The proceedings are
reported in the language in which they were spoken in the
committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied
corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the
transcript.
|
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:03.
The meeting began at 09:03.
|
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
|
[1]
Mike Hedges: Can I welcome everybody to the meeting and
remind Members that you’re welcome to speak in either English
or Welsh? Headsets are available for translation of Welsh to
English. There’s no need to turn off mobile phones or other
electronic devices but please ensure that any devices are in silent
mode. We’ve had no apologies this morning, so we’re
expecting Gareth Bennett at some time. The clerk tells me
we’re still expecting him.
|
|
Deisebau Newydd
New Petitions
|
|
[2]
Mike Hedges: This takes us on to new petitions and one which
I received last week, ‘Establish Statutory Public Rights of
Access to Land and Water for Recreational and Other
Purposes’. It’s a petition from Waters of Wales, with
3,000 signatures. This is an issue on which, like a lot of them,
there are two sides and I’ve had fairly substantial
correspondence from fishermen and fisherwomen who are massively
opposed to this. There are, dare I say, two points of view, which
are mutually exclusive. We’ve got a number of different
options. We’ve had a letter from the Cabinet Secretary
stating that the Welsh Government has latterly followed
recommendations by the Sustainability Committee in 2010. The
Cabinet Secretary states that, following a review and public
consultation, with over 5,000 responses, on access to the outdoors,
the Government intends to set out the scope and timetable for the
development of reform proposals early next year. The
petitioner’s acknowledged this intention but states that the
current approach seeking voluntary agreements has proved
ineffective and argues that
|
|
[3]
‘wide-ranging benefits will only be truly released and built
upon if a Land Reform (Wales) bill is produced.’
|
|
[4]
The petitioner notes that a similar approach has proven successful
in Scotland. In light of the work already planned by the Welsh
Government on this issue, the committee could share the
petitioner’s recent comments with the Cabinet Secretary and
ask to be kept informed when proposals for reform are finalised
next year. Are we happy with that? If the Government is in the
process of doing something, it seems pointless for us to do
something in parallel with it until we have a chance to scrutinise
what the Government do in another place. Are you happy with that?
Yes.
|
|
[5]
Next, no. 2, ‘Hirwaun and Penderyn Community Council Petition
for the Installation of Fibre Optic Broadband’. It was
submitted with 166 paper signatures. It was sent to the Cabinet
Secretary on 10 October. A response was received on 17 October.
We’ve all had a research briefing. The petitioner’s not
responded. Basically, what they want to do is speed up the
installation of fibre-optic broadband in Penderyn. The
Minister’s response states that some properties in Penderyn
are scheduled to be enabled in spring 2017, but the specific
roll-out dates are dependent on the amount of work required per
property, which is difficult to schedule. Can I suggest we wait for
the response of the petitioner? Yes.
|
|
09:06
|
|
Y Wybodaeth Ddiweddaraf am Ddeisebau Blaenorol
Updates to Previous Petitions
|
|
[6]
Mike Hedges: That takes us on to updates to previous
petitions. ‘Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales’
submitted by Stuart Evans and first considered on 15 January 2013,
having collected 27 signatures: it was last considered by the old
committee on 8 March this year, and agreed to ask the petitioner
for his comments on the response received from the then Minister
for Finance and Government Business. The petitioner has now
submitted further comments and both of the above documents
we’ve all received. The response from the petitioner refers
to the fact that the Wales Governance Centre began to publish a
Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales report earlier in 2016.
The petitioner has indicated that he considers that a positive
result for the petitioner, and suggests that the committee may now
decide to close the petition. So, shall we close it and consider it
a success? Even though it happened before our time.
|
|
[7]
The next one is ‘Improving specialised neuromuscular services
in Wales’, submitted by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign in
February 2014. It was last considered, again, on the 8 March this
year and agreed to ask the incoming health committee to consider
the issues raised, and, depending on the health committee’s
decision, to advise the incoming Petitions Committee to undertake a
short piece of work on the matter. We’ve had a response from
the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and the
petitioner has also provided further comments, which are in the
pack for the meeting. What do we want to do? The Health, Social
Care and Sport Committee letter notes that
|
|
[8]
‘the Neurological Conditions Delivery Plan is due for renewal
in 2017.’
|
|
[9]
The health committee has written to the Cabinet Secretary for
Health, Well-being and Sport to seek an update on this work. The
petitioner has welcomed the steps taken by the health committee and
restated the improvements they believe are required. The committee
could ask to receive a copy of the Cabinet Secretary’s
response to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and then
seek further views from the petitioner at that point, before
deciding on further action. Are we happy with that? Yes.
|
|
[10]
The next one is ‘Pay Student Nurses Their Full Travel
Costs’.
|
|
[11]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: Chairman, on this one I note that
it says on the background—. Clearly, whenever a petition
comes in, the Minister comes back, and it says the clerking team
e-mailed the petitioner on 13 October and 2 November asking for his
comments on the correspondence received. The petitioner was
informed again via e-mail that the petition would be considered by
the committee but had not responded when papers—. I think,
when we’re looking at new ways of working, I think you
need—. If we’re leaving petitions open because people
aren’t responding when we’ve done our side of the
things, I think that needs to be looked at again. I think there
needs to be a cut-off point.
|
|
[12]
Mike Hedges: I follow the American system: three strikes and
you’re out. You give people three opportunities to
respond—
|
|
[13]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Three’s a lot.
|
|
[14]
Mike Hedges: Well, people can be on holiday, people can be
unwell, and I think it’s bending over backwards if you give
them three opportunities to respond. You give people three
opportunities to respond. If they don’t respond after the
third opportunity to respond, then you could take from that that
they’re either happy with what’s happened or
they’ve lost interest in the petition.
|
|
[15]
Janet Finch-Saunders: So, we’re closing this one,
then, are we?
|
|
[16]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[17]
Mr Francis: There are—. Just for information, there
are five petitions in this meeting pack today where we’re in
similar situations, essentially, where they were last considered
earlier this year and we haven’t heard from the petitioner
since. In some cases, we haven’t heard from the petitioner
since the original submission of the petition. So, I think—.
We are going through a process of looking back at the older
petitions and bringing them back to you periodically, and, as I
say, there are five in this meeting that are in a similar
situation. So, I think it’s for you as a committee to decide
whether in some cases you want to take issues forward without the
engagement of the petitioner or whether—
|
|
[18]
Janet Finch-Saunders: I think you definitely need the
engagement of the petitioner, or else we could end up taking lots
of things forward and then that doesn’t allow the time for
people who are really, you know, engaged and really taking action
to see their petition go through. So, we close this one, do we?
|
|
[19]
Mike Hedges: If that’s what committee wishes, yes.
|
|
[20]
Janet Finch-Saunders: I propose that.
|
|
[21]
Mike Hedges: Yes, proposed. Agreed? Yes.
|
|
[22]
The next one is ‘Routine Screening for Type I Diabetes in
Children and Young People’. This was first considered on 8
March this year, having collected over 2,500 signatures, and an
associated petition to the UK Government collected 3,670
signatures. It was considered for the first time in March this
year. We’ve written to the Minister for Health and Social
Services to seek clarification on points in his previous letter.
During dissolution, the previous committee was not able to consider
the content—I’ve lost my bit of paper.
[Laughter.] The content of the letter. In September, the
committee wrote to the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport
Committee to ask if they would consider including this issue in
their forward work programme. A response has been received and is
available in the papers for this meeting. The petitioner submitted
further comments and information, which are included in the papers
to the meeting, and they are attending the meeting today.
|
|
[23]
The health committee has written to the Children and Young
People’s Wales Diabetes Network to ask about action to
improve outcomes for the children and young people with type I
diabetes. They intend this response to inform a future letter to
the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport. The health
committee has also agreed to undertake a short inquiry to review
the outcomes of a study into screening for type I diabetes that is
currently under way in Germany.
|
|
[24]
The petition title asks for routine screening for type I diabetes.
The previous Minister’s letter to the committee argued that
routine screening of all children would not be effective. However,
the latest correspondence from the petitioner indicated that their
primary objective is the mandatory use of the finger-prick blood
test in primary care for all children who present with an illness
that could be masking type I diabetes. On this point, the Minister
states that the Government is implementing new National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence guidance on diabetes in children and
young people and wants clinicians to ‘hold a high index of
suspicion’ when patients present with the common symptoms of
type 1 diabetes. The Government appears to intend this to lead to
greater use of diagnostic testing.
|
|
[25]
Possible actions: on general screening, it would be appropriate for
the committee to await the outcome of the health committee’s
inquiry planned for next year. In the meantime, on the basis that
the petitioners have been clear that their intention is for
mandatory testing for type 1 diabetes when children present with
common symptoms, we could write to Diabetes UK Cymru and ask them
their view. We did that, if you remember, with the cancer, when we
had the Minister’s view and we had the petitioner’s
view, then we went out to the two major cancer charities and asked
them their view. We need to await the response from the health
committee to see what they come up with before taking it on to the
next stage, and, when we get those, we come back to it and we write
a further letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being
and Sport.
|
|
[26]
There does seem to be some progress, with the Minister implementing
the new NICE guidance on diabetes in children and young people, and
wanting clinicians to hold a high index of suspicion. I think the
position is quite straightforward, and we need that to be something
that is sent out by the chief medical officer to health boards and
then forwarded on to GPs, because I think that, sometimes, what is
decided here gets lost in translation on its way to people on the
front line.
|
|
[27]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes. I think we should really stay on
this now, and even that this could be one that we move forward to
debate in the Chamber. Diabetes is on the increase. Terribly tragic
circumstances. Prevention, intervention; for me, this fits, really,
quite into—. I think that the sooner, especially with children, things can be put in place
there—.
|
|
09:15
|
|
[28]
Mike Hedges: I agree. Neil.
|
|
[29]
Neil McEvoy: I agree with what has just been said. I think
there’s an awareness-raising exercise as well we could maybe
help with as a committee, in terms of press release, talking about
this in the public domain and trying to bring as much attention to
it as possible, really.
|
|
[30]
Mike Hedges: Yes. This is one, I think, we do need to hold until
we’ve had the response from the health committee, and then
decide how we take it forward from there. think it is a really
important issue and one that gets masked by the number of type 2
diabetes that is around, which is much easier to spot—people
show a tendency for it by just looking at them—whereas type 1
diabetes can hit anybody, at any time. And I know people
who’ve had type I diabetes, one who died from it, and another
one who could have died if he hadn’t pressurised his GP, who
just thought he was just a worried well, to send him to have tests.
Okay. So, are we happy to—?
|
|
[31]
Mr Francis: So, do you want to write to Diabetes UK Cymru to get
their extra evidence, and await further response that the health
committee receives and then consider it at that point, as to
whether you want to pull that together and use it as the basis for
a debate, perhaps?
|
|
[32]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[33]
Neil McEvoy: Just one further thing here, maybe we could put in a
letter, just asking the Minister to meet with the family. I think
really, receiving a petition like that, you would have thought they
may have already done so, to be honest, but, if they haven’t,
then they should.
|
|
[34]
Mike Hedges: Yes. And the other thing I was going to add is, to
also write to the Minister—they made that commitment that the
Government is implementing NICE guidelines on diabetes in young
people, and wants clinicians to hold a high index of
suspicion—asking them how they’re going about ensuring
that happens. Because, sometimes, as I said earlier, Governments
have really good policies, but, by the time it gets down to the
person who’s dealing with it, on the medical floor, then
sometimes it gets a bit lost. Okay. Are we happy with that?
Yes.
|
|
[35]
Now we go on to one that is a success,
‘No to junction 41 closure’. Well, that’s
something that has been going around for some time. It’s been
announced that the Welsh Government has decided not to proceed with
the permanent closure of junction 41. So, I assume that we treat
that as a success. Yes.
|
|
[36]
‘Roundabout for the A477/A4075
junction’, submitted by Pembroke Town Council, considered in
January 2016, last considered on 13 September, considered
correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and
Infrastructure, and agreed to write to him, expressing
disappointment in the delay in progressing the stage 4 road safety
audit and asking for a firmer timetable. A response was received on
21 October and is available. The petitioner was informed the
petition would be on the agenda, but has not submitted any comments
when the papers were finalised. The Cabinet Secretary, in response,
states that a consultant has been commissioned to undertake the
stage 4 road safety audit, and the petitioner’s comments will
be taken into account as part of that. The results are due at the
end of November, and the Cabinet Secretary has undertaken to update
the committee shortly afterwards. So, I think we should wait for
the results. But it has moved forward.
|
|
[37]
‘Owain Glyndwr Motion
Picture’, 2 February, with 94 signatures. The committee
considered it on 21 February, and we agreed to await the
petitioner’s view on the response received from the Minister.
The clerking team e-mailed the petitioner on 13 October and 2
November, asking for his comments on the correspondence received.
The petitioner was informed again by e-mail that the petition would
be considered by the committee, but had not responded when papers
for the committee were being finalised. The previous Minister noted
that the Government had not received an approach from anyone
planning to make a film but that they would be happy to discuss
options. The petitioner has not responded to a number of
requests for their views over the past six months, which may
indicate that this issue is no longer a priority for them.
|
|
[38]
Gareth Bennett: Maybe he’s writing the script of the
film.
|
|
[39]
Neil McEvoy: I think I’d like to maybe debate this at some
time. I’ll declare an interest in that it’s our policy
in Cardiff Plaid to try and get a film made. In terms of tourism,
if you look at—. We were talking earlier about
Braveheart and what that’s done for Scotland in terms
of international recognition. It’s a no-brainer really.
It’s another thing we’ve not yet done in Wales. So,
I’m keen to keep it on the agenda, really.
|
|
[40]
Mike Hedges: But we need a film maker to want to make the film.
The Welsh Government does many things but I don’t think
anybody would like to see it branching out into film
making.
|
|
[41]
Neil McEvoy: But it could be facilitated by getting creative
people in a room together and seeing what they come up with.
That’s what the Minister should be doing.
|
|
[42]
Gareth Bennett:
The thing with films is they’re
commercial enterprises. They can start off with a script that they
receive or they can start off with producers in a room deciding to
commission a script. If you want to get it off the ground, you need
a scriptwriter to write a script about Owain Glyndŵr. That
would be the way to—. I don’t see what the Welsh
Government could do about it.
|
|
[43]
Neil McEvoy: Facilitate, isn’t it?
|
|
[44]
Gareth Bennett:
We haven’t got a film production
arm here, though, have we?
|
|
[45]
Neil McEvoy: We’ve got loads of Welsh Hollywood
stars—get in touch with them and get them to the
Senedd.
|
|
[46]
Mike Hedges: He has had three opportunities to respond. To get
back to what we said earlier, after three no responses, should we
close it?
|
|
[47]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Close it. Sorry, Neil.
|
|
[48]
Neil McEvoy: All right, it’s okay.
|
|
[49]
Mike Hedges: I can understand Neil’s view. Most of us would
like to see the film made, but we really perhaps need to enthuse
film makers.
|
|
[50]
Neil McEvoy: If he’s not responded, then fair
enough.
|
|
[51]
Mike Hedges: ‘TATA Steel Port Talbot Power Plant’,
first considered on 13 September, having 531 signatures. Last
considered on 13 September, when we agreed to ask the new Economy,
Infrastructure and Skills Committee whether it planned to do
further work on the steel industry in Wales. The Economy,
Infrastructure and Skills Committee held a meeting on the future of
the steel industry in Wales on 19 October. Following this, the
Chair of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee replied
to the Petitions Committee to state that the petition had been
raised with the First Minister. This letter is available in the
papers for this meeting. The petitioner was informed that the
petition would be considered by the committee but had not
responded. I hope we’d agree that it just has to fit into the
whole of the debate over the future of the steel industry, which
has been undertaken by the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills
Committee. I think that, much as I would like to see a new power
plant in Port Talbot, I’m not sure that—. The petition
itself, though we’re pleased to receive the petition, really
should help inform the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills
Committee.
|
|
[52]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I’d close this one.
|
|
[53]
Mike Hedges: I think perhaps we need to—. I’m all for
closure, but not quite yet. I think we need to see what happens.
We’ve had a response from the First Minister. Let’s see
what happens—as long as it’s moving forward somewhere
else. If it stalls, perhaps we need to look at it again and we may
well want to do something on it or we may want to close it at that
stage, but I think we need to keep it open until somebody else has
resolved it.
|
|
[54]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Okay.
|
|
[55]
Mike Hedges: On ‘The Circuit of Wales’, to remind
people, we had the petition on 11 October, with 3,279 signatures.
The committee considered it on 11 October and we’ve written
to the auditor general and the Public Accounts Committee because
the auditor general is doing work on it and the Public Accounts
Committee are likely to receive a report on it. We’ve had a
response from the auditor general. We’ve also had a further
response from the petitioner. The petitioner’s response
expresses frustration with the delays in the development of the
Circuit of Wales project. The petitioner has requested that the
committee should pass the petition to the Welsh Assembly as quickly
as possible. The previous response received from the Cabinet
Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure indicated that officials
were working with the developers on producing a bid that is
acceptable to all parties. Recent reports have indicated that
progress has been made on the potential funding of the Circuit of
Wales. In light of this, the committee could write again to the
Cabinet Secretary to make him
aware of the petitioner’s recent comments and seek a
further update. Are we happy to seek a further update?
|
|
[56]
Gareth Bennett: Yes.
|
|
[57]
Mike Hedges: ‘Unconventional Oil and Gas Planning
Applications’, submitted by Councillor Arfon Jones and first
considered on 22 September 2015, with 1,254 online and 293 paper
signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 27
September and agreed to await the petitioner’s views on the
correspondence received from the Cabinet Secretary. The petitioner
has now submitted a response to the Minister’s letter, which
we’ve all received. The Cabinet Secretary’s letter
restates the policy direction that Ministers must be notified of
planning applications related to underground coal gasification, but
not exploratory boreholes, which are not considered to have adverse
environmental impacts. The petitioner’s response indicates
that this notification should be extended to cover all exploratory
drilling for unconventional gas. The petitioner also suggests that
the Wales Bill may provide a route for a more definitive ban on
unconventional gas if greater powers over energy are devolved. We
can either await progress on the Wales Bill or we can close the
petition. I’m very tempted to wait to see what happens with
the Wales Bill. Yes? Are you happy with that?
|
|
[58]
Gareth Bennett:
Yes.
|
|
[59]
Mike Hedges: The next one is ‘Encourage Planning
Committees to Ensure that Planning Decisions Take Due Regard of the
Impact on, or Closure of Local Community Groups and Voluntary
Organisations’. This goes back to 27 September this year,
having collected 77 signatures. The committee considered the
petition on 27 September. We’ve written to the Cabinet
Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to seek clarification
on how the requirement for local planning authorities to take into
account the substance of local views, including any representations
made by local community groups, works in practice and the weight
that it carries. The Cabinet Secretary responded on 1 November, and
we’ve had the response. The petitioner was informed that the
petition would be considered by the committee but had not responded
when papers for the committee were being finalised. The Cabinet
Secretary’s letter indicates that the general merits of
community use of facilities should be given consideration when
change of usage is being considered, but not the individual
circumstances of groups currently using them. Shall we wait for the
views of the petitioner, given that we’ve only given them one
chance? Yes?
|
|
[60]
Gareth Bennett: There was also an option of writing to the
Wales Council for Voluntary Action.
|
|
[61]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[62]
Gareth Bennett: Is it worth—[Inaudible.]
|
|
[63]
Mike Hedges: Yes, write to them as well. Shall we write to
the Wales Council for Voluntary Action as well? As people
can feel, I like asking the view of third parties when you have two
groups in disagreement.
|
|
[64]
‘Call for all Welsh Political Parties to Offer Everything
Bilingually’, submitted on 23 February 2016, having collected
48 signatures. It was considered for the first time on 23 February
this year and we agreed to await the petitioner’s views on
the response received from the then Minister for public services.
The clerking team e-mailed the petitioner on 13 October and 2
November asking for his comments on this correspondence. The
petitioner was informed again by e-mail that the petition would be
considered by the committee but had not responded when papers for
the committee were being finalised. Neil?
|
|
[65]
Neil McEvoy: Just see what he says, really. Give him time to
respond, I suppose.
|
|
[66]
Mike Hedges: We’ve given him three chances, on 13 October
and 2 November. I haven’t got a date for the third one, but I
assume that it’s very recently.
|
|
[67]
Mr Francis: Yes, well, actually, the first one would have
been back in February, following the last meeting of the committee.
So, it’s a period of eight months.
|
|
[68]
Neil McEvoy: I’m not sure how you enforce it,
anyway.
|
|
[69]
Mike Hedges: Pardon.
|
|
[70]
Neil McEvoy: I’m not sure how you enforce it
anyway.
|
|
[71]
Mike Hedges: Shall we close it, then? I think one of the
problems we’ve got is the petitions that have lasted such a
long time. I think that’s one thing that we need the
committee to give some serious consideration to—we need to be
resolving things relatively quickly. When things have lasted such a
long time—nine months in this case and some for years—I
think the petitioners lose heart. I certainly would.
|
|
[72]
‘Remove the Welsh Baccalaureate Qualification’,
submitted and first considered on 23 February 2016, with 378
signatures. It was considered on 23 February and we agreed to await
the petitioner’s views on the response received from the then
Minister for education and training. Again, the clerking team
e-mailed the petitioner on 13 October and 2 November asking for his
comments on the correspondence. He has, again, been informed via
e-mail that the petition would be considered by the committee and
has not responded.
|
|
[73]
Gareth Bennett: The Welsh bacc; it does seem to be a
controversial issue. I know the Government stated their position,
but I’m just wondering whether that is—. As it does
seem to be such a contentious issue, I wonder whether it’s
worth us pursuing that as an issue, as a committee.
|
|
[74]
Neil McEvoy: When did we first write to him?
|
|
[75]
Mr Francis: Another one that’s similar to the last
petition. It was considered by the last committee in February, so,
since then essentially.
|
|
[76]
Mike Hedges: He says February, October and November.
|
|
[77]
Neil McEvoy: It seems like a young person who’s
dissatisfied with the course that he’s done. I’d be
interested in maybe giving him a final chance. As a former teacher,
I can appreciate the number of qualifications that are undertaken
just to earn colleges money. I remember—well, no, sorry.
[Laughter.] We should make progress.
|
|
[78]
Mike Hedges: Okay.
|
|
[79]
Mr Francis: Just to make you aware, we have a petition
that’s just in the process of being submitted now, which
hasn’t been accepted and started gathering signatures yet,
which is also on the Welsh bacc. So, there’ll be a chance in
future to consider that issue.
|
|
[80]
Mike Hedges:
We can pull this back at the same
time then. Next is a petition to ‘Cover the Cost of the
Bedroom Tax in Wales’. This was submitted by Jamie Insole. I
declare an interest: I actually know Jamie. It collected 193
signatures. The committee considered the petition on 23 February,
and agreed to await the petitioner’s views to the response
received from the then Minister for Communities and Tackling
Poverty. The clerking team emailed the petitioner on 30 October and
2 November, asking for his comments on the correspondence, and the
petitioner has been informed again, via e-mail. So, again, it hits
the three strikes. So, shall we close it?
|
|
[81]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
|
[82]
Gareth Bennett: I’m surprised he hasn’t
responded because he’s a bit of a professional activist,
Jamie Insole.
|
|
[83]
Mike Hedges: I’m surprised he hasn’t as
well.
|
|
09:32
|
|
Cynnig o dan Reol
Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r
Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public
from the Meeting
|
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o
weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog
17.42(vi).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in
accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
|
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Motion
moved.
|
|
[84]
Mike Hedges: Can I
now move that the committee agree to resolve to exclude the public
from the meeting under Standing Order 17.42? Is that agreed?
Yes.
|
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
09:32.
The public part of the meeting ended at 09:32.
|
