Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Halford. Councillor Gee was present as the appointed substitute for Councillor Halford.

The Committee noted that Councillor Thalukdar was present as a substitute Member.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

Councillor Joshi declared an Other Disclosable Interest in the general business and budget items of the meeting in that his wife worked in the Reablement Team at the Council.

Councillor Westley declared an Other Disclosable Interest in agenda item Appendix D Draft Housing Revenue Account Budget (Including Capital Programme) 2021/22, in that some members of his family were Council tenants.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, these interests were not considered so significant that they were likely to prejudice the Councillors’ judgement of the public interest. They were not, therefore, required to withdraw from the meeting.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair thanked staff and volunteers working above and beyond the call of duty to help keep the residents of the city safe and looked after during the pandemic.

The Chair added a word to those who had lost loved ones, that he was thinking of them and their families.

The minutes of the meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on 3 December 2020 are attached and Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

Minute Item 134 – Questions for the City Mayor (b)

Councillor Porter asked that an amendment be made to read “…not permitted under previous lockdown guidance”.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on 3 December 2020 be confirmed as a correct record subject to the amendment above.

To note progress on actions agreed at the previous meeting and not reported elsewhere on the agenda (if any).

The Committee noted that, further to a question on Minute 130, Capital Budget Monitoring April-September 2020/21, the Chief Accountant had informed Members following the meeting that the value of the loans paid out under the Repayable Home Repairs scheme was a maximum loan of £10k, but the average application was under £6k.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any questions, representations and statements of case submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no questions, representations or statements of case had been received.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any petitions received.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received.

The Monitoring Officer submits a report that updates Members on the monitoring of outstanding petitions. The Committee is asked to note the current outstanding petitions and agree to remove those petitions marked ‘Petitions Process Complete’ from the report.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report updating Members on the monitoring of outstanding petitions.

AGREED:

That the petitions marked ‘petition complete’, namely 20/07/01, 20/09/01, 20/09/02, be removed from the Monitoring Report.

A verbal update will be given at the meeting on the current position regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. The Committee is recommended to receive the update and comment as required.

The Director of Public Health and the Director of Finance provided an update on the Covid-19 data in Leicester.

The Director of Public Health reported:

·         There was a good resource of Corona Virus data on the Council’s website, and included detail such as ward, area, age groups and ethnicity.

·         It was a challenging period for families, the Council and the NHS. Numbers of Covid-19 cases seen both locally and nationally had been extremely high but it appeared some of the worst seen over the winter had passed.

·         On 7^th January 2021 the seven-day weekly rate was 570 per 100k. As of 4^th February 2021, the rate was down to 365 per 100k.

·         The figure was still high, with the national figure around 280, but the good news was significant falls were being seen day on day.

·         There were concerns in the rate in the over 60s reported previously when there was a week where there were 600 per 100k cases. The figure had now fallen to 383 per 100k.

·         17-21 year olds cases had seen high numbers in the area, but more in places like Nottingham, where people were concerned about those of university student age. At the beginning of the year the number of cases were 539 per 100k, but were now at 241 per 100k, a significant drop. Students were, though, beginning to return back to accommodation, and the situation would continue to be monitored.

·         Pressure remained on health services, with hospital admissions being extremely high with around 120 Covid cases per week at beginning of year. The rate was gradually starting to slow down with some plateauing. As of the 29^th January there were 105 Covid-related hospital admissions.

·         Sadly, there were still significant numbers of deaths amongst the community, with 21 per week at the beginning of year. On the 22^nd January the figure had gone up to 38 deaths per week. In the next week or two it was hoped there would be a reduction in the number of deaths in line with national reductions.

·         In most of the ward areas now, the picture was week-on-week reductions in cases, and it appeared every area in the city was either flat or falling and was really positive.

·         The NHS was responsible for the vaccination programme roll out which was going well, but there were some challenges. Data was starting to be received routinely.

·         Focus had been on the over 80s and now 75-79 age group. Across the area over 100k doses of the vaccine had been given. All care homes had been visited other than any care home with a live outbreak.

·         There was above 85% coverage for the over 80s programme. The 75-79 year olds was coming up to over 75% coverage. Information was received on the vaccination data from NHS colleagues and would be shared with Members.

·         There was some concern around the vulnerable communities, homeless communities etc. The first outreach clinic in homeless communities was started on 3^rd February.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submits a report to update the Overview Select Committee on the governance approach along with an outline of key themes and early areas of work to take forward the Council’s commitment to tackling race inequality and disadvantage, and promoting inclusion particularly for Black, Black British, Caribbean, African and dual heritage people and communities living and working in Leicester.

The Committee is recommended to provide feedback on the proposed approach, and provide feedback and any further ideas on the proposed themes and areas of work leading to the development of an action plan.

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submitted a report to update the Overview Select Committee on the governance approach along with an outline of key themes and early areas of work to take forward the Council’s commitment to tackling race inequality and disadvantage, and to promote inclusion particularly for Black, Black British, Caribbean, African and dual heritage people and communities living and working in Leicester.

The Committee Members were recommended to provide feedback on the proposed approach and provide feedback and any further ideas on the proposed themes and areas of work leading to the development of an action plan.

Councillor Hunter, Assistant City Mayor, Tackling Racism and Disadvantage, introduced the report, which provided an update on the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement which began in 2013 and global protests. It was noted that most people had an understanding of the reaction to the issues and the impact that racism and inequality had had around the world and in the UK overall, and that Leicester as a diverse city was not without its challenges. It was recognised that further progress required concrete commitment from Elected Members, officers and meaningful dialogue with Leicester’s diverse Black communities.

Councillor Hunter, working with Councillor Patel, Assistant City Mayor for Communities, Equalities and Special Projects had held meetings with officers and community members to begin building a picture of the city to help formulate a plan of action.

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance presented the report, which had been developed working closely with both Assistant City Mayors Councillors Hunter and Patel, and Corporate Management Team colleagues to look at how the work could be supported going forward in terms of how the governance and resources would be focused. A Corporate Steering Group, chaired by the Chief Operating Officer had been set up, which was due to hold its first meeting. Involving staff representatives from different departments the group would meet once a month to shape the action plan, looking at how to measure progress and outcomes, and report back regularly to both the Executive and Overview Select Committee on the progress of work and impact it was having. The working group would be supported by a Race Equality Officer once recruited, but the group was pushing ahead with work in the meantime.

It was highlighted that it is of course really important the work has credibility with the wider city, stakeholders and community. Over the next few weeks there would be work to shape with Cllr Hunter and Cllr Patel, an external reference group who could both challenge and provide input for shaping the work as we move forward.

The Director highlighted 4.2 of the report which set out what had been identified in terms of key themes of areas of inequality that were well understood in terms of many reports that had gone before nationally and locally, and provided initial actions as a starting point. The Working Group would shape the actions into a more detailed plan, identifying other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

The Director of Housing submits a report setting out the proposed Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget for 2021/22.

The Overview Select Committee is recommended to make any comments on the report, in particular the proposals for delivering a balanced budget and the proposed changes to rent and service charges.

The Director of Housing submitted a report which set out the proposed Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget for 2021/22. The Overview Select Committee was recommended to make any comments on the report, in particularly the proposals for delivering a balanced budget and the proposed changes to rent and service charges.

Councillor Cutkelvin, Assistant Mayor for Education and Housing introduced the report. She gave thanks to the Director of Housing, Finance Team, and the tenants and leaseholders for meaningful engagement. It was acknowledged there were still some significant pressures to the budget, not least from the cumulative impact with right to buy. What had been put forward was a balanced budget that continued to invest in the quality and standards of stock.

The Director of Housing presented the report and highlighted the following points:

·         The headlines to the HRA budget proposal was that a balanced budget is proposed by recommending to only increase core rent by 1.5%, and service charge by 2%. On average tenants would see a £1.11 increase in their weekly rent.

·         Appendix D, Page 44 set out that Leicester City Council had significantly low rents with them being almost 50% cheaper than private sector rental rates in Leicester.

·         Over 60% of tenants would be unaffected by the proposal because they were in receipt of either housing benefit or universal credit.

·         The Council has been legally bound for the past four years of having to reduce the rents by 1% each year whilst having to manage ongoing pressures. The proposed increase would help to address a number of budget pressures, as set out at Page 33, 4.21 in the report, namely:

o   Ongoing Right to Buy stock loss and associated rental income loss of £1.135million

o   Inflationary pressures of £1.676million

·         In order to balance the budget it had been necessary alongside the proposed rent increase to identify and implement balancing items as outlined on Pages 34 and 35, 4.31 in the report. Headlines included:

o   Additional rent through properties acquired

o   A saving linked to the homes not hostels offer

o   Reductions to budget in repairs and gas materials, and the structural works budget.

·         The overall proposed capital budget was £87.8million with £70million of the budget related to Council house acquisitions and new build, with the remainder mostly going into property improvements. The additional commitment would take the Council’s investment into new council housing to £100million, set out in more detail in Appendix B, page 41 to the report.

·         The Council would continue to invest at same level in existing stock with ongoing programs involving kitchen, bathroom or boiler replacements, and rewires.

·         Main changes to the budgets included an increase in the roof budget of £150k to £900k linked to an increase in need for roof replacements.  The was also a proposed decrease in the fire risk budget due to reduced demand following strong investment for a number of years in communal area programmes of fire related improvements.

·         The capital budget included an ongoing budget proposal for public realm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 147.

The Director of Finance submits the draft General Fund Revenue Budget 2021/22, which will be considered by Council on 17 February 2021.

The following draft minute extracts, detailing the respective Scrutiny Commissions’ discussion on the draft General Fund Revenue Budget report will be circulated as soon as they are available:

·         Children, Young People and Schools Scrutiny Commission – 13 January 2021 (Appendix E1)

·         Economic Development, Transport and Tourism Scrutiny Commission – 14 January 2021 (Appendix E2)

·         Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission – 19 January 2021 (Appendix E3)

·         Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission – 20 January 2021 (Appendix E4)

·         Heritage, Culture, Leisure and Sport Scrutiny Commission – 25 January 2021 (Appendix E5)

·         Neighbourhood Services Scrutiny Commission – 28 January 2021 (Appendix E6)

The Overview Select Committee is recommended to consider the draft budget and the comments made by the Scrutiny Commissions, and to pass its comments on these to the meeting of Council on 17 February 2021 for consideration.

The Director of Finance submitted the draft General Fund Revenue budget 2021/22, which would be considered at the meeting of Council on 17 February 2021. The draft had been published in December 2020 and received by all scrutiny commissions. The Overview Select Committee was recommended to consider the draft budget and the comments made by the Scrutiny commissions, and to pass its comments on these to the meeting of Council.

The Director informed the meeting the budget was proposed at a time of extreme uncertainty following 10 years of severe spending cuts and during which time the authority had lost over £100 million of government funding per year. She added it was not yet known the full extent of the spending which would result from pandemic restrictions or the impact of a subsequent economic downturn, and services may need to be shaped to meet the needs of the a new environment which will be faced with the pandemic was over.

When the report was produced it was on the basis of the draft finance settlement, with information on the grant for 2021/22. The final settlement was published on the afternoon of 4 February 2021 and did not amend any figures in the report.

The 12-month stop-gap budget had been recommended to the Executive, when finances would be reviewed when there was more certainty, and in line with the approach there had been minimal changes to the budget.

It was noted extra monies had had to be provided, in particular to social care which had received a further £10million. The government provided a social care grant of £3million, and the opportunity to increase Council Tax by 3% (£3.6million) was welcome but still left £3million short in terms of the cost of growth.

The budget was balanced with the use of £20million reserves. It was noted the authority was fortunate to have reserves which reflected the difficult decisions that had been taken in the past, as many local authorities were now financially unsustainable moving forward.

The Director predicted future years remained harder than ever as it was not known what the government intended to do with the spending review, the impact on business rates and the impact on city centres and downturn in the economy. It was stated an estimate of a funding shortfall in 2021/22 of around £40million could be expected, and that every year reserves would decline.

The City Mayor said it was a difficult budget following a disruptive year, and also the uncertain future. He added the Council’s finances were comparatively stable to compared other local authorities due to the difficult decisions Members had had to take and the sound advice given to them from the Director of Finance and colleagues.

The City Mayor stated he had listened very carefully to what has been said by consultees and scrutiny commissions, and would formalise by way of the proposal to be put to Council the intention to recognise the role of scrutiny commissions. In particular the present role of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

The Director of Finance submits the draft Capital Programme 2021/22, which will be considered at the meeting of Council on 17 February 2021. The Overview Select Committee is recommended to consider the draft Capital Programme and pass its comments on it to the meeting of Council on 17 February for consideration.

The Director of Finance submitted the draft Capital Programme 2021/22, which would be considered at the meeting of Council on 17 February 2021. The Overview Select Committee was recommended to consider the draft Capital Programme and pass its comments on to the meeting of Council.

The Director of Finance presented the report and informed the meeting it was the smallest capital programme seen for some time. A recommendation had been made to the City Mayor to propose a one year programme, and to focus on the schemes within the programme that were usually done as annual schemes and programmes as it was not known at this stage what would need to be done to stimulate the economy and recover.

It was also reported that recent monitoring reports had reported significant slippage on the previous large programme.  It was noted there were many schemes that would continue to be delivered, including the significant housing programme.

As in the previous year, key priority themes were outlined in the report, and whether they were immediate starts or policy provisions that would come through for further decisions in due course.

The City Mayor stated that although there was considerable slippage during 2020/21, where there had been significant delays there were some additional costs that were comparatively modest. He added there were exciting things in the programme that as soon as Covid allowed, he was determined to deliver along with important things contained in the manifesto.

Members raised observations on the report and asked questions to which responses were given:

·         The £300k to continue to the flood strategy was raised at the Neighbourhood Services Scrutiny Commission and highlighted the increase in heavy rainfalls and subsequent increase in flooding in areas of the Leicester, Leicestershire and other regions of the country. The flood investment £300k funding was predominantly for the Flood Plan and the work the Flood Team undertook. Significant flood schemes were the responsibility of the Environment Agency and Severn Trent. When considering the draft capital programme the City Mayor had asked for further information on the leverage funding, and a piece of work would be undertaken during 2021/22.

·         £1.44million had been approved for works on De Montfort Hall. It was noted the building needed further investment and could not be allowed to decay.

·         The fleet replacement programme was planned at £3million. Investment in the fleet had not been in the capital budget for two to three years, and the programme of replacement was significantly smaller and cheaper than it had been previously. The age of vehicles had been extended and it had come to the point where it was costing more money in repairs to vehicles and hiring vehicles than it would to replace them.  Funded technically through the Revenue Budget and HRA it appeared in the Capital Programme as buying the number of vehicles expected was classed as capital expenditure. Only vehicles were replaced if absolutely necessary, and an electrified and low emission fleet remains a priority. Replaced vehicles were sent to auction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

The Director of Finance submits a report to the Overview Select Committee, which proposes a strategy for managing the Council’s borrowing and cash balances during 2021/22 and the remainder of 2020/21 (the Treasury Management Strategy).

Members of the Overview Select Committee are recommended to note the report and make any comments to the Director of Finance that they wish, prior to Council consideration.

The Director of Finance submitted a report which proposed a strategy for managing the Council’s borrowing and cash balances during 2021/22 (the Treasury Management Strategy).

Members of the Overview Select Committee were recommended to note the report and make any comments to the Director of Finance prior to Council consideration.

The Director of Finance reported that the report and following agenda item at 15 Investment Strategy did not significantly change from year to year but accompanied the budget report to Council which was required to approve them.

The following points were noted:

·         The report outlined what the Council did with its money to keep it safe and make it work as safely as possible.

·         In terms of cash flow, the authority was a cash rich organisation as a result of government rules where the authority was required to set aside money for specific reasons. The authority also received government grants before it was required to spend them.

·         The Treasury Management Strategy set out the advice taken from leading national advisers and the sort of investments considered, and the types and credit rating of banks the authority would use.

·         It was noted it was important to spread investments as no bank was too big to fail. The money had to be secure. Liquidity was also considered, in how easy could the money be accessed, for example, the monthly salary payments.

·         Not the top priority, but how much the money could earn in an account was also considered.

·         An amendment to the report was noted at 5.13 (a) ‘We will lend on an unsecured basis to the largest UK banks and building societies for periods not exceeding 35 days’ and was largely due to nervousness around Brexit. If treasury advisers notified the authority that it could lend for a longer period than it would.

In response to Members’ questions, the following points were made:

·         The Government Debt Management Office (DMO) was used when excess cash was left following dealings across the banks and other authorities. The DMO would only be used when there were no other investment opportunities, and the interest paid was less. It was reported in December 2020 the DMO was offering negative interest rates. The authority only had a very small amount of money with the DMO at that point which was quickly removed. The authority had been using banks and money market funds predominantly since then and would continue to look at and pay particular interest in what markets were looking at as commercial investors.

·         Interest on investments was reported to OSC twice yearly. The Director of Finance informed members the information would be included in the next Revenue Budget Monitoring Report.

The Chair thanked the Director of Finance for the report.

AGREED:

That:

1.    The report be noted.

2.    Interest in investments be reported in the next Budget Monitoring Report brought to the Committee.

The Director of Finance submits a report to the Overview and Select Committee on the strategy which defines the Council’s approach to making and holding investments, other than those made for normal treasury management purposes. The latter are described in the annual Treasury Management Strategy.

Members of the Overview Select Committee are recommended to note the report and make any comments to the Director of Finance as wished, prior to Council consideration.

The Director of Finance submitted a report which on the Investment Strategy 2021/22 which defined the Council’s approach to making and holding investments, other than those made for normal treasury management purposed, the latter of which was described in the Annual Treasury Management Strategy.

Members of the Overview Select Committee were recommended to note the report and make any comments to the Director of Finance prior to Council consideration.

The Director of Finance presented the report and made the following points.

·         A couple of years ago the Government were nervous about some councils investing heavily in property and recommended that councils should have an Investment Strategy so it was very clear and Council approved what could and could not be done by the council and thresholds around it.

·         The report was very similar to the previous year. It was noted the council would invest in property to generate income but the investment would remain in the local economic area. Examples of investments were set out in the report and included Leicestershire County Cricket Club who were supported through a secure loan which was backed by the English Cricket Board.

·         Other schemes highlighted included Ethically Sourced Products and a company that needed to move to larger premises to continue to grow.

·         The security of the investment remained the number one priority.

In response to Members’ questions the following points were made:

·         Reference was made to the £600k lent to the Haymarket Theatre Consortium which was lost, and if consideration had been given where there wasn’t an asset a charge could be put on to ask for personal guarantees which was a standard practice with banks. The meeting was informed that personal guarantees had been used particularly with the authority’s role with LLEP as accountable body, but were fraught with difficulties and could mean the difference between someone wanting to continue with a scheme, but could also force an individual into a bankruptcy situation and was not something done lightly, but are certainly a tool to consider.

·         The Cricket Club was a good example, in that they had offered a charge on the ground but because of planning constraintsthe Council would not have been able to sell or develop the property to recoup its money. A tripartite agreement had been reached with the English Cricket Board. Initially £700k had been lent then £1.7million, with a reasonable 5% return and an asset maintained in the city. If there had been an issue with the club in the future, the English Cricket Board would pay the balance of the loan. It was confirmed the Cricket Club had not been approached about cheap finance but had approached the Authority as a significant partner with new leadership at the club.

·         Travelodge was complete but had delayed opening due to the current Covid-19 situation. No money had been given to the Authority to date. It was further pointed out that hoteliers rarely owned their assets and had long leases on hotels being common industry practice.

·         With regards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

The Monitoring Officer submits a report informing the Overview Select Committee that the Executive Decision taken by the City Mayor on 17 December 2020 relating to Capital Budget Monitoring 2020/21 – Period 6 – relating to only part 3 of the decision in respect of the funds for the Jewry Wall has been the subject of a five-Members call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D (City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules) of the Council’s Constitution.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report which informed the Overview Select Committee that the Executive Decision taken by the City Mayor on 17 December 2020 relating to Capital Budget Monitoring 2020/21 – Period 6 – relating to only part 3 of the decision in respect of the funds for Jewry Wall had been the subject of a five-Member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D (City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules) of the Council’s Constitution.

The report confirmed that the options for the Committee were to:

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation.

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in.

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn

Councillor Kitterick, as proposer of the call-in, was invited to address the Committee, and made the following points:

·         Firstly, after reviewing the decision to add more money into the budget for Jewry Wall museum, the decision was made to call it in.

·         Secondly, there was mention in the 2019 Labour Manifesto which talked about the museum but did not talk about the sums of money that would be required. Other Manifesto commitments had previously been deemed too expensive, but the Jewry Wall commitment had been given priority.

·         People would be charged to enter the museum. There were questions about the King Richard III visitor centre which had cost £5million, had more attraction for visitors, and had struggled with visitor numbers. There were questions over whether the Jewry Wall would have the same widespread attraction for visitors who would be able to see the main attractions of Roman ruins and wall for free from the path.

·         Officers had previously outlined in terms of the capital budget and revenue budget that there was extreme uncertainty around Government funding, with impacts on business rates, and it was not known what needed to be done at this time to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic.

·         The Jewry Wall project was not considered to be a priority in terms in what the Council was facing post Covid-19, when the models of tourism and museums would have changed. Members who had requested the call-in were asked for the decision to invest a further £2.5million to be delayed until the priorities for Leicester’s economy were evaluated post Covid-19.

The City Mayor was given the opportunity to respond. He said it had been made clear in the Manifesto commitment that the Jewry Wall project would be developed. He added it was an exciting project in that it was the largest piece of non-military Roman masonry still standing in the UK and was important in what it represented in the 400 years of Roman governance in the City.

The City Mayor stated the city would need to use its assets to draw local and national tourists to the city post-Covid in many new ways and with the investment proposed would be a major draw to tourists rather than relying on city centre retail, the patterns of which were changing. The City Mayor added as well  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

a)    To receive and endorse the following Scoping Document:

Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission Review Scoping Document into “The experience of black people working in health services in Leicester and Leicestershire”.

The Chair invited Councillor Kitterick, Chair of Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission, to present a review scoping document report into “The experience of black people working in health services in Leicester and Leicestershire”.

In presenting the report, Councillor Kitterick informed the meeting the report was an initial response to the Black Lives Matter movement. It was stated that in all organisations, including Leicester City Council, there were issues with how BAME workers were treated, and when moving up in those organisations became less representative of those populations at senior levels.

Health Services in Leicester are major employers of people from BAME backgrounds and the review aims to find out how the they act as an employer amongst its black members of staff. Events had shown that more external scrutiny of the health service and its practices would be a good exercise for the city and the local NHS.

Councillor Kitterick added that external scrutiny of the City Council treated its black workforce would be equally valid but that this review would focus specifically on the Health Services. He added the Scrutiny task force would undertake a worthwhile piece of work that fitted with Leicester City Council responding to the just cause set out by the BLM movement.

The Chair endorsed the review and that it would be complementary to the work being undertaken by Cllr Hunter, and noted the Overview Select Committee would have an opportunity to revisit the review once it had been reported back to the council. The Chair asked Members of the Committee in turn if they endorsed the work.

AGREED:

1.    That the review report be received and endorsed.

The City Mayor will answer questions raised by members of the Overview Select Committee on issues not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

The Chair reminded Members that any questions over an individuals’ Register of Interests be made outside of the meeting.

The City Mayor informed the meeting that Andy Keeling, Chief Operating Officer would be moving to the Falkland Islands. He added there would be a recommendation to Council to appoint Alison Greenhill as Chief Operating Officer and he offered her his congratulations.

The Chair asked that the thanks of the Committee be passed on to Andy Keeling, congratulated Alison on her new role. Councillor Porter noted that Alison would be the first woman appointed to the role in the Council.

Alison thanked everyone, and reassured Members of Overview Select Committee she would continue to be present at the meeting.

The meeting closed at 8.17pm.