National Assembly for Wales

Okay. Good morning. Bore da. I welcome everyone to this virtual Petitions Committee meeting. In accordance with Standing Order 34.19, I have determined that the public are excluded from attending this committee meeting in order to protect public health. The meeting is, however, broadcast live on Senedd.tv and all participants will be joining by video-conference. The meeting is bilingual, and translation is available. A Record of Proceedings will also be published. Aside from the procedural adaptations relating to conducting business remotely, all other Standing Order requirements remain in place.

So, the first item is apologies, and we have apologies from Michelle Brown, and currently we're hoping to see Leanne Wood in the meeting shortly. 

Now, item 2 on the agenda is 'Debating petitions with 5,000 signatures.' So, the background to this is that, following the meeting on 12 May, the committee wrote to the Business Committee to ask when it would be possible to begin scheduling further debates on petitions with more than 5,000 signatures. A response was received from the Llywydd on 5 June. The Business Committee has agreed to only schedule debates relating to COVID-19 in the short term. Therefore, it would not schedule debates on other petitions at this time. So, that actually means that no debate can be held on P-05-946, 'Save Royal Glamorgan A&E', or P-05-949, 'SAVE COWBRIDGE OLD GIRLS’ SCHOOL FROM DEMOLITION’, as well as preventing the postponed debate on P-05-912, 'Supporting Families with Sudden and Unexpected Death in Children and Young Adults' from being rescheduled at present.

The Business Committee would consider scheduling debates on 5,000 signature petitions relating to COVID-19. So, Members are invited to consider whether they would wish to do so. Several petitions relating to COVID-19 have received more than 5,000 signatures to date, and they are as follows: 'Welsh Government to amend its NDR relief policy to help keep Debenhams stores open in Wales'—and that attracted 5,790 signatures; it is also item 3.2 on the agenda—'Relax travel restrictions imposed by COVID-19 legislation to allow travel within Wales', collecting 14,800 signatures, and that will be collecting signatures until 28 June; 'Ask the Senedd to reconsider their decision not to support zoos and aquariums with emergency funding'—6,200; still collecting signatures until 30 June—and, finally, 'Re-open full general dental services in Wales as has happened in England', and that has collected 7,400 and that closes on 30 June. How would Members wish to proceed with this matter going forward? Neil.

Chair, I think we should write to the Business Committee to ask them to schedule non-COVID debates as well. I think it's quite embarrassing that we're supposed to be a national parliament and we're effectively prorogued from discussing matters that are of real concern. The petition about scanning, for example, is very, very important. There are other things that we should be discussing, so I think we should write to the Business Committee and ask them to reconsider. 

Jack. 

I would support writing to the Business Committee to ask them to reconsider about non-COVID related petitions. But also, whether that would be changed or not we're not too sure, so we have to look at what we've got in front of us as well. I would suggest for the committee to follow its standard practice for now, go down the route of debating or requesting a debate to the Business Committee for the petition regarding Debenhams. There's a couple of other petitions on there where we may have had the answers already in statements ahead of today's meeting. However, it's only right that the Government gets time to respond to these petitions as well. So, I would suggest for now following Neil's suggestion of writing and asking them to reconsider their original decision, but then requesting a debate on the petition for Debenhams, which I'm sure we'll come to later today. 

Okay, thank you. 

So, we now move to item 3 on the agenda, new COVID-19 petitions. Item 3.1, P-05-964, 'Extend covid-19 financial support and paid leave to vulnerable and pregnant NHS wales bank workers.' This petition was submitted by David Adam Clarke, having collected 174 signatures, and the text of the petition is as follows:

'NHS wales bank workers who are vulnerable, require safeguarding or are over 28 weeks pregnant might not be given the same financial support or safeguarding as full time NHS staff by health boards. Some of these NHS wales bank HCA's, Nurses, Midwives et al. have worked for the NHS for years and this is their primary income. The vulnerable and pregnant could be facing working or receiving no pay, and that is subject to them being offered alternative work.'

How would you like to take that forward? Jack.

Thanks, Chair. I would suggest we need to get a formal written response from the Minister for Health and Social Services for this petition, which may give us some more information to move forward on this. I don't think we could move forward as a committee without knowing the full detail to which we're waiting for. So, I'd suggest waiting for that response and making the decision when we've got that as a committee.

Okay. Neil—happy to support that?

Yes, I agree with that. I'm happy with that.

Thank you.

So, we then move on to 3.2, P-05-967, 'Welsh Government to amend its NDR relief policy to help keep Debenhams stores open in Wales'. This petition was submitted by Peter Black, having collected 5,790 signatures, and the text of the petition is as follows:                      

'The Welsh Government has adopted different NDR Relief policies to England for the retail sector, excluding the small proportion of properties with a rateable value of over £500,000. With Debenhams already in financial trouble this threatens the viability of all their Welsh stores and the future of up to 900 staff. If these stores close it will have a disastrous impact on shopping centres where they are situated, reducing footfall for other retail outlets.'

A research brief has been provided, and you'll find your response was received from the Minister for finance on 9 June. The petitioner and another interested party have also provided further comments. How would you like to go forward?

Chair.

Neil.

Thanks. I think there are two ways of looking at this. You could say that the Government is justified in prioritising limited resource for small businesses. That's a political judgment, really. But I suppose, to be fair to the petitioners, maybe we could write to the Minister for finance just to ask for an update on any further discussions and what options, maybe, the Government is considering. But I think, clearly, resource is limited, so there has to be a political decision made. But I don't see any harm in writing back to the Minister.

Okay. Jack.

Happy to support that, Chair. Again, with the 5,000 signatures and the policy of this committee, is it worth including in that letter of options—? We'll be also writing to the Business Committee to schedule a debate for this, but, given the circumstances we're in—and, obviously, the decision is on the Business Committee—I think it may be worth doing both letters to get answers, just in case we can't hold a debate, or get as much—[Inaudible.]

Okay. Clerk, are you clear on those instructions?

Yes. So, we will write both of those letters simultaneously, so there will be a written answer. Even if a debate cannot be scheduled before the summer, then we will at least have correspondence from the Minister.

Thank you.

Item 4.1, 'P-05-952 Revert to Welsh language spelling of place-names'. This petition was submitted by Jonathan Parsons, having collected 1,096 signatures, and the text of the petition is:

'Wales has many place names which have needlessly been Anglicised, and have often been replaced by Anglicised forms for no good reason. Not only is this disrespectful to Welsh people and the Welsh language, but the Welsh language is, according to Law, supposed to be on an equal footing with English in Wales.

'I, and the undersigned, therefore petition the Welsh Assembly to take action and change these Anglicised forms of Welsh names – throughout Wales – and restore their original Welsh spellings. The petition does not go so far as to call for English names to be abolished where a Welsh name also exists'.

An initial response was received from the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language on 17 June. A research brief has been provided, and, in the timescale since receiving a Welsh Government response, the petitioner has not had sufficient opportunity to provide further comment, but how would you like to take this forward? 

I think we should wait for the petitioner's view before taking it forward. I've got a lot of sympathy with some of the spellings; sometimes, you're talking just one letter. But anyway—. I'm sympathetic towards it, but I think we should wait for the petitioner to reply. 

Agree, Jack, yes?

I agree with Neil.

Okay. Item 4.2, P-05-961, 'Lower the age for breast cancer screening in Wales from 50 to 30'. This petition was submitted by Rachel Candy having collected 76 signatures. The text of the petition is this:

'A friend of mine was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer at the age of 36. If she had been screened this would have been detected and dealt with a lot sooner.'

A research brief has been provided. An initial response was received from the Minister for Health and Social Services on 28 May. The petitioner was informed the petition would be discussed at this meeting today but has not provided further comments. How would you like to go forward? Neil.

Again, I wish we would screen a lot more across the board, really. This is coming up time and time again with different matters. I think, again, we need to wait for the view of the petitioner, I would say.

Okay. Agree, Jack?

Yes, happy to agree. I'm very sympathetic towards this. We've seen it—. I think we've had another petition similar to this and it's sad and if we could get a way for it not to be the case where we're receiving these every so often, then I'd obviously support it, but I do think we have to wait and take the petitioner's lead on this. 

Okay.

Item 4.3, P-05-963, 'Require supermarkets to donate excess food to charity'. This petition was submitted by Crosskeys My World My Home group, having collected 84 signatures. The text of the petition:

'Throughout the world, one third of all food produced annually is wasted. In the UK, that equates to about 9.5 million tonnes, which represents a huge waste of resources and unnecessary pressure on our environment. Despite this, from 2018 to 2019, Trussell Trust charity had to distribute a record 1.6 million food bank parcels in the UK. We believe that food should not be thrown away when there are people going hungry in this country.

'In February 2016, France decided to take action against the food waste problem and mandated that its supermarkets donate all food nearing its sell-by-date to charity – a law that now rescues 46,000 tons of food from being thrown away every year, and has increased food bank donations in France by over 20%.

'In 2019, the law was extended to encompass the institutional catering and agro-food industries. We believe that WE CAN DO THE SAME here in Wales by saving edible food and preventing our nation’s supermarkets, restaurant chains and food suppliers from sending decent food to landfill. The Welsh Government has already been working with Fare Share Cymru to redistribute the equivalent of over 8 million meals since 2011.

'By adopting the solution used in France, we can take a much bigger step towards ending hunger in Wales, as well as the Welsh Government’s goal of halving food waste by 2025, which will also put us on the path to becoming Zero Waste by 2050.

'Please sign this petition calling on the National Assembly for Wales to urge the Welsh Government to pass a law similar to the one in France to take a stand AGAINST food waste and FOR those in need.'

So, a research brief has been provided. An initial response was received from the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on 26 May, and the petitioners have provided further comments for you. What action would you like to take forward? Jack.

Thank you, Chair. I think we've got to go back to the Minister for environment on this. This is a great petition, sadly one—. There are two aspects to this: food waste, yes, and I mean, this is one way of dealing with that, but we've got to look at the wider issue here of food poverty.

Now, I will put on the record that I think the Welsh Government is doing a good job. There's obviously more that we can do and this could be part of it. We've seen food poverty be the highlight of many news stories in the recent weeks, so I would welcome any powers that the Welsh Government can get to tackle this within Wales, but it's certainly a wider issue than that, and it's not just the Welsh Government; the issue of food poverty has got to be a key agenda for all Governments across the UK and all political parties, really.

But I'd certainly welcome anything we could do to try and alleviate those going hungry, and this is one way of doing it; alongside the environmental impacts as well that it would have, I'm happy to support it. I suggest writing back to the Minister with the petitioner's comments, and try to seek what we are doing in order of bringing powers over to Wales.

Okay. And you're happy to support that, Neil?

I am. And I'll just put a plug in, really, for the Zone in Pentrebane, who do this kind of work brilliantly locally.

Thank you.

Moving on, updates to previous petitions: 5.1, P-05-801, 'Save the trees and ground in Roath Mill and Roath Brook Gardens before it's too late'.

The committee last considered this petition on 21 January, agreeing to continue to keep a watching brief and seek a further update following the consideration of options by the Natural Resources Wales board, anticipated early in 2020; and to await views from the petitioners about the current situation. An update was received from Natural Resources Wales on 30 March and the petitioners have provided further comments. How would you like to go forward on this one?

Welcome, Leanne, to the meeting. Hello.

Hello. I'm sorry, we've had some technical issues. I do apologise.

Okay. Good to see you. Now, I'm not sure who put their hand up first there. Neil? I'm going for Neil.

Thanks, Chair. NRW were adamant that this work had to be carried out. I understand that they're really reluctant to release the reassessment report, so I think before we close the petition, I would like to ask, or simultaneously ask NRW for a copy of the reassessment report, because I think it's important that we find out what has changed and maybe look at what they got wrong in this case.

Jack.

If the committee supports as a whole to write to NRW, then I'm happy to do it, but in terms of the committee's role within this now, I think this is obviously—. The petition has run its course, and they've got to a point where they've achieved, for now, what they wanted to achieve, so I think as a committee, I think we would have to close this petition. But if the committee agrees with Neil, then I'm happy to support it.

I'll just ask Leanne if she has any views on this one.

I'm sorry, I've missed the debate and so, I'll not participate in this one, if that's okay.

Okay. I suppose, as Chair, my views can be taken into account on this one. I believe that, really, we're quite limited in the action we can take forward on this now. I mean, it's been a smashing petition, there has been some success, but I believe that we should close this petition now.

Yes. Can we write that letter though, Chair?

Yes, of course. [Laughter.] Okay.

Before closing it, I'd just like to say, you know, an amazing campaign by the residents there, where—

Absolutely. Yes.

—direct action actually stopped this happening. They stopped their park being completely destroyed by literally tying themselves to trees, which—[Laughter.] So, yes, well done everyone. Excellent.

Yes. I mean, isn't it great when—? I think you all know my views about the Petitions Committee; it really is a doorway in for people who feel strongly enough to bring matters to the attention of Ministers and to have their say. So, yes, fantastic success to the petitioners.

So, moving on, 5.2, P-05-815, 'Control Rapidly Expanding Intensive Poultry Industry in Wales'. This petition was submitted by the Brecon and Radnor branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and was first considered in June 2018, having collected 4,567 signatures. We last—I'm just looking here now—we last considered this on 21 January, agreeing to write to the Minister for environment again to share the petitioners' concerns and ask her to respond to the questions posed in their latest correspondence, and also share correspondence—. Am I on the right—? Yes, and seek their responses to the issues relevant to them. Responses have been received from NRW and the Minister, and the petitioner has provided you with further comments in your papers. How would you like to go forward with this? Anyone?

What can we do? What are our options?

Well, the detailed responses that we have received: you know, there is evidence that work is ongoing to review and, where identified, to strengthen planning requirements around intensive agriculture. I mean, we can note the serious concerns expressed by the petitioners, but again, it's one of those that we're not really sure what more we can achieve in this committee. But, it's over to you.

Is there any other committee that we could ask to look into it, or to take any further action on it?

I suppose we could take—. If that was felt agreeable by the other Members, could we refer this to the environment committee, Clerk?

Or at least ask them if they've got time in their agenda to look into some of the concerns. If they can't run a full inquiry given the constraints with COVID and the fact that we're running up to the end of the Assembly term, then maybe there's some other action short of that they could take that would help the petitioners.

If I could, Chair, I know that the climate change and environment committee has done work on land usage in Wales, and I think that had a particular focus on what would happen after Brexit when Wales would be writing some of its own policies on this issue. That committee has also been doing work on biodiversity. I'm not exactly sure at what stage it is on both of those pieces of work, and as Leanne has mentioned, most committees have had to reprioritise their work programmes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But, the committee could certainly write to the climate change committee, making them aware of the petition and all the correspondence we've had to date, and asking if the committee would consider looking at that as part of any continuing work it wishes to do. 

Do Members support that action?

Yes.

Neil.

Yes.

Okay—

So, would you want—? Sorry, Chair. Just to clarify, would you want to end the Petitions Committee's consideration of the petition at the same time as doing that, or keep it open?

I think we can end the involvement, because as you've said, Chair, there's no further action really we can take, is there?

No. None at all. So, the clerk will now write to the climate change and environment committee with those suggestions.

So, we move on to 5.3, P-05-895, 'Rosa's Legacy: Introduce a scheme to help people access veterinary care for their companion animals'. This petition was submitted by Linda Joyce Jones and was first considered in October 2019, having collected 95 signatures. We last considered this petition on 25 February and we agreed to write to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to ask how the Welsh Government responds to the recommendations contained within the letter from the Companion Animal Welfare Group Wales and for an update on the work being done by the Animal Welfare Network Wales on veterinary provision, assistance and advice. A response was received from the Minister on 8 April, and the petitioner has provided further comments. How would you like to go forward on this one? Neil.

Yes. I think we could wait for a further update from the Minister, and maybe write to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to seek their views as well on the issues raised by the petition and the petitioner's subsequent comments.

Any other Member wish to comment? Jack.

Yes. I'd support that. Again, I've got huge sympathies for this. I'm looking at a piece of work in my own capacity as a Member on dogs or animal companions with homeless individuals, and it goes to show they're not just a pet, they are a companion. And if we can look after them and do as much as we can to support the individual at the same time, then we should, and I think this is certainly one of the ways we can help. So, I'd like to keep this petition going and see what we come back with.

Okay. And then the next one, 5.4, P-05-933, 'Ban Goldfish from being given away at funfairs. #OperationGoldfish'. This petition was submitted by Holly Rosalie Homer and was first considered in February 2020, having collected 2,416 signatures. We last considered this on 4 February, agreeing to write to the Minister for environment to ask her to consider referring this issue to the Wales Animal Health and Welfare Framework Group for advice, also to seek clarification over the potential to address this issue through the forthcoming regulations to introduce a licensing scheme for animal exhibits, and to request an update when the Welsh Government has received a response from the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain regarding self-regulation of this practice, including a copy of the response. A response was received from the Minister on 3 March and the petitioner has provided further comment. How would you like to go forward?

Does somebody else want to dive in?

Neil.

Okay. I think we could share the information provided by the petitioner and the RSPCA's response to the assertions made by the showmen's guild, and write back to the Minister for the environment to ask for an update and maybe seek some clarification about whether the issue is going to be addressed with forthcoming regulations.

Okay. Any other Members?

I don't think there's much more we can do. I'm happy to support that.

Yes, me too.

Okay. Item 5.5, P-05-941, 'Biodiversity Remit for NRW'. This petition was submitted by Initiative for Nature Conservation Cymru and was first considered in February 2020, having collected 1,195 signatures. The committee last considered this on 4 February and agreed to provide the detailed comments from the petitioners to the Minister for environment and Natural Resources Wales, and to request responses to the points raised, in particular the suggestion that explicit reference to biodiversity should be included within NRW's remit letter. A response was received from the Minister on 2 April. NRW has not yet responded. The petitioners have provided further comments. How would you like to go forward? Can I just ask: have we chased NRW for a response, Clerk?

I'd have to check that, Chair. Sorry, I don't have that information in front of me.

Okay. Jack.

Thanks, Chair. A similar question, really: can we chase? If we haven't, can we? I mean, I'd like to get a response from NRW, really. But in terms, again, of the committee, I don't think, until we have that response, we can do much more, really. We need to have all the information in front of us that is available. I think that's one of the key parts. Can we write to NRW and then see where we are and make a decision after we've received that response?

Okay, yes. So, 5.6, P-05-804—and this is under the health and social services brief now—'We need Welsh Government funding for play!!' This petition was submitted by RAY Ceredigion and was first considered in March 2018, having collected 328 signatures.

Now, the background to this: we last considered the petition on 4 February and we agreed to write to the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to ask for the petition and the correspondence received from Play Wales and the children's commissioner to be formally considered as part of the ministerial play review announced by the Government, and also to write again to the Welsh Local Government Association to seek a response to the issues raised by the petition and ask how they respond to the expectations of local authorities outlined by the Children's Commissioner for Wales.

We received a response from the WLGA on 12 February, and we also received a response from the Deputy Minister on 16 April. And the petitioner has provided further comments. How would you like to take this forward? Jack.

Thanks, Chair. There's been a commitment from the Deputy Minister that this will be included as part of the review. And I think, as well, there's been a number of correspondence received by the committee. I think we've got to a point where it's going to be reviewed, which was something that we asked for at the beginning of this. So, it's run its course for me. It's going to be reviewed, hopefully. The petition will get the outcome that it seeks in the review, but as far as the Petitions Committee—I think the committee's done its role of getting it to a review stage by the Government, and I suggest thanking the petitioner for using this platform and to close the petition on that basis.

Okay. Any other views? Leanne.

I would support the closure of the petition, and I'd like to say 'thank you' to the petitioners for raising this. The problem they have, though, isn't it, is the ring fencing of the funding and making sure that any funding that does go towards investment in play is actually not diverted into other needy council services, as has happened, I think, in many cases throughout the 12 years of austerity? So, I've got sympathy with what they say and I think we should keep an eye, as a committee, on the review, or even as individual Members, perhaps, just to make sure that when the funding situation is resolved, it is resolved in such a way that safeguards that funding specifically for children's play. Because we all know that children don't vote, and so when it comes to having to make cuts, often provision for children is the first thing to go.

Okay. So, Members wish to close it but keep a watching brief on that ministerial review, yes?

 Yes. I'd support it.

Item 5.7, P-05-831, 'End the unfairness and discrimination in the financial support for victims of the contaminated blood scandals who were infected in Wales'. This petition was submitted by the Contaminated Whole Blood UK Group and was first considered in September 2018, having collected 159 signatures.

We last considered this on 4 February, agreeing to write back to the Minister for Health and Social Services to seek an update on discussions with other UK administrations about achieving parity of scheme benefits, and also to press for this issue to be resolved as a matter of urgency. A response was received from the Minister on 25 March. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be discussed at this meeting, but has not provided further comments. How would you like to go forward?

I don't think we can take it forward without those further updates and the information that those updates will provide to us, can we? Even though this is a scandalous situation and it does need to be resolved, it's been outstanding a long, long time, but we do need all the information, I think. So, I think we should wait for the further update after the meeting that's planned with Haemophilia Wales.

Okay. Members agreed?

Yes, agreed.

Yes.

Item 5.8, P-05-905, 'Call for an Independent judicial Inquiry into the reorganisation of services within Cwm Taf Health Board'. This petition was submitted by Mark Adams and Robert Bevan and was first considered in November 2019, having collected 387 signatures.

So, this was last considered by our committee on 4 February and we agreed to write to Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board to seek their response to the issues raised and also to seek further information about the current status of the changes implemented under the south Wales programme, and also to invite the Minister for Health and Social Services and Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board to attend a future committee meeting, once the committee begins to consider the petition on changes to accident and emergency at Royal Glamorgan Hospital.

A response was received from the health board on 13 March. The petitioners were informed that the petition would be discussed at this meeting but have not provided any further comments. How would you like to go forward?

I think we—

Leanne. I saw Leanne first, sorry.

This is a fast-changing situation now, because yesterday we were informed, as elected Members covering the local area, that there is a paper now going to the Cwm Taf health board's meeting next Monday, the twenty-ninth. That paper basically says that the proposals to reduce or withdraw the A&E service at the Royal Glamorgan are now being withdrawn and that the service will continue as a full-time, 24-hour service.

They have done the impossible. They told us that it wasn't possible to recruit consultants, and, okay, COVID has changed a lot of things, there's no doubt about that, but consultants have been recruited and there is a new lead consultant. The previous concerns that we were told about in terms of safety in the department have now diminished. So while the problems are not completely resolved—there is still ongoing recruitment to be done—the board or the leadership within the health board are confident now that the service can continue to run as a full-time A&E.

So, I'd like us to thank the petitioners, but this petition now is out of date, really. I very much hope that we don't have to resurrect it in the future. The health board have said that they will review the situation in a year's time, but they said that that review is not about deciding whether there's a future for the A&E or not, it's to review whether the measures they've put in place are working and whether they need to tweak and change anything. I'm just mindful of the fact that that review will take place after the next Senedd elections, and so I just want to make sure that we're all keeping an eye on the situation and that these proposals are not brought back in the future, because they've been brought back a number of different times now over the last years, and maybe even decades by now.

So, thanks to the petitioners, thanks to everybody who's been involved in this campaign—it's been a tremendous grass-roots community campaign, full of passion and people telling their stories about the real impact of the closure of this facility. And I think that it just goes to show—often people tell us that protesting and trying to stand up against these closures is a waste of time because they're already decided. Well, they're not—the health board did listen to people on this occasion, and I think the political reality made that decision more favourable towards us as well. I just think that it's a good bit of news in a dark time, and all of the campaigners and everybody involved deserve thorough congratulations.

Thank you. Any other views? Do you support the closure of this petition going forward?

Yes, just to echo what Leanne said in terms of well done to the campaigners. I think they made the political ground shudder under some politicians, and therefore they were successful.

Okay. Moving on: 5.9, P-05-936, 'Offer Bowel Cancer Screening After the Age of 74'. This petition was submitted by Andrew Lye and was first considered in February 2020, having collected 69 signatures. We last considered this on 4 February, agreeing to write back to the Minister for Health and Social Services to ask for a copy of the letter from the Wales screening committee to the UK national screening committee—UKNSC—seeking clarification on the rationale for ending screening at the age of 74, and the UKNSC's response when received; to ask whether the costs of extending screening post 74, either on a population basis or in the form of self-referral, have been assessed by the Welsh Government to date; and also to ask for further explanation of the statement in the Minister's letter that

'all screening programmes have the potential for harm';

and also we agreed to write to the Older People's Commissioner for Wales and Bowel Cancer UK to seek their views on the petition. Responses have been received from the Minister, Bowel Cancer UK and the older people's commissioner, and the petitioner has provided further comments. How would you like to take this forward? Neil and then Leanne.

Thanks, Chair. I'd like to write to the Minister to find out whether any research has been done or whether it will be done, whether it's been commissioned, about the potential benefits of screening. I'll be interested to hear about the potential harm, actually, if they say that's an issue, and really an indication of the timescale for screening for people between 50 and 59. I'll declare an interest as I'm coming into that age bracket as well. 

Okay, Leanne. 

Yes, I support writing further to the Minister. I was interested in this argument about potential harm from expanding screening programmes, and I was reading the papers in relation to the earlier petition, which I'm sorry that I wasn't here for, but in terms of extending the age range for women and breast cancer screening. The reasons they gave for potential harms is that screening can detect cancers that we can live with, that don't necessarily need treatment. And so with the breast cancer example, if you're screening women in their 30s and finding cancers that you can live with and don't need treatment, then we can be raising anxiety levels. I can understand that being a downside to comprehensive screening, but it must surely be outweighed by the benefits from finding those cancers that are hidden and are harmful and can be treated, and save lives.

So, I'm not entirely convinced about this argument about screening potentially causing more harm than good. It does make sense to target and concentrate on those groups that are most at risk, but given people are living longer, and living healthy lives much longer than we did in the past, then I think we should—particularly given what's happened with COVID as well—do everything we possibly can to ensure people can live long and healthy lives, and that includes screening for bowel cancer. So I support asking for the additional research and asking about the timescale for introducing it for the 50-59-year-old age group.

I just think in general with these screening programmes, I do understand that we can't screen everyone for everything, but there are some particular groups of people who are at risk and deserve additional monitoring, then, I suppose. 

Okay. Any other views?

I'm happy to support both comments. 

Okay, thank you.

So we move forward to 5.10, P-05-862, 'Tackling school bullying'. This petition was submitted by the BlowforBradley campaign and was first considered in February 2019, having collected 1,463 signatures. The committee held an oral evidence session with the Minister for Education on 7 January, and agreed to accept her offer of an update on the implementation of the new anti-bullying guidance, 'Rights, respect, equality', following a monitoring exercise in the spring. The committee also agreed to seek further views from the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the petitioner, following the publication of the guidance. A response was received from the children's commissioner on 4 March, and the petitioner has provided further comments. 

How would you like to go forward? Jack.

Thanks, Chair. It's very sad, isn't it, that we have to sit in a petitions committee and discuss a petition surrounding bullying? It just shouldn't happen, especially in today's—the year we're living in now. I think we've got to take the lead of the children's commissioner here. She's satisfied and her office will be looking at it. I think she's best placed to do that, albeit that, whatever we can do to stop bullying as a whole, we should do be doing it.

I think there are things that we can also be doing as individual Members and individual members of the public as well, to stop that. But I'd just like to thank the petitioner. I'm open to other comments, but I suggest that this has gone as far as it can and the right people are listening because of this petition, so perhaps we should close it as a committee but, obviously, take an interest as individual Members, and I'm sure that other Members who don't sit on this committee will be keeping an eye on this with avid interest. 

Okay. Does everybody agree? Leanne.

Yes, I agree with that, and I'll be personally keeping an eye on this situation. I know that we've had a number of terrible cases in Wales where young people have lost their lives as a result of bullying, and there may be other issues involved with that as well—racism may be a factor in one case in particular that I'm thinking of. So, this is not stuff that is light and optional, really; it's serious and it can affect—even if it doesn't result in the worst outcome, it can affect people's mental health for a long time, if they're bullied in school and nothing is done. 

What is there now isn't good enough, because we still get bullying, don't we? So we do need to take it a lot more seriously than we have in the past. I welcome the new focus that the children's commissioner is taking here, but this is a very serious matter, and I think it would be folly of us not to keep a close eye on this agenda. 

Okay. Neil.

Speaking as a former teacher, I think, in a school sense, you can never do enough to combat bullying, and I think the added dimension that my age group and younger really didn't go through is social media. So, when children go home now, they're not actually left alone, because of the way we can communicate as a society. But I do want to say also that I think bullying goes on in all walks of life—in schools amongst staff, in the Senedd as well. I was with residents last night who feel particularly bullied by Trivallis housing association in the way that they're being dealt with. There's far too much of a power imbalance. I suppose that's why many of us are in politics.

Okay. So, we're moving forward, to 5.11, P-05-880, 'Wales is Rapidly Losing its Musical Reputation and Heritage'. This petition was submitted by Active Music Services, and was first considered in June 2019, having collected 2,226 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 4 February, and agreed to write to the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee to provide the information received to date, and ask whether that committee would consider it as part of any further work that it intends to conduct in this area. A response was received from the CWLC committee on 13 March. The petitioner has provided further comments. How would you like to take this forward? Jack.

Thanks, Chair. Given the comments from the culture and Welsh language committee, and the fact that they will be monitoring the progress, perhaps we should share the petitioners' views and the correspondence that we've had with them. As the Petitions Committee—I think the culture and Welsh language committee are best placed, but as the Petitions Committee, perhaps we should thank the petitioner and close the petition, as it's reached a stage where we can pass it on to the appropriate committee to look at.

Okay. Any other views? Leanne.

I agree that we can't take this any further, but everything's changed with regard to music since COVID. How do you make money now, or any sort of living, as a musician playing to a live audience when people can't gather together? So I would imagine that, whilst the issues in this petition are probably still pertinent, it's even worse now than it was when this petition was submitted, back in—was it February—no, we last considered it in February, sorry. But everybody involved in training musicians, delivering music as an industry, and all the other performing arts as well are going through a really difficult time at the moment. So while I support closing the petition, I just wanted to give a shout out to all those people, and really perhaps encourage them to put another petition together, to ask for something concrete in terms of helping support those musicians through this really, really difficult time for them.

Okay. Thank you. Is everybody in agreement that this petition will be closed? But we'll thank the petitioners, of course.

Next is 5.12, P-05-925, 'Don't leave Wales behind - teach menstrual wellbeing in schools'. This petition was submitted by Jade Morgan, was first considered in January 2020, having collected 846 signatures. Now, we last considered this on 25 February, and we agreed to write back to the Minister for Education to share the concerns expressed by Endometriosis UK, and also to ask for a response to the questions they raise in relation to how pupils will be informed about the menstrual cycle and menstrual well-being. A response was received from the Minister on 24 March. How would you like to go forward?

Can I just say that we've had a number of requests, haven't we, for different issues to be included in the new national curriculum? And the Minister has been consistent, if nothing else, in saying the same response to each of them. So, we can wait for a further response from the petitioner, but I'm not sure where else we can go with this now—it does seem a bit like we're going round in circles. I know that there is a debate coming up shortly, I think, on the curriculum, in the Senedd, so maybe this is an issue that can be raised there. But I know that almost everybody has got their own issues that they'd like to see children learn about in school, and there's just simply not enough time in the day to do everything. But I've got a great amount of sympathy for this, because everybody should understand how our bodies work—it's a basic thing. But I can also see where the Minister's coming from, and I can also see that she doesn't seem to be prepared to budge on any of this.

Okay. Everybody agreed that there's little more that we can do with this petition? So, Clerk, if we write and thank the petitioner for that—. Item 5.13, P-05-938, 'Make Welsh universities consider the Welsh Baccalaureate as an A Level'.  This petition was submitted by Bronwen Rosie Clatworthy and was first considered in February 2020, having collected 71 signatures. We last considered this on 25 February, agreeing to note the work undertaken by the Children, Young People and Education Committee on the status of the Welsh baccalaureate, and also to write back to the Minister for Education to ask for details of how the work to compile a list of universities that accept the Welsh baccalaureate in their offers, is progressing, and also to ask for a response to the further points raised in the petitioner's correspondence. A response was received from the Minister on 1 April. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be discussed at this meeting, but has not provided further comment. How would you like to go forward? 

So, the main issue with this is a communications issue—that the universities don't properly understand what the Welsh baccalaureate is all about, and so the recommendation is for there to be a comms job, basically, to communicate more effectively to those universities the benefits and all the rest of it, and all that work's been put on hold as a result of COVID. So, it's not as if nothing's happening. And I'm not sure what else we could suggest would or could happen on this, but it is a problem isn't it? If young people are working hard for a particular subject that isn't getting the recognition that it should be getting—. And I accept what the Minister says: universities in England are private bodies essentially and they can determine their own entry qualifications. But that doesn't help if you're a young person studying this and you want it to count for something, or you want it to count for what it's true value should be. But I don't think we can take it any further, at this point.  

Thanks, Leanne. Jack. 

I was going to say that I agree with Leanne's comments, but, as a committee, I don't think we can take this further now. So, I'd suggest closing the petition, given the fact that work is being done, albeit postponed or not moving as quickly as we'd like, but work is being done, and I think the committee can't do anything further to enhance this. So, I'd suggest closing the petition and thanking the petitioner. 

Yes, okay. Thank you. And 5.14, P-05-871, 'Make baby and toddler changing available in both male/female toilets'. This petition was submitted by Antony Esposti and was first considered in April 2019, having collected 125 signatures. Committee last considered the petition on 10 March, and agreed to await further information from the Minister for Housing and Local Government about the possible inclusion of proposals to strengthen the provision to expect baby changing facilities in both male and female toilets within a forthcoming consultation on changes to building regs, before considering further action on the petition. An update was received from the Minister on 16 March. The petitioner was informed that the petition would be discussed at this meeting, but has not provided further comments. What actions would you like to take? Leanne, and then Neil.  

Well, it seems to me that the petitioner has got a victory here. So, I think we should say 'Well done' to the petitioner for raising it. Because the Changing Places toilet consultation, as I understand the Changing Places movement, is around access for full changing facilities for people with certain disabilities, and so to include the provision for baby changing within that is possibly something that may not have been considered before.

So, if that is the case, then the petitioner has succeeded in getting something on the agenda that wasn't there before. And, if I remember the original petition, it was around creating these spaces in new builds. It was complaining that existing buildings didn't have facilities for dads to change their children, which is just bizarre in 2020. But the ask was reasonable, because it was about new provision. So, it seems to me that if the changing places provision does strengthen provision throughout old buildings and new buildings, then, potentially, this goes even further than what the petitioner was originally asking for.160

So, it would be really useful to have had the petitioner's views on this. But to me, just standing back and looking at this, it looks as if there's been a victory. It may not be a major victory, but it is a partial victory, at least for this petitioner. I don't know if other Members see it that way at all.

And how would you like to go forward with the petition? To close or—?

I can't see where else we can take it, given that the Government have said that they're going to strengthen the provision.

Okay. Neil.

I just want to say, 'well done' to the petitioner for putting this on the agenda—just challenging the gender stereotype, really. We had a small victory in the Assembly with the sign for the changing room being changed, where it was baby changing and there was a diagram of somebody with a skirt, which is just overtly sexist. So, well done to the petitioner and, hopefully, we'll see bigger changes in future.

Okay. Thank you.

Item 5.15, P-05-898, 'Ban the use of A boards in Wales'. This petition was submitted by Angharad Paget-Jones and was first considered in October 2019, having collected 80 signatures. The committee last considered this petition on 4 February, agreeing to write a detailed letter to the Minister for Housing and Local Government to outline the evidence received and to ask whether the Welsh Government will give consideration to producing additional guidance or recommendations on the use of A boards. A response was received from the Minister on 25 March, and the petitioner has provided further comment. What actions would you like to take? Leanne.

I think this is an issue that's even more important now post COVID than it was before. Many people have been shielding in their homes for three months and not able to go out at all. Others have been able to go out under reduced freedom conditions then, if you like. But if you've got a disability that precludes you from fully participating, generally, then trying to do that under socially distanced conditions is often even harder. So, given that the shops are reopening now, public spaces are starting to reopen, I think now is a good time to push on this question and consider disability access questions more widely. I mean, how do you go shopping in a supermarket in a wheelchair if people are just ignoring the social distancing rules, for example? How do you protect yourself and keep yourself safe—all of those questions—if you've got to try and move out of the way of an A board on the pavement? It just makes everything a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

So, I think we should write back to the Minister and ask for this issue to be considered, and the wider accessibility issues in general, in the plans to configure public spaces in the light of reopening everything after COVID.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay. I think that's supported, Leanne. Thank you.

Now, economy and transport: 5.16, P-05-913, 'Creation of Lôn Las Môn Multi-Use Path'. This petition was submitted by Gethyn Mon Hughes, and was first considered in November 2019, having collected 2,216 signatures. We last considered this on 25 February, and agreed to write to Network Rail to seek information about the current status of discussions over the future use of the line, and the timescales in which any decisions will be reached. A response was received from Network Rail on 16 March, and the petitioners have provided further comments. How would you like to take this forward? Leanne.

I find this a really difficult issue, if I'm honest, because it's a competition between two green modes of transport, effectively. One is using the land for a rail line, and another is for a cycle track walkway multi-use path, and both are great ideas.

But given where Network Rail are in terms of negotiating this lease, they've made it clear, haven't they, that they're not prepared to negotiate and open fresh negotiations with another group? But they have said in their correspondence that they would be open to negotiation, that they would listen and talk to the group that want to reopen the track as a cycling path or a multi-use path. So, I'm just wondering, given the length of time that rail investment and development can take, this is a 17-mile track, which sounds absolutely idyllic to cycle through, but even if we can't use the whole of the path for cycling or multi-use, are there sections of the path that could be used by the community over the time period while this lease is being finalised and the work is being done to bring back the railway?

And the second question I'd have, really, is whether things have changed as a result of COVID. Now, public transport was something that we were all championing as part of a way of overcoming the climate change problems and we wanted to get more people out of cars and on to trains. But given where we are now with COVID and social distancing and that we don't know how long we'll be in this situation for, is public transport in the form of train travel or bus travel the most optimum way to do it now? Is it safer to be travelling around on foot or by bike? So, we're in a bit of a strange time where we don't really know what the future looks like in terms of our transport options at the moment. The climate change imperatives are still there, they haven't gone away, but other things have come into the matter now.

So, I wouldn't want to knock this issue off the agenda and stop these clearly enthusiastic and determined people from pursuing what they want to do here, because I think it's a great idea, but I can also see the longer term development public transport issues as well. So, I find this, personally, a difficult one. I don't know whether one thing we could do would be to write to the transport Minister to ask whether or not any of the plans are going to come under review as a result of the COVID situation.

Okay. Any other views?

I support that.

Yes, thanks. 

Okay, Clerk? Item 5.17, P-05-918, 'Improve disabled access to Treforest train station as a priority'. This petition was submitted by Katie Phillips and was first considered in December 2019, having collected 228 signatures. The committee last considered this on 3 December, agreeing to write back to the Minister for economy and transport to welcome the confirmation that improvements are planned to access at Treforest station and ask when he expects these to be completed, and the options open to disabled passengers in the interim. A response was received from the Minister on 18 March and the petitioner has provided further comments. What action would you like to take on this issue?

Can we just say, 'Well done, Katie'?

Neil. Yes?

Yes, well done.

Yes, I think it's a brilliant outcome. Okay. So, we'll write and we'll close this petition.

I've done that one. So, we have—. That brings us to the end of our meeting. We whizzed through those today, actually. I would like to put on record, any that we are closing, our thanks as a committee go to them and I hope that they have the confidence in our Petitions Committee that we believe it's a really good way in, to get to speak to politicians, to make your views heard.

So, the committee's next meeting is currently scheduled for Tuesday 7 July, although the current timetable may be subject to further adjustments over the coming weeks. And if I could just ask Members to stay online after I officially close the meeting just to talk about some meetings going forward. So, without further ado, if I can thank everybody and anybody watching. Thank you. I now bring the meeting to a close. Diolch.