National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to the meeting of the Petitions Committee. As a reminder, the meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. Aside from the procedural adaptations for conducting proceedings in a hybrid format, all other Standing Order requirements remain in place. If we move on to apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest.

—at the moment. Are there any declarations of interest from anybody on this? Yes, Luke.

Yes. I'm not sure if it's a declaration of interest, but I should say that the first petition, in relation to the Arbed scandal in Caerau, I have worked with residents over the last couple of years on their campaign efforts.

Thank you. So, I think it's a good reason why you can take us through that.

If we move on, then, to new petitions, that is the first petition we're going to be discussing. It's petition P-06-1491, 'We demand a fair deal for residents affected by the Arbed and CESP scheme'.

'In September 2012, residents in Caerau and other areas in Wales signed up to an
energy efficiency scheme run by both UK and Welsh Governments.

'The scheme provided internal and external wall insulation to homes involved, and since the installation of the insulation, participant houses have suffered from damp and mould. This in turn has drained residents' finances and negatively affected residents’ mental health.

'We entered these schemes in good faith, now we want that good faith returned in kind.'

This has been submitted by Rhiannon Goodall, with a total of 606 signatures. So, as you said earlier, Luke, you've worked with the residents, and if you could discuss this petition and just take us through it. Thank you.

Yes. Diolch, Cadeirydd. As I said, I've worked with residents over the last couple of years now, and I've come to know Rhiannon really well. I would argue that this issue has been one of the biggest scandals of devolution, and I don't say that lightly. It's been ongoing now for a number of years, about 13, 14 years, where residents have been living in houses that aren't fit for human habitation, I would argue. One of my constituents, whose daughter was born around the time in which this was installed, has lived her entire life in a house that is damp, cold, that has seen countless kitchens refitted because of the damp destroying the kitchens. It genuinely is a scandal and it genuinely is heartbreaking that residents are still in this position now, 13 or 14 years down the line.

Now, there's an element here where we have to also admit that Welsh Government has started funding some of that remediation, trying to make things better, trying to put things right. That's been a long time coming. I know residents are increasingly anxious about how long it is taking for these things to be put right. And, as Rhianon sets out in her petition, yes, okay, they're only looking at putting the insulation right; that doesn't take into account all the money that has been spent by residents over the years putting things right themselves, replacing those kitchens, replacing those curtains, even replacing those carpets, clothes as well, that have gone damp. So, we're talking here about a scheme that was sold to residents as a way of saving money, but, ultimately, has cost them far more money than they would have expected, or that anyone would have expected.

Just turning to some of the asks: I know Rhiannon and the petitioners are asking for a public inquiry. I think we as a committee can write to Welsh Government to find out what the position is on that, because I'm not entirely clear what the Government's position is on a public inquiry. I think it's important that we get down to the problems and why they happened and how this was allowed to happen, because we know that there are going to be a number of other schemes coming down the line, because it is the ambition of Welsh Government to retrofit housing, so I think it's important we learn lessons from this, and restore as well a bit of faith in these programmes, because if I was a resident elsewhere and a new Warm Homes programme, for example, was brought to me, and I saw what had happened in Caerau, I can tell you now, I probably would run a mile, rather than actually get involved in that programme. So, it's important we learn lessons from that, so I would ask that the committee consider writing as a starting point to Welsh Government to ask around a public inquiry. I know the social justice committee as well has done a report or an inquiry into fuel poverty and the new Warm Homes programme, and I also know that the Minister in response to I think it was one of my questions, actually, said that the new Warm Homes programme had been influenced by what had happened in this particular case in Caerau.

I know that the Equality and Social Justice Committee is due to report now, but I think we should at least ask the question of the committee as to what extent they had looked at the situation in Caerau and how the situation had influenced the Government in this new Warm Homes programme. I think it's important we understand that, at the very least. If we can't get—. If it's too late for that committee to gather evidence now, we should be asking those questions when that committee report comes through the Chamber.

And then, finally, if I could just suggest one more thing, Chair: one thing that is very clear to me and to a number of other people throughout this entire period is that residents in Caerau have felt that they have not been listened to, that they've been forgotten, and I know there are a number of communities in Wales who feel like they're forgotten, but my experience with residents in Caerau is that this is genuinely a community that has been forgotten, consistently on the UK index of multiple deprivation. What I would be really keen to do as a committee is invite some of these residents down to the Senedd to hear about their experiences, because I'm sure if members of this committee heard about their experiences, they'd feel the same way as I do. I would even go as far as to say that perhaps members of the committee should consider even visiting some of these houses. But I think it would be very beneficial if we were to ask some of these residents down to the Senedd to give evidence. I'd also as well include in that Councillor Matthew Rowlands. He is an independent councillor and he's also been doing a lot of work with residents and has been advocating on their behalf.

So, I think there are three things we can do, quite clearly, there: so, write to the Government in terms of the position on a public inquiry; write to the Equality and Social Justice Committee just to ask the question around how any of this might have factored into the evidence they gathered; and then, finally, invite residents down to the Senedd so they can share their experience, alongside Councillor Matthew Rowlands. Those are three starting points, I think, which actually will put us in good stead.

I was thinking perhaps a fourth one—perhaps writing to Bridgend council to see where they're up to with the remedial works that have been funded by Welsh Government.

Yes, I'm happy with that as well.

So, that's a fourth one. Thank you, Luke. Anybody else like to come in on this?

Thank you, Chair. I'm conscious, with what Luke was mentioning there about the possibility of Members visiting these properties—. Is there scope for the committee to go to do that? Because I'm conscious it's out of our area, per se, and, as a committee, we would be then able to go and visit, I suppose.

I think the suggestion from Luke was to see if residents would like to come here to the Senedd, so that they could see what we do here and connect them to the Senedd and to the Parliament as well, but that's a suggestion. So, Luke, do you want to come back in there?

Yes. I think a starting point would be to invite residents down to the Senedd. I agree with Joel—if there's scope for that, great—but I think a starting point should be to invite residents down here. I think it's important for us to recognise that this has been a traumatic experience for a number of residents. Some of them might not want to come down here because of how traumatic it is to discuss these problems, but, at the very least, we can start that conversation and then, if there are people who are comfortable with Members going to look at some of these properties—because we've got to remember that these are their homes as well—then that's something that I think we can explore. But I agree with what Joel is saying, I just think we have to start by making a connection with these residents, because we are talking here about their actual homes.

Yes. I'd welcome that. I'd like to have the opportunity of meeting with them so that they could explain to me what they've been through as well, especially as, like you said, we've got the new Warm Homes programme coming forward, and to understand the issues, the lessons learned going forward, because insulating homes is going to be part of the future, as well, isn't it, and retrofitting. But we must learn from the mistakes of the past and those that are ongoing as well.

We've got quite a few suggestions there: to write to the Welsh Government regarding a public inquiry; to write to the ESJ committee, asking them if they included issues in Caerau in their report and if it actually influenced their report. If it hasn't, at least we'll know when there's a debate in the Chamber what we need to talk about to include these issues as well. And then, for the committee to write to the group and to the local councillor Matthew Rowlands to see if they would like to come to the Senedd to meet with the committee. We could perhaps visit them. And also to write to Bridgend council to see where they're up to with the remedial works, which have been funded by that Welsh Government. Okay, is that it? Have we captured everything? Is that okay, Lara?

Just as a point of information, they're funded by both the Welsh Government and the UK Government.

Okay, thank you. So, we're going to keep that open for now, pending all that, yes? Okay, great.

Moving on to item 2.2, petition P-06-1498, 'Introduce a bus service from Abergavenny Bus Station to The Grange Hospital'.

'When people are upset, anxious and extremely stressed, as either a patient or loved one, other options are not safe.

'Also we should be reducing car use to fight against Climate Change. Introducing vital services such as this, would be a good first step.'

This was submitted by Kathryn Lynch, with 665 signatures.

Before I bring Joel in, can I just also say we've had apologies from Vaughan? He's not able to attend today. Joel, could I invite you to speak on this petition? Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. The difficulty with this petition is, from what I understand, the council is quite active in trying to get a commercial operator to run this service, but there's been no luck at the moment. I'm also conscious that when there was a service that was being funded by the Welsh Government quite recently, there was little to modest uptake of that from the public. So, it's difficult to see where we can go from here and have a positive outcome for the petitioner. But I know that the Welsh Government is currently looking at the bus franchise Bill, and, as part of that, is actually looking to see how public transport fits in with hospitals, trying to get people back and forth to them. So, it might be a case where we might just, if the rest of the committee is minded, keep this one open until we get a bit more of an idea from the Government about what it plans. I'm also conscious of the fact that it is a wide catchment area that serves that hospital, and it's not always feasible to run a bus service. But if the rest of the committee is minded, I'd like to keep it open until we have the outcome. The only downside is that might be some time.

Are there any comments from the rest of the committee? Part of the bus franchising model is about building routes up from the community where they're needed, isn't it, so working with the local communities, Transport for Wales, the local councils and residents to see where the need is, with hospitals and leisure centres being the hub. It's been interesting to read what's actually been trialled as well. So, we're going to keep a watching brief on this and perhaps, if there's an opportunity, feed it in, some time, as well, to the process, when they look at the design of transport routes. Okay, so we'll just keep it open and keep a watching brief on it for now. Thank you.

We move on to agenda item 3, which is updates to previous petitions. Item 3.1 is P-06-1352, 'Approve the construction of the Third bridge over the Menai Strait'. This was submitted by Emyr Owen, with 362 signatures. It's interesting to note that it's from Wrexham, the petition, and not from north-west Wales. Could I invite Rhys to take us through this?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. It is interesting to note and it probably shows the importance of the crossing going to Anglesey, of course, but then forward on to the Republic of Ireland. This is the third time we've considered this petition. We last considered it over 12 months ago. It's regularly raised in the Senedd, both in committee and in Plenary, and Rhun ap Iorwerth often asks questions with regard to this matter. It's clear from the responses made in the Senedd that there is no real consideration that a third bridge will be built. I'm sure that if that was on the cards, we would've heard an announcement by now, to the joy of many. Therefore, my suggestion is that I don’t think we as a committee can do any more. It has its strong advocates, strong supporters, and they will carry on fighting for this matter. But I think this is a constituency matter and that the Petitions Committee has gone as far as it possibly can with it. Diolch yn fawr.

Anybody else? Thank you. A task group was set up, wasn't it, following the issue with the port of Holyhead, and we talked about that, as well, and the importance of the A55 being classed as a European highway—I don't know if it still is—and then the links to the railway, as well, directly to the port. So, I think we'll close the petition, going forward, and we'll probably continue to raise it in the Chamber. Thank you.

Item 3.2 is P-06-1464, 'Allow Welsh families who have experienced Baby loss before 24 weeks to obtain baby loss certificate'. This was submitted by Angharad Cousins, with 749 signatures. Questions have been raised quite often in the Chamber about this, haven't they? But I am surprised at how long it's taking to resolve this issue. I think we should write again to the Minister and ask what the delay is, because we need to get this resolved. I was thinking maybe I could also ask in the business statement, as well, just to try and push it along the priority list. What does the committee think? Are there any other suggestions?

I think that idea about the business statement is a very good idea, actually. So, yes, I'm in support of that.

Thank you, Joel. We'll do that. We'll keep it open for now. We'll write and ask what the hold-up is.

Chair, I asked a question about this on 24 January and received a reply from the Cabinet Secretary, and it seemed from the reply that things were moving on fairly quickly, and, bearing in mind not everyone would want to take this, that it would be available and they were in correspondence with the UK Government about their voluntary scheme. So, it would be interesting to see an update after the question I asked back at the end of January.

It seems like the will is there, it's just making it happen and, like I said, pushing it up the priority list if they are extremely busy dealing with other issues.

Because the voluntary scheme has been in place in England since February last year, so surely we'd be able to know by now how it's working there. And it would be interesting to know what—. When I had a response from the Cabinet Secretary, they said they were looking at how to extend it to Wales. So, I can't see what the issue is to extend it to Wales, if the voluntary scheme has been up and running in England since well over a year ago.

Okay. So, we'll write to the Cabinet Secretary and I'll raise it in the business statement. Thank you.

We move on now to item 3.3, P-06-1463, 'Continue to fund school police officers who educate children and support schools'. It was submitted by Cai Gleaves, with 5,717 signatures. Could I invite Luke to discuss the petition and take us through it?

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I think the role of those police officers to go into schools and provide educational services is more important now than ever. I think the Netflix series Adolescence has shown why, to be honest. It's incredibly concerning to see what's going on in schools at the moment.

In terms of the life of this petition now with the committee, I think that we are in a position where we've taken this as far as we can. There are a couple of things I think we can feed back to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language around the concerns that are raised on the planning and consultation process. I know that there's a lot of interest from other Members around how we deal with and tackle some of the issues that we are seeing in schools at the moment, so I've got no doubt that this is going to be raised by other Members in Plenary. But, for the time being, I think this committee has done as much at it can on this particular subject. So, I would recommend that we close the petition, but, of course, passing on the concerns that have been raised around the planning process and the consultation process to the Cabinet Secretary.

Okay. Thank you, Luke. Rhys.

I think the Welsh Government should be commended for funding this for so long, because it's one of these difficult areas within the jagged edge with policing not being devolved. I think it's worth noting that three out of the four forces have retained the schools police officer. So, it's not a nice-to-have, they obviously—. Even with the funding taken away, three have continued to use them. I think Gwent have used more community policing, so they still go into schools. So, all four, really, have retained this important role. I agree with Luke's comment about the fact that we do need these, and these police forces, without the funding, think that they do need these officers. I think that needs to be stressed to the Cabinet Secretary, and maybe that can be passed on to the Home Office in London, who actually should be funding the police services. It's not up to the Welsh Government, because, of course, it's not a devolved matter.

Would you suggest we write also to the Home Office?

Well, I don't see why not. It should be a Home Office matter. Policing is not devolved to Wales. 

So, if we write and say how much it's valued and needed even more so now, and we write to the Welsh Government to say that we commend that they have funded it so far, it's been really welcome. We'll just raise the issue regarding the lack of consultation and planning, because it was cut quite quickly, the funding, wasn't it? But we're very pleased that the police forces have stepped in, because they realise—. It was very difficult for them, wasn't it, because they weren't given much notice to do that? So, it meant taking staff away, maybe, from other resources. And also to write to the Home Office just to say how important this is, and ask that they fund it in the future.

Yes. Or devolve it to Wales. That would be another suggestion.

Or devolve it to Wales.

Yes. Policing that is.

We've asked for that, haven't we? Okay, so is everybody happy with that? Okay, thank you.

If we move on now to item 3.4, petition P-06-1475, ‘Urgently improve the safety of the A458, Middletown, Powys in light of continuous dangerous driving’. So that was submitted by Amanda Jenner, with 311 signatures. Okay. Joel, would you like to discuss the petition?

Thank you, Chair. I've got to declare an interest here: I know the petitioner, Amanda. We sort of float in the same circles, I suppose, politically. From what I understand, the Cabinet Secretary has currently commissioned a study actually looking into how dangerous this section is, and it would be interesting if we could wait to get an idea of what that study is before going back to the petitioner. But also I know Amanda's raised quite a few issues there in terms of the transparency of the process, who will be consulted—and specifically would like the local community council to be consulted—and the timescales. And I was wondering whether or not we could go back to the Cabinet Secretary as well just to raise those issues and some of the others that the petitioner has raised, and keep it as a work in progress, I suppose.

Okay. So, we've got here in the report the petitioner says:

‘I would like to ask the petitions committee to request the following from the Cabinet Secretary:

'Can the time frames for the completion of the study be provided to the community and myself. Also will the public, myself and the community council be consulted as part of the study? Will the results/options which are then considered be shared with us? Is there an ultimate timeframe for implementing any proposed recommendations/measures?’

So, if we follow that up, and then, Joel, what did you suggest—to then keep it open for now?

If that would be possible.

And keep it open for now. Committee members, are you happy with that? Okay. So, if we follow what's there. Sorry, when we looked at the previous petition, I didn't say: if we write, but then close the petition, thank you, as suggested.

Okay, moving on to item 3.5, it’s petition P-06-1476, ‘1000 meter mandatory buffer zone for all new and existing quarries’, and this was submitted by Monica Golebiewska—I hope I've said that right; I apologise if I haven't—with a total of 11,473 signatures. And we have members, I believe, here today who've come to listen. Welcome. Could I invite Rhys to discuss the petition and take us through?

Thank you very much, Cadeirydd. It's clear from the number of signatures that there are some very strong feelings locally about this. To get this number of signatures, especially nearly 10,000 paper signatures, for a local issue, shows how strong the feeling is locally. To get that number of signatures requires a heck of a lot of work. So, obviously, this is a real issue, and we have well over a dozen or so members of the public with regards to this matter here present. So, obviously, the feeling locally is very strong.

We've received a lot of correspondence with regards to this matter since we considered it last time. We've had correspondence from the company itself, from the council, from Heledd Fychan, very powerful testimony from local residents. We've had some air quality evidence and also strong evidence from the local general practitioner.

Now, this matter was raised in Plenary around eight months ago. A debate was made around eight months ago. And this matter has been raised previously, of course, by Joel and Vikki Howells before her appointment as Minister, and, of course, Heledd has raised this on a number of occasions and I myself have written to the council with regard to this matter. There seems to be a very serious—. It's quite difficult, maybe, to reconcile the evidence from the company itself and the evidence from the local residents. There's certainly an impasse between them. And the Government has made it very clear in Plenary and in written correspondence to us that they don't intend to change the law.

So, in one respect, one might question whether we should move this forward to a debate, even though it has passed the 10,000 mark for a debate, because the Government has made it very clear that they don't intend to change the law. But my view is that the evidence from the local residents is so powerful—quite traumatic, obviously, to read some of the evidence—and the impact it has on the residents is very, very strong. So, my suggestion, even though the Government have said at the moment that they're not willing to change the law, is this is a matter that should be aired again in the Senedd. The evidence of the local residents should be heard again in our national Parliament. So, my suggestion is that we do make a request for a debate and hopefully that we'll have a debate after the Easter recess, sometime in May, hopefully. So, that's my suggestion, Chair.  

Okay, thank you, Rhys. Anybody else want to speak? Joel. 

Thank you, Chair, and, yes, I just wanted to put on record my support for my colleague's comments there. I'm definitely in favour of pushing it for a debate. I know we had a debate last year and I definitely think, as a committee, we have to manage expectations here for those residents who have signed this petition in terms of what the debate will achieve. But I definitely think it's an opportunity to, again, raise strong concerns about the environmental impact or the health impact, and an opportunity again for residents to have their voice heard. 

Yes, Luke. 

I support what's already been said. I think this is a very similar situation to the Arbed scandal that we discussed earlier. This is very much a situation that proves things aren't working correctly within the system. Here we have a big company, here we have the council, saying different stuff to what local residents are saying. What is the Petitions Committee for if we're not going to be raising this directly with Government, bringing it to the Chamber? I know Heledd Fychan has done a lot of work on this. I know she's in agreement that this needs to go again to the Chamber, because we had that conversation before coming in. So, I would be really keen to see us bring this to the Chamber, and I'd be very keen for us as well to not to pull our punches in what we say in the Chamber, because, again, this is a situation where people are being ridden roughshod over by bigger organisations. And again, like I said, what is the point of the Petitions Committee if we're not going to be doing work like this in the Senedd?    

I've read all the papers and the letters thoroughly, and it appears it's all within planning guidelines—that's what's been told—but when you read the evidence, and we've met with the residents as well who brought to life the impact of this quarrying within 165m of a school, a social club where the youth club takes place—. And I saw a video that showed shaking of the building. Young children who might be living with neurodiverse conditions, and the loud noise, the crusher and the dust—the impact of that. And then the quarry lorries, 40 per cent of which are between seven and nine o'clock in the morning, and a narrow pavement. So, I've tried to just tell their stories now in that small minute, and I think that's what we need to do in a debate, because that's what we're here for, I believe, as a Petitions Committee: to represent people and as the Senedd. 

So, we need to—. Even though it might be within planning guidelines, maybe those planning guidelines are wrong after all. Maybe we can't change it, but we need to make that case, possibly, by bringing to life what it's like living there. And it's not just this area that is impacted, but there'll be other areas in Wales. At the moment, a lot of these quarries are mothballed, but if it starts again and lots of blasting happens, it will impact on many communities as well. But what's happened here, we need to make sure people know about it.

It's an important case study, because, if it can happen here, it can happen elsewhere as well. So, that's what I mean in terms of saying that we shouldn't be pulling any punches on this, because this could set a precedent for other communities. As you've rightly highlighted, Chair, other quarries have been mothballed—what's to stop this from happening elsewhere?

Yes. And what I don't understand is there's a buffer zone of 200 m, yet there seems some variance on information on the school: 165 m, and then, in Heledd's letter, it says the Cefn primary school 134 m; 109 m—. So, it depends how it's measured, really, doesn't it? So, there we are. So, we will write to the Business Committee and ask for it to be debated when time allows—hopefully soon. It'll probably be May time, I think.

Could I just make a suggestion, when we're writing to Business Committee, that we make it clear how important it is, actually, to have this debate sooner rather than later?

Yes.

Because the reality is residents are still living in this area, they're still having to put up with this day in, day out. I would rather see this debate be put down in the next few weeks. I know that that is potentially difficult for the Business Committee, but I think we should impress on them how important it is for this discussion to happen as soon as possible.

And the fact it's been debated before might be a little bit of an issue, so I suppose we need to say we want to perhaps bring in some new elements into the debate. Okay.

Yes.

Okay. When speaking to Business Committee, I think that's important. Okay, thank you. Thank you for attending today. Thank you.

If we move on now to item 3.6, petition P-06-1332, 'Fund vaccine research to protect red squirrels from deadly Squirrelpox virus'. This was submitted by Craig Shuttleworth, with 11,076 signatures. A lot of signatures as well for this one. It's been debated on, hasn't it, already, but we've kept it open. So, if I just take us through this in Vaughan's absence. So, the latest information was shared with the petitioner, and he's asked if the committee would write back to the Deputy First Minister for more detail of the timeline, and to clarify whether tendering will be open or for invitation only, in which case how invitees are being selected. He'd also like to know why officials have not contacted the Wildlife Ark Trust, which owns the intellectual rights to the earlier attenuated pox vaccine research in 2012-13.

Would anybody else like to come in on this? Okay. I think, if we can follow up, then, and write to the Deputy First Minister with those questions on behalf of the petitioner. So, I mean, it's good that the Welsh Government is taking action, and that's been really welcomed. The impact of this deadly disease, you know, could decimate the population of red squirrels, which are really important to certain areas, especially the island of Anglesey, as well as Holyhead.

So, we've already debated on it. So, if we write to the Deputy First Minister raising those points—I think there are three points, aren't there, from Dr Craig Shuttleworth. And then, going forward, do we need to keep it open or close it now?

Could I suggest that, when we ask those questions, that we highlight the petition—if we haven't done already; I think we might have, I'm just trying to make sure we cover all bases—and write to Darren Millar, who I believe is the species champion, and to Rhun ap Iorwerth as well, as the Member for Ynys Môn, where the majority of the population is, just so that they're aware of this petition? But then I would suggest that we close the petition and ensure that Members who have an interest in this ask questions around it in the Chamber, because I think that that will speed things along more than anything else. As you said, we've had a debate on it already. I'm just finding it difficult to see where we can take this as a committee. I think it's better now in the hands of those Members like Darren Millar, like Rhun ap Iorwerth, who have local interests with this particular issue, as important as it is. 

Yes. And I'll continue to raise it as a North Wales regional Member. 

Alun Davies asked for the update a year on as well, so if it's okay, we'll write to him as well. 

If we're writing to the constituency Member, I think that we should write to the regional ones as well. 

You can write to yourself. [Laughter.]

Yes, I can write to myself. [Laughter.] So, yes, we've got the three questions listed there: 

'detail regarding what is currently and vaguely described as a "shortly" timeline',

also to

'clarify whether the tendering process will be open to any party to express an interest or if it will be invitation only',

and to

'explain why, as is my understanding, to date no officials have contacted the Wildlife Ark Trust which own the intellectual rights to the earlier attenuated pox vaccine research 2012/13.'

So, if we write to the Deputy First Minister with those, and to the Members mentioned earlier by committee members, and then close the petition. Thank you very much.

We move on to item 4, which is papers to note. We've got, under item 4.1, petition P-06-1479, 'Stop the detention of learning disabled and autistic children, young people and adults in hospitals'; item 4.2 is P-06-1489, 'Legislate to ensure swift bricks are installed in all new buildings in Wales'; and item 4.3, P-06-1447, 'Stop Natural Resources Wales closing the visitor centre at Ynyslas National Nature Reserve' and P-06-1474, 'Stop Natural Resources Wales closing Bwlch Nant yr Arian, Coed y Brenin & Ynyslas visitor centres'. Does anybody want to raise anything, or shall we speak on those later, if that's okay?   

Item 5 is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting for the remainder of it. Are we happy to move that? Okay, if we could move into private. That concludes the public business. Thank you.