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 09:02.
The meeting began at 09:02.
|
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introduction, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
|
[1]
David J. Rowlands: Good morning. Bore da. Welcome to
everyone. I’ll just mention the fact that you are welcome to
speak in Welsh or English and headsets are available for
translation of Welsh to English. There’s no need to turn off
your mobile phones, but any devices should be in
‘silent’ mode. Item 1 is apologies and substitutions.
We’ve had no apologies this morning, so we’ll go
straight on into the new petitions.
|
|
Deisebau Newydd
New Petitions
|
|
[2]
David J. Rowlands: The first petition is ‘Put an End
to the Cross Border and Sub-contracting Taxi Licensing
Loophole’. This has been submitted by the taxi drivers of
Cardiff, having collected 390 signatures. I think that the idea of
this is that there are hundreds of out-of-town taxis who now appear
to be descending on Cardiff to work private hire. Some of the
points that the taxi drivers have made is that these taxis have no
markings on them, which makes a mockery of the standards set by
Cardiff council. And the background to this is that an initial
response to the petition was received from the Cabinet Secretary
for Economy and Infrastructure on 8 September. The petitioner has
also provided further comments, which are in the papers for this
meeting.
|
|
[3]
The fact of the matter is that, under the Wales Act 2017, taxi
licensing powers have been devolved to the Assembly, and therefore,
obviously, this petition is applicable here. It appears that the
main problem here is the operation of Uber, which has meant that
there has been a great increase in the number of out-of-town taxis
being used in Cardiff, and their contention is that journeys should
start or end in the area where the vehicle and driver are licensed.
Do you have any comments?
|
|
[4]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I agree with the theory that they should
be licensed by the authority, and certainly if they’re coming
in from over the border, that’s not good, but I just hope
this—. I know there’s some confusion, isn’t
there, with what’s going on with Uber in London and things,
but I think it’s—? I’ve just had to raise an
issue about checks on drivers, because local authorities in north
Wales have not been keeping information. So, I think it’s
critical. Last night, when I got a taxi, there were a couple there
with no signage on at all and they were the only ones there, so I
had to take one. And I think we need our fare-paying public to know
that they’re safe when they get in a taxi, and that that taxi
is actually abiding by all the conditions that would be applicable
to the others. So, I think that we need to support this as much as
we can.
|
|
[5]
Mike Hedges: It’s not just a Cardiff problem, it’s a
problem in Swansea, and I assume it would be a problem in Wrexham
as well, in that what you have is that in some of the rural areas
it’s a lot cheaper to license a taxi than it is in the
cities. So, consequently, there is what is called
‘Swansea’s Powys problem’, where people were
licensing taxis in Powys and then using them only in Swansea. I
feel that the idea that a taxi starts or finishes a journey in the
area where it’s licensed would appear to be a very reasonable
one, but I think all we can do is write to the Cabinet Secretary
and ask for his comments and share the concerns of the drivers. I
hope we can highlight that we think that they should start or
finish a journey where they’re licensed. That makes some
sense of licensing because if you’re living in Tredegar, for
example, you may well get a taxi from Tredegar to take you from
Cardiff station to Tredegar or a taxi from Tredegar to take you to
Cardiff station—it doesn’t matter which one, but at
least one part of that journey should either start or end where
you’re getting the taxi from, rather than randomly from, say,
Newport.
|
|
[6]
David J. Rowlands:
I think that you’re absolutely
right in that, Mike, and the concerns have been expressed by the
taxi drivers both in their submissions and when we received the
petition originally. The fact of the matter is that they are
licensing them out of town, and they’re even pointing out
that sometimes these taxis come from afar to Wales as London,
Manchester and Birmingham. So, I think the possible actions are:
write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to
share the concerns expressed by the petitioners, and request an
update on the views expressed on issues related to cross-border and
subcontracting licensing through the recent
consultation.
|
|
[7]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Okay.
|
|
[8]
David J. Rowlands:
The next new petition is
‘Application of the Automatic Fire Suppression Systems
Legislation within the current Building Regulations for
Wales’. This petition was submitted by Nick Harding, having
collected 62 signatures. I think the one point that Mr Harding is
making here in particular is that when two houses are joined
together—so if you have two terraced houses that are knocked
into one—then it’s deemed that you have to put the fire
protection sprinkler system into both those properties. Although
the Welsh Government has said that usually the cost is about
£1,500 to £2,000, retrospective installation of these
sprinkler systems can cost anything between £5,000 and
£10,000. And he’s also pointed out the upkeep of some
of these systems, which can rise to something like £2,000 per
year.
|
|
[9]
An initial response to the petition was
received from the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment and Rural
Affairs on 5 September. One of the points for discussion is when it
involves the creation of a new residence or amalgamation of
multiple residences into one single item, does the present
sprinkler legislation cover that particular point? So, possible
actions for the committee are to write to the Cabinet Secretary for
the Environment and Rural Affairs to ask whether and when the Welsh
Government intends to review the impact of the 2013 legislation and
its applicability to the projects of the type described by the
petitioner.
|
|
[10]
Mike Hedges: I certainly support the action because I think
that’s what we should do, but I don’t have much
sympathy with the petitioner. I am a great believer in putting
sprinkler systems into buildings, and I think we’ve seen
examples of what not having a sprinkler system is. I think
it’s about safety. Somebody said if you think that health and
safety regulations are expensive, try having an accident, and I
think it’s the same with a sprinkler system. If you think
sprinklers are expensive, try having a fire.
|
|
[11]
David J. Rowlands:
Janet, do you have anything to
add?
|
|
[12]
Janet Finch-Saunders: I do worry about some of the
regulations that we are imposing on house builders, because,
clearly, there’s a big differential, isn’t there,
between properties where you expect to have sprinklers, in
high-rise and things like that, but of course, this is an
across-the-board policy legislation. I have, in the past, been
quite concerned, because builders now are saying that they’re
not building in Wales—and we’re desperate for new
housing—because of all the regulations, and this is one of
them. So, I’m a bit—
|
|
[13]
David J Rowlands: So, are we in agreement to write to the
Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs?
|
|
[14]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
|
[15]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[16]
David J. Rowlands: The next petition is compulsory scanning
of domestic pets for microchips by councils. This has been
submitted by the #CatsMatter Campaign, having collected 950
signatures. I think the contention is that there a number of local
authorities in Wales—Gwynedd, Anglesey, Cardiff, Newport,
Blaenau Gwent and Neath Port Talbot—that don’t scan
cats and dogs—these are deceased animals—for chips,
which means that, obviously, people don’t know exactly
what’s happened to their pets, and, obviously, they’re
very close to their pets very often. And so they’re asking
that Welsh Government does introduce a policy to implement the
compulsory scanning of domestic pets by councils.
|
|
[17]
Janet Finch-Saunders: On that point, certainly a lot of
councils outsource their dog warden services, if you like, so it
wouldn’t be the actual authority. I know that
kennels—.If a lost pet is taken into shelter, it’s
scanned. So, if we’re talking now just about carcasses and
the numbers of cats that are actually killed on the road, and
sometimes they’re not—. I think this could cause some
issues. The fact that they’ve raised a petition with 900
signatures, I think we should move it to the next stage, in raising
their concerns, but the feasibility—. You know what I mean?
I’ve lost animals myself, and I can fully
understand—the sympathy is there. But the feasibility of it,
in terms of road—. Sometimes, they’re not found for
days. If they’re killed, sometimes they’re thrown in
hedgerows and things. It’s a nice thought, whether
it’s—
|
|
[18]
David J. Rowlands: They’re asking, actually, that the
scan be included in new waste disposal contracts. So, it could be
contracted through the waste disposal—
|
|
[19]
Mike Hedges: I think we should just follow our normal
procedure and we write to the Cabinet Secretary.
|
|
[20]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
|
[21]
David J. Rowlands: Fine. Okay. So, that’s what
we’ll do. We’ll write to the Cabinet Secretary for
Environment and Rural Affairs to ask if she will consider the
petition’s proposals.
|
|
[22]
Janet Finch-Saunders: It would be good if there was closure
for people.
|
|
[23]
David J. Rowlands: That’s fine. The next, although
it’s really not a new petition—I think we’ve seen
it in the past—is to reopen Carno station. This is a petition
submitted by the Carno Station Action Group, having collected 877
signatures. The group started this campaign to open the station as
far back as 10 years ago, and, as we know, the Welsh Government has
been undertaking a review of stations to be opened, and
they’ve had priority lists drawn up. Carno station was not on
that first priority list, but, because one of the stations on that
list has received funding from the UK Government to go ahead,
it’s left a vacancy on the list and Carno station are hoping
that they will be accepted onto that list. So, it does seem as if
that’s what’s going to happen. So, a possibility is
that we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and
Infrastructure, but do you have any comments with regard to
that?
|
|
[24]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes, I think we should close it after
this, because I think that it’s going to be moving up now,
isn’t it? There has been recognition that it’s on the
list, so, in a way, previous actions of this committee have worked
in driving the agenda forward. So, I think that, once we’ve
done this, dependent on the response of course—
|
|
[25]
David J. Rowlands: Yes, because they’ve made the
further point, obviously, that the Welsh Government is no longer
making funds available for improvements to stations. So, it would
come under the UK Government to actually provide funding for this.
They’re asking that the Welsh Government reopens the funding
for such stations. Mike.
|
|
09:15
|
|
[26]
Mike Hedges: Although there have been petitions on this for some
time, this is the first one on this, and I think we should just
continue doing what we always do, and write to the Cabinet
Secretary. We might want to close it following that response, but I
think we should write to the Cabinet Secretary. That’s what
we do with all new petitions we receive, and it would be both odd
and a tad unfair if we don’t do the same with this one, even
though it’s similar to petitions that have come in
before.
|
|
[27]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes, fine. So, we’ll write to the
Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, to highlight the
concerns of the petitioners, and ask for a response.
|
|
09:16
|
|
Y Wybodaeth Ddiweddaraf am Ddeisebau Blaenorol
Updates to Previous
Petitions
|
|
[28]
David J. Rowlands:
Okay, we now come to a review of
petitions that have been brought to us beforehand. The first was
‘Move the Welsh Assembly out of Cardiff’, submitted by
Royston Jones. It was first considered on 27 June, having collected
53 signatures.
|
|
[29]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I propose we close this, Chair. They
haven’t responded, and, as I say, we do have limited time and
resources. And I think, if we are taking these petitions really
seriously and trying to move them forward, the one thing
that—really it’s a given—is that the petitioners
have the courtesy to respond. And if they are, I’m
sorry—. We should close it.
|
|
[30]
David J. Rowlands:
Well, that’s right. I’d like
to point out the fact that the clerking team tried to contact the
petitioner on 13 June, 14 September and 4 October, but no response
has been received. So, we decide that we shall close the petition
as it is difficult to see how the committee can take the petition
forward in the absence of contact from the petitioner.
|
|
[31]
The next petition is ‘Asbestos in
Schools’. The petition was submitted by Cenric Clement-Evans,
having collected 448 signatures, and was first considered on 10
December and, we have to note, in 2013. The petition was last
considered on 11 July, when the committee agreed to await further
comments from the petitioner on the information provided by the
Cabinet Secretary. A response from the petitioner was received on 2
October and is included in the meeting. It appears that he is quite
happy with the procedures that are now in place with regard to
this, but the possible actions are: to write to the Cabinet
Secretary for Education to ask whether and how the Welsh Government
intends to share the results of its data collection into schools
with asbestos plans, and for an update on when the asbestos in
schools working group will be holding discussions to consider the
recent developments in England and their applicability to schools
in Wales.
|
|
[32]
Mike Hedges: I move we do that.
|
|
[33]
David J. Rowlands:
Yes, right.
|
|
[34]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Just on that point, it says here the
Cabinet Secretary’s previous response states she does not
intend to require local authorities to make information about
asbestos management available online if the information is already
available. I’ve tried to get this in the past, and it’s
not the easiest information to get. And I think parents have a
right, and we have a duty to ensure that people are informed as
to—. We’ve got a lot of schools out there that are
still carrying asbestos and, unless it’s identified—the
scale of the problem—this is going to just affect people in
later years.
|
|
[35]
David J. Rowlands:
I think the petitioner made the point
that he is happy with the fact that they have an asbestos in
schools working group, but he’s asked how the information
should be shared.
|
|
[36]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes, definitely, and how we are updating
it. Absolutely.
|
|
[37]
David J. Rowlands:
So, I think we take the possible action
to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and ask those
questions. Fine.
|
|
[38]
The next petition was
‘Teachers’ Training must include Statutory Training in
Autism.’ The petition was submitted by Tim Thomas and first
considered in October 2016, having collected 316 signatures. It now
appears that education needs, including autism, will be a key part
of teacher training in England. The committee last considered the
petition on 27 June and agreed to await the views of the petitioner
on the information provided by the Cabinet Secretary for
Education. The clerking team wrote to the petitioner on 30 June, 13
September and 4 October, but no response has been received.
|
|
[39]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Close, Chairman, please.
|
|
[40]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[41]
David J. Rowlands: Yes. I think the possible action is that
we will close this petition, given the previous satisfaction
expressed by the petitioner and the fact that no response has
recently been received.
|
|
[42]
The next petition is ‘Make the foundation phase more
effective for our children, provide more teachers and abolish yr 2
Sats’. It was submitted by Tamsin Osborne and first
considered by the committee in February 2017, having collected 14
signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 9 May and
agreed to write to the petitioner to seek their views on the
response received from the Welsh Government. The clerking team
wrote on 12 May, 29 June, 14 September and 4 October, but no
response has been received.
|
|
[43]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Close.
|
|
[44]
David J. Rowlands: Possible action is to close the petition.
Mike, are you in agreement with that?
|
|
[45]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[46]
David J. Rowlands: We’ll close the petition as
it’s difficult to see how the committee can take the petition
forward in the absence of contact from the petitioner.
|
|
[47]
The next petition is ‘Building Resilience To Cyber-Bullying
In Children’. The petition was submitted by Jamie Denyer and
was first considered in May 2017, having collected 421 signatures.
The committee first considered the petition on 9 May and agreed to
await the views of the petitioner on the information provided by
the Cabinet Secretary for Education before deciding whether to take
further action on the petition. The clerking team subsequently
wrote to the petitioner on 26 June, 14 September and 4 October, but
no response has been received.
|
|
[48]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Close.
|
|
[49]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[50]
David J. Rowlands: So, we’ll close the petition, as
it’s difficult to see how the committee can take the petition
forward in the absence of contact from the petitioner.
|
|
[51]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Could I also just make a
recommendation that when we write the first time—I
don’t know whether we could see the letter—that we
actually do make it quite clear that a response is required, or
else we will be closing it? Do we say that in there?
|
|
[52]
Mr Francis: The correspondence that we send to petitioners
makes it clear that the committee values their input in deciding
how to take the petition forward and, in the absence of
that—
|
|
[53]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
We will close.
|
|
[54]
Mr Francis:—sometimes there’s no choice but to
close the petition.
|
|
[55]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes, as long as—
|
|
[56]
Mr Francis: We strengthen that wording—
|
|
[57]
Janet Finch-Saunders: As you go along.
|
|
[58]
Mr Francis:—as we go. So, if we think it’s
right.
|
|
[59]
Janet Finch-Saunders: So, on the third one, do you say to
them we will be closing the petition?
|
|
[60]
Mr Francis: We say it’s likely that committee will
close the petition.
|
|
[61]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Right, and they still don’t
respond.
|
|
[62]
Mr Francis: No, not in all cases.
|
|
[63]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Fine. Okay, close.
|
|
[64]
Mike Hedges: I think, probably in quite a number of cases,
they’ve achieved what they wanted to achieve.
|
|
[65]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes.
|
|
[66]
David J. Rowlands: Right, the next petition was ‘Food
in Welsh Hospitals’, and the petition was submitted by Rachel
Flint and was first considered in January 2016, having collected 40
signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 17
January, when it agreed to await the Public Accounts Committee
report on hospital catering and patient nutrition, and to seek the
views of the petitioner at that point.
|
|
[67]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Have we had that? Have we had that
report?
|
|
[68]
Mr Francis: It’s been published, and the Government
has responded, accepting the 10 recommendations in there.
|
|
[69]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Yes. Oh, good, good. So, we can close
this one.
|
|
[70]
David J. Rowlands: Absolutely. The clerking team wrote to
the petitioner on 26 June, 13 September and 3 October, but no
response has been received. We note that the Welsh Government took
on the 12 points raised in the report submitted to them, and it
would seem that the petitioner is happy with the contents of that
report.
|
|
[71]
Mr Francis: Just to add, Chair, we received comments from
the petitioner over the weekend—so, after the papers were
published—saying, essentially, that she apologised for not
having been in touch before and was pleased with the work that the
Public Accounts Committee had done.
|
|
[72]
Janet Finch-Saunders: Good.
|
|
[73]
David J. Rowlands: Fine. So, we agree to close that
petition.
|
|
[74]
The next petition is ‘Give Every Child in Wales the
Meningitis B Vaccine for Free’. The petition was submitted by
Rhian Cecil and was first considered in July 2016, having collected
1,195 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 9
May and agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on the recent
correspondence before agreeing a further course of action. The
clerking team wrote to the petitioner on 12 May, 29 June, 13
September and 4 October, but no response has been received.
It appears that the committee has
considered written evidence from the petitioner, Meningitis Now,
the Meningitis Research Foundation and the Minister for Social
Services and Public Health. The possible action, given that
we’ve had no response from the petitioner, is to close the
petition.
|
|
[75]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes, just close.
|
|
[76]
David J. Rowlands:
We’ll close the
petition.
|
|
[77]
Next petition is ‘A call for the
return of 24 hour Consultant led Obstetrics, Paediatrics and SCBU
to Withybush DGH’—that’s special care baby unit.
The petition was submitted by SWAT—Save Withybush Action
Team—and was first considered in July 2017 having collected
3,532 signatures. The committee last considered the petition on 11
July and agreed to give the petitioner further time to comment on
the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and
Sport, given it was received shortly before the papers were
published, and to write to Hywel Dda university health board to ask
what assessment they’ve made of the impact of the changes to
obstetrics and the services in the area since they were centralised
at Glangwili. The petitioner has submitted further comments in
response to the letters from the Cabinet Secretary and Hywel Dda
UHB.
|
|
[78]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I move that we write to them
again.
|
|
[79]
David J. Rowlands:
So, we agree that we’ll write to
Hywel Dda. So, we will write to Hywel Dda university health board
to request their response to the latest concerns raised by the
petitioner and request details about how the dedicated ambulance
vehicle has been used for the emergency transfer of women and
children from Withybush to Glangwili hospital.
|
|
[80]
‘No to Flint Castle’s planned
Iron Ring’—this was submitted by Gerwyn David Evans on
19 September 2017 having collected 11,091 signatures. Now, it
appears that in correspondence, but not in direct correspondence to
ourselves, the Cabinet Secretary has more or less said that this is
not going ahead. But, I think that we ought to write to the Cabinet
Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to ask for confirmation
that the proposed iron ring sculpture at Flint castle is not to be
included—
|
|
[81]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Okay, we can send a quick letter,
that’s fine.
|
|
[82]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[83]
The next petition is ‘Penegoes
Speed Limit Petition’. The petition was submitted by Isabel
Bottoms, Peter Bottoms and Sarah Holgate and was first considered
in December 2016 having collected 298 signatures. The committee
last considered the petition on 9 May and agreed to await the
outcome of the speed limit review, due to commence in summer 2017.
The petitioner has contacted the clerking term to seek an update on
developments since this time. Our possible actions are to write to
the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to ask for
further details on the timescale in which the speed limit review
will be conducted. Are we happy to do that?
|
|
[84]
Mike Hedges: Yes.
|
|
[85]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
Yes. I mean, this is an issue for all
local authorities and they’re all doing their own surveys.
Conwy did theirs two years ago. So, they could also lobby their
councillors and the cabinet there.
|
|
[86]
David J. Rowlands:
That’s right.
|
|
[87]
The next petition is:
‘Free School Transport for All
Children in Wales’. It was
submitted by Rachel Griffiths and was first considered in September
2016 having collected 194 signatures. The committee first considered the petition on 21
March and agreed to await the petitioner’s views on the
response from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure
before considering how to progress the petition. The clerking team
wrote to the petitioner on 29 March, 31 May, 12 June and 4 October
but no response has been received. We may therefore draw
from that the conclusion that, perhaps, she is—
|
|
09:30
|
|
[88]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I propose that we close.
|
|
[89]
David J. Rowlands:
—happy with the answer she’s
received. So, we agree to close that petition.
|
|
[90]
The next petition is ‘Increased
provision for off road motorsports.’ This was submitted by
Jonathan Barrett and was first considered on 21 March 2017, having
collected 318 signatures. The Committee first considered the
petition on 21 March and agreed to await the outcome of the
petitioner’s meeting with Welsh Government officials before
considering how to progress the petition. We are not absolutely
certain that that meeting ever took place, but the clerking team
wrote to the petitioner on 29 March, 22 June, 13 September and 4
October to seek an update, but no response has been received. A
member of the team has also spoken to the petitioner by phone. It
appears that, obviously, the meeting may have taken place and
he’s happy with the outcome of that.
|
|
[91]
Janet Finch-Saunders:
I propose we close it.
|
|
[92]
David J. Rowlands:
So, close the petition. We agree to close
the petition.
|
|
09:31
|
|
Papurau i’w
Nodi
Papers to Note
|
|
[93]
David J. Rowlands: There are some papers to note. I’m
under item 4. We’ve dealt with all the petitions at present
in front of us. So, the papers to note: correspondence from the
Llywydd to the committee Chairs in relation to Senedd@Delyn. The
committee could discuss whether it wished to hold an activity in
the area during Senedd@Delyn, but I think the clerk would perhaps
like to give us some information with regard to that. There may be
difficulties at this moment in time.
|
|
[94]
Mr Francis: Yes. The week of Senedd@Delyn, events in
north-east Wales will be taking place during the week of the 13
November. The committee is not due to meet that week. If the
committee did want to do something to feature as part of that week,
we would therefore have to request an additional meeting date from
the Business Committee and likely do it a different day of the
week, because of the issues in travelling down in time for Plenary
if we met on a Tuesday morning.
|
|
[95]
Mike Hedges: The other two difficulties are that most of us are in
committee on Wednesdays and Thursdays anyway. Really, the only
people who are going to be meeting in Delyn during that week are
the ones who are meeting on a Thursday because they have got the
whole day in which to have that meeting. Unless they have a Plenary
session in Delyn, it’s impossible for those meeting on a
Tuesday or Wednesday to do it.
|
|
[96]
David J. Rowlands:
Okay. So, what we’ll do is just
note that.
|
|
09:32
|
|
Cynnig o dan Reol
Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o Weddill y Cyfarfod
ac o Ddechrau’r Cyfarfod ar 7 Tachwedd 2017
Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public
from the Remainder of the Meeting and the Start of the Meeting on 7
November 2017
|
|
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
|
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o
weddill y cyfarfod ac o ddechrau’r cyfarfod ar 7 Tachwedd
2017, yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(iv).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting
and the start of the meeting on 7 November 2017, in accordance with
Standing Order 17.42(iv).
|
|
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Motion
moved.
|
|
|
|
[97]
David J. Rowlands: The next item, item 5, is a motion under
Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the
remainder of the meeting and the start of the meeting on 7 November
2017, which will commence at 09:45. Are we in agreement? As the
Chair, I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(iv), that
the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of the
meeting and the start of the meeting on 7 November 2017. Are the
Members all content?
|
|
[98]
Mike Hedges: Content.
|
|
[99]
David J. Rowlands: Fine.
|
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
09:33.
The public part of the meeting ended at 09:33.
|
