Agenda and minutes

1.         This meeting is to be webcast. Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking.

2.         The Chairman will read the following announcement:

“This meeting will be webcast live to the Internet and will be archived for later viewing. Copies of recordings may be made available on request.

By entering the chamber’s lower seating area you consenting to becoming part of the webcast.

If you wish to avoid being filmed you should move to the public gallery or speak to the webcasting officer”

The Assistant to the Chief Executive reminded everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

There were no substitute Members for the meeting.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 18 October 2011.

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 18 October 2011 be agreed.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

Councillor D Stallan declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 as he was a member of North Weald Parish Council.

Recommendation:

That the Committee consider whether to recommend the inclusion of a bid for £12,000 DDF funding in the Council’s draft budget for 2012-13 to the Cabinet and Council.

1.         (Youth Councillors) In 2008/09 the Cabinet had requested the Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive an annual presentation from the Youth Council giving an update on the developing Youth Council programme and to present their request for funding for the year ahead.

2.         Members of the Youth Council will attend the meeting to outline:

(i) achievements from the last year;

(ii) the plans for the Youth Council for the coming year; and

(iii) new youth engagement and volunteer initiatives for 2012-13.

3.         Attached is a summary budget breakdown for the Youth Councillors which will be referred to in the presentation.

 The Chairman welcomed five Youth Councillors to the meeting and asked them to introduce themselves to the committee. They were Jenkin Patel, Daisy Morecroft, Haris Duherich, Annie Armitage and Trini Philip. Also present alongside the Youth Councillors were officers Mrs G Wallis, Community Development Officer and Ms D Butler, Young Persons Officer.

They gave the Committee an outline of the work they had undertaken over the last year. One of the key themes for them had been young peoples’ safety, where they had undertaken projects to address the issues of safety and their fear of crime. Among the things that they had produced was a young person’s guide to reporting crime, a very useful pocket size guide explaining the reporting system. They also produced a safety DVD for year 9 pupils to give them advice about staying safe from harm and worked with ex police officers and ex offenders from a training company to research this.

For the second year running they had organised a youth project of the year award. This was to support and promote local youth clubs and projects wherever possible. At the recent ceremony, 10 local projects were recognised, with the overall winner being “Ignite”.

They had also attended or organised various community projects such as the Intergenerational Fun Day at Ninefields Hall in Waltham Abbey and the ‘Play in the Forest’ event, encouraging children to enjoy the open spaces of the local forest. The Youth Council had also acted as a consultative body, taking part in consultations for the LSP, the White Water Rafting Centre, Essex County Council and the City of London, to name but a few.

March 2012 will see a new Youth Council of 20 young people between the ages of 13 and 17 elected, 2 from each of the 8 secondary schools plus an additional 4 places for independent Youth Councillors, who live in the district but who may go to school or college outside the area.

Last year, the £12,000 funding received from the Council covered the cost of their training, the overall development of the Youth Council and also any event they organised and crucially, the transport costs for them to and from events.

They had also secured £9,425 of funding from external sources with at least another £700 still to come in this financial year. Additionally, they had been allocated £1350 from the Council’s Safer Communities Partnership to support their work relating to safety and the reporting of crime by young people.

The Committee were impressed with the work done by them and noted that the Youth Council was better known among young people as they had spent money on publicity  to raise their profile. They were pleased to see that they were asking for the same amount of money as last year. They also noted that the Youth Council had made great improvements over the last two years by going out and helping other people (and organisations) in the district. They also  acted as ambassadors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

To consider a call-in of the Cabinet’s Decision on ‘Olympic Games “Look and Feel” and Ticket Allocation’ (C-032-2011/12). Call-in papers and report are attached.

The Committee considered the call-in of a decision by the Cabinet of a Leisure and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder report (C-032-2011/12) regarding a bid for £35,000 of the District Development Fund expenditure in 2012/13 for the funding of community Olympic “Look and Feel” schemes and a bid for £3,000 for Olympic and Paralympic tickets to be allocated as described in the report. The Call-in was concerned that no consideration was given by the Portfolio Holder to the fact that the “Look and Feel” material had to be returned at the end of the 2012 games; that no consideration was given by the Portfolio Holder to fund the bid from the savings within the DDF budget; that no other sources of funding had been sought for funding this decision; and that no consideration had been given by the Portfolio Holder for other ways of allocating tickets purchased.

The lead member of the call-in, Councillor Stallan was asked to open the discussion. He said he was not questioning the feel good factor of the Games, just how it was to be financed. It was not mentioned in the report that the “Look and Feel” material had to be returned at the end of the Games; had this been taken into account by the Portfolio Holder? We should demonstrate that the money would come from savings and not from our budget. £38,000 was a large sum to spend in these times, other authorities, such as Newham and Tower Hamlets, have sought and received sponsorship for this and not had to delve into their budgets; can the Portfolio Holder advise us if she had looked into other methods of funding?  We have also raised concerns about the allocation of tickets and have proposed a lottery for young people. Councillor Stallan was, however, happy to go along with recommendations 4 (a) to (d) and 5 and 6 and wondered if the Portfolio Holder could advise if she would look at setting up a lottery?

The responsible Portfolio Holder, Councillor Gadsby was then asked to make her opening statement. She hoped that as the members that had called it in were mostly former portfolio holders who should know how much work had gone into a report like this. She added that at the time of the report she was unaware that the material had to be returned, however once used, it would have no further application. As for seeking additional funds, other sources of funds had been considered, although the DDF bid was the best option in the short time frame that we had. However, only Loughton Town Council could afford £1,000 for “Look and Feel” material so the amount we now need had reduced considerably and therefore would now be met from the existing budget.  As for the allocation of the tickets, this was one of the hardest decisions to make. The allocation of tickets to King Harold School was questioned; it’s a recovering local school coming out of special measures and we thought it needed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

(Director of Finance and ICT) To consider the attached report.

The Assistant Head of Finance, Rob Pavey, introduced the report on the Department for Communities and Local Government consultation on the technical reforms of Council tax.

The Government proposed that reforms to the council tax system from 2013-14 would:

• Give billing authorities power to levy up to full council tax on second homes;

• Replace existing Class A and C exemptions for vacant homes with discounts of up to 100%, the amount of which it would be for billing authorities to determine;

• Abolish the Class L exemption, and make mortgagees in possession of empty dwellings liable to council tax in respect of them;

• Allow billing authorities to levy an ‘empty homes premium’ over and above full council tax liability in respect of dwellings which have been left empty for two years or more;

• Set a default assumption that payment of council tax be by instalments over 12 months rather than 10 as is currently the case;

• Allowing authorities to publish online the ‘information to be supplied with demand notices’; and

• Changes to eliminate potential tax complications from arrangements involving third party suppliers where solar panels are placed on the roof of dwellings without coming into the control of the resident.

Officers wanted to keep the system without the complications of having up to 100% discounts with various exemptions. They would also like to keep to the present instalment payments of a 10 month period rather than the proposed 12 month period; this also helps the people who pay by Direct Debit and have the incentive that is currently offered for payment by Direct Debit.

The Chairman asked where the Buy to Let fitted in and was told that that if it was furnished it was classed as a second home.

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That the report on the proposed changes to the Council tax was noted; and

(2)               That the proposed responses to the Consultation as set out in the Appendix to the report be agreed.

(Acting Chief Executive) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman noted that this report had already been to the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel and the Cabinet Committee.

It was noted that in its current format the report used a lot of paper and would be made more concise. The Acting Chief Executive advised the meeting that it would be altered for the Cabinet meeting.

The Committee went through the key objectives, making the following comments:

CO-1a (i) – Councillor Angold-Stephens asked if the date of completion for the new depot at Oakwood Hill was still on track. The Director of Environment and Street Scene replied that a report had only just been received and the timetable had slipped.

CO-1a(iv)  - Asked if the depot would be moving to North Weald Airfield the Finance Portfolio Holder said that this was just one of the locations looked at, but no specified site had been identified as yet.

CO 1a(v) – Councillor Stallan said that the Leader had agreed for an update at the next Council meeting on the application for a new depot at North Weald as local residents were concerned. Councillor Philip replied that he would be happy to give an update at full Council.

CO 1a(vii) – Councillor Sartin asked if there was anything more to add about the relocation of the Council’s Services from Langston Road; she was told it was still subject to negotiations.

CO 1c – Councillor Whitbread asked when the planning application for the Langston Road site would be put in. He was told by Councillor Mohindra that they had recently had a meeting with Highways but no formal agreement had been made as yet. He was hopeful for a  date early in the new year.

CO 1f – Councillor Janet Whitehouse asked for an update on the development brief for the St John’s Road area of Epping. She was told that officers were consulting with Highways as they needed them to confirm base data. They had difficulties with the company used, causing delays. It was agreed that it was frustrating that this had gone on for some years and that it should be ended as soon as possible.

CO 2f – Councillor Brookes was concerned that ‘health inequalities’ were not considered as a high priority and that it did not get left aside. The Acting Chief Executive noted that there was an item in the work programme to consider the new Health and Wellbeing Board arrangements where this could be picked up.

CO 4h – Councillor Sartin asked for an update on the Limes Farm Hall redevelopment. The Acting Chief Executive replied that they were as yet to get a handover from the contractors, but he was confident that it would be open early the New Year. Planning had started taking potential groups around to look at the building.

            RESOLVED:

The Committee noted and commented on the progress of the Council’s Key Objectives for 2011/12, for the first six months of the year.

To consider the attached report.

Mr Hill, the Senior Democratic Services Officer took the Committee through the scrutiny work programme.

(a)        Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Committee noted that there were no reserve items for the O&S Committee, although there was a lot of items to get through their remaining three meetings. He noted that the committee did not want two presentations at any one meeting and that the LSP had been lined up for their next meeting in January 2012.

After consideration of their work programme the Committee decided that they should receive a presentation from the PCT/West Essex Health Service (item 15 of the Work Programme) and from Essex County Council in respect of Children Services (item 18) to be arranged for their meetings to be held in March and April 2012.

It was also agreed that the item relating to emergency services and the Olympics possibly be included in the Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Panel work programme, it possible, but the Committee understood that some of the information could be sensitive.

(b)       Housing Scrutiny Standing Panel

The Committee noted that the Housing Panel had recently had a joint meeting with the Finance and Performance Management Standing Panel to discuss the new HRA 30 year Financial Plan arrangements.

(c)        Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Standing Panel

It was noted that an extra meeting would be held on 23 January 2012 to enable them to catch up on uncompleted work accrued over the year.

The Committee also noted and agreed a new item to add to their work programme - to look at the issuing of agendas to members and how savings could be made.

They were confident of completing their work programme within their final two meetings.

(d)       Safer Cleaner Greener Scrutiny Standing Panel

The Committee noted that they had added two new items to their work programme; one was to receive reports updating them on the wider implications of the Environment Agency’s strategy on flood management in the Roding Catchment area; and the other was to scrutinise the new SITA contract.

(e)       Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel

The Committee noted that their new draft terms of reference was still being considered and a report was in preparation to go to a future meeting.

(f)        Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Standing Panel

The Committee noted that they had recently looked at KPIs, the second quarter financial monitoring report, the medium term financial strategy and the improvement in the council’s sickness performance.

(g)       Senior Recruitment Task and Finish Panel

Noted that the draft terms of reference were on this agenda for the Committee to agree.

            RESOLVED:

That in accordance with rule 9.3 of the Overview and Scrutiny Rules the Committee reviewed and commented upon their Work Programme for the last six months.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To consider the attached report.

Councillor Stallan the Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Standing Panel introduced their report on whether a Portfolio Holder Assistant could be a member of the Audit and Governance Committee. It was noted that although there was currently no legal rule which excluded portfolio holder assistants there was a preference to avoid conflicts of interest which might arise unless those conflicts were very carefully managed. It was also thought that there was a need for clear advice on conflicts of interest so that portfolio holder assistants knew exactly how to respond to matters they had been involved in. It was accepted that the talents of individual members should be used and reducing the pool of Councillors available by excluding portfolio holder assistants, could prove counter-productive.

The Committee accepted that, on a trial basis of one year, its membership could include Portfolio Holder Assistants with the exception of any Assistants associated with a portfolio dealing with the Council’s finances. This was taken to expressly mean  the assistants to the Finance Portfolio Holder. Other portfolio assistants, although their duties may impinge on some financial matters they were not considered to be exclusively involved in the financial side of things.

An amendment was also made under recommendation 1d, under paragraph 11.6(a) that the word ‘primarily’ be inserted after the word ‘dealing’ so that it read “…any portfolio dealing primarily with the Council’s finances…”.

            RESOLVED:

(1)       That a report be submitted to the Council recommending as follows:

(a)        that Portfolio Assistants, except those involved with a Portfolio dealing primarily with the Council’s finances, be eligible for appointment to the Audit and Governance Committee, subject to careful consideration by the Councillor concerned of the need to declare a prejudicial interest in any matter relating to the relevant Portfolio which comes before that Committee;

(b)        that the proposal set out in (a) above be reviewed after one year or if there is a change either in the roles of Portfolio Holder Assistants of the Audit and Governance Committee;

(c)        that the designation “Deputy Portfolio Holder” be changed to “Portfolio Holder Assistant”;  and

(d)        that paragraph 11.6(a) (Councillor Members) of Article 11 of the Constitution (Audit and Governance Committee) be amended to read as follows (changes in bold text underlined):

“11.6(a)            (Councillor Members)

Councillors appointed to the Audit and Governance Committee may not also be members of the Cabinet, any Cabinet Committee or any Panel appointed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee with responsibility for reviewing the Council’s finances or financial procedures.

A Portfolio Holder Assistant (other than any assistant involved in any portfolio dealing primarily with the Council’s finances) appointed by the Leader of the Council shall be eligible for appointment to the Committee”

(e)        that the Standards Committee be asked to issue advice to Portfolio Holder Assistants on how such conflicts of interest should be dealt with and to consult with the Audit and Governance Committee before it is issued;

(2)       That the proposed review by the Audit and Governance Committee of its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To consider the attached report.

Councillor Stallan the Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Standing Panel introduced their report on the presentation of Overview and Scrutiny reports to Council meetings. Standing and Task and Finish Panels have the status of sub-committees’ of the main Overview and Scrutiny Committee. As such, Panels would not normally report to the Council unless specifically authorised to do so by the Committee.

Bearing in mind the work undertaken by Panels, it was argued that it should be the Panel Chairmen, rather than the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, who should present reports as they have detailed knowledge of the matter concerned.  Such reports when submitted to the Council might involve changes to Council policies and practices where detailed knowledge by the Panel Chairman was desirable in order to answer questions at Council meetings. However, it was considered important that the role and status of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was not undermined to such an extent that the position was seen to be less significant than the Panel Chairman and the Cabinet. This was balanced against what was seen as a desirable change whereby Panels would submit reports to, for example, Council meetings.

It was considered that Panel reports should still be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee unless there was a need to deal with a Panel report more quickly.  In such cases it was recommended that there should be a prior consultation with the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee so as to agree the degree of urgency.

An amendment was proposed and agreed to recommendation 1(a) to add the words “and other Council bodies” after the words ‘presenting reports at Council…’

            RESOLVED:

That a report be submitted to the Council recommending as follows:

(a)        That the principle of Scrutiny Panel Chairmen presenting reports at Council and other Council bodies meetings be approved;

(b)        That Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules 12(3)(h) (Standing Scrutiny Panels) and 13(3)(h) (Task and Finish Scrutiny panels) be amended to read as follows:

             “be able, after consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to report to the Council, the Cabinet, a Cabinet Committee, a Portfolio Holder or any other Council body”;

(c)        That Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules 12(4) and 13(3) be further amended by the addition of the following sub paragraphs:

            “(i) in the circumstances set out in (h), the report shall be submitted in the name of the Panel and presented by its Chairman, unless the work of more than one Scrutiny Panel is involved, in which case any report to another Council body will be in the name of the Overview & Scrutiny and presented by its Chairman

            (j) in the event that the submission of a Panel report to another Council body is required such that it cannot be considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee in accordance with paragraph (h) above, the Panel report may proceed for consideration subject to prior consultation with the Chairman of that Committee as to the reasons  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To consider the attached report.

Councillor Stallan the Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Standing Panel introduced their report on changes to the members dispatch arrangements.

It was noted that the legal requirements shape the despatch arrangements.  Two statutory timetables apply to all formal meetings of the Council:

            (a)        five clear days' notice of meetings must be given to the public;  and

            (b)        despatch of agenda papers to Councillors and availability to the public must be at least five clear days before a meeting.

On (b), despatch of “hard copy” agenda takes place on Tuesdays and Fridays and would provide five clear days notice for meetings held in the early part of week 2 after despatch (Tuesday) and the latter part of that week (Friday).  This also reduces the number of ad hoc postings. The Panel were advised that this term, or more particularly "clear" is not defined in the legislation.  Various legal cases have however resulted in a definition that "clear days" must exclude:

            (a)        the date of despatch;

            (b)        the date of the meeting;

            (c)        weekends;  and

            (d)        Bank or Public Holidays.

For Councillors, the Act said that copies can either be posted to them or left at the address they specify (usually their home address).  For the purposes of the Act either was sufficient service. However, the Act implies delivery of a paper agenda and there is thus a risk of challenge if Councils rely solely on electronic delivery.

For many years despatch of all agenda was by post.  In the late 1990's, the cost of postage was such that the use of messenger deliveries came under consideration.  The Council transferred to this arrangement when the LGA 2000 extended the notice period for "3 days" to "5 clear days".  Use of messengers significantly improved the reliability and security of delivery within the timescale and was cheaper.  This system had continued to the present day.

Since the current messenger delivery arrangements were introduced, postal charges had changed.  This triggered a review of messenger arrangements in the Corporate Support Services Directorate.  This review established that traditionally the Tuesday despatch was lighter and it was now cheaper to post than using a messenger.  The Friday despatch was usually the heavier and is more economical if messenger delivery was retained.

This review coincided with the retirement of one messenger employed part time on members’ despatch and the Panel considered whether a change to a postal despatch on Tuesday would be viable.  This would enable a DDF saving to be achieved in next year’s budget in a sum of £3,000.  They were happy to support this change as they had been reassured that the members’ despatch would not be adversely affected and would reduce costs.

The Committee noted an amendment to recommendation 2, that the Portfolio Holder should be called the Portfolio Holder for Support Services and not Corporate Support Services.

            RESOLVED:

             (1)       That the changes being made by the Director of Corporate Support Services in respect of member postal despatches be supported, namely:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Recommendation:

To endorse the terms of reference for the Senior Recruitment Task and Finish Panel.

The Committee is asked to consider and endorse the terms of references for the new Senior Recruitment Task and Finish Panel, considered at their first meeting.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted and agreed the terms of reference for the Senior Recruitment Task and Finish Panel.

For the Committee to discuss the form of presentation wanted and the type of questions to be asked of the manager of the Local Strategic Partnership. Officers are hoping to get him to attend the January 2012 meeting of this Committee.

Members are asked to identify any specific topics they may wish to discus with the representative from the LSP.

The Committee considered the upcoming visit from the Local Strategic Partnership Manager to their January 2012 meeting. They wished to consider the impact of the proposed Locality Boards and to receive any progress reports from the LSP before their next meeting.

To consider the attached report.

Councillor Wixley spoke to his written report on the recent meeting he attended entitled “Corporate Workstreams Session” and “Clinical Academic Groups”. He noted that the main catchment area for patients was from Waltham Forest, Newham, Tower Hamlets, City of London and parts of Redbridge and Hackney. In the Epping Forest area he was advised that roughly speaking the catchment area extends to Nazeing in one direction and Epping in the other. Beyond those places patients are likely to be referred to Princess Alexandra at Harlow or Addenbrookes at Cambridge.

It was noted that the driving force behind the merger was a need by the combined trusts to save £237 million over the next five years. The merger would help them to do that and also achieve Foundation Trust status (Government requirement for all Trusts).The merger would also provide benefits for patients and staff as closer working would provide opportunities for “best practice” to be established, including improved patient record handling and improved Staff training.

They would be willing to arrange a presentation at a future O & S meeting or to a group of interested councillors. In view of our busy work programme and the fact that the merger was likely to go ahead, Councillor Wixley suggested that a presentation after the Foundation Trust has been running for a year would be useful and they would be pleased to arrange that.

The Committee also noted a paper: “Merger project: Summary Event Report” had been tabled (attached for information).

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That the report on the latest meeting on the proposed merger of the three NHS trusts be noted; and

(2)               That a presentation after the Foundation Trust has been running for a year be arranged.

Recommendation:

That proposals for joint scrutiny training sessions with Harlow District Council be noted.

1.       (Assistant to the Chief Executive) At a meeting of Scrutiny Chairmen from across Essex, convened as part of the Essex Scrutiny Officers Group, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee discussed the potential for joint initiatives with his counterpart in Harlow. One item that was flagged for further discussion was training.

2.       Subsequent to the meeting officers have sourced a CfPS (Centre for Public Scrutiny) Associated Trainer, Tim Young, agreed the content of sessions with the trainer and HDC. Following a meeting with HDC officers it was considered that, at least this year, the proposed training should be delivered after the budget considerations have been completed by both authorities.

3.       Two dates have been identified for the sessions, 15 and 29 March 2012 both starting at 6.30 p.m.. The first session will be held at Epping, the second at Harlow’s Civic Centre. Details of the sessions are attached and has taken its themes from issues raised by members, namely the role of O & S and current issues, evidence gathering and questioning skills. Costs have been jointly met.

4.       It is hoped that as many members can attend as possible. The event will also give the opportunity of networking with members from our immediate neighbour. The training events will be supported by Democratic Services staff.

5.         If you would like to attend please contact Kim Partridge on ext 4443 or by email kpartridge@eppingforestdc.gov.uk .

The Committee noted the proposed joint training arranged between EFDC and Harlow District Councils for members of their Overview and Scrutiny Panels. The training days had been arranged for 15 and 29 March 2011, both starting at 6.30pm. the first session will be held at Epping, and the second at Harlow’s Civic Centre. Officers have secured a trainer from the Centre for Public Scrutiny, a Mr Tim Young. The themes of the trainings sessions would be the role of O&S and current issues, evidence gathering and questioning skills. Costs have been jointly met.

It was hoped that as many members as possible would attend. This event will also give them the opportunity of networking with members from our immediate neighbour.

RECOMMENDATION:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 05 December 2011.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). Under the Overview and Scrutiny rules the Committee is required to scrutinise proposed decisions of the Executive. The Chairman is also required to report on such discussions to the Cabinet.

The Committee is asked to consider the 5 December 2011 Cabinet agenda (previously circulated) to see whether there are any items that they wished to be raised at the Cabinet meeting.

The Committee reviewed the Cabinets agenda for their 5 December meeting but there were no specific items that the Committee wanted to be brought to their attention.