, petition P-06-1499, 'Stop the use of term "Universal Provision" as a reason to deny ALN'. This was submitted by Victoria Lightbown, with 1,454 signatures. Joel, could I bring you in to discuss the petition?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, as with other petitions, we've had this one for quite some time, but I know that the Children, Young People and Education Committee is looking into the curriculum for the entirety of the term. This is something that they've picked up. Though they're not dealing with the specifics of the petition, they are dealing with universal provision. And I know they've had an agreement from the Welsh Government to actually define what is meant by 'universal provision', which they were meant to publish in the summer. I don't know if they've done that yet. But I think that it's in good hands with the children's committee. It might be a case where we thank the petitioner for raising this and bringing it on the radar, because it is quite a serious topic. But, obviously, to liaise, going forward, then, with the children's committee, and probably close this petition.

Okay. Anybody else? No. Vaughan, do you want to come in or—? Something about the CYPE.

Yes. Just to say that the CYPE committee continues to consider this matter actively. It's featured as part of the budget scrutiny with the health Minister, actually, and we expect to have the education Secretary back with us before the end of term as well. So, this definitely is a live issue for, if you like, the main subject committee. And I agree that we can thank the petitioner and close the petition, because there is real progress being made in the specific points around the phrase about universal provision, a part of what the education Secretary is considering with the wider system, also as part of rewriting the code. And there was a really frank and no-punches-pulled report done by the president of the education tribunals that is informing the work that the Government are doing, and that has gone through cross-party scrutiny in the CYPE committee. So, I think members on this committee and the petitioner can take some assurance that these issues aren't being ignored, and they're a part of active consideration that will definitely form part of what the CYPE committee has to say before this term ends, as well as in a legacy report.

Thank you, Vaughan, for explaining that. I'm a member of the CYPE committee as well, but I knew you'd explain it very well. So, if the committee agrees and everybody agrees, we can close the petition and that CYPE will continue the work, and thank the petitioner as well for raising it.

If we move on to 3.5, it's petition P-06-1502, 'Scrap Proposals for a Tourism Tax'. This was submitted by Daniel McCarthy, with 813 signatures. Could I invite Rhys to discuss the petition and any actions you wish the committee to take?

Okay. Thank you. Joel.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I think we've probably reached the end of what we can do with this petition. I must admit, I was quite concerned to read the other week that Cardiff Council are looking to become one of the first authorities, actually, to bring in this tourism tax. I just want to say to anyone out there who shares those concerns and doesn't want to see this progress any further—

Vote Conservative. [Laughter.]

Well, basically, yes. Next year, we're the only political party that's proposing to get rid of it. So, all of these people doing these petitions, if they want to have change, they need to go out and vote for it, really.

Here lies the party political broadcast. [Laughter.]

I have a captive audience. [Laughter.] 

My contribution would be that, at the moment, it's really hard to find revenue funding to keep services open, such as public toilets and leisure centres and things like that. So, maybe it could help contribute to that, going forward.

So, the committee is minded to thank the petitioner, close the petition, and that's it. It's been debated quite a lot. Okay, in agreement? Yes, everybody is in agreement. Thank you.

That moves us on to 3.6, petition P-06-1519, 'Implement safety measures at the A477 Red Roses junction to reduce accidents and stop any fatalities'. This was submitted by Victoria Mitchell, with 554 signatures. Could I invite Vaughan to discuss the petition, please, Vaughan, and any actions you wish the committee to take?

Yes, thank you. It's the second time we've considered the matter. There's been a fairly detailed response from the Cabinet Secretary, and officials have met to discuss the concerns of the petitioner. We can forward any further comments to the Cabinet Secretary. I think, though, congratulating the petitioners on what they have done to ensure that their safety concerns are considered and some action is taken, there's the point around extra measures, including closed-circuit television, surveys and a street-lighting assessment. So, there are things that are being done, and I think further communication with the Welsh Government would help; that's one of the points the petitioners made in their comments. So, I think, on that basis, we can request that there's further engagement from the Cabinet Secretary, but we can also move to close the petition. Again, it's a local issue that perhaps wouldn't have been raised otherwise in the same way, and that is part of what the role of this committee is there to do, and I think we can congratulate the petitioner on raising the issue, ask the Cabinet Secretary to contact them to confirm the measures to be taken, and close the petition.

[Inaudible.]—those proposals. So, has that been noted? Okay. So, we thank the petitioner, forward the comments to the Cabinet Secretary, they can liaise directly with the petitioner, and we'll close the petition now.

Item 3.7 is petition P-06-1521, 'Give park home residents in Wales the right to a water meter'. This was submitted by Sam Swash, with 447 signatures. I need to declare a relevant interest under Standing Order 17.24A, as the petitioner is employed on a part-time basis in my office. Could I invite Heledd to discuss the petition and any actions you think we could take?

Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the petitioner for the additional information and also note the response from Dŵr Cymru and Ofwat as well. Obviously, Ofwat are showing sympathy with residents, but also they're showing some of the limits that they have, and also that Dŵr Cymru has powers under the Water Industry Act 1991 to get involved if there's likely to be wastage, which has happened, but it's not a legal requirement. So, in terms of the forthcoming White Paper on water reforms in England and Wales, obviously there is an opportunity to amend existing legislation.

So, in terms of suggested actions, perhaps, that we can take, there are some additional questions from the petitioner that may be helpful to seek clarity from Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water on them, which would mean keeping the petition open pending a further response. Perhaps, when we have clarity on those, the committee may wish to write to the Cabinet Secretary to highlight some of the concerns. Perhaps it would help shape the Welsh Government's response to the White Paper as well, about some of the things that could change, because I think it's important to note that this isn't an issue that solely impacts the petitioner's area; it is something that happens elsewhere in other parts of Wales as well. I think we can certainly encourage the petitioner to engage directly in the consultation and the Welsh Government's White Paper on water reform, certainly, and they may wish to share the link with those that have signed the petition. But certainly, I think we should also welcome the resolution of the immediate leakage and cost issues on this particular site as well.

Okay, thank you. It was also noted that there was a water shortage where there was an issue with a pipe, and residents in Flintshire that had no water for three days received compensation of up to £250, whereas the residents of the park received £1.32, because £210 was paid to the park owner and they had to divide it up by the residents, for being without three days' water. Over £350,000 for water they hadn't used, 5 million gallons—that's a lot, isn't it? Okay. So, going forward it's been—. Oh, sorry, Vaughan. Thank you. Vaughan, would you like to come in?

Yes, thank you. I think this, again, is an issue where the Petitions Committee has it, but I think it's one of the matters where we should probably inform the subject committee about where we've reached with the petition, because I think writing back to Dŵr Cymru and the Cabinet Secretary at the same time is entirely reasonable. If you like, in legal terms, there's a mischief here. There's a gap in what we'd expect from people who are park home owners and their liability for costs, but also not being able to properly gain accountability for it. So, again, it's an issue that without a petition may well not have been highlighted to us, so I think we should inform the subject committee. But I don't think there's much more life left in the petition itself, because I think it is around matters that are in train, where elected representatives should be aware of what's taking place. So, my view would be: write to Dŵr Cymru, write to the Cabinet Secretary, make the subject committee within this Senedd aware of it, and point out that there is a White Paper process, and a cross-party committee may want to actually input into the White Paper process, as well as try to help inform the view the Welsh Government provide as well.

Okay, that sounds a sensible way forward as well. So, are we happy to go with what Vaughan has proposed?

Yes.

We'll write to Dŵr Cymru, the Cabinet Secretary and the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. Okay, thank you. They recently took evidence from Dŵr Cymru and I think they were going to—. I am a member of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, and following the evidence session with Dŵr Cymru, they were going to follow it up with further questions, so this could be something that could be added to it. Okay, thank you. Is that okay, Clerk? Thank you.

That brings us, then, on to item 4, papers to note. Are Members happy to note the papers? Is there anything you'd like to raise?

No.

No. Okay, thank you.

And then on to item 5. So, that concludes the public business, and I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42, that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting. Are you happy to do so? 

Yes.

Okay, thank you.