►
Description
Overview and Scrutiny Management Board
Monday, 12th February, 2018 5.00 pm
Councillors: Geoff Gollop (Chair), Charlie Bolton, Tom Brook, Jude English, Gill Kirk, Brenda Massey,
Graham Morris, Anthony Negus, Estella Tincknell, Donald Alexander and Steve Pearce
Papers: https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=165&MId=2755
0:00:04 - Agenda Item 01 - Welcome, Introductions and Safety Information
0:00:20 - Agenda Item 02 - Apologies for absence
0:00:36 - Agenda Item 03 - Declarations of Interest
0:00:38 - Agenda Item 04 - Minutes and actions of the previous meetings
0:07:15 - Agenda Item 06 - Public Forum
0:10:58 - Agenda Item 07 - Scrutiny Ways of Working
1:58:06 - Agenda Item 08 - The Arena - scrutiny activity
2:18:15 - Agenda Item 09 - Libraries Task and Finish Update
2:38:19 - Agenda Item 10 - Task and Finish Groups - Updates from Chairs
2:41:31 - Agenda Item 11 - Work Programme
A
A
We
have
minutes
from
I
think
it's
four
previous
meetings,
the
to
exempt
meetings
minutes
are
still
to
follow,
and
part
of
the
reason
longer
is
noting
our
comments
about
confidentiality.
The
aim
is
that
the
majority
of
those
when
it
should
be
capable
of
going
into
the
public
domain
and
therefore
it's
taking
a
little
longer
to
finalize
them,
but
that
is
the
intention.
A
C
D
C
C
A
C
Well,
I'd
only
say
the
minutes
of
minutes
and
if
I
mean
I,
wouldn't
want
every
single
thing
that
was
said
in
that
meeting
to
be
included.
It's
it's
it,
but
this
was
one
that
there
was
quite
a
long
turn
about
and
I
think
most
people
around
this
table
joined
in
that
conversation
and
it
seemed
to
be
rather
significant
and
it's
not
it's
not
in
the
minutes.
So
I
regret
that
right.
E
A
A
C
A
F
But
it's
not
actually
operational.
So
if
you
go
on
the
website,
there's
only
a
few
places,
and
so
he
wants
that
point
raised
and
in
relation
to
it
that
there's
a
particular
show
with
toilets
at
public
transport
interchanges.
So
those
are
specific
places
where
he
wants
us
to
think
about
how
the
community
scheme,
and
indeed
how
we
operate
there
I
think,
and
so
he
brought
this
up
with
the
last
dozen
meeting.
F
As
well
about
it
is
a
big
issue,
particularly
for
the
disability
forum
and
lots
of
other
people,
who've
got
kids
and
people
who
need
you
know
public
toilets,
so
that's
the
first
one
and
the
second
one
is.
He
does
say
again
that
we
should
be
scrutinizing
much
more
strongly
transport
and
transport
related
issues.
F
So
this
is
him
repeating
what
he
says
every
time
so
and
I
will
thoroughly
lock
him
up
on
that
one
I,
don't
think,
we've
been
looking
at
soon
enough
and
the
last
one
is
he's
concerned
about
the
south:
need
transport
south,
meet
hospital
transport,
interchange
and
that's
a
Karelian
contract.
So
what
will
happen
now
to
that?
I
had
previously
been
told
by
someone
that
we
don't?
Actually
it
wouldn't
be
a
problem
Karelian
for
us,
because
we
don't
have
any
Karelian
contracts,
but
he's
flagging
up
the
fact
that
the
south
media
changes
occur
early
in
contract.
F
A
G
Have
knowledge
of
the
hub,
but
not
who's,
doing
the
work
right
that
the
hub
makes
enormous
sense.
It's
a
key
destination
for
lots
of
people
across
the
city
region,
but
I
have
no
idea
who
was
contracted
to
do
the
work,
I'm
afraid,
whether
it's
the
City
Council
contract
or
whether
it's
a
joint
one
with
NHS.
A
A
A
We
come
to
that
item
on
the
agenda,
which,
indeed
is
the
item
so
I
trust
everyone's
had
chance
to
read
the
papers
on
the
scrutiny
ways
of
working
if
I
can
just
set
the
scene
as
a
reminder
really
to
everyone
who's
here
that
we
recognize
that
scrutiny
wasn't
working
particularly
effectively.
18
months
ago,
we
set
up
a
whole
process
of
consulting
with
members.
A
Some
have
perhaps
had
to
wider
brief
being
trying
to
do
too
much
and,
as
a
result
have
struggled
to
be
effective.
So
we
actually
recognized
that
we
had
problems
that
we
needed
to
remedy,
and
we
had
a
meeting
of
the
four
party
leads
at
the
end
of
last
month
to
discuss
proposals
that
had
been
pulled
together
by
the
scrutiny
team
based
upon
discussions
that
had
gone
on
throughout
the
year.
A
So
we
have
a
workshop
scheduled
for
the
22nd
of
February,
in
which
we
hope
to
be
able
to
have
a
discussion
with
with
the
wider
membership
of
Council
on
how
we
move
forward.
But
it
would
be
really
positive
if
awesome
could
come
together
with
a
collective
view
of
an
indication
of
how
we
would
like
things
to
move
forward.
That
might
be
ambitious,
but
I
have
great
confidence
in
our
ability
to
to
see
a
clear
way
ahead.
A
They
can
learn
from
what
hasn't
worked
this
year,
but
also
take
some
of
the
good
things
that
have
worked
this
year
and
try
and
come
up
with
a
combined
scheme.
That's
actually
going
to
be
even
even
more
productive
and
achieve
more
and
and
I
just
remind
members,
not
just
because
we've
got
cabinet
members
present
here
this
evening,
but
actually
I
believe
that
strong
scrutiny
is
fundamental
to
a
strong
executive
as
well,
and
therefore
I
see
that
it's
that
one
requires
the
other
and
let
both
the
weaker.
If
that
doesn't
happen,
so
that's
that's.
A
That's
the
overview.
I
was
going
to
hand
over
to
I
think
Andrea
to
to
take
us
through
a
little
bit
of
where
we've
got
to
set
the
scene
a
bit
more
and
then,
if
we
can
have,
if
we
can
have
a
debate,
you
have
at
the
back
of
your
papers.
The
notes
of
the
Leeds
meeting,
with
with
our
suggested,
preferred,
read:
I,
don't
think
any
of
us
are
so
firmly
attached
to
that
that
if,
if
the
collective
view
of
this
meeting
is
different,
either
I
think
were
prepared
to
be
extremely
flexible.
A
H
You
I
think
the
first
thing
to
iterate
and
we
have
Joe
Holmes
as
here
from
the
scrutiny
team
as
well
as
myself.
Ana-Lucy
is
this
paper
as
defectively
commissioned
by
the
political
leads.
It
is
our
kind
of
officer
perspective.
I
want
to
really
heavily
reiterate.
Scrutiny
is
obviously
a
member
LED
process,
so
we
did
pull
together
a
number
of
options,
but
of
course
you,
as
the
members
of
scrutiny,
may
well
develop
other
options
that
you
wish
to
move
forward.
C
H
H
H
Think
it's
fair
to
say
from
an
officer
perspective,
there
has
been
some
real
positives
to
what
we've
been
trialing,
but
there
have
also
been
some
quite
logistical
challenges
that
we
have
found
that
maybe
you,
as
members
wouldn't
necessarily
have
picked
up
because
they're
kind
of
behind
the
scenes,
as
it
were
so,
for
example,
membership
having
quite
a
fluid
approach
to
membership,
has
actually
caused
problems
in
terms
of
being
able
to
how'd.
You
share
your
meetings.
H
How
do
you
bring
everybody
up
to
speed
people
coming
in
people
coming
out,
and
that
has
been
difficult
to
deal
with?
What
also
as
well,
though,
we
have
picked
up
is
that
people
have
found
the
more
informal
way
of
working
working
with
officers
not
in
such
in
a
public
kind
of
forum
has
enabled
more
detailed,
in-depth
conversations
and
the
more
kind
of
formation
of
ideas,
so
that
has
come
out
from
a
lot
of
people
as
a
very
positive
element.
The
flip
side
of
that
is
about
public
accountability.
H
That
is
something
that
has
come
up
and
come
up
time
again.
So
hopefully,
we've
tried
to
capture
all
of
those
and
kind
of
the
advantages
and
disadvantages,
and
then
what
we
have
done
is
put
forward
a
series
of
options
that
could
be
considered
and
so
option
a
is
the
idea
of
returning
to
having
scrutiny
commissions
with
an
Azam,
and
that
would
have
what
we're
looking
at
as
an
ARB,
which
would
be
kind
of
effectively
almost
kind
of
taxi
rank.
H
So
you
just
have
one
every
month,
an
eighth
one
month
in
and
be
the
next
month
and
items
as
they
arise.
Go
to
those.
So
some
authorities
do
have.
That
is
a
very
flexible
way
of
working,
ensures
you've,
always
got
kind
of
scrutiny,
but
it
doesn't
build
up
expertise
as
it
were.
So
that
can
be
one
disadvantage
of
that.
H
Obviously,
previously
you
had
five
commissions
now,
you've
moved
to
task
and
fish,
and
just
awesome
that
option
is
a
sort
of
a
hybrid
of
both
of
those,
as
is
option
B,
which
is
quite
similar,
and
that
is
having
again
an
A
and
a
B
type
of
committee,
but
more
based
on
themes.
So
picking
up
specific
themes
that
are
linked
into
local
government.
H
You
could
link
those
to
thematics
link
to
the
cabinet
portfolios
or
other
themes
that
come
up,
and
that
would
be
again
quite
similar
Commission
meetings,
but
with
also
a
smaller
number
of
tasks
and
finish
than
what
you
have
now
within
the
resource
envelope.
We
wouldn't
be
able
to
resource
having
10
to
12
tasking,
finishes
and
also
commissions,
as
well
then
option
C
again.
Similar
theme
is
you're,
probably
kind
of
picking
up,
but
that
is
again
linking
them
to
the
directorate's
that
would
be
on
the
future
Directorate
structure.
So
the
current
structure
that
the
mayor.
H
For
at
the
moment,
so
it
wouldn't
be,
wouldn't
see
and
neighborhoods
it
would
be
communities,
so
it
would
be
the
new
sort
of
structures
that
would
be
aligned
to
what
we're
going
to
have
in
the
future.
That
is
obviously
probably
the
closest
to
what
we've
had
before.
The
recommendation
we
have
put
in.
There,
though,
is
rather
than
having
the
same
number
of
commission
meetings.
That
happened
previously
is
that
you
had
those
commissions
and
also
you
had
tasks
and
finish
as
well.
H
H
H
H
Think
we
read
that
because
part
of
the
feedback
that
we
had
and
we
have
received
is
that
the
previous
model
did
lack
flexibility,
and
so
that
was
one
of
the
ones
we
were
kind
of
pushing
that
we
thought.
Actually
what
that
gives
you
the
most
amount
of
flexibility,
but
where
we
say
sort
of
recommended
it's
a
loose
recommendation,
broadly
I,
think
as
officers,
we
will
probably
say
that
we
would
recommend
a
hybrid
model.
It's
what
that
hybrid
model
looks
like
again,
I
heavily
caveat.
This
is
this
is
obviously
your
decision.
H
I
A
The
knowledge
was
better
than
not
having
a
specific
home
for
those
to
Gaetti
and
if
they
only
came
towards
them
as
a
group
of
journalists
from
all
sorts
of
areas
that
might
dilute
things
further.
Whereas
if
we
actually
have
departmental
Commission's,
we
would
ensure
that
those
indicators
were
then
looked
at
challenged.
So
that
was
that
was
part
of
the
process
of
one
of
the
things
we
recognized.
We've
lost
by
not
having
those
individual,
Commission's,
I've
got
John
and
then
Jude.
J
E
Think
it's
helpful
to
have
the
the
various
options
and
I
think
if
option
a
is
the
taxi
service,
I
would
say:
option.
C
is
probably
the
personal
chauffeur
service
and
if
it's
a
choice,
but
you
know
taxi
or
a
personal
chauffeur,
I
think
I
know
what
I
prefer
I'm
veering
towards
C.
For
the
simple
reason
about
accountability
and
also
the
scrutiny
chair,
developing
an
expertise
in
a
particular
area.
I
think
I
can
see
that
a
offers
flexibility
but
I've
got
a
feeling.
E
It's
gonna
be
very
hard
for
whoever
is
in
the
scrutiny
chair
to
develop
that
expertise
quickly.
Necessarily
so,
if
you're
looking
for
high
quality
scrutiny,
challenging
scrutiny,
I
think
you
do
need
to
link
it
to
the
departmental
head.
Sorry
I'm,
certainly
a
veering
towards
option
C
I'm
a
little
surprised
that
resources
only
have
to
have
two
meetings
per
year.
We
could
beat
that
up
quite
easily
I
think
to
have
four.
E
A
I
just
refer
members
to
page
53,
which
is
the
notes
of
the
party
leads
meeting,
and
your
last
comment
there
John,
because
paragraph
four
suggests
this
scrutiny
of
the
budget
and
medium
term
financial
plan
should
sit
with
resources,
scrutiny,
Commission
and
would
also
give
more
meetings
so
that
we
ended
up
with
an
equality
of
meetings
between
the
Commission's.
In
fact,
as
that
might
turn
out,
resources
might
end
up
meeting
more
than
the
other
commissions,
because
it
would
be
looking
at
your
financial
issues.
A
F
Wasn't
it
and
I
think
we're
already
on
27,
so
part
of
it
is
being
realistic
about
what
what
really
happens
in
the
real
world
and
I
dare
say
that
their
scrutiny
team
have
kind
of
boxed
this
back
down
to
fit
the
resources.
Although
I
daresay,
we
would
all
agree
there.
In
light
of
recent
events
in
other
councils,
name
in
no
names
that
we
probably
think
that
resources
more
resources
should
be
given
back
to
scrutiny
if
at
all
possible
within
the
current
budget
envelope.
So
that
was
part
of
what
was
going
on
there.
F
So
we've
got
to
try
and
get
out
of
the
mindset
of
going
back
to
a
hybrid
Commission
thing
and
then
repeating
the
same
behaviors
of
the
past,
because
that's
what
we're
trying
to
get
out
of
behaviors
rather
than
it's
not
all
about
the
way.
The
Commission
is
it's
about
asking
the
difficult
questions
and
scrutinizing
it's
not
the
shape
of
the
structure.
It's
the
quality
of
the
questions
and
having
been
a
observer
at
the
weka
meeting
last
week,
the
Weka
scrutiny.
A
C
Thank
You
chair
well,
I
was
going
to
wait
to
listen
to
what
people
that
weren't
in
the
Leeds
meeting
had
to
say,
but
I
also
feel
very
strongly
that
C
is
the
right
answer
and
actually
quite
differently,
but
for
different
reasons,
did
you'd
I
think
the
structure,
the
departmental
structure
has
two
major
attractions.
The
first
one
is,
apart
from
the
expertise
which
I
think
everyone
sort
of
broadly
agree
with
the
first
one
is
I,
think
it's
more
recognisable
from
the
public's
point
of
view
as
well.
C
I
think
they're
more
or
less
assumed
that
that's
what
they
would
expect
and
therefore
know
roughly
where
things
are
likely
to
pop
up
and
I
know.
We
don't
have
massive
interaction
with
the
public,
but
I
do
think,
that's
something
we
have
to
consider.
The
second
thing
is
that
I
do
think
that,
if
we're
going
to
have
an
awesome
which
has
feeding
organizations
as
well,
this
is
the
natural
way
to
feed
in
it's.
C
It's
a
way
of
making
sure
that
what
Osun
wants
to
come
down
has
some
has
a
home
for
it
to
go
to
and
similarly
for
those
things
which
one
of
these
Commission's
may
consider
to
be.
What's
always
called
a
piece
of
work
needs
to
be
done,
which
has
to
be
reported
back
to
us
and
all
the
rest
I
think
the
fact
that
there's
a
definable
recognizable
structure
makes
that
rather
easier
to
deal
with
I,
just
think
it's
just
a
little
bit
more
comprehensible,
the
I
have,
if
I
may.
C
If
you
indulge
me
a
moment,
I'm
I'm
I'm,
very
aware
of
the
resource
issue
here
and
I
realize
that
the
number
that
we've
ended
up
with
is
not
ideal,
but
I
do
realize
we're
cutting
our
cloth.
According
to
the
number
of
scrutiny
staff,
we
have
available
2.6
full-time
equivalents,
I
mean
you've
got
to
realise
it's
quite
a
few
of
you
who
have
had
emails
that
gone
midnight
on
a
Sunday
night
from
scrutiny
team.
It's
not
some
of
this,
so
we
have
to.
C
We
have
to
reflect
that
stricture,
but
the
other
point
is
about
silos,
which
pops
up
several
times
in
this
report.
I
remember
when
I
first
became
to
councillor
Silas
the
thing
I
got
most
educated
about
at
first,
but
as
I've
been
through
all
this
in
various
iterations.
The
way
this
council
works.
Frankly,
however,
we
do
this
we're
going
to
end
up
with
silos.
C
C
The
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
briefly
say
is
is
about
task
and
finish
groups
I
mean
I.
Think
we've
taken
some
time
to
define
the
tasks
in
most
cases
with
no
prospect
of
developing
a
finish.
They
are
also
resource.
Heavy
I
mean
I,
attend
a
few
of
these
and
there's
always
officer
there.
They
take
a
lot
of
time.
C
We've
got
other
officers
feeding
in
most
of
them
turn
out
to
be
more
like
briefing
sessions
than
they
do
about
finish,
Tata
finishing
a
task
session,
a
lot
of
them
don't
seem
to
be
heading
anywhere
and
they
do
need
to
be
tightened
up
and
all
the
rest,
but
they
also
have
an
effect
on
the
resource
issue.
And,
frankly,
this
report
came
out
of
a
resource
issue.
C
In
other
words,
a
very
quick
definable
issue,
a
problem
that
this
council
has
got
to
resolve
that
feeds
into
that
Commission,
and
then
it
can
be
resolved
embodied
in
that
Commission
azam.
But
the
other
thing
that
the
Commission's
should
be
able
to
do
I
think
is
Commission
and
a
particular
piece
of
work,
a
digging
down
work
on
or
diving
down
or
whatever
you.
You
said
that
we've
all
know:
we've
had
a
we've,
had
a
situation
in
commissions
where
we
need
far
longer
than
perhaps
the
20
minutes
or
30
minutes
that
we've
got.
C
This
is
something
that
needs
to
be
really
really
understood
and
sorted
out.
That
is
something
that
I
think
the
Commission's
could
do
and
and
I
would
suggest
that
a
lot
of
that
could
be
done
frankly
without
a
great
deal
of
scrutiny,
staff
resource,
I
think
we're
all
you
know,
they're
all
knowledgeable
and
sensible
enough
to
be
able
to
do
that
sort
of
work.
C
Largely
ourselves.
Do
our
own
research
gather
around
people
that
we
want
to
advise
us
or
or
to
ought
to
tell
us
about
things
so
I
think
that,
even
with
the
task
and
finish
groups,
even
with
this
structure,
we
still
got
to
be
mindful
of
the
resources
we
use
to
drive
out
the
the
answers
that
we
need.
I
think
we
can
be
a
lot
more
efficient
I.
In
fact,
I
started
this
lock
about
over
a
year
ago,
and
it
was
about
efficiency.
I
wanted
us
to
be
more
efficient,
as
well
as
effective
and
I.
C
A
A
It's
exactly
what's
happened
now:
we've
we've,
we've
got
bogged
down
in
to
larger
topic.
We
haven't,
we
said,
deliver
a
finish
to
the
task
and
it's
going
to
require
significant
involvement
from
azam
in
in
work
setting
and
ensuring
that
we
still
deliver
rather
than
get
sucked
into
lengthier
and
lengthier
agendas.
I
think.
K
There
is
a
real
you
know
if
we
end
up
with
awesome
as
amazing
and
three
scrutiny
Commission's,
underneath
exactly
what
is
going
to
be
different
about
that.
Bearing
in
mind
it's
can
be
the
same
people.
It
sounds
very
close
to
what
we
had
before,
where
we're
going
to
lose
a
lot
of
the
good
things
that
we
had
about
tasks
and
finished
groups,
I'm
sure
I.
A
A
Actually
there
isn't
enough
time
to
do
any
scrutiny
anyway,
so
we
won't
be
able
to
do
pre
decision
scrutiny
because
we
won't
know
what's
coming
up.
So
that's,
but
so
there's
a
whole
host
of
things
that
if
this
is
going
to
work,
the
decision
pathway
needs
to
involve
scrutiny.
Six
months
before
final
recommendation
goes
to
cabinet,
not
not
six
days
before
a
decision
goes
to
cabinet,
so
so
there's
a
whole
there's
a
whole
lot
of
that
process
as
well.
A
Naturally,
incentive
is,
if
is,
if
officers
or
cabinet,
suggest
something
comes
to
them,
there's
a
tendency
that
people
say
yes
and
take
it,
and
the
agenda
builds
and
and
somehow
we've
got
to
bring
in
the
discipline
of
actually
making
it
such
that
scrutiny
is
only
involved
in
things
where
it
can
make
a
difference
for
the
benefit
of
the
authority,
the
executive
and
the
whole
process,
not
just
because
it's
nice
to
be
included
in
the
discussion
on
something
that's
very
important.
But
well.
We
can't
make
any
difference
to
the
anchor
and
that's
in
a
sense.
A
We
need
everyone,
we
need.
We
need
backbench
members,
scrutiny
and
cabinet,
making
the
point
that,
if
we're
doing
that,
we
serve
no
purpose
whatsoever
and
and
we've
got
to
try
and
avoid
that
and
that's
a
collective
responsibility.
But
what
we
my
view
is
what
we're
missing
at
the
moment
is
we're
missing
the
review
or
key
performance
indicators,
which
is
one
way
of
holding
executive
to
account,
but
actually
it's
an
also
a
way
of
hoping
executive
to
hold
officers
to
account
and
by
us
not
being
able
to
challenge
that.
A
K
Those
it
could
include
it
in
this
main
awesome
meeting
the
main
reason
they
haven't
a
lot
of
time,
discussing
strewed
scrutiny,
ways
forward
and
that's
the
honest
truth.
That's
the
honest
truth.
They
could
all
be
included.
So
we
have
monthly
meetings
of
two
to
three
hours.
They
could
all
be
included,
but
we've
not
yet
made
up
those
that
agenda
of
kpi's
and
standing
items
that
I've
suggested
quite
well.
G
You,
chair
I
was
casting
back
to
my
period
as
a
scrutiny
chair
and
like
many
people
in
the
room,
I've
been
both
the
scrutiny
chair
and
and
an
exec
member,
so
I've
learnt
over
the
years
to
understand
the
value
of
the
scrutiny
process,
for
policy
development
and
and
and
just
you
know,
help
helping
the
city
and
the
the
council
work
a
lot
better.
But
I
am
troubled
that
a
creation
of
departmental
scrutiny
bodies.
G
That
may
not
be
the
structure
when
the
future
will
simply
bring
back
some
of
the
experiences
that
I
had
of
being
literally
kicked
out
the
building
at
half-past
nine
at
night
because
of
a
huge
agenda
that
we
could
never
get
through
and
I
think
that
new
ways
of
working
means
exactly
that
that
we
find
new
ways
of
working
and
I
feel
that
the
task
and
finish
approach
is
a
model
that
we
ought
to
embrace.
It's
been
trialed
for
a
year.
G
Of
course,
there
are
going
to
be
problems
with
it
that
we're
identifying,
but
let's
fix
those
problems,
I
think
a
bit
more
rigor
of
a
membership
around
the
kind
of
administration
of
those
groups
could
make
enormous
sense
and
could
actually
make
them
work
a
lot
more
effectively.
I
think
this
group,
as
the
parent
body
for
those
tasks
and
finished
groups
with
a
beefed-up
role
of
amp
performance
I,
do
agree
that
there
is
a.
There
is
an
issue
around
the
scrutiny
performance.
It's
been
a
long-running
one,
even
when
we
had
the
old
scrutiny
system.
G
But
it's
a
lab,
it
will
rigor
around
them
and
a
bit
more
admin
sort
of
strength
around
them
in
terms
of
tying
in
the
membership,
but
actually
maybe
twice
a
year
how,
having
Policy
open
days,
they
won't
be
caught.
That
can't
be
something
a
bit
more
exciting.
We're
tasking,
finished
groups
could
report
back
on
what
what
they
had
found,
the
work
that
they
had
done
and
that
azam
could
talk
about
the
wider
role
and
actually
some
of
the
statutory
scrutiny
functions
that
we
haven't
really
discussed,
could
also
report
that
you
could
have
a
day
session.
G
Maybe
I
don't
want
to
plan
at
all
all
here
tonight,
but
you
could
have
a
day
session.
Where
say
the
morning
is
on
the
statutory
scrutiny
and
the
afternoon
is
on
the
task
and
finish
groups
and
I.
Think
that
would
open
up
this
whole
world
of
policy
development
and
thinking
to
a
wider
sort
of
public
debate
and
the
public
viewing,
but
also
some
of
our
key
external
partners
as
well,
but
I
said
I'm
troubled
about
moving
back
from
where
we've
come
and
because
I
don't
think
it
was
a
perfect
system
and
I.
G
A
The
having
everything
run
through
the
eight
or
nine
tasks
and
finish
groups
has
been
a
really
difficult
way
of
communicating
what
we're
doing,
because
there's
no
mechanism
for
doing
it.
On
the
other
hand,
where
the
task
and
finished
groups
have
had
specific
projects
and
have
worked
to
deliver
those
they've
been
very
effective,
which
is
why
we
didn't
want
to
lose
the
task
and
finish
group,
but
the
running
everything
through
them
hasn't
meant.
A
That
has
meant
the
public
are
even
less
aware
of
what
scrutiny
is
doing
then
was
the
case
before
so
what
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
come
up
with
that
hybrid.
That
can
still
retain
the
good
bits,
but
you
know
if
one
takes
and
and
with
with
Helena,
if
one,
if
one
two
adult
social
care,
we
we
recognize
that
adult
social
care
has
beyond
challenge.
A
At
the
moment,
setting
up
a
task
infinity
so
setting
up
a
task
and
finish
cream
a
is
really
just
one
way
of
putting
that
into
the
long
grass,
because
actually
they
could
they
can
meet
daily
for
a
year
and
a
half
and
and
still
not
resolve
the
issues,
whereas
what
we,
perhaps
with
hindsight
should
have
done,
is
working
with
Helen
identified,
perhaps
one
one
area
where
we
could
have
actively
done
some
research
and
got
involved
in
the
process.
But
we
didn't
have
the
mechanism,
not
least
because
we
disbanded
the
people's
scrutiny
Commission.
A
That
might
have
been
able
to
provide
the
channel
for
for
developing
that.
So
so
that's!
That's
that!
That's
why
we're
struggling
so
so
I'm
not
disagreeing
with
what
you're
saying
I'm
simply
saying
that
practice
has
shown
that
we've
we've
we've
almost
tried
to
rebrand
the
scrutiny
Commission
in
into
a
task
and
finish
group
and
give
an
even
bigger
agenda.
D
G
Yeah,
it's
a
project
on
a
discrete
area
of
activity
that
needs
cross
party
attention
and
I.
Think
the
bit
about
transparency
and
awareness
can
be
addressed
in
these
twice
yearly:
public
policy
development
events,
whatever
we
end
up,
cording
them,
because
I
do
I,
do
think.
That
is
an
element
that
is
missing
but
I,
think
project
focus
that
absolutely
otherwise.
You
simply
will
be
inventing
what
we
used
to
have
absolutely
Helen.
Oh.
L
Think
that
that's
that's
a
problem
and
I
mean
two
things
one
is
Don
said
about.
You
know
the
length
of
time
that
the
awesome
has
talked
about
redefining
scrutiny.
Well,
you
know,
can
a
welcome
to
our
world
really
because
ever
since
the
year
2000,
when
we
changed
executive
in
scrutiny,
every
few
years
we've
had
another
go
at
redefining
scrutiny,
and
probably
all
we've
done
is
go
back.
L
Every
couple
of
years
to
what
what
we
used
to
have
and
I
think
that
I
really
struggle
if
I'm
honest
to
point
to
what
the
where
outcomes
changed
because
of
the
input
of
the
old
model
of
scrutiny,
shadowing
portfolios,
I
think
you're
right
about
performance
indicators
and
I
can
remember.
When
I
was
chairing
scrutiny
board,
we
tried
having
them
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
and
then
found
that
that
occupied
the
whole
meeting.
L
Because
people
picked
on
you
know
one
little
KPI
and
you
know
why
haven't
this
moved
and
then
calling
offices
in
then
we'd
have
them
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
we
never
reach
them.
So
we've
got
to
get
that.
I
really
would
welcome
the
challenge
around
our
getting
KPIs
in
the
area
that
I'm
now
responsible
for
would
be
really
really
valuable,
but
I
think
that
at
the
heart
of
it
it
comes
back
to
the
thing
around
people.
L
L
Don't
want
you,
as
my
colleagues
in
scrutiny,
to
think
that
if
I'm
asking
you
to
look
at
something
over
there,
it's
because
I'm
trying
to
sneak
something
past
you
over
here
we've
got
to
we've
got
to
be
a
bit
more
adults
about
it.
I
think,
and
I
think
that
the
issue
about
you
know
that's
just
been
raised
about
the
the
great
bristol
public,
not
knowing
what's
been
looked
at
at
tuscan,
finished
groups,
it's
a
problem
about
communication
and
how
we
engage
with
people.
L
It's
not
a
problem
about
the
system,
that's
that's
being
created
and
I
think
back
to
things
like
you
know,
scrutiny
inquiry
days
and
so
on.
There's
no
reason
apart
from
resourcing
it,
which
is
a
bit
of
a
challenge,
but
about
not
having
that
as
part
of
a
of
a
Tuscan
finish
group
that
we
go
out
there
and
say
to
people
we
are
looking
at.
You
know:
waste
and
recycling.
L
Let's
have
a
a
forum,
even
if
it's
not
a
day,
that's
a
bit
resource
heavy
where
we're
getting
people
in
from
other
local
authorities.
So
all
I
would
say
is
just
that:
there's
a
there's,
a
job
for
us
as
cabinet
and
and
offices
about
letting
go
about
not
being
directional
but
saying
yeah.
These
are
these
exchanges
that
are
coming
up
because,
frankly,
we
all
know
that
trying
to
influence
something
that's
going
to
cabinet
in
a
fortnight,
we're
too
late.
It's
hopeless.
L
So
so
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
that
that
don't
give
up
on
task
and
finish
groups
I,
think
the
I
think
it's
Antony
said
some
of
them.
The
meetings
are
little
more
than
a
a
briefing
from
officers.
Well,
they
shouldn't
be,
but
you
do
need
the
materials,
don't
you
and
if,
if
we
end
up
with
six
more
people,
members
of
the
council,
knowing
a
bit
more
about
something
that
they're
making
recommendations
about.
L
A
A
M
You,
yes,
so
I
also
remember
the
good
old
days
of
the
when
we
were
well
resourced
in
the
meetings
where
we'd
have
a
40
minute
item
on
a
five
million
pound
project
or
whatever
and
we'd
have
a
20
minute
introduction
and
that
would
leave
us
a
committee
of
10
having
to
mean
his
each
to
sort
of
discuss
it.
He
was
he
didn't
work
very
well.
M
Maybe
we
should
go
into
more
detail
just
to
work
out.
What
exactly
is
we're
trying
to
achieve
and
then
to
prioritize
it,
and
then
that
might
help
define
a
disillusion.
My
instincts
say:
I
can
see
the
problems
with
what
we're
doing
there,
but
I
also
agree
I'd,
like
I'd,
be
reluctant
to
throw
it
out
without
trying
to
overcome
it.
Somehow,
but
I
don't
think
we've
given
it
like
I,
don't
think
getting
tasks
and
finish
as
long
as
I'd
like
to
have
done,
but.
M
Yes,
I
mean
there
are
I've
got
problems,
but
the
resources
is
the
main
one
and
I
suppose
I
saw
something
about
independence
of
scrutiny,
I
suppose,
and
if
you
have
four
meetings
a
year,
there's
got
to
be
something
about
the
timeliness
of
scroot.
In
the
end
it
was
hard
before
so
it's
gonna
be
even
harder
with
fewer
meetings.
So
I'm
not
sure
we
have
any
of
the
solutions
at
the
moment.
A
I
So
to
me,
it
seems
like
there's
two
competing
kind
of
routes
that
we've
been
looking
at
and
been
using
in
the
past
is,
on
the
one
hand,
you've
got
like
rigid
structures,
formal
meetings,
more
transparency,
you've
got
the
standing
items
and
a
big-picture
view.
Then,
on
the
other
hand,
you've
got
flexibility,
agility,
increased
collaboration,
deep
dives
into
subjects,
but
often
those
things
are
mutually
exclusive.
So
if
you
want
more
flexibility,
it
becomes
less
transparent,
for
instance.
I
So
the
old
model,
though,
wasn't
working
this
new
model
of
just
task
and
finish,
has
its
flaws
and
I
agree
that
there
can
be
worked
through,
but
I
think
it's
clear
that
we
need
to
bring
some
a
bit
more
rigidity
to
the
system
kind
of
now,
rather
than
fiddle
around
with
task
and
finish
through
a
bit
longer.
Although
I
would
like
to
do
that
as
well,
I
mean
looking
the
options.
I
A
A
We
can't
claim
the
credit
for
it
because
it
evolved
out
of
a
discussion
with
offices,
but
the
one
thing
that
went
wrong
was
that
the
group
were
very
well
informed
on
the
budget
process,
but
actually
the
budget
became
eight
for
members
to
consider
for
it.
In
we
went
to
cabinet
Lee
is
going
to
council
next
week.
Members
in
general
knew
less
about.
A
You
haven't
got
the
record
that
other
people
can
see.
So
that's
that's
the
challenge
and
I.
Think
Tom.
Taking
your
comments.
That's
why
I
see
the
the
hybrid
mix
between
the
formal,
rigid
meetings
and
the
flexibility
of
tasks
can
finish.
Put
trying
to
put
the
two
together
so
that
you
don't
lose
the
advantages
of
each
of
them,
but
you
eliminate
some
of
the
disadvantages,
is
where
I
see
it.
It's
positive
where
it
goes
wrong,
of
course,
is.
If
you
eliminate
the
advantages
and
only
retain
the
disadvantages,
which
is
the
challenge.
I
A
A
Wilkin
will
have
to
continue
to
evolve
and
react
to
to
circumstances
and
to
the
decision
making
pathway
for
it
for
a
start,
so
whatever
we
do
is
going
is
gonna
have
to
keep
changing,
and
indeed
probably,
if
you
do
anything
the
same
for
more
than
a
few
years,
the
danger
is
it:
will
it
will
stagnate
and
not
be
as
productive
as
one
would
like
you
do
it
I've
got
you
on
the
list
you
but
I'll,
come
back.
Sorry.
A
N
N
Actually
the
resource
that
we
have
is
lavish
compared
to
many
other
authorities,
and
the
second
is,
and
we
keep
coming
back
to
it
and
is
the
forward
plan
and
everybody
of
us
at
around
the
table
not
just
this
evening,
but
ever
has
said
that
the
forward
plan
needs
to
be
properly
populated
and
in
good
time
everybody
says:
early
engagement
is
vital.
Actually
none
of
this
stuff
isn't
there's
nothing
new
being
said
tonight.
N
N
So
perhaps
there
should
be
a
rule
about
no
late
engagement.
Oh
hang
on
a
minute.
I
think
there
already
is
one.
Perhaps
we
need
to
be
brutal
about
saying:
no,
we
don't
have
time
to
do
this.
If
we're
going
to
do
stuff
properly,
we're
going
to
have
to
do
a
lot
less
of
it
within
the
constraints
that
we
have.
N
If
we're
going
to
do
early
engagement,
then
to
begin
with,
we
have
to
accept
that
there
will
be
stuff
that
gets
ignored
or
overlooked
if
we're
going
to
say
we're
going
to
start
looking
at
stuff,
that's
18-month
to
use
Helen's
time
frame.
If
we're
going
to
look
at
stuff,
that's
18
months
down
the
track,
then
anything
that
happens
in
the
next
18
months.
We're
not
going
to
look
at
because
we
won't
have
time
to
have
any
impact.
N
But
again
time
and
time
again,
we
come
back
to
the
issue
around
having
the
resources,
not
just
officer
resources
but
member
time
as
well.
We've
all
of
us
only
got
so
many
hours
in
the
day
in
so
many
hands
to
use,
but
the
forward
plan
and
it's
early
population
is
vital
and
I'm
tempted
to
say
that
nothing
should
be
added
to
the
forward
plan
if
we
don't
have
time
to
scrutinize
it
properly
and
effectively,
perhaps
that
mode
loads
of
stuff
that
appears
on
the
forward
plan
two
or
three
weeks
ahead
of
a
decision.
N
N
A
I
think
before
I
mean
the
you
and
I
had
talked
about
this
at
length
and
the
forward
planner
is
it
to
me
is
very
clear
not
that
we
should
be
able
to
scrutinize
every
decision
before
it's
made,
but
we
should
be
able
to
make
the
choice
to
scrutinize
it
before
it's
made.
But
we
can't
do
that
if
we
only
appears
on
the
list
after
the
meeting
immediately
beforehand.
N
N
A
B
B
It
has
been
very
different
to
just
taken
out
of
our
old
Commission
based
scrutiny,
because
it's
had
a
definite
purpose.
We've
actually
been
focusing
on
reducing
the
pressure
on
adult
social
care,
which
is
a
very
you
know,
crucial
issue.
For
guess
we
know
that's
such
a
big
overspend
for
us,
so
it
hasn't
really
just
spit
well,
it
hasn't
at
all
been
just
going
over
the
ground
that
we
did
previously,
but
it's
been
very,
you
know,
focused
on
and
and
we've
we've
uncovered
and
and
very
useful.
B
You
know
the
officers
have
spoken
to
us
in
trust
and
we've
been
able
to
identify
the
issues
and
find
ways
forward.
So
I
think
that
particularly
has
been
a
very
useful
group.
The
other
one
that
I've
been
part
of
this
been
very
useful
and
focuses
in
the
air
pollution,
because
we
know
that
we're
working
towards
a
clean,
clean
air
plan
by
2019
and
that's
something
that
we
can
share
with
the
public.
Let
them
know
where
we're
up
to
and
something
that
people
would
really
be
interested
in
so
I
think
that
would
be
something
new.
B
That
would
really
be
a
bold
way
to
kind
of
make
ourselves
more
available
to
the
public
and
and
let
people
enjoy
what
at
the
minute
is
a
very
kind
of
complex
bureaucratic
system.
If
I
can
just
add
to
that,
I
do
appreciate
what
Joan,
Jude
and
Antony
have
said
about
retaining
the
expertise.
I
think
that's
one
of
the
issues
in
options
see
that
maybe
is
a
is
a
positive,
but
at
the
same
time,
I'm
very
worried
about
slipping
that
even
unintentionally
to
the
old
Commission
based
and
I.
A
F
I,
don't
think
anybody's
saying
that
tasks
and
finishes
should
be
thrown
out.
You
know
baby
with
the
bathwater
I
think
we
are
appreciating
that
it's
you
know
the
beginning
of
a
process.
Well,
I
think
we
are
missing
and
I
did
say
this
a
beginning
of
the
hothouse
and
I'll
say
it
again
is
there's
a
certain
amount
of
development
of
members
that
we're
not
doing
training
on
confidence,
interaction
with
the
legal
system,
understanding
you
know
where
we've
been
and
where
we
go
into
we
deep.
F
We
do
need
more,
remember
development
on
this
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
I
think
some
people
have
very
much
enjoyed
the
smaller,
more
relationship.
Forming
task
and
finish
group
says
it's
been
an
opportunity
to
develop
and
move
move
forward.
I
really
agree
with
Mark
on
the
whole
policy
day
thing
and
I
I
popped
up
to
the
mayor's
office
weeks
ago
and
said
policy
lab
look
what
they're
doing
in
Westminster.
Can
we
have
something
like
this?
F
So,
as
I
said,
I
don't
know,
was
it
the
last
dollar
meeting
all
the
stuff
on
a
forward
plan,
although
another
floor
plan,
the
mayor's
City
plan
wants
her
to
plan,
there's
huge
amounts
of
deep,
diving
and
development
and
talking
to
people
going
on
around
the
building,
there's
also
lots
of
pop-up
groups
meeting
you
know,
there's
a
proliferation
of
people
having
meetings
all
over
the
place
and
keeping
track
of
it
is
hard
for
all
of
us.
So
this
is
a
bigger.
It's
a
part
of
a
bigger
picture.
F
C
C
They
were
scrutinizing
what
was
out
there
and
too
late
that
all
alerts
me
said
it's
all
all
correct
and
still
correct
what
we
were.
Some
of
us
felt
we
were
desperately
not
engaging.
It
was
the
overview,
was
the
ability
to
try
and
see
where
we
could
be
going
forward
in
a
different
way
to
to
to
benefit
this,
this
council
and
that's
why
we
need
something
more
flexible
than
the
Commission's,
which
are
still
there
are
still
needed
to
actually
test.
C
Proposals,
although
they're
not
coming
at
the
right
time
for
that
city
of
much
value,
but
that's
something
which
could
I
think
be
solved
without
saying
that
the
Commission's
are
wrong.
It's
it's
the
pathway.
It's
the
forward
plans
we
heard,
which
is
in
the
wrong
place
relative
to
those
Commission's.
But
if
that
were
right,
the
Commission's
would
still
have
some
value.
What
the
Commission's
are
not
so
good
at
is
dealing
with
identifying
with
and
fleshing
out
those
subjects
that
we
realize
need
a
particular
attention
now
in
terms
of
task
and
finish,
I.
C
Don't
think
that's
what
they're
doing
at
the
moment
all
right.
If
the
task
is
to
teach
us
stuff,
then
where's,
the
finish
I
mean
we're
learning,
but
what
are
we
actually
getting
out
of
it?
That's
going
to
take
us
all
forward.
There
are
other
ways
that
we
could
be
being
briefed
better
and
develop
better
than
using
task
and
finish
as
a
way
of
being
told
loads
and
loads
of
stuff
and-
and
it
seems
to
me
that
getting
developing,
mixing
and
and
reworking
that
stuff
is
just
push
further
and
further
down
the
line.
C
C
If
we
would
have
a
system
where
we
put
any
six
or
eight
people
here,
intelligent
people
with
different
views
and
all
the
rest
into
a
space
with
enough
churn,
we
would
brainstorm
I
suspect
very
quickly,
we'd
find
very
quickly
the
problems,
the
the
locks,
the
the
things
that
were
not
resolved
in
the
way
that
we're
trying
to
process
things
that
we
do
in
this
council.
That's
something
I,
think
that
task
and
finish
groups
will
be
best
fixed
to
do
less
briefing,
far
more
new
original
thought,
and
we
know
with
original
thought.
C
90%
of
it
is
not
very
worthwhile.
10%
of
it
is
pretty
good,
and
perhaps
1%
of
that
10%
is
really
the
thing.
That's
going
to
take
us
forward
and
that's
what
we
need
to
drive
out.
We
need
to
realize
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
and
to
find
the
quickest
way
and
the
most
effective
way
to
deal
with
it
now,
dude,
you're,
right
and
and
almost
everybody
on
the
Commission.
I
sat
on
felt
that
they
didn't
know
enough
about
anything
at
all.
C
I
believe
we
as
counselors
should
not
be
fully
professional,
counselors
I
believe
we
should
be
ordinary
members
of
the
public
that
actually
believe
that
we
can.
We
can
perhaps
make
things
better
by
being
in
here
and
bringing
our
own
individual
skills
to
there.
We're
like
jurors,
effectively
a
sitting
now
trying
to
look
at
with
a
fresh
eye.
C
If
we
don't
have
the
Commission's,
then
we'd
end
up
by
having
any
Norma's
awesome
and
we've
had
that
pretty
well
for
the
last
six,
eight
months
and
I,
don't
know
about
you
lot,
but
I,
it's
wearing
me
a
bit
thin
and
I.
Think
more
people
need
to
be
involved
in
this
process
than
the
eleven
people
around
this
table.
So
it
seems
to
me:
we've
got
two
choices
here.
C
C
What
we
believe
is
completely
you
know
ordinary
people
as
it
were
that
we
need
to
know
in
this
council
and
those
we
may
not
get
them
absolutely
right,
but
we
can
broadly
say
where
we
want
that
that
information
to
come
from-
and
we
can
perhaps
drive
out
the
right
place
to
get
exactly
that.
But
these
things
need
to
be
done
around
a
table,
I'm
afraid
in
some
sort
of
a
some
sort
of
a
group,
the
overview
stuff,
the
boost
guy
thinking,
the
brainstorming
needs
to
be
done,
I
believe
in
a
different
place.
C
If
you
want
to
call
it
task
and
finish,
that's
all
right
by
me,
but
I
think
it
also
needs
other
people
coming
in
that
we
might
have
in
a
select
committee
which
we
can
do
very
easily
these
days
with
with
various
electronic
means.
We
don't
actually
have
to
have
import
people
away
from
all
around
the
country
and
let's
face
it
also
members
of
the
public,
all
of
us
have
been
to
forums
and
to
enter
groups
where
we've
been
developing
big
policy,
particularly
in
planning
well
used
used
to
be
commonplace.
C
We
used
to
sit
in
a
room
on
a
remake
of
an
evening
with
60
or
70
people
and
have
post-it
notes
all
over
the
place,
and
out
of
that,
would
get
we'd
get
some
imaginative,
creative
ways
forward.
We
don't
do
that
in
this
council
too,
much
and
sure
as
hell,
we're
never
going
to
do
it.
If
we
sit
in
the
space,
where
we've
being
briefed
out
of
our
brains
and
never
have
a
chance
to
do
anything
or
make
anything
of
the
information
that
we're
being
briefed
with,
thank
you
thank.
A
O
Thanks
for,
let
me
speak
and
I
just
wanted
to
give
my
perspective
on
it.
Really
because
I've
never
had
them
say
an
awesome.
I
would
have
loved
to
have
done
that
for
joing,
the
cabinet
and
obviously
I'm
Brandon
fairly
brand
new
on
the
cabinet
and
I'm,
also
a
relatively
new
councillor,
so
I
suppose
I
can
only
bring
my
sort
of
common
sense
gut
instincts
to
this,
but
the
bit
that
I'm
looking
after
is
all
about
policy
development.
O
His
task
and
finish
essentially
under
another
name
and
so
I
wanted
to
echo
Helens
perspective
because
on
the
local
time
working
with
my
father,
a
super
positive
experience
with
a
couple
of
exceptions
and
I
would
really
champion.
I
would
love
to
have
that
level
of
support
on
some
of
the
other
things
and
I
was
going
to
throw
one
into
the
mix
which
might
feel
slightly
left
field,
but
it's
a
genuinely
tough
nut
to
crack,
which
is
how
do
we?
O
How
do
we
guarantee
or
ensure
the
best
possible
chance
for
a
successful
City
Center
in
light
of
all
the
development?
That's
happening
there.
You
know
if
you
wanted
a
subject
which
has
not
got
a
policy
written
for
it,
which
is
genuinely
difficult
and
multidisciplinary
and
brings
all
different
agencies
in
in
terms
of
safety,
purple,
flag,
etc,
etc.
O
Licensing
planning
that
would
be
it
and
so
I
suppose
I
wanted
to
use
that,
as
my
example,
as
we've
been
talking
in
my
mind,
was
trying
to
think
of
how
many
members
would
want
to
be
interested
in
that
dealing
with
that,
because
that
is
a
real
thing.
That
I
am
tackling
right
now,
trying
to
understand
how
much
the
council
plays
a
role
in
that
and
what
we
do
and
how
we
succeed.
So
it's
just
a
bare
food-for-thought,
really
but
I
think
it's
asking
finishes
marvelous
for
my
part
of
the
world.
A
Thank
you
for
that
and
I'm
gonna
try
and
just
pull
some
strands
together
and
see
if
we
can
can
pull
something
cuz
I,
although
we've
got
some
very
divergent
views,
I'm
not
actually
sure
that
they're
that
different
in
the
end
and
I
think
really
interesting.
Nickel
in
Helens
comments,
because
there
are
some
members
who
will
believe
in
the
conspiracy
theory
that
if
an
executive
member
suggests
something's
to
be
looked
at,
there's
a
there's,
a
hidden
agenda.
A
We've
got
to
try
and
and
and
overcome
so
so
I
think.
The
really
reassuring
thing
is
the
positive
comments
that
have
come
from
the
cabinet
and
other
members
about
task
and
finish
groups,
because
certainly
those
I've
been
closely
involved
when
I
felt
there
was
a
really
positive
message.
So
I
think
I
think
take
on
board
entirely
the
comments
that
we
do
not
want
to
lose.
That.
A
That
real
benefit,
that's
come
out,
Anthony
and
others
make
the
point
as
well
that
the
tasks
can
finish.
One
can
have
inquiry
days.
One
can
have
different
variations
on
the
theme
and
we've
been
probably
too
consumed
in
our
own
analysis
of
where
we're
going
and
what
we're
doing
to
look
at
all
those
options.
A
One
is
if
there's
a
really
critical
issue
that
comes
up
before
for
the
council.
They
actually,
we
can
Commission
the
task
and
finish
group
within
a
matter
of
weeks
to
deal
with
it,
because
there
is
otherwise
a
danger
if
you're
waiting
for
a
scrutiny.
Commission
that
isn't
meeting
for
another
two
and
a
half
months
that
actually
the
ability
to
respond
falls
away.
A
So
there
is
a
check
in
a
balance
because
I
also
recognize,
even
though
one
might
like
the
opportunity
for
scrutiny
to
make
up
a
political
rallying
cry
against
whoever
the
incumbent
happens
to
be
at
the
time.
Actually,
that's
a
very
negative
approach
and
that
can't
be
done
on
one
person
having
a
lead
because
they
have
a
passion
against
some
policy
may
actually
be
having
the
confidence
of
the
executive
to
actually
listen
to
scrutiny,
to
realize
it's
making
a
positive
contribution,
not
exploiting
an
opportunity.
A
One
point:
that's
come
up
in
I,
don't
know
whether
it's
in
these
notes
or
not,
is
regarding
briefings,
because
Charlie
mentioned
the
regular
agenda
items
that
involved
officers
making
a
briefing
even
when
everyone
had
read
the
papers
and
the
other
thing
that
I
find
very
frustrating
is
that
I
still
get
I
will
get
two
or
three
invites
to
briefings.
It's
very
good
they're
at
different
times
to
give
a
chance.
But
actually
this
seems
to
be
no
coordination
for
briefings
for
members.
A
So
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
look
at
this
objectively
and
what
I
see
is
that
there
are
there
are.
There
are
a
number
of
parts
of
the
process.
One
is
the
the
knowledge
and
understanding
of
the
service
area
sufficient
to
review
how
it's
performing
to
ask
questions
to
identify
areas
that
need
to
be
targeted.
I
can't
see
how
that
can
happen
outside
of
some
form
of
Commission
based
group
of
people
coming
together,
but
we
need
to
then
ensure
that
those
agendas
are
flexible
and
directed
at
the
things
that
can
make
a
difference.
A
Helen
Nicola,
both
saying
in
there
is
they'd
like
to
give
some
guidance
and
help
I
actually
think
that
could
be
really
positive
and
identifying
specific
pieces
of
work.
They
might
not
be
tasking
finish
as
such.
They
might
run
through
a
best
part
of
a
civic
year
of
engagement,
developing
more
knowledge
seeking
feedback
and
actually
looking
at
issues
for
both
because
their
long-term
strategic
issues
that
are
actually
looking
how
we
engage
over
a
two
three
or
four
year
period.
They
could
be
taking
members
opinions
that
that
wouldn't
be
rightly
described
as
tasks
and
finish.
A
We
identified
medium
term
financial
plans
shouldn't
be
tasking
finish
because
the
medium
term
financial
plan
is
is,
but
it
is
by
very
definition,
being
renewed
each.
So,
therefore,
there
is
a
role
for
something
more
permanent,
but
there
is
also
a
need
for
thoughtful,
targeted,
short-term
I
pieces
of
work.
Some
task
and
finish
group
smite,
meet
three
times
in
the
space
of
six
weeks
and
complete
their
work.
Others
might
have
a
nine-month
period
of
work
as
they
develop.
What
they're
doing
we
want?
I
would
like
to
keep
that
flexibility.
L
Just
picking
up
Nicolas
point
about
the
local
plan,
member
working
group
I
think
that
what
you
said
is
is
right
and
cabinet
speaking
rudely
for
our
colleagues.
Hopefully
we'll
get
them
to
agree,
but
the
you
also
almost
need
to
do
like
an
audit
of
things
like
that,
because
that
is
a
task
and
finish:
I
sit
on
it.
It
is
there.
L
There
is
other
things
like
you
know:
I'm
not
offering
here
places
for
scrutiny
members,
but
there
there
is
I
mean
the
things
that
are
on
my
hot
list
of
a
better
lives
program
and
the
transformation
program.
There's
a
there's,
a
better
lives
transformation
board,
it's
called,
but
just
how
the
work
that
needs
to
happen
would
link
in
with
that.
So
perhaps
you
need
to
have
a
bit
of
a
of
an
audit.
I
mean
dude.
Was
it
Jude
said
about
all
the
groups
that.
A
Really
are
resting
because
with
Steve
about
the
Commission
commerciality
working
group,
Steve's
involved
with
and
one
of
our
challenges
is,
there
are
champions
across
the
authority
for
all
manner
of
different
areas,
but
there's
no
codification
of
it.
We
don't
know,
we
don't
know
who
they
are.
So
we
might
be
wanting
to
set
up
a
task
and
finish
group
on
something
that
is
actually
already
established.
But
what
we
don't
know
about.
So
that
is
a
challenge
just
tell
it,
and
then
they
just
come.
L
A
O
But
surely
the
cabinet
members
know
so?
Could
we
not
feed
that
in
this?
It's
not
a
two-way
dialogue
thing
because
I
know
we
take
our
cross-party
group,
a
group
of
four
student
lovers
or
not.
You
know,
I
know
about
the
student
housing
stuff.
Obviously
I
know
about
the
local
working
group
and
about
the
night
time
Commission
work
they're
all
set
up
by
groups
of
backbenchers.
So
why
would
we
not
just
report
that
in
to
you.
B
F
A
P
I
think
Helens
point
about
connectivity
is
a
really
important
one.
So
my
concern
of
that
task
of
finished
groups.
It's
not
that
they
don't
actually
achieve
specific
outcomes.
I
think
that's
great,
but
how
do
we
make
sure
we
have
joined
up
thinking
not
only
within
and
across
awesome,
but
across
the
rest
of
the
way
which
the
council
does
its
business,
and
we
need
to
find
ways
in
which
we
come
back
to
those
issues
we
make
connections
with
other
relevant
issues.
P
Obviously
we
do
need
covenant,
members
to
actually
engage
in
that
it
does
need
to
be
a
dialogic
process.
I
would
agree,
and
perhaps
the
hybrid
model
is
the
best
one,
but
because
there
is
certainly
a
virtue
in
having
scrutiny
days,
it
seems
to
me
those
have
been
extremely
helpful
in
the
past.
It's
it
gives
you
an
opportunity
to
dive
deep
into
the
topic,
but
my
concern
is
that
we
we
end
up
with
a
slightly
fragmented
understanding.
P
You
know
the
classic
words
of
what
every
name
was
the
American
president
saying
we
don't
know
what
we
don't
know.
You
know,
and
we
were
all
busy
scrutinizing
something
meanwhile,
in
another
bit
of
accounts,
all
decisions
are
being
made
which
will
impact
on
that
part
of
decision
process,
but
we're
not
always
fully
aware
of
it.
So
it's
getting
that
collectivity
right,
which
think
it's
really
absolutely
essential.
F
That's
the
issue:
it's
not
actually
tasks
and
finished
groups
or
hybrids
or
Commission's
or
who's
in
charge.
It's
all
about
connectivity,
a
self-reflexive
system
that
talks
to
itself
and
has
connections,
you've,
just
rattled
off
the
names
of.
However,
many
pop
groups
that
are
looking
into
stuff
that
I
have
no
idea
about,
because
there
is
no
way
of
us
knowing
and
sharing
that
information.
We
have
some
fixed,
formal
meetings
where
we
don't
speak
to
each
other,
and
then
we
have
some
pop-up
groups
where
people
do
speeches
and
it's
news
in
the
room,
who's
in
the
office.
F
Who's
got
resources
to
get
stuff
organized,
that's
how
it
gets
done
and
that's
the
real
worry.
But
actually
decisions
are
being
made
that
scrutiny.
Those
of
us
who
wear
a
badge
saying
I
do
scrutiny
one
day
somebody
will
say
somebody
made
a
decision
and
I
say:
well,
nobody
told
me
and
that's
the
issue.
It's
not
the
hybrid,
it's
communication
and
I
have
to
say
speaking
as
a
backbencher,
each
sort
of
person
from
a
group.
That's
in
opposition.
F
Our
main
problem
is
access
to
information,
understanding
what
the
pathways
are
and
knowing
what's
going
on
and
that's
not
coming
from
a
place
of
you
know
not
caring
I'm
in
the
building
a
lot,
but
we
do
not
have
the
ways
of
this
being
transparent
and
open,
and
that's
the
fundamental
issue
and
I
don't
quite
know
how
we
go
forward
with
it.
It's
not
as
Don
says,
I
agree
with
Don.
We
can
talk
all
the
way
around
the
houses,
but
there's
too
much
pop
you
don't
popping
down
and
decisions
being
made
where
people
don't
know.
O
Thanks
I
think
I
mean
as
a
complete
commitment
for
me.
If
you
can
come
up
with
a
way
that
would
be
helpful
for
you
for
me
to
report
that
in
in
terms
of
these
emerging
issues
and
these
kind
of
pop
up
groups,
as
you
call
them,
it's
often
born
out
of
members,
productivity
I
think.
Secondly,
these
partners,
groups
are
cross-party,
so
within
individual
groups
you
know,
I
would
expect
Clive
to
be
talking
to
you
guys,
as
greens,
about
what's
going
on
with
students
marked
the
Conservatives
Antony,
the
Liberal
Democrats
I
think
it's
it's.
O
That
challenge
of
I
would
never
set
up
a
cross-party
group
that
wasn't
cross-party
if
that
makes
sense,
I'm
not
setting
them
up,
but
I
would
never
participate
in
a
group
which
I
didn't
feel
represented.
The
views
of
the
local
authority
different
parties,
but
absolutely
if,
if
there's
a
mechanism
that
you
guys
can
agree,
then
a
different
way
of
working
that
you'd
want.
Then
I've
got
tons
of
policy
work
over
them.
You
know
assuming
I'm
still
in
this
role
for
the
forseeable,
which
I
would
really
welcome
us
for.
A
Sure
we
members
their
real
concern.
I
went
along
and
sat
in
on
or
be
committing
the
other
day
and
they
were
looking
at
the
the
bond
redaction
plan
and
I
can't
remember
how
many
items
there
of
action
that
they
were
agreeing
to
undertake,
but
but
all
bar
one
of
them
were
going
in
a
positive
direction,
the
one
that
had
gone
backwards
since
the
previous
review
was
the
decision
pathway,
which
was
read
so
in
a
sense.
You
know
it
comes
back
to
the
points
we've
discussed.
A
It
is
one
of
the
fundamental
issues
that
how
that
decision,
pathway
is
improved,
I
think
he's
ultimately
going
to
determine
how
effective
scrutiny
and
the
executive
are
in
what
they
do,
because
otherwise
we
simply
can't
actively
be
involved.
We
can't
know
all
that's
going
on
if
the
decision
pathway
itself
is
deteriorating
when
that
was
identified
as
one
of
the
risk
areas
mark
and
then
actually
I
think.
G
G
It's
a
problem
problem
solve
get
it
finished
them
move
on
and
I
think
there's
some
nuancing
that
might
be
required
around
the
explanation
of
things.
I'm
still
really
clear
in
my
own
mind
that
if
he
set
up,
you
know
larger
standing
committees
where
the
departmental
or
thematic
we
will
tread
back
to
where
we've
been
in
the
past
and
I.
Think
you
know
that
that,
for
me,
is
a
big
issue.
I
think
think.
G
Azam
has
a
really
important
role
in
this,
particularly
in
communicating
these
different
strands
to
the
public
and
to
our
you
know,
partners
out
there
I
think
that
is
still
a
big
gap
in
what
we're
currently
doing.
It's
never
been
actually
good.
This
is
an
opportunity,
I
think,
to
really
improve
that.
That's
my
dependence,
but
worth
I'm
afraid
thank.
C
Well,
can
I
come
back
to
something
that
Estella
said
I
think
we've
got
to
understand
the
task
and
finish
group
is
I'm,
I'm
all
for
joined
up
thinking
and
the
point
I
think
has
now
been
picked
up,
which
we
certainly
made
it.
The
Leeds
meeting
was
that
there
are
a
number
of
different
Commission's
groups,
individual
members
appointed
to
look
at
particular
subjects.
C
We
haven't
got
a
grounding
on
all
of
this,
and
what
we
do
know
is
that
there
is
a
cleaner
working
group
and
there's
also
a
an
air
quality
task
and
finish
group
I
mean
this
is
that
this
is
not
going
to
take
anything
further
forward.
Is
it
I
mean
it's
got
to
be
joined
up
so
on
that
in
that
respect?
I
accept
that
as
though,
let's
use
that
the
mechanisms
we've
got
and
make
sure
that
are
all
working
effectively,
you
can't
expect
a
ÃÃ
task
and
finish
group
to
be
holistic.
C
It
will
not
cover
a
very
water,
a
very
broad,
a
very
broad
scope.
It
has
to
I
think,
make
sense
in
inner
context,
and
we
have
to
look
and
see
what
that
context
is
in
terms
of
what's
happening
around
the
council
in
some
respects.
If
some
of
the
things
that
are
already
been
set
up
are
not
actually
delivering
the
things
that
we
badly
need
to
be
set
up,
they
should
be
scrapped.
Let's
just
be
wound
down
and
we
get
on
with
something
that
really
matters.
C
There's
no
point:
we
haven't
got
enough
time
to
do
the
important
things
in
this
council.
We
certainly
haven't
got
the
time
to
look
at
things
which
are
not
gonna
feed
into
making
a
good
decision,
and
that's
where
we
should
start
anything
that
we
look
at
her
and
that's
the
marker
here.
Anything
that
we
decide
to
do
here
tonight
or
whatever
flows
out
of
this
is
on
the
basis
of
the
fact
that
how
does
it
make
making
a
good
decision
process
better
and
that's
where
I
started
and
that's
where
we
shall
maintain
our
focus.
A
H
Wanted
to
advise
members
that,
after
the
Leeds
meeting
with
Chancellor
English
did
raise
about
a
number
of
groups,
I
have
actually
approached
a
couple
of
officers
in
the
policy
team
mayor's
office
as
well.
To
send
me
a
list
of
all
of
the
things
that
they
are
aware
of.
I
got
a
first
cut
today
from
one
of
the
offices
and
I
know
there
were
some
things
missing
from
that,
so
I've
sent
it
back
to
say.
H
Could
you
you
pleased
and
that's
just
simply
because
it's
only
been
in
the
last
couple
of
days
in
the
hemorrhage
to
bring
it
all
together,
so
that
is
already
even
trained,
because
it's
also
something
that
we
as
officers
when
the
scrutiny
team
would
also
dearly
like
as
well
so
I'm
just
to
advise.
We
have
started
getting
that
in
train.
A
Right
I'm
trying
to
think
of
a
way
of
bringing
this
to
a
conclusion
with
a
decision
and
sorry
well,
that
was
I
was
sort
of
heading
in
that
direction,
and
I
was
thinking.
Therefore,
that
I
might
just
ask
members
for
just
just
an
in
an
indication,
because
I
don't
think
we
need
to
actually
formally
vote
at
this
stage
on
this,
but
can
I
can
I
just
see
first
of
all,
if
there
is
any
support
for
reverting
to
the
original
scrutiny,
position
of
commissions
meeting
regularly
and
no
task
and
finish
groups.
A
F
Did
I
understand
Steve
are
very
much
like
what
you
said
now.
What's
there
like
an
option
where
you
said,
let's
just
not
do
any
of
this
and
go
straight
to
a
only
look
at
things.
They
only
do
the
blue
sky
look
at
things
18
months
in
advance
start
from
now,
like
the
you
know,
option
X
was
that
what
you
would
say,
because
I
liked
that
option.
A
If
there
was
something
that
was
that
was
seen
by
a
large
number
of
members
as
being
inappropriate
or
wrong,
there
should
be
an
ability
for
it
to
at
least
be
reviewed
beforehand,
but
I
would
far
rather
encourage
members
to
take
the
18
months
and
blueSky
thinking
on
a
major
issue.
Then
I
would
be
having
a
having
a
battle
over
something
where
the
decision
probably
won't
change.
So
it's
it's.
How
we
make
that
process
so
so
having
having
ruled
out
the
the
old
original
model?
A
M
Well,
you
could
just
try
and
see
if
there's
other
ways
of
the
things
which
are
wrong
with
task
and
finish.
There
might
be
other
ways
of
doing
it,
rather
than
just
going
back
to
having
standing
committee
up
and
it's
really
what
are
those
ways?
It's
has
there
been
an
examination
or
investigation
yeah?
Yes,
no
there
hazards,
I,
suppose
yeah
I,
don't
mind
that
much
I
gonna
work
quite
as
well
as
we'd
like
it
to.
M
F
Actually,
at
the
hothouses
all
those
months
ago,
I
know
I,
know
I'm
never
going
to
another
one
by
the
way,
so
I
hope.
Well,
no,
no,
actually,
that's
not
true
I'm
I'm
yeah.
My
uncertainty
go
toward
I
hope
that
the
event
that
we're
having
on
the
22nd
is
not
of
the
same
format,
because
it's
probably
not
the
hot
testing.
This
issue
actually
I
think
the
issue
which
are
brought
about
those
meetings
was
it's
all
very
well.
So
we
can
do
other
ways
like
inquiry
days
and
bring
people
in
and
we
could
have
Skype
meetings.
F
We
could
use
Skype.
We
could
use
all
sorts
of
digital
stuff
that
we
don't
use,
but
without
knowing
what
the
actual
budget
is.
I,
don't
think
we
can
and
a
no
point
have
we
really
been
properly
told.
You
know
what
the
how
many
inquiry
days
you
can
have,
and
you
know
I
do
think
we
could
say
well
of
inquiry
days
and
then
get
told,
there's
no
enough
money
so
without
knowing
how
much
money
you've
got
to
spend
it's
really
hard
to
plan
an
astonishing.
A
Can
I
remind
you
and
other
members
why
we
had
a
hot
house?
We
had
a
hot
house
because
I
naively
thought
that
having
a
gathering
like
this,
we
would
develop
a
consensus
and
put
forward
a
proposal
and
actually
having
a
thing
that,
with
11
members
around
the
table,
we
came
up
with
12
proposals.
We
decided
that
a
hot
house
was
a
very
effective
way
of
doing
it,
so
we
reinvented
a
structure
that
no
one
had
ever
tried
before
thinking.
It
would
solve
everything
actually.
F
E
A
A
K
I'm
on
this
three
tasks
could
finish
groups
only.
One
are
probably
the
three
best
things
I've
done
in
my
time
in
the
council,
I
love
them
I.
Think
we
haven't.
We've
made
some
mistakes,
but
asking
finish
groups
some
of
them.
For
instance,
we
went
in
thinking
that
were
a
task
and
finished
and
discovered
that
the
problems
were
so
big.
A
G
I
felt
that
we're
restricting
our
discussion
to
the
four
options
in
the
paper
and
actually
I
think
we
need
to
come
up.
You
know
with
all
due
respect.
We
need
to
come
with
an
option
that
suits
us
better.
What
I
think
I
outlined
well
I,
didn't
say
at
the
time
was
a
variant
on
option.
D
just
keep
things
as
they
are
tighten
the
arrangements
around
the
task
and
finish
beeps,
maybe
have
a
policy
development
group
of
variant
which
deals
with
some
of
the
longer-term
issues
and
and
and
open
it
up
much
more.
B
Joe
I'm,
sorry
to
be
little
unsure.
I,
definitely
I
support
a
hybrid
model,
I'm,
not
quite
sure.
We've
got
the
right
model
yet,
and
so
I
would
like
reflection
on
what
we've.
What
has
come
out
of
this
meeting,
which
actually
I
think,
has
been
really
constructive
and
does
get
a
bit
of
direction,
but
it
I
find
it
hard
to
say
for
sure
sorry.
A
I
Mean
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
agrees
of
this,
but
for
me
definitely
hybrid,
but
it's
about
what
balance
is
between
Tuscan
finish
and
the
Commission's
and
effectively.
That
means
the
number
of
committees
versus
the
number
of
tasks
and
finish
so
maybe
that
is
the
question
we
should
go
to
the
22nd
with
saying
we
want
to
go
down
a
hybrid
model
with
committees
Tusker
finish,
but
what's
the
right
balance
and
pause.
That
was
the
question
rather
than
a
massive
Oldman
thing.
Yep.
A
F
We
just
remember
as
well
one
of
the
things
that
Andrea
brought
to
a
meeting
a
while
back
is
that
whatever
you
do,
with
the
balance
of
commissions
and
Tuscan
finish
groups,
what
we
had
started
to
get
was
a
very
small
pool
of
councillors
who
were
doing
the
scrutiny
tussle
or
stuffing
these
Tuscan
finish
groups,
Renault
Don's
already
said
he's
on
three
of
them.
Now,
that's
great
that
Don's,
very
engaged
but
Andrea
said,
is
one
of
the
problems
that
have
been
identified
by
the
change
was
the
lack
of
engagement
by
members
in
the
scrutiny
process.
F
So
before
you
had
four
commissions,
you
know
15
times,
ball
was
sitting
there
at
least
they
were
having.
Even
if
the
word
paying
attention
some
of
them.
You
know
they
were
in
the
room
and
their
name
was
minuted
and
what
we've
moved
to
is
less
member
engagement.
Is
that
right
and
really
I
think
you
know
we
could
say
that
there's
a
much
smaller
pool
so
part
of
the
solution
is
empowering
individual
counselors
to
active
in
doing
whatever
they
do
to
scrutinise
choice,
but
also.
A
A
F
A
J
A
K
Then
perhaps
it
comes
down
to
the
difference
between
a
task
and
finish
group
and
a
commission
and
how
we
would
see
that
difference.
There
are
two
things
as
I
see
it.
One
a
commission
is
public
and
that
does
work
against
some
of
the
good
things
that
we've
had
from
task
and
finish
group.
So
yet
we
need
to
be
very
self
awareness.
A
commission
is
not
going
to
do
some
of
the
things
that
the
tascam
finished
groups.
The
second
thing
very,
very
much
comes
down
to
the
role
of
the
chair
of
that
group.
K
You
know
that
can
be
abused,
it
has
been
abused
and
some
of
us
are
struggle
with
the
idea
of
Commission's,
because
we
feel
it
will
be
abused
again
and
we
want
to
know
what
the
checks
and
balance
is
going
to
be
to
make
sure
that
the
chairs
of
those
Commission's
are
underneath
the
chair
of
Azam
and
that
things
are
managed
well
before.
We
feel
comfortable
that
this
will
not
just
be
a
degeneration
into
what
it
was
before.
Thank.
A
You
John
so
taking
what
Dom
has
said
and
and
linking
that
into
Tom's
suggestion
and
always
liking
to
give
Andrea
and
Lucy
a
challenge,
and
what
what
I'm
wondering
is
whether
we
could
pull
together
those
thoughts
and
concerns
because
actually
I
think
it
I
think
that
that
real
balance
between
openly
in
the
public
domain
and
accountable.
But
the
confidentiality
of
the
task
and
finish
groups,
is
an
interesting
one.
A
And
therefore
that
is
part
of
the
basis
of
how
we,
how
we
get
that
balance
right
within
the
hybrid
model
and
how
we
ensure
the
agendas
are,
something
that
are
are
flexible
but
also
not
at
the
behest
of
of
one.
Individual
person
is
something
that
I
think
is
really
important.
So
if
we
can
actually
bring
that
together
in
the
basis
of
a
paper
that
is
discussing
a
hybrid
model
of
the
best
of
commission
and
task
and
finish,
but
how
we
get
that
balance
because
I
get
the
sense
from
the
meeting
tonight.
A
Apart
from
mark
who
has
a
very,
very
clear
view
at
one
end
of
the
spectrum,
the
members
feel
there
needs
to
be
a
balance.
But
the
balance
isn't
as
much
as
outlined
in
the
paper
between
for
commissions
and
and
four
or
five
task
and
finish
group.
So
if
we
could
pull
that
together
as
a
paper
for
discussion
and
then
we
can,
we
can
then
see
how
that
evolves,
but
but
rest
assured,
Antony
and
Jude.
It
will
not
be
a
hot
house
because
I
unless
it
as
long
as
members
are
happy
with
me
chairing
it.
A
A
Now
that's
gone
slightly
longer
than
I
have
intended,
but
I
I
do
not
want
to
be
seen
to
be
dictatorial
and
therefore
I
will
give
the
opportunity
to
engage
I
suggest
we
have
a
two
and
a
half
minute
comfort
break,
and
then
we
will.
We
will
reconvene
and
hopefully
get
through
the
remaining
items
on
the
agenda
fairly
quickly.
A
H
Chair
just
to
just
to
advise,
there
has
been
obviously
some
talk
about
the
scrutiny
of
the
arena
and
any
upcoming
decision,
and
that
it
was
mentioned
at
the
last
awesome
meeting
by
the
officers
that
there
was
an
aiming
of
a
April
date
for
the
next
sort
of
report
back
on
the
arena.
And
so
this
was
an
opportunity.
If
you
wish
to
to
have
a
discussion
about
what
scrutiny
activity
wish
to
occur.
On
the
arena.
A
A
And
we
shouldn't,
we
shouldn't
really
be
laughing
around
this,
because
it
is
it's
sufficiently
serious
and
and
and
has
a
significant
impact
upon
members
in
representing
central
Bristol
and
North
Bristol
wards.
So
therefore,
is
something
that
and
I
don't
know
whether
we
have
an
understanding
from
cabin
of
how
of
how
much
members
feel
that
they
need
to
have
some
understanding
of
the
basis
on
which
the
decisions
are
being
taken
and
how
the
measurements
are
being
made
in
terms
of
the
economic
impact.
C
Just
to
follow
up
what
was
said
and
agreed
earlier
in
terms
of
what
was
said
last
time
if,
as
I
assume,
the
KPMG
brief
or
their
their
study
is
going
to
be
a
major
plank
in
what
in
in
the
final
decision,
that's
made
all
the
disor
the
decision
processes
made,
then,
frankly,
we
must
know
what
they're
looking
at.
We
must
know
the
range
of
their
of
their
tasks
because,
as
you
know,
I
don't
don't
know
rhetoric
what
we
all
said
earlier.
A
lot
of
people
weren't
in
the
room,
then
there's
a
huge
amount
resting
on.
C
This
is
not
just
where
it
goes.
It's
the
spin
off.
It's
the
implications,
it's
the
infrastructure,
it's
the
long-term
effects,
not
just
on
people
that
live
near
those
two
sites,
but
in
the
whole
city
of
Bristol,
particularly
terms
of
employment.
In
terms
of
frankly,
in
terms
of
the
way
we
run
our
so-called
public
transport
system,
it
it's
fundamental,
it's
a
massive
massive.
F
Supposed
to
just
want
to
speak
to
the
earlier
issue
about,
if
we
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
and
information,
and
in
fact
you
know
we
had
legal
in
warning
as
about
confidentiality
earlier.
So
there's
all
this
stuff
in
the
mix.
But
you
know
I
read
in
the
Bristol
Pope
received
in
post,
the
Bristol
City
Council
is
seriously
considering
building
a
brand
new
conference
center
there.
Now,
where
is
this
being
previous
to
be
discussed?
F
You
know
I
mean
it's,
so
we
can't
have
the
local
post
telling
us
made
up
things
or
real
things,
and
then
it's
all
just
to
be
in
a
nightmare.
Isn't
it
so
I
just
want
to
say
who's
making
decisions
like
that
about?
We
can
have
a
conference
center
to
make
us
money.
Looking
at
the
commercialization
pop-up
group
chair
over
there,
because
I've
never
seen
that
on
any
of
the
lists
of
things
we're
going
to
do
to
make
money.
F
A
P
Think
that,
with
regard
to
the
arena
and
also
respecting
commercial
sensitivity,
we
recognize
there
are
issues
around
this,
but
nonetheless
you
know
if
awesome
in
some
ways
it's
job
is
to
ask
laypersons
questions.
You
know
and
ask
the
stupid
question
about
the
amount
of
money
that
council
spending-
and
this
is
a
good
idea
which
I
do
think
is
function
of
awesome.
Then
I
think
that
a
massive
major
capital
investment
like
this-
if
it
doesn't
come
to
awesome,
it's
on
stage,
would
suggest
a
real
problem.
There
I
know,
but
we
will
be
ours.
P
Well,
what
were
you
scrutinizing
this
there
and
if
we've
enter
and
ran
in
Satyam,
our
constituents
know
sorry
that
decision
didn't
come
to
us.
We
had
no
idea
about
this,
then
I
think
we'll
be
seeing
as
derelict
in
our
duty.
So
it
seems
to
me
absolutely
essential
that
when
it's
as
soon
as
it's
appropriate,
but
we
are
given
as
much
information
as
possible
about
the
process
involved,
the
cost
involved
were
likely
times
involved
and,
of
course,
very
importantly,
for
us,
the
location,
I
think.
A
A
Is
it
worth
or
would
members
be
happy
if
we
put
a
further
statement
to
the
March
cabinet
along
the
lines
that
it
actually
says,
we
note
the
whatever
Colin
Martin's
title
is.
We
know
his
his
statement
that
a
decision
is
likely
to
be
taken
at
the
April
cabinet
and
we
urgently
ask
for
the
mayor
to
give
clarity
on
the
on
ensuring
that
there
is
sufficient
time
for
scrutiny
to
receive
and
review
the
plans
and
for
adequate
consultation
with
local
residents,
because
it
seems
to
me
without
that.
I
A
K
K
A
A
C
You
know
lump
of
infrastructure,
that's
gone
up
in
this
city
for
quite
some
time,
and
it's
been
going
on
for
a
long
time
too.
So
you
know
I
do
think.
That's
important
that
the
the
two
other
things
have
I
made
that
the
first
one
is
I
have
made
a
Freedom
of
Information
request
for
the
brief
for
KPMG
as
a
matter
of
interest.
C
I
don't
want
to
see
anything,
that's
going
to
put
anybody
commercially
in
a
spot,
but
I
certainly
need
to
to
know
what
there's
some.
What
we
should
do
that
the
final
thing
is-
and
you
might
be
surprised
to
hear
me
say
this:
if
I
were
the
mayor
right
now,
I
can't
see
any
way
that
it
could.
Let
us
on
see
this
at
this
stage,
because
there
are
going
to
be
long
term
contracts
being
being
bound
up.
C
There's
going
to
be
all
sorts
of
of
confidentiality,
of
checking
of
credentials
of
health
checks
and
everything
else
going
on,
which
will
take
many
many
weeks
and
probably
many
many
months.
Any
thing
that
gets
in
the
way
of
that
process
is
going
to
be.
I
can
imagine.
Mayor
would
be
very
concerned
about
so
and
I'm
gonna
say
with
my
hands
up.
I
understand
that
I
really
do
I
mean
I,
wouldn't
want
to
be
in
that
position
of
trying
to
get
something
out
publicly.
C
It
would
also
need
to
do
a
very,
very
complex,
particularly
for
those
two
sites
involved
and
not
just
two
sites,
but
what
might
come
out
of
the
one
of
the
sites
if
it
doesn't
go
there,
so
there's
lots
and
lots
of
options
in
here.
So
what
I
think
we
should
push
for
is
to
try
and
find
an
accommodation
with
the
mayor
in
the
way
that
I
do
reinforce
what
I
said
earlier
about
being
privy
councillors
of
somehow
being
able
to
do
our
job
without
querying
his
pitch
and
I.
C
A
G
A
G
Just
to
say
that
obviously
planning
only
comes
into
this
if
one's
looking
at
a
different
location,
because,
of
course
the
temple
needs
site
has
got
planning
consent
from
2016.
So
the
point
of
clarification
that
Steve
Pierce
asked
for
applies
only
if
we're
looking
at
a
new
site.
You
know
I,
should
set
aside
my
views
because
that,
having
been
involved
in
this
arena
project
on
an
offer
quite
a
few
years
now,
I
think
it.
G
You
know
we
all
know
the
different
preferred
processes
that
have
been
applied
in
the
past,
to
give
people
oversight
and
ability
to
comment,
but
in
the
perhaps
a
more
controlled
way
where
there
are
commercial
issues
and
cost
issues
involved.
You
know
that's
not
impossible
to
do,
but
I
do
think
in
on
a
matter
of
principle
and
I'm,
very
supportive
of
this
that,
before
any
final
decision
is
made
that
you
know
this
group
being
the
primary
Rev,
a
certain
school
need.
G
You
know,
as
Dom
said,
it
was
the
one
of
the
biggest
investments
there
are
others,
but
it's
one
of
the
biggest
investments
and
if
you
look
at
the
spin-off
potential
for
Bristol's
economy
and
Briscoes
future,
including
what
nicola
was
saying
earlier
about
the
city
centre
and
the
dynamics
of
the
city
as
a
whole,
you
know
you
only
really
get
one
go
at
this
yeah,
so
I
endorsed
the
view
that
it
ought
to
be
coming
here.
I
think.
A
Interesting
because
I
was
certainly
convinced
on
the
on
the
need
and
the
potential
for
an
arena.
What
I
find
myself
finally
I
find
it
impossible
to
know
is
what
the
impact
could
be
on
on
the
communities
in
North
Bristol.
If
there
was
a
relocation,
so
actually
I'm,
not
asking
for
the
confidential
bits
and
pieces,
what
I'm
wanting
to
know
is
what
are
the
factors
that
are
being
weighed
up?
What
does
that
mean
in
terms
of
traffic?
A
C
J
N
A
J
A
That's
right
because
I
I'd
already
thought
that
well
then
worked
out.
The
one
thing
we
do
need
is:
we
need
it
in
the
public
domain,
so
so
I
think
having
it
is
having
it
as
part
of
the
papers,
but
not
having
the
briefing
it
makes
absolute
sense,
yeah
and
if,
if
that
presents
a
problem
with
planners,
if
we
need
it
to
be
done,
is
a
a
briefing
with
a
private
briefing
before
the
meeting,
because
that's
the
only
way
they'll
do
it
and
I'd
be
very
reluctant
but
I'd.
A
Rather
we
did
that
and
have
them
had
some
form
of
briefing,
but
I
would
prefer.
It
was
public
and
point
taken
that
we
we'd
like
them
there
to
answer
questions,
but
not
to
spend
the
whole
time
talking
about
it,
so
that
they
don't
have
the
chance.
Okay
right.
Thank
you
all
for
that,
and
as
far
as
the
arena
is
concerned,
in
particular,
I
do
think
it's
probably
one
of
the
most
significant
issue
for
the
council
or
one
of
the
most.
A
So
if
there
are
issues
that
you
feel
in
terms
of
scrutiny,
involvement,
don't
hesitate
to
email
me
or
Andrea
Lucy
with
any
thoughts
or
concerns,
because
we've
got
we've
got
to
try
and
be
in
a
position
to
deal
with
this
practically
and
constructively,
but
being
prepared
to
question
in
that
way.
As
soon
as
we
can,
which
means
any
preparation
we
can
do
to
be
well
placed,
so
that
is
going
to
be
good.
C
We
reached
the
stage
of
submitting
the
report.
As
you
know
the
library's
task
and
finish
group.
We
then
realized
that
we
probably
had
further
work
to
do
in
terms
of
what
was
rolling
out
and
one
of
the
most
important
thing
was
to
find
out
what
was
rolling
out
and
that's
still
more
than
obscure
at
the
moment.
C
What
next
came
out
was
was
that
the
mutual
ventures
was
commissioned
by
Bristol
City
Council
before
the
change
of
policy
before
the
press
conference,
which
talked
about
looking
at
other
ways
of
considering
other
ways
of
going
forward.
So
in
other
words,
mutual
ventures
were
commissioned
to
do
essentially
the
wrong
piece
of
work,
or
rather
that's
unfair.
A
rather
outdated
piece
of
work
might
be
better,
might
be
a
better
put
and
that
couldn't
be
changed
and
we
were
then.
C
We
then
understood
that
that
problem
or
issue,
or
whatever
it
was
going
to
be
resolved
by
the
cabinet
member
team,
doing
a
piece
of
work
which
matched
what
was
said
at
the
press
conference.
But
now
we
understand
that
isn't
the
case.
So
we've
got
two
twin
streams
of
works
going
on,
both
of
which
are
entirely
focused
on
having
ten
core
libraries
and
the
rest
with
the
picnic
basket
of
books
coming
to
them,
which
is
not
what
was
agreed
or
agreed.
C
It's
not
certainly
what
came
out
of
the
consultation,
but
most
people
said
none
of
the
above.
It
wasn't
what
came
out
of
the
task
and
finish
group,
and
it
wasn't
what
came
out
of
the
counsel
motion.
So
we
do
seem
to
have
a
bit
of
a
mismatch
here.
Nevertheless,
three
workshops
would
convey
or
work
were
paid
for
by
mutual
ventures.
One
was
to
the
staff,
which
happened
before
all
the
others.
C
I
asked
to
sit
in
as
an
observer
because
loved
Bristol
libraries
asked
me
to,
and
despite
going
all
the
way
to
Nancy
Rollerson
I
was
told
that
was
absolutely
unacceptable.
I
was
told
by
an
officer
that
I
I
was
not
banned,
but
I
was
not
allowed
to
go
so
and
that
quadrature
is
in
the
same
sentence.
So
I
thought
that
was
really
quite
interesting.
Anyway.
I
mean
we
are
where
we
are,
and
that
is
well
but
I
understand.
C
That
was
for
commercial
reasons
and
I
I
imagined
that
there's
a
product
that
these
people
put
out,
that
their
front
isn't
poached
by
the
people.
So
III
guess
that's
the
reason,
but
there's
a
matter
of
interest.
That's
the
reason.
That's
never
been
given
to
me.
I've
just
been
told:
I
can't
attend,
so
we
then
for
those
of
you
who
didn't
go
to
that
tune.
A
half-hour
meeting
one
hour
of
it
was
one
hour.
It
was
a
workshop
following
a
presentation
and
that
workshop
set
I
will
be
brief.
C
Sorry,
it
set
a
certain
number
of
criteria
about
the
the
reason
for
changing
what
you're
trying
to
achieve
with
libraries
and
the
second
one
was
viability
of
how
you
could
actually
make
that
work,
and
we
were
asked
to
comment
on
those
and
we
were
very
much
under
pressure,
and
this
is
where
I
sorry
long
story.
This
is
where
I
actually
am
not
happy
with
Sandra
I'm.
C
Sorry
we're
very
much
under
pressure
to
be
seen
by
Mitchell
ventures
to
have
signed
this
off,
as
it
were,
to
have
contribute
to
this
process
and
therefore
verified
it
or
made
it
right
and
I.
Don't
think
seven
of
us
only
four
of
whom
were
the
task
and
finish
group.
You
are
in
any
way
representative
of
that
process
and
I,
don't
believe
we
should
add
credibility
to
that
process.
I'm
more
than
happy
for
the
conclusions
that
came
out
of
that
to
be
taken
forward,
but
not
to
be
credited
to
anybody
that
has
any
you
know.
A
F
I
have
to
say,
I'm,
just
a
bit
confused
to
Paulus,
so
I
understood
that
we've
got
money
from
the
department
of
digital
culture,
media
support
to
pay
for
mutual
ventures
to
do
a
piece
of
work
which
is
kind
of
policy
development
or
where
we
go
work
yeah.
So
it's
government,
money
and
I
didn't
think
they
were
developing
a
commercial
model
for
selling
off
the
libraries
or
spinning
off.
So
I.
Don't
really
understand
what
we've
got
this
commercial
sensitivity,
part
of
it
at
all.
If
we're
getting
state
money
to
help
a
local
government
sort
itself
out.
F
Well,
I,
don't
as
it's
just
a
question,
really
I'm,
still
very
unclear
as
to
what
the
timeline
is
for
this
and
I
speak
on
behalf
of
st.
Paul's,
Learning
Centre,
which
has
a
library
in
it
which
may
cease
to
be
in
it,
and
it's
making
their
business
planning
really
really
hard
because
they
thought
alike
we
might
go
in
in
April.
They
had
two
clients
coming
in
saying.
We
could
use
that
space
they've,
no
idea!
A
F
F
C
Think
there
were
two
questions
there.
Well,
one
is
the
clarification.
Are
the
organisation
mutual
ventures?
That's
doing
this,
for
the
GCMs?
Is
a
commercial
organisation
they're,
a
firm
of
consultants?
They're,
not
I,
don't
want
one
of
the
the
words
that
cropped
up
Ian
in
the
mayor's
statement.
Louis
was
that
one
of
the
options
was
to
go
on
a
commercial
basis.
That's
not
what
the
task
and
finish
group
suggested,
but
the
reason
I
raised
the
word
commercial
was
because
the
consultants
would
have
commercial
sensitivity
about
the
product
they
were
selling,
so
it
wasn't.
C
P
Thank
you
I
understand
from
that
that
that
any
proposals
to
close
loads
will
not
then
be
part
of
the
budget
in
February,
but
that's
what
we
had
originally
assumed,
but
this
would
lead
to
decisions
which
were
linked
to
budget
savings,
and
it
sounds
as
though,
but
because
of
the
additional
money.
That's
come
in
to
investigate
mutualization,
but
that's
now
being
deferred
until
a
decision
in
September
is
that
is
that
correct
that.
J
C
And
that
will
take
four
months
and
then
it
will
go
into
the
decision
pot
in
terms
of
what
libraries
might
close
and
white
not
close
I,
as
as
a
counselor
I.
Obviously,
I
wasn't
invited
to
the
press
conference.
I,
understand
senior
officers,
weren't
invited
the
press
conference
either,
but
the
press
have
told
me
two
or
three
of
the
press
are
very
currently
phoned
me
up
and
told
me
what
was
said
at
the
press
conference
so
I.
So
I
could
answer
your
question
and
the
the
understanding
is.
C
It
is
a
more
Pretoria
m--
that
that
no
no
decisions
will
be
taking
on
closing
any.
Oh
sorry,
let's
be
careful.
No
decisions
will
be
taken
on
withdrawing
funding
from
any
libraries
before
that
decision
is
made
a
September
now,
that's
a
second
hand
answer
because
I've
got
it
from
somebody
else,
but
that
that's
I
believe
that's.
That's.
P
Probably
okay,
because
I've
got
two
concerns.
One
is
about
the
the
the
buildings
which
we're
aware
many
of
Oh,
mainly
library
buildings,
constitute
the
only
sort
of
community
building
space
in
some
parts
of
a
city
and
once
they're
closed
they're
closed
and
there's
a
danger.
They
won't
be
opened
again
and
will
be
sold
off,
but
the
other
one
is
the
actual
proposals
for
reorganizing
the
library
service
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
person
have
a
problem
with
actually
restructuring
the
library
service.
I
think
there
are
things
we
could
do
better.
P
My
worry
is
that
this
is
kind
of
paying
out
over
such
a
long
period
of
time
it's
leaving
the
service
in
the
state
of
complete
uncertainty
and
also,
of
course,
users
of
a
service.
If
I
can
nobody
quite
knows
what's
happening
so
clarity
over
whether
it's
coming
to
the
budget?
Is
one
useful,
useful
piece
of
information
I
think?
But
we
I'm
still
concerned
about
whether
this
is
going
to
be
postponed
for
what
another
year,
maybe
another
couple
of
years.
Well,.
C
C
This
authority
refuses
to
accept
that
you
can
make
volunteers
and
paid
staff
work
alongside
each
other,
so
it
looks
like-
and
if
you
were
here,
I
hope,
she'd
freak
and
tell
me
to
stop
that.
I
was
wrong.
It
looks
like
we
are
going
down
the
route
of
10
core,
fully
staffed
libraries,
the
old
model
that
sliced
down
and
the
rest
will
be
volunteer.
Only
that's
and
that's
at
us,
that's
my
job.
No,
that's
my
genuine
interpretation
of
speaking
directly
to
Asha
and
to
Kate
Murray.
A
C
A
A
Well,
I
guess
I
think
I
think
we
should
ask
for
the
statement
in
advance
of
the
meeting
so
that
we've
got
it
to
consider,
but
it
would.
It
would
seem
logical
to
know
what
what
options
are
being
considered
and
what
the
timelines
are,
because
at
the
moment,
none
of
us
are
clear
and
certainly
in
terms
of
of
knowing
how
that
affects,
people
that
are
libraries,
it's
threatened
with
closure.
Is
people
and
I
totally
lost
the
plot
as
to
what's
happening,
because
they've
seen
a
library
same
twice
and
don't
actually
have
any
idea.
M
So
could
I
just
say:
I
mean
I
was
out
of
the
workshop
when
it
was
quite
clear
to
me
that
they
were
doing
the
workshop
because
they
were
commissioned
to
do
it
on
the
basis
of
10
plus
3,
and
they
were
aware
this.
It
may
not
be
the
final
solution
or
what
what
what
I
was
going
to
come
out
eventually-
and
it
was
done
within
that
context,
so
I
think
they
were
not
too
trying
I
didn't
get
any
person
any
was
trying
to
deceive.
Anyone
seem
to
be
Australia.
You've
been
commissioned
before
that
council
motion.
A
G
Just
think
that
the
continued
uncertainty
and
confusion
he's
obviously
impacting
locally
and
I
listened
to
what
was
said
about
the
st.
Paul's
side,
that
you
know,
organizations
where
they
exist
and,
of
course
one
of
the
challenges
is
that
the
capacity
doesn't
exist
in
a
standard
way
across
the
city.
Some
parts
of
the
city
are
well
able,
maybe
to
do
the
business
planning
for
future
scoping
in
terms
of
what
might
happen
to
the
library
space,
but
others
you
know
haven't,
got
that
capacity.
So
it's
it's
frustrating
those
local
and
initiatives
with
people
are.
G
G
It's
the
logistics
that
kind
of
you
know
provides
the
books
and
the
DVDs
and
the
IT
support
and
all
the
other
stuff
that
goes
into
a
wide-ranging
local
facility,
which
is
more
than
just
books,
but
the
books,
but
is
really
really
important,
and
that
and
I
think
that
the
longer
the
uncertainty
continues.
You
know
the
more
the
some
a
some
some
of
these
local
initiatives
were
frustrated
and
be
I
also
think
that
the
staff
them
themselves
they're
gonna,
be
in
a
state
of
limbo.
So
you
know
clarity,
isn't
it
needed?
Isn't
it
thank.
A
You
mark
can
I
just
add
from
a
point
of
view
of
a
busy
library
that,
whilst
whilst
my
community
might
be
able
to
resource
some
of
them,
the
help
is
needed
actually
in
a
in
a
quiet
library.
The
throughput
of
books
is
a
very
different
situation.
If
you
have
a
library,
this
is
quite
heavily
used.
Actually,
some
volunteers
not
trained
I'm,
not
going
to
be
able
to
cope,
and
that's
one
of
the
issues.
A
H
You
I
just
want
to
highlight
and
I
will
get
clarification
for
you,
because
I
know
there
has
been
a
lot
of
changes
at
the
senior
officer
corps
and
I.
Just
think
we
do
need
to
be
a
little
bit
careful
to
just
reference
a
name
of
an
officer
that
is
a
third-tier
officer.
It's
not
it's.
Not
a
director
and
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
we
do
need
to
be
careful
as
scrutiny.
H
You
know
in
terms
of
naming
individual
officers
who
obviously
respond
to
the
needs
of
the
executive,
so
I
recognize
there's
been
a
lot
of
change
so
that
the
name
mention
is
a
has
been
a
constant
through
that
that
they're
not
a
director,
and
they
are
not
obviously
a
member
of
the
executive.
So
I
do
just
want
to
highlight,
because
that
has
cropped
up
now
and
again,.
A
F
Are
going
to
invite
Asher
to
come
and
speak
to
us?
I
would
very
much
like
her
to
tie
in
her
reply
with
some
fleshing
out
of
the
proposals
that
have
been
meant
several
times
about
joining
all
this
up
with
children,
centers
and
other
hopes
of
activity.
He
mentioned
it
as
a
full
council
meeting
last
time
and
I
still
don't
have
a
feeling
for
how
we're
managing
that
process
of
joining
people
up
together
in
these
shared
spaces,
which
is
also
part
of
the
grand
plan,
the
end
she
was,
but
we
didn't,
we
missed
the
opportunity.
K
A
We
are
now
effectively
running
out
of
time,
as
we
are
meant
to
be
concluding
in
the
next
five
minutes,
so
I
find
it
difficult
to
see
how
we
can
do
justice
to
the
work
that's
going
on
in
the
task
and
finish
groups
in
that
time.
I
know
members
have
read
the
summary:
does
anyone
have
anything
they
wish
to
add
and
respect
of
any
of
the
groups
they're
involved
with
Jude?
That.
F
The
summaries
great,
but
actually
it's
out
of
date
because
there's
been
at
least
one
time,
perhaps
meeting-
that's
not
updated
on
there.
So
we
had
a
great
meeting.
It
was
very
interesting
I'm,
not
sure
it
was
Tuscan
finish,
and
this
happened
last
time
as
well.
So
perhaps
we
could
move
this
report
to
near
the
front
of
the
agenda
for
next
time,
so
we
can
give
it
the
time
it
deserves.
A
K
H
I
think
this
would
be
a
very
useful
piece
to
be
brought
to
scrutiny,
both
in
into
two
ways,
one
for
scrutiny
to
look
at
and
agree
or
uncomment
on
whether
those
service
plans
and
business
plans
have
all
the
areas
that
you
would
expect
to
be
covered
and
then
to
at
a
later
point
for
that
to
be
quite
a
key
part,
I.
Think
of
looking
at
future
work
programs.
Potentially
now
that
obviously
will
tie
into
the
discussion
we
had
earlier.
H
The
timing
they're
looking
to
work
through
is
very
tight,
so
they're
looking
to
have
obviously
the
approval,
hopefully
and
next
week's
full
council
meeting
and
then
from
there
for
the
business
plans
to
then
be
able
to
be
implemented
for
the
beginning
of
the
financial
year.
So
if
they
were
to
come
to
scrutiny,
they
would
need
to
come
in
the
March
session
if
you
wanted
to
input
into
them
before
they
effectively
become
live
on.
My
so.
A
J
A
A
The
third
item
is
written
down
here,
so
I'm
not
making
up
Charlie
its
housing
company,
cuz
Charlie
emailed
me
on
that,
and-
and
that
did
seem
to
me
that
it's
a
very
significant
issue-
I
had
a
brief
discussion
with
Shazia
earlier
about
that
specific
issue,
because
I've
I
wanted
to
make
it
clear.
I
don't
want
I,
don't
want
anything
that
we
might
do
to
hold
up
house
building,
but
the
Meccan
it.
A
The
question
of
whether
the
housing
company
run
in
the
same
way
as
the
other
two
companies
is
the
right
vehicle
for
investing
a
large
sum
of
money
in
housing
is
something
that
we
I
think
should
be
involved
in
the
scrutiny
of
and
and
both
in
terms
of
the
business
plan
in
the
direction
of
travel.
So
I
would
suggest-
and
I
am
told
that
that
was
it-
was
it
that
that
is
planned
to
happen
in
April
as
a
decision
in
April.
So
I've
got
a
feeling.
A
A
As
a
result
of
that
moving
forward,
the
meeting
in
common
happened
on
the
31st
of
January
Brenda
was
at
that
meeting.
I've
suggested
it
should
be
a
specific
item
on
our
March
agenda
so
that
it
goes
it.
The
report
back
goes
in
again
into
the
public
domain,
so
that
no
one
can
say
that
we're
trying
to
conceal
it
and
I
felt
it
was
more
appropriate
that
it
was
brought
up
in
that
way,
then
put
on
an
itemized
agenda
for
this
meeting.
A
But
it
was
a
concern
about
not
being
vast
diesel
pollutants
rushing
around
the
streets,
but
something
more
so
what
well
someone
was
expressing
that
view
and
and
and
we
again
were
told
at
one
stage-
the
timeline
was
actually
that
would
have
to
be
decided
by
the
beginning
of
April,
but
but
there's
no
sign
of
any
recommendations
or
proposals.
At
this
stage,
but
again
I
think
members
would
agree.
A
That
means
that
that's
sufficiently
significant
because
effectively,
if
the,
if
the
waste
company
procures
vehicles
its
sub
stage
in
the
next
12
months,
that
will
mean
they've
determined
how
they're
going
to
collect
waste
for
the
next
eight
years.
So,
therefore,
that
is
pretty
fundamental,
and
the
final
item
was
the
the
the
Youth
Council
and
yep
yep.
C
There
was
another
thing
on
my
list
because
in
consultation,
but
the
other
one
was
the
HRA
and
I
was
wondering
if
Paul
is
going
to
do
a
thing
on
the
housing
company.
If
we
couldn't
open
that
up
a
bit
and
just
do
a
catch
up
with
the
HRA,
because
it's
the
what's
in
the
minutes
here
of
the
meeting
that
we
held
Rossum
is,
is
my
understanding.
What
was
set
at
cabinet
is
not
my
understanding
and
I
think
we
need
to
understand,
which
is
which
I.
A
N
A
B
But
I
just
like
to
flag
up
something
and
I'd
like
us
to
look
at
at
some
stage
and
that's
awesome
relationship
with
the
health
and
well-being
board,
because
I
know
that
that
has
been
looked
at
again
and
it
has
its
own
full
statutory
role
within
the
council,
but
I
think
it's
awesome.
We
need
to
to
understand
exactly
what
that
role
is.
It
can
make
decisions,
I
think
without
coming
to
scrutiny,
but
I
think
we
oughta
have
some
input
on
to
the
agenda
to
have
some
knowledge
of
its
work
program.
A
C
A
The
point
at
the
point
is
that
the
items
that
we
we
were
made
a
fuss
about
not
scrutinizing.
Last
time
the
decision
had
already
been
taken
at
the
October
whacker
meeting,
so
consequently
it
didn't
matter
that
we
didn't
scrutinize
it
because
it
had
already
been
taken.
So
that's
that's
the
bit
I'm
saying
so.
We
need
to
be
in
front,
which
means
officers
need
to
be
sharing
again
in
the
forward
plan
so
that
we
know
when
it's
coming
up
and
that
may
be
enough,
but
not
necessarily
for
a
commission.
A
G
People
aren't
leaving
the
room
I'm
going
to
be
really
brief,
but
on
the
waste
issue
that
you
mentioned
just
an
observation,
there
was
a
very
useful
inquiry
day
a
couple
years
ago
on
the
whole
waste
minimisation
recovery.
You
know
a
whole
whole
whole
range
of
issues,
and
it's
such
a
critical
issue
for
the
city
and
for
residents
that
you
know
I
just
finishes
the
opinion
that
maybe
another
inquiry
days
overdue.
It's
such
a
complicated
area,
but
the
technologies
are
moving
on
and
new
approaches
are
not
and
all
that
yep.