Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

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

And on the first item there will be a British Sign Language recording available on the website in the next few days.

There are no apologies. And are there any declarations of interest from Members? 

Yes, Chair. One of the items is on the Gwent levels. Part of the Gwent levels' sites of special scientific interest is in my constituency. I should make that clear before the item is discussed.

Okay, thank you for that. I have two declarations of interest. So, petition P-06-1472, 'Protect our wildlife...ban plastic grass in Wales!', there was a reference in the pack from the Cabinet Secretary to the 'It’s for Them' project, which is about managing grasslands for biodiversity, and it’s a project I’ve been working on, which is this one here: 'It’s for Them'. Okay. So, I just wanted to make sure that you’re aware of that.

And, also, petition P-06-1387, 'Provide humanitarian aid to Gaza', the petitioner is a staff member of mine. So, there we are. Thank you very much.

If we move on now to petitions. Petition 2.1 is P-06-1430, 'Support deaf children by making a financial commitment to restoring Teacher of the Deaf numbers'.

'Teachers of the Deaf play a vital role in supporting the language and communication development of deaf children. They provide advice to families of deaf children, visiting them at school or college—supporting their education and provide guidance to mainstream teachers on deaf awareness.

'But Wales has lost one-in-five Teachers of the Deaf since 2011. There are around 2,300 deaf children in Wales.

'I am mum to 5-year-old Lola, who is profoundly deaf and 2-year-old Rudi, who is severely deaf.'

The petition was submitted by Rosamund Hannam, with 1,431 signatures. And I’d like to welcome Rosamund and people who’ve supported the petition here today in the gallery. And we were very pleased to meet with them earlier and have a conversation with them. So, Luke, would you like to come in on this?

And, of course, welcome to the petitioners as well in the gallery, and I was really gratefu for the opportunity to listen to them just before this meeting, actually, and to hear some of the concerns that they had around how things operate in Wales. I was particularly surprised to hear that there are actually no training providers for teachers of the deaf in Wales, and that those who wish to get that training tend to travel to either Manchester or Birmingham, which I think is not a situation that any of us really want to be in.

Could I suggest that we keep the petition open, for a number of reasons? So, firstly, I think it’s worth us going and looking at what we’ve been provided with so far, by the petitioners, and send that on to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and perhaps ask her, in light of some of the stuff that we’ve had off the petitioners, to reconsider, perhaps, the Government’s position on their workforce plan for teachers for the deaf and visually impaired. Because I know that the Children, Young People and Education Committee recently produced a report on access to education, and I think recommendation 32 was about this specifically, and the Government rejected it. So, I think it would be quite interesting for us to ask the Minister to reconsider or reflect on why the Government decided to reject that recommendation.

I think it would also be useful for us, in terms of actually giving the opportunity, then, to other people who have been affected by what the petition sets out to give evidence to us, or to give some suggestions, or even to talk about their experiences, because that’s the value of this committee, really, isn't it: giving a voice to those people who don't necessarily or who don't normally have access to the Senedd. So, I think those would be some of the primary reasons for keeping that petition open, but I'd be happy to get any additional suggestions from other members of the committee.

Okay. Thank you, Luke. Anybody else? Peter.

Yes, thank you, and can I also thank you for the petitioners coming along today? It was invaluable to have an opportunity to listen first-hand in more detail about the issues that affect parents, obviously their young people, their young children, and how important the need for early intervention is to make sure those young people have the best opportunities in life. And at the moment, whilst there has been some welcome money invested in the past, it's minimal compared to the outstanding need and the challenges spread around the local authorities. It's questionable how that can be used for best effect, in my view.

It seems, from talking to the petitioners, how key it can be to make sure that individuals get the support as early as possible, and if there's an unfairness in who accesses support—perhaps those who shout loudest can get more support, I don't know—then that disadvantages many people, many children who have families who perhaps can't lobby for the support they need for their child, and that child can get left behind and stifled from opportunity as a result. I think that was the fundamental message I took on board.

As somebody who is losing his hearing in later life, I just recognise how fundamentally valuable your hearing is and what you need to do to try to make sure you can do all you can to help people who are suffering at an early age, because even as an adult you start feeling marginalised when you can't interact in the same way, perhaps, as you'd like, and how hard is that for young people if they haven't got the support and the networks and structures to support them through their schooling and through other aspects of their life?

So, I think Luke's suggestion of keeping the petition open—. I know there are 1,400 signatures on here, but some petitions, I feel, might have a number of signatures that have been pulled in to sign things without having the depth of, perhaps, understanding of the situation. I bet my bottom dollar that most of the people who have signed this are touched by this, and I think it carries a lot of weight for me, so I'm happy to support Luke's recommendations.

Thank you. There are points I picked up. Those training to be teachers as well, you know, it's—. Perhaps if this is involved in teacher training in Wales as a course and offered as a course, and making teachers aware that every child is different as well, with different forms of being able to hear and deafness as well, so every child needs to be treated individually. I heard that if a child doesn't have a hearing aid—they might not choose to wear a hearing aid—they might not have access to help, yet they do need it. So, there are lots of things that were brought in in those discussions. So, if we can capture that and any further information they would like to send us when we write. Sorry, Luke, you want to come in again.

Sorry, yes, because I think it's two things really, isn't it? Giving teachers the tool to firstly recognise that they might be dealing with a child who has hearing issues, and then of course having that training to know how to deal with that and then to ensure that that child is included in things when they might not necessarily be included in things. Could I make an additional suggestion as well, at the risk of giving you more work, Chair? We have the debate coming up, which is a debate on the inquiry report by the Children, Young People and Education Committee. Could I suggest that you as Chair potentially contribute to that debate by highlighting this petition, specifically in talking about recommendation 32 of that report?

Yes, I will. Thank you for that recommendation. I believe the debate will be on 13 November. And the parent as well—the petitioner—mentioned the cost of learning BSL as, apparently, it's really expensive and prohibitive as well. That was a point. Lots and lots we captured today, but thank you. So, the recommendation is to keep this petition open. There's a lot more we can do, I think, working with the petitioner, going forward. So, are we in agreement? Yes, okay, thank you, we'll do that then. That's the recommendation going forward. We will write to the Cabinet Secretary and then I will take part in the debate, representing the petitioner and the committee. Okay. Thank you.

So, we move on now to item 2.2, P-06-1460, 'Explore options for transferring ownership of historical assets from Crown Estate to Welsh Government'.

'The castles at Caernarfon, Harlech and Denbigh as well as Tintern Abbey are owned by the Crown Estate. These building are iconic Welsh buildings closely associated with events in Welsh History especially Harlech Castle and Owain Glyndwr.

'These buildings are important to our national identity and national memory and Welsh Ministers should explore options for transferring the ownership of these buildings from the Crown Estate back to the people of Wales.'

And this was submitted by Arfon Jones, with 1,612 signatures. Peter, would you like to come in on this?

Yes, thank you, Chair, and this is often a hot topic—well, the wider situation of the Crown Estate. Indeed, it was discussed in the Chamber last week. However, here, we're looking specifically around some specific buildings, and the culture Secretary—culture Minister, rather—has acknowledged that these buildings are extremely important, but also shares how they have been looked after for decades by Cadw and Welsh Government and the work that is needed to preserve and conserve these historic monuments has been in place and hasn't been diminished through the current situation of the Crown Estate not being devolved as such, and it's very clear from the Minister that there would be no immediate benefit over transferring these; the work is going on. Indeed, I was fortunate only a couple of weeks ago to visit Tintern Abbey, and was taken by Cadw with the Minister's permission to look at the conservation work that is happening, and fantastic work is going on, and so the commitment from Cadw and Welsh Government meant to maintaining these structures is commendable, and there's some fantastic were going on there. So, I have no fear for the future of these monuments in the current ownership.

I think the wider debate of the Crown Estate is ongoing, as the Minister also points out in his response, and it's something we will hear again and again as the Welsh Government look to try to find a better way forward, in their view, in regard to the Crown Estate, and I know colleagues here will continue to make a strong case for a different approach to the Crown Estate in the future.

But, recognising the specifics of this petition, I suggest that we do recognise the good intention of the petitioner, but we thank and close as there are discussions under way over the day-to-day management of the buildings, and the management of these buildings wouldn't change even if this petition was successful.

I think the ongoing debate about the Crown Estate and all that is connected to that will be something that remain live in this place, I'm sure, going forward, until anything changes.

Okay. Thank you, Peter. Luke, do you want to come in?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Really grateful, actually, for this petition, because I think it brings a different angle to the Crown Estate debate. I think, largely, the debate on the Crown Estate has focused on energy, renewable energy in particular and offshore wind, so this is a different angle, which I think actually contributes really well to why, actually, the Crown Estate in my view and the view of the people who signed this petition should be devolved to Wales.

I immediately think we should be keeping this petition open, but I do actually recognise what Peter has said already, that there's constant debate in the Chamber on the future of the Crown Estate. From my and my party's perspective, I don't think a week has gone by where we haven't raised the devolution of the Crown Estate by this point, and I think, because those conversations are still ongoing, it's quite important, actually, that that scrutiny happens in the Chamber and any relevant subject committees as well. So, I think, in view of that, that I would agree with Peter, as difficult as it might be on this particular subject, but to thank the petitioner for submitting this petition and also giving that additional angle, which I think has been lost in a lot of the debate around why we should be devolving the Crown Estate. It's not just about energy; it's also about some of these cultural assets as well.

Okay, thank you. I'd just like to say the petitioner added the

'ask for the Petitions Committee is for positive support for devolution of bite size chunks of the CE like the castles'

and it's not about money being paid to the Crown Estate

'but the actual principle of Welsh historical assets being owned by the Crown Estate'

and he finds it

'ironic bearing in mind the history.'

For example, Harlech was Owain Glyndŵr's castle and is owned by the Crown Estate. So, it's good he's brought this to the fore—

Chair, Harlech castle was built by Edward I, and Glyndŵr took it in the revolt, and it was also part of the wars of the roses as well. It's a castle with a huge history and lots of prominence. I think the specific petition, though, is just about castles, and the petition's follow-up asks to expand that area. I don't think there's any further value in this committee taking it further, but we will continue discussing the Crown Estate, I'm sure, in this Senedd and in the next one.

Thank you, Vaughan. Yes, Rhys.

Maybe a contrary view about keeping it open, because this is very specific. I was surprised to learn that they were owned by the Crown Estate. It would be an easy first step for these to be transferred from the Crown Estate. Vaughan was talking about Harlech castle—I think it was two Tudors who took over Harlech castle on behalf of Owain Glyndŵr on a Good Friday or Easter Sunday when everyone was in church. So, it's incredible history. Of course, it's incredible history as regards Caernarfon castle. I'd be interested to see where we go with this and where we go within the next—. I would suggest keeping it open, because it is very, very specific. As Luke mentioned, we talk a lot about energy and maybe we can't actually—. It's not tangible. So, these are tangible matters, and it might be an easy first step to transfer these.

Okay, we have differing opinions here, so I might take it to the vote, actually. So, we've had proposals to close it. There are ongoing conversations, and I'm pleased the petitioner's raised this, raised about buildings, historical buildings, as well as the money, which is really important, so—

I think those challenges—. Rhys makes some good points, but those challenges will come through that regular discourse that is happening and it doesn't need the petition to be kept open to enable those conversations to carry on. There will be those arguments, and I'm sure Rhys and Luke will make those very strongly in the Chamber as a first step.

And Vaughan, of course, as part of the response.

So, I think we've got a majority decision going forward to close it, and we can, as Members, keep a watching brief on the conversations that are being had. Are we okay with that then? Yes, there are nods, except for Rhys. Okay, so, we agree to close the position, and we'll just keep a watching eye on what happens regarding the Crown Estate.

Moving on to item 2.3, P-06-1464, 'Allow Welsh families who have experienced Baby loss before 24 weeks to obtain baby loss certificate.'

'The UK government have introduced baby loss certificates for families in England who have lost babies prior to 24 weeks. This doesn’t apply to Welsh families. Let’s get this changed!!'

This was submitted by Angharad Cousins, with 749 signatures. Can I just note, also, that a duplicate petition was recently submitted by Xantia Harrison? It was rejected because we cannot accept a duplicate petition, but Xantia has given permission for its wording to be shared, as it sums up the issue very well:

'Be able to request a baby loss certificate in Wales. Where a loss is before 24 weeks.'

She says,

'I am starting this petition to allow parents in Wales to obtain a certificate when they lose their babies prior to 24 weeks. It is a compassionate initiative aimed at recognizing the profound grief and loss experienced by families who endure a miscarriage. I myself suffered a loss in 2022 [-] other than the dreaded words of "I'm sorry there is no heartbeat" there was no recognition of my baby ever existing, it was a difficult time but having some sort of recognition for myself and others will help.'

I thank the petitioners for this petition and for sharing their stories with us, which are extremely sad. So, Rhys, could I ask you to come in on this?

Yes. Thanks, Cadeirydd. I think most of us here would have personal experience of miscarriage or family experience of miscarriage. Unfortunately, in the last two years, my twin brother lost his baby boy, Steffan, after being born, at a couple of hours' age, and then, around seven months ago, my sister-in-law lost baby Emrys at eight days old. So, unfortunately, I have some experience of the care and support that they have received and haven't received and should have received. The reason I mention both Steffan and Emrys is that recognition is very important for my brother and his wife and my sister-in-law and her husband. They want people to know about Steffan and Emrys and to talk about Steffan and Emrys, so I have complete sympathy with this petitioner, who wants their baby to be recognised and to be remembered.

A lot of us have been in that scan and it is a very nervous experience, and I cannot fathom how it is when you hear that dreaded news, 'I can't hear a heartbeat'. So, I do support the recognition. How that recognition is done will need to be carefully thought through, because I've seen from both my brother and my sister-in-law that the registering of a birth of a child who has died is in itself traumatic and, of course, that cannot be done, or should not be done where other parents of children who are alive register the birth at the same time. So, sensitivity needs to happen. But, certainly, I support the recognition. I'm glad that the Welsh Government has commissioned the excellent charity Sands to conduct a listening exercise and that there will be a Welsh-specific pathway with regard to bereavement and baby loss. We thank the petitioner for bringing this very important matter to our attention. I suggest that we write to the Cabinet Secretary to see where are we—where are we on introducing a baby loss certificate scheme here in Wales, similar to that in England? Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Thank you, Rhys, for sharing that with us. I've written and asked, as well, about these baby loss certificates; I think many of us have in the Chamber. It's been asked and we've just received the same response, but it would mean so much for such a—. Surely, it's not a large ask. So, I think that would be a good way forward. Vaughan, would you like to come in?

I know there is active work being done within the Government to consider this. It's a real issue that I've been aware of during my own time in the Government and I think it is appropriate to ask the Cabinet Secretary when he expects to make a decision on this. I think the point about this is that some parents won't want to do this, so it is the ability to request a certificate, as opposed to providing it to somebody if they want it or not. And I think that's important because, for some people, that can help, and, for others, it will not be so. But, there is active work, I know, so I think asking the Cabinet Secretary when they'll make a decision is something where we can expect there to be a response in a reasonable period of time, and I think we should make sure that the Health and Social Care Committee are aware, because I wouldn't be surprised that they receive correspondence around this as well. I know there are Members across the Chamber who are interested in this.

Yes. I did submit a question. I think it was going to the Minister, to Sarah Murphy, actually, for her to respond at the time and then got withdrawn. Thank you. Are you happy with those proposed actions, to write to the Cabinet Secretary and also to the committee as well? Thank you.

Item 2.4, P-06-1465, 'Make Pet Abduction a Specific Criminal Offence in Wales'. 

'Pets are family. Their abduction a traumatic experience. Despite this, stolen pets are regarded as personal property, with sentences dependent on monetary value. In England and Northern Ireland, the Pet Abduction Bill 2024 will recognise the emotional and welfare impacts this crime has on people and pets. Dog abduction and cat abduction will become offences carrying a maximum prison sentence of five years. The Dog Abduction (Scotland) Bill is also being considered.'

I've had lots of questions about this as well. The submitter is Eileen Jones, with 1,221 signatures. Vaughan, would you like to come in on this?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. The abduction of pets is an offence under the Theft Act 1968, but this is about whether there should be a specific criminal offence with set-out penalties. I don't have a strong view on that either way, but I think the challenge is whether or not the committee wants to say that this should be a priority for the Government within this Senedd term, and I think that's a hard ask to make out. We know we already have a very busy legislative programme and there's likely to be more legislation coming from other committees—for example, the standards committee, at some point, will provide a proposal on legislation that, I know, there will be interest across the Chamber on as well. I don't think it's realistic for there to be a Government Bill within this term, but, given that the Bill that went through the UK Parliament that relates to England was one that came from backbenchers, it's a classic area where backbench legislation is much more likely to be appropriate and likely to be the sort of thing that the Government may be happy to assist with, rather than take on board itself in its own legislative programme, and there will, of course, be opportunities for manifestos in 2026 to set this out. My view is that we should thank the petitioner for raising the matter. I do think it's correct that this is unlikely to be legislation within this Senedd term unless it's a backbench Member's legislation. But, I know there's more than enough interest for the issue to carry on being raised by Members across the Chamber, I think, and I'll be interested to see if a future Senedd decides that it wants to make time for this specific piece of legislation.

I feel very strongly about this, especially during the pandemic when dogs were being stolen, weren't they, for breeding, from gardens and when people were walking dogs. I am disappointed that this hasn't been taken forward, but it has in England, and Scotland are looking at it. I've been raising this, and I do know that the department are busy with the current Bill they're working through, but I'd like this to be taken forward myself. Rhys.

Sorry, Chair, can I take a contrary view to that? I'm not a fan of legislation like this. As Vaughan Gething has already indicated, it is already a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of seven years under the Theft Act. Under the Pet Abduction Act 2024, the maximum sentence is only five years. Now, as far as I'm aware, there are no sentencing guidelines with regard to the Pet Abduction Act, so the first thing a judge would do while sentencing would be to look at similar sentencing guidelines, and that would be the Theft Act. Now, the Theft Act is very clear—the harm is taken into account, the impact on the victim is taken into account, and a starting sentence, even under the Theft Act, would be around the two years, with the guidance going between one year and three years. 

Parliamentary resource will always be limited, and I just feel that it can be spent in better ways than legislating on a matter that is already included in legislation and that is already a criminal offence, because there will always be a huge shopping list of what we want to do in every parliamentary term, and I think we should concentrate on matters that haven't already been legislated upon. Yes, I think maybe there's work to do about raising awareness with regard to pet abduction, and perhaps there's even an issue with regard to changing the current sentencing guidelines. But I'm just worried that, sometimes, legislation like this can be slightly gimmicky and just a way to get some good press rather than actually being needed.

Any other views from committee members? Peter.

I thank Rhys for shining that light and giving some clarity on it. Why did these other Acts—this Act—come forward in Scotland and England, if it was already covered through the Theft Act? Why was that? Why did it come forward? Was it for your latter reasons or—?

I could give you a cynical answer. Something similar was seen with regard to assaults on shop workers. That was already included as a criminal offence, but it was good media—good press—at a time when, maybe, the Government was seeking some more positive news.

It was part of the kept animals Bill that was going through, and we would probably have adopted it as a legislative consent motion as part of that, but then they withdrew that and then this just came forward as a private Member's Bill instead.

So, it was really an area of duplication that got wrapped up in the creation of a different Bill.

I think it's fair to say that there are provisions to cover pet abduction now, and there are a number of reasons why people want specific legislation. I think, on the assaults on retail workers, for example, part of that was driven by the fact that there were lots of assaults on retail workers that were going unpunished. So, there's an issue: sometimes, legislation is there as a signal for what people think matters, even if, in itself, it doesn't provide a radically different set of legal principles or circumstances. But, with this, we have a challenge—you know, people care about their pets and they care about other people's pets, and a lot of that ends up being around animal welfare issues where there are things for us to do.

If the Senedd wanted to do something, thinking about the limits of our powers and what we have responsibilities for in creating new criminal offences, it's possible to do that, as we have done, within our powers. But, for the legislative programme that we have in this Senedd term, I just don't see how it's going to be possible for the Government to introduce a Bill, and we'll be into another Senedd term, or a backbencher's piece of legislation, and a backbencher who wants to make legislation in the area of kept animals may well find that there are other things that they may want to prioritise, because there are things in the animal welfare field that we're looking at across the Senedd. So, there's a choice about how the Senedd's time is used. I'm reticent to say—. In fact, my recommendation to the committee is that we don't use our time to take this particular issue forward. I think there are other avenues to cover, and, as I say, I don't see how this gets onto the Senedd's own statute book this side of the next Senedd election, unless there is an individual Member who wants to bring forward backbench legislation, who would have to persuade everyone else that this is the right way for our time to be used.

That wouldn't be able to be seen through in this Senedd term either.

You'd have to be able to start pretty quickly.

Yes.

Right, okay, going forward, I will look at legislation for myself to take this forward—[Laughter.]—

I assume you didn't hear about—[Inaudible.]—because that's the point—

—because I was really concerned, especially during the pandemic, about dogs being stolen in my local area. For me, a dog or a cat is a member of the family, and it's devastating when it gets stolen. It's not just an item that can be replaced. So, there we go. Are members of the committee—?

Just on record, I also like animals. [Laughter.]

I should say that I am a responsible dog owner. [Laughter.]

Shall we declare an interest, those of us who are pet owners here at the moment?

Yes, I declare an interest: I bought one during the pandemic, which cost an awful lot of money, and I was petrified that it was going to get pinched out of the garden.

Those animals were being stolen because of the commercial value, and the people doing the stealing weren't worried about the emotional harm caused. It goes back to Rhys's point around the harm caused. It isn't just necessarily the monetary value. That would certainly be the case with a pet abduction.

Luke, I feel you—. Do you want to speak on this or are you okay?

No, I'm happy with what's been said.

Going forward, then, I feel that Members would like to close this petition, feeling that there isn’t a need and there isn’t enough time for new legislation. But I could perhaps take forward a Member's Bill, as this is something I feel very strongly about. So, we’ll agree to close the petition as a committee. Thank you.

We move on now to item 2.5, which is petition P-06-1471, ‘Outlaw Ambulances from being used as extra beds for Hospitals’. The petition says:

‘People are dying NEEDLESSLY due to the unavailability of Ambulances because they are being used as extra beds outside A&E Hospitals across Wales.’

The submitter is Stan Robinson from Voice of Wales—is that an organisation or a political party—with 344 signatures. Can I invite Luke to discuss the petition and any actions the committee may wish to take?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. It is very clear that there is an issue in this particular area. I think for me, though, considering the complexity of it, is this something that our committee can look at in detail? I don’t think so. I think there’s value potentially in us as a committee highlighting this with the Health and Social Care Committee, who are no doubt looking at this as part of their general scrutiny anyway. So, I’m just thinking where best actually do we put this. That’s what I would suggest, that we highlight it with the Health and Social Care Committee but close the petition and thank the petitioner for submitting it.

They're able to do that detailed work, aren't they?

It's the specific subject committee, isn't it? And I'm pretty sure they're already looking at this in their general scrutiny anyway.

Okay, thank you, Luke. Is everybody agreed?

I agree with Luke’s way forward. We all get correspondence every week in our in trays about similar issues. It’s probably a different situation in different health boards, but generally picking up the same sort of theme of delayed handovers. I think you’re right, this is something the Health and Social Care Committee will no doubt be looking at. We can forward these concerns on as well to give them extra weight as well. I’m content with Luke’s way forward.

Is everybody in agreement? Okay, thank you. So, we'll close the petition and forward it on to the committee. Thank you.

Petition P-06-1472, ‘Protect our wildlife...ban plastic grass in Wales!’

‘Watching a Blackbird or Song thrush searching for worms and invertebrates on artificial grass must be one of the saddest sights in nature! No insects can live there and no seeds or flowers are produced and so you remove the food source for birds, hedgehogs, shrews, frogs, bats, moles, butterflies, bees and many more species. Add to this the fact that artificial grass does not soak up carbon dioxide and will eventually end up as yet more plastic rubbish taking thousands of years to biodegrade.’

The petitioner is Robert Curtis, with 338 signatures. Thank you. Peter, would you like to come in?

Yes, thank you. It’s quite an interesting petition, because we are seeing a growing number of home owners using this false grass, if you like. I personally, as a farmer that uses real grass on a daily basis, struggle with the concept of putting plastic grass down. I quite like mowing the lawn and I can see the benefits to wildlife and biodiversity as a result. I’m also cognisant of the issues that can come whenever you take a natural draining facility away and how it can create additional draining issues.

We’ve been furnished with briefings on quite a lot of evidence that suggests the negative effect on the environment of artificial grass and concerns of how it’s made and how the fragments of it can add to even more microplastic pollution and things like that. So, this is a petition I have some sympathy with, because I do think it's becoming more and more convenient for people to have it. Busy work lives and different ways of how we live nowadays is driving a desire to do away with lawns, which require regular maintenance, so you can understand this.

The current Cabinet Secretary for climate change says that microplastics come from various sources and the Welsh Government has several existing strategies committed to taking a focused and evidence-based approach to tackling the issue. And he points out the Welsh Government’s circular economy strategy for managing the life cycle of plastic products like artificial grass, and work through 'Planning Policy Wales' to encourage sustainability of new developments. So, clearly, the Government is focused on what could be seen as the detrimental effects of a wider expansion of this, and I would suggest there would probably be good guidance coming forward, possibly, in the future.

As for possible actions, I think the environmental impacts of artificial grass are worrying—worrying for all of us—and this is a challenge that has to be looked at. Again, we thank the petitioner for bringing this forward, because, clearly, it does raise concerns. The Cabinet Secretary's response indicated that it is on the Welsh Government’s agenda. So, I think, in that regard, recognising that it is quite topical, and it's still moving along, I think it might be of interest to keep this petition open in the meantime, until we can see what further things come forward.

Again, though, you could argue, as we have with other petitions today, that because it's ongoing and in the Government's mind at the moment, is there really a need to keep it open, recognising that it's already on the agenda. But because it is something of quite significant interest and very much linked to the aspirations of the country from a biodiversity and nature friendly perspective, I can see why it may be beneficial for us to keep it open. But I'm not going to die in a ditch over it. 

Would anybody else like to come in? No. I remember, with the previous Cabinet Secretary, then Minister, I think she was going to include it in banning single-use plastics, and, one week, there was talk of banning it, and then there was a bit of a change, so I just wonder why there was that change in it, around banning artificial grass. Maybe it was more complicated than—

Perhaps we could get some of that clarity, and even if it's got to come back here one more time, for us to understand, and then close.

Yes. But it's not just plastics, it's the impact on flooding, the environment, biodiversity, ecology. As I said, I've been working on a project called It’s for Them around changing mowing to save wildlife, working with councils and local authorities regarding amenity grass, grass verges. As you can see, just in that one picture there's hedgehogs, insects, butterflies, invertebrates, worms—they're all part of an ecosystem that can live in lawns. So, it's all about that as well. And with one in six species at risk of extinction, it's really important to keep that on the agenda. So, is everybody happy that we just keep it open? Okay.

Is the proposal to keep it open, or to keep it open pending the microplastics event that's due to take place in the spring? Because there's a point about asking for an update then, rather than just generally keeping it open. If there's an opportunity to do that, and if the committee wanted to write to ask where a previous climate change Minister said that this might be caught in the plastics ban and then wasn't—I think that person just misspoke—if we really want to get on that on the record, we can do. But I think the point about the event in March is a useful point to go back and ask for an update. Otherwise, I don't know what we're keeping it open for and what event's going to change it. And so we're talking about the microplastics part of it more than the run-off. Because there are lots of people who pave their driveways and gardens, and that's not covered, but that is a flood risk, and that is part of our challenge about run-off water and the flood risk in lots of parts of Wales, whether it's villages, towns or city centres.

With the microplastics, you're right.

I'd be happy to keep it open on the basis that we seek an update after the event in March. I think that's logical. I think keeping it open generally isn't, because the issue is there anyway.

Okay. The petitioner has come from an environmental aspect of it as well, though—the environment, biodiversity and ecology as well, and not just plastics.

I support Vaughan.

So, to ask for an update in March 2025 regarding the outcome on the plan for microplastics. Could we write to the petitioner regarding the It's for Them project? Did she have a copy of the letter that was received from the Cabinet Secretary about what the Welsh Government are doing? Yes, she would have had one of those. So, to let them know. And then close the petition, yes? Okay, the majority is to close the petition. Thank you.

Updates to previous petitions now. Petition P-06-1329, ‘Set an ambition and a clear timetable to give every child in the country Welsh-medium education’. This was submitted by Luke Johns with 1,505 signatures. Rhys, do you want to update us on this?

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys. Are we in agreement with that going forward? Thank you. We agree to close the petition.

Item 3.2, P-06-1387, ‘Provide humanitarian aid to Gaza’, was submitted by Sam Swash with 1,795 signatures. We do have an update on this, don't we, I think, regarding the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. Vaughan, would you like to cover this? 

Yes, thank you, Chair. Since the Disasters Emergency Committee launched a middle east humanitarian appeal, the Welsh Government has contributed £100,000 to that appeal following the launch of it on 17 October. So, there is aid that has been provided. The Scottish Government has donated, and the UK Government has pledged to match fund the contributions of individual donors, up to £10 million.

I think beyond that, it's hard to forecast what else we should ask our own Government to do here, the Welsh Government. The war in Gaza, which has extended into Lebanon now, is not over, and I think we need to work with agencies on the ground to understand what it is possible to do, because the humanitarian situation is very real. I'm sure that, both outside the Senedd and within it, people across the Chamber who have constituency as well as humanitarian interests will keep on asking questions. My own hope is that the war comes to a close, and we can get back to the business of trying to support efforts for peace on all sides, and to rebuild the communities that have been shattered by the conflict that we have continued to see on our screens for far too long.

My view is that I'm not sure that we need to extend the petition, but there may be value in asking the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice or the First Minister if there are further conversations taking place, or further engagement between the Welsh Government and humanitarian agencies on the ground about what we can possibly do, because there's both the Disasters Emergency Committee, but also the work that the UK Government takes a lead on with the United Nations' agency as well. But I am confident that this matter will continue to be raised through the Senedd, and in particular in the Chamber.

Okay. Anybody else? I was at a meeting that Husam Zomlot, who's the Palestinian ambassador, attended and we had the discussion there. I know the First Minister was there when she was health Cabinet member, and there was a discussion then about what other aid could be given to them or how—. I know that old beds from rainbow hospitals went to Ukraine, and other items, which I found out, again, at another meeting in the Senedd, from representatives. So, perhaps as suggested by Vaughan, we could write to the First Minister, as she attended that meeting, and ask if there's anything else that we could do to help, working with the aid agencies. 

The petitioner has said that Welsh Government has also provided benefits in kind, for example, people and equipment, to disaster areas, but as of June, the then First Minister told the Senedd that no detailed conversations had taken place. It's atrocious what's happening, isn't it? There's no safe place, is there, in Gaza? There are no hospitals that haven't been bombed, or schools? So, I guess it's knowing what can be done. But if we could write to the First Minister and to the Minister for Social Justice to have those conversations, and see if there's anything else that can be done. Okay. Are we in agreement with that? Okay, thank you. 

Moving on now to petition P-06-1395, 'Halt significant new development on the Gwent Levels SSSIs'. So, this was submitted by Deborah Joanne Munton, with 4,567 signatures online and 1,146 signatures on paper. So, Luke, would you take us through this?

Yes, of course. Diolch, Cadeirydd. I think this is one of the petitions where we've tried every avenue here and it's come to—. Well, I wouldn't say it's come to nothing because we've had some responses that have been of value, but I'm finding it hard to see where we as a committee progress things from here when it comes to this particular petition. I think the Government has been clear that they think that the current protections are sufficient. I don't think there's any prospect of them changing their mind on that, so, unfortunately, I think it is one of those petitions where we're going to have to close it and thank the petitioner for submitting the petition. I'm just struggling to see where else we go with this now, but, of course, I'm open to suggestions from other Members.

Okay. Anybody? Yes, Peter. 

Yes, I agree with Luke. There's very little we can do as a committee. There's probably very little, actually, that the Government can do at the moment because lots of this—the forward planning, the strategic planning of an area—is in the gift of the local authorities in the development of their local development plans. Some may be reviewing those or have just reviewed them or will be doing so shortly, and I think the focus I would be taking, as a petitioner, would be to focus very much on influencing future LDPs within areas that might have influence over the expectations regarding development in the Gwent levels.

It's worth pointing out, Chair—it's a point that's often forgotten—that for an LDP to be approved it has to go through an approval process with the Welsh Government as well. So, once land has been allocated in an LDP, it's very hard to see how it doesn't get used for that purpose, but the guidance has been strengthened on SSSIs during this Senedd term as well, including specifically this particular area. And as I noted earlier, part of the Gwent levels area is actually in my constituency, the SSSI area, so it's definitely Cardiff, but it's definitely still also the Gwent levels.

Okay. Thank you, Members, and thank you to the petitioner. I think I met with some young people in the Senedd at a Wildlife Trusts COP16 event, where they mentioned this petition and their concerns. So, thank you to everybody for raising this petition, and, taking on board your comments, we'll close the petition then. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, I did actually say to them at the time, 'You need to write to your local council and councillors as well with your concerns and observations.' Thank you. Okay.

So, if we move on now to petition P-06-1474, 'Stop Natural Resources Wales closing Bwlch Nant yr Arian, Coed y Brenin & Ynyslas visitor centres'. It was submitted by Gareth Jones, with 13,245 signatures. We'll discuss this as well, the other one, which is petition P-05-1447, 'Stop Natural Resources Wales closing the visitor centre at Ynyslas National Nature Reserve'. So, we had the debate on this, didn't we, in the Chamber, which was really good, with a lot of people taking part in that, showing the importance of it. Rhys, would you like to take this one?

Diolch, Carolyn. Yes, we had an interesting debate on 9 October, and I believe you took up the invitation to go to Ynyslas before, as Chair of this committee. I think the debate was fast-tracked because of a Natural Resources Wales board meeting. We've had a response from the petitioner. The petitioner wants us to write to Natural Resources Wales, asking to see the financial records of the three visitor centres, and also their visitor management plans, and the impact assessment of what impact closure of the centres would have on access. I think Luke mentioned at the beginning of this committee, this committee's role as giving a platform to people who wouldn't maybe have the access otherwise. And I think, as they've specifically asked us to write in that regard, that would be my suggestion, and that we copy in the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee whilst doing so. Diolch.

Thank you. Is everybody happy with those suggestions? Yes. It seemed in the debate we were reassured by the Cabinet Secretary that they wouldn't be closed, that they would look at alternative ways of running them. There have been offers from different groups. But the petitioners are really concerned about what they're hearing at their end from NRW. So, the latest e-mail I've received was to say that there will be a meeting on 5 November—that's tomorrow—where NRW will be voting for a 'Case for Change', but, again, we're not quite sure what that means. And we also hear that NRW would like to look at the business plans of anybody taking over, and that that might take time. There was some rhetoric saying that it might take two years. So, if it was to take that long, and if the visitor centres were to actually close, or be mothballed until somebody could take over, that wouldn't work either we don't think. So, there is a concern there as well. And the feeling that what the Cabinet Secretary has been told might be different to what they're hearing on the ground is a concern as well.

So, I think the best course of action, as has been put forward by Rhys, should be that this should be the right way to go forward. Is everybody in agreement? Okay. So, if we write to Natural Resources Wales, asking for the financial records, but also visitor management plans and ecological impact assessments for public access, as the petitioners seem to be unable to get any information from NRW, so they would be pleased to receive that. I think it might also be worth writing to the Cabinet Secretary as well, with concerns from the petitioners regarding what they're actually hearing on the ground as well. And we'll just keep the petition open again, pending a response. Okay. Thank you.

If we move on now to—. We've got several items relating to bus transport. So, petition P-06-1346, 'Provide free and accessible public transport for under 18s in Wales to lower carbon emissions and boost growth'. This was submitted by Charlie Evans, with 381 signatures. And we have—. Do you want to take them together here or do you want to take them individually? We'll go individually.

We can do them individually.

Yes.

I think the first petition with regard to free and accessible public transport for under-18s is a policy objective that I don't think anyone has got any real disagreement with. The challenge is both delivery, but also financial realities. In the debate in Plenary, the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales did set out that there are real financial constraints, which would surprise none of us, but also that he thinks there's more work to be done to inform the  programme of bus reform. We've got legislation running through the Senedd and there will be at least two budgets before the end of the Senedd term, and I thought it was positive that he set out that he's already tasked his officials to work with the Children's Commissioner for Wales and with Transport for Wales to see what opportunities there are to look at future pricing systems for younger people. I think that was a really constructive response.

My own view is that I don't think there is an additional value to keeping the petition open, because I'm confident again that, in the subject committees but also in the Chamber, there'll be more questions around this as well, particularly as the bus reform Bill comes through the Senedd, and that will inevitably have questions around school transport, as well as this area. So, my own view, given the work that is going through the Senedd and the commitments that have been made, is that we're in a position to close the petition and thank the petitioner for helping to move this issue forward, in particular following the debate in Plenary.

I'm the chair of a cross-party group on public transport, so we've had discussions regarding free travel for young people with operators and organisations like the Confederation of Passenger Transport that represent them, following the free travel in Scotland as well. So, I know operators and the organisations would like to see free travel targeted at young people, to get them using public transport. So, we've got the older person's bus pass, but young people can have a MyTravelPass with 30 per cent off fares—that's a pass for 16 to 21-year-olds.

So, it's something that I think would be really good going forward, but, like you say, this will tie in to that bus legislation and affordability. I think this would be a really good pilot, going forward, in certain areas even, or as a pilot to encourage and target young people. So, is the committee in agreement with closing this petition? I think it's something that's very hot and topical, as the legislation comes through in January, and something that we'd all like to see, really. Okay. So, we're in agreement with that. Thank you.

And the second petition dealing specifically with school transport—

School transport, yes, guaranteed for all comprehensive children—P-06-1264. Emma Granville, 181 signatures. Thank you. Go on.

Yes. So, this one again raises a specific subset of transport for younger people, for comprehensive children, and in particular the issue around the guidance on 2.5 miles that most of us would have received correspondence on at some point in time, often with very specific local circumstances. I've also seen the letter from the petitioner. So, it had been distributed to members of the committee today, and I have to say that the letter itself that we've received today, although it was dated 2 November, sets out children's and young people's experiences. But I think the letter—. Often, a lot of the difficult circumstances are actually about practice within the school itself as well, as opposed to simply transport.

However, there is a report from the Children, Young People and Education Committee going for debate to the Senedd either this week or next week, where these issues will be discussed. And again, the reality is that this is a funding issue that is only partly about the Senedd budget, which I certainly hope will be passed at some point over the coming months, but also then about local authority responsibilities as well, where local authorities are decision makers around the extent of the school transport they offer. A number of authorities still offer more than the statutory minimum that is required.

My view is that, given the reform work that is already in train that affected the previous petition, but also the very recent or the forthcoming debate in Plenary, we should thank the petitioners, close the petition, and note that there will be much more work on this in other related areas, both with the report from the children and young people's committee, and also the bus reform work that is carrying on as well.

Okay. Thank you. Luke, did you want to come in?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. The work around public transport, around home-to-school provision as well in schools has been a long time coming. Some of the first questions I asked when I was elected in 2021 were around this, on examples in my region, in places like Maesteg or more broadly in the Llynfi valley, of kids walking down the valley along unsafe roads in all weather and arriving at school soaking wet, even though there was somebody next door who had access to school transport just because they had an older brother or older sister that could access that transport. It was completely absurd.

There's an important point, because it isn't just here about the Welsh Government; it's about local authorities, the visions they have and, actually, how every local authority in Wales has slightly different provision to others. Look, I think, because of all the work that's going to be happening in this field now, and the fact that there will be Members in the Chamber that are going to consistently raise this, myself included, I would tend to agree that, perhaps, we should look at closing this petition, thanking the petitioner for highlighting this with us. But I think it's important, again at the risk of giving you more work, Chair, that, when those debates happen, we are highlighting the number of petitions that came through on this particular point, because this is a problem. There's no denying that. I've walked along the route that some of these kids have taken in Maesteg to get to their school. There has to be, I think, as part of this conversation, a conversation with schools themselves as well around how they deal with this problem, in the sense that, in the cases where some of this kids were walking to school in the pouring down rain and they were arriving at school soaking wet, they didn't have anywhere to change or to store those wet clothes and get clean clothes. So, there's an element of this where a number of agencies need to come together—there are the local authorities, the Welsh Government, but there are also the schools—on how they resolve this issue. There is a problem, and I'll continue to campaign on it myself, and I know there will be a number of other Members. I think it's important that, if we do close this petition and the petition that follows on from this one, we as a committee ensure that we are in those debates as they happen, highlighting these petitions and banging the drum.

Okay. Thank you, Luke. Peter.

I don't disagree with closing it. It's quite a complex area, really. On the face of it, it looks pretty straightforward, but, actually, at a local authority level, there are a lot of things to consider. In my authority, when I was leader, we retained a more generous provision. I think that's recently changed now. But we did that not because—. We discussed why we might want to alter it, but you have to weigh it in to many other things. The capital demands might be for putting safer routes to school in, safe walking routes to school in, or it might be the lack of active travel opportunities as well. So, those things have to be put into the round. But it was always unfair where, of course, there may have been a few concessionary seats left on a bus, which some young people could get in early and avail themselves of, at cost, but then that always left some who hadn't got them. It's never been a perfect situation, and every authority has got a different set of dynamics to wrestle with. But, very, very clearly, getting kids to school safely is the important thing, and there are quite strict expectations around safe routes to school and how they have to be negotiated. So, sometimes you could be living within half a mile from your comprehensive school, but you might be eligible to free transport because there isn't a safe route, because you're walking down the side of an A road. You can't do that. So, that's where this has to be looked at in a holistic way, with active travel, safe routes to schools, and how best the resources should be used.

This was discussed at the Local Government and Housing Committee, and the Welsh Local Government Association representative was saying how the cost of providing school transport had risen by 40 per cent after the pandemic, and having enough operators was very difficult, and enough escorts as well for some of the transport. I was cabinet member as well for transport, and we used to say it cost £700 per child to transport. That's risen to over £1,000 now. And every day, trying to get, like you say, enough operators, and there were 450 transport contracts, and 350 were school ones, and the budget for transport for education was £9.2 million, which ate into the education—. So, it's all these things that people take into consideration, don't they, but there are variances across the local authorities, like you say. So, I think there's a lot still to be done on this, and it's about funding as well, and some of it will also fit into the transport Bill coming forward as well, I think. In a way, it will overlap. So, we've had a proposal to close the petition, and then I will speak on behalf of the committee if there are any debates. Okay.

There is another similar one here: petition P-06-1343, 'Provide free public transport for all secondary school pupils', which is very similar, isn't it? It's from Elin Wyn Davies, with 349 signatures. So, anything else to add on this, Vaughan, or just similar—close it, and then we'll include this when we speak on the debate, going forward?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Petition P-06-1372 now, 'Save our fflecsi bwcabus service'. These were brought in, weren't they, when the regular bus services were stopped. Okay. So, this is Michael Morgan with, altogether, a total of 3,025 signatures—this bwcabus one. So, Luke, would you like to come in on this?

Yes. Diolch, Cadeirydd. I think this is a particularly important issue in rural areas in Wales. I would say, though, that it falls into the same category as the last three petitions because, again, we know that there's a bus reform Bill coming through—or, sorry, the bus services Bill coming through—and so we know there's going to be a significant amount of work done on this, we know there's going to be specific subject committees now getting involved as well. So, there's a question again about whether there's anything that we can add in terms of value, as a committee, and in this case I think it will be a similar route as has been suggested for previous ones, which is that we ensure that people are aware of these petitions in these relevant subject committees, and that we take the opportunity in these debates to raise these petitions. But, because of the amount of work that's going to be happening now and the amount of scrutiny that's going to be happening in other committees and the Chamber, I think this is one of those petitions that we will also have to close, but, of course, in thanking the petitioner.

Okay. Thank you, Luke. Would anybody else like to add anything? No. Okay. So, going forward, then, if we do that, we'll close that and then just raise it again—the importance of public transport— when we can.

Okay. So, moving forward now, can we resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of today's business? That's it, really. Basically, we've covered everything in the committee. So, is everybody okay to close the public meeting? Content with that? Thank you. So, could you close? We'll go into private session.