Meeting Details

A Committee member wished to request that an urgent item of business was considered by the Committee, relating to the Council’s involvement in a property development at the Northern Gateway Sport Park in Colchester, and the financial position of one the potential tenants of this development. The Chair acknowledged the request, and suggested that any discussion around this topic was most properly dealt with during the portion of the meeting from which the public were excluded, which was already provided for in the agenda, as it was likely that information which was exempt from public publication would form part of this discussion. 

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2024 be confirmed as a correct record.

The Committee considered a report which provided an update on improvements and progress which had been made to Colchester City Council's procurement processes and activity.

Matt Howe, Senior Procurement Consultant, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee heard that the Council’s procurement process had been the subject of 2 audits, firstly in 2022 when a limited assurance audit opinion had been obtained with 9 outstanding actions, and again in 2023 when a limited assurance opinion had again been obtained which had contained only 2 key areas for improvement. The areas for improvement which had been identified had been in relation to the Council’s use of waiver forms, and processes had now been changed to address this issue to improve the traceability of this procurement and ensure that correct records were being kept. The other area where improvement had been required related to procurement with a single supplier which had exceeded a spend of £45,000, and a number of areas had been identified where work was required to improve this part of the audit, including continually monitoring annual spend with suppliers and the use of a new finance system which would give staff the ability to monitor this spend even more closely. It was considered that the Procurement Act 2023 was likely to have a significant impact on the way in which the Council provided and reported information, and further work would be undertaken in relation to this once the requirements of the legislation were known.

The Committee sought clarification on how the centralisation of the Council’s procurement processes worked, were there instances of departments procuring outside the central framework? The Senior Procurement Consultant confirmed that some procurement was still carried out within individual departments, but this position was improving, and most departments now sought appropriate advice from him on the correct procedure to be followed. Significant improvements were being made to the ways in which Council Officers could approach the procurement team including the use of new online forms to capture greater data, and an updated internal website for Council staff containing additional information to help Officers procure correctly. The Chief Operating Officer assured the Committee that the Council’s strict Financial Procedure Rules ensured that any spend which may not have followed central procedures would be at a very low level, as Council processes provided that levels of control increased in accordance with the level of spend.

In discussion, the Committee understood the commitment to seeking best value in procurement, however, it wondered whether smaller local companies would be excluded from bidding for larger contracts which may cover the whole of the city, for example a contract for tree surgery. How was this potential issue addressed through the procurement process? The Senior Procurement Consultant confirmed that before any tender was issued, discussions would take place with relevant Officers, and the Council often sought multiple contractors for a contract with a wider scope. Taking the example of tree surgeons, it would be the case that a number of contracts may be offered to provide resilience in case of increased demand for a service. Although the Council did often award contracts via national frameworks, where possible local suppliers were preferred.  

The Committee sought further clarification around the need to provide social value through procurement, what did this mean in real terms? The Senior Procurement Consultant confirmed that since 2020 the Council had used an external company to assist in delivering social value by analysing bids on the Council’s behalf against a number of themes, outcomes and measures (known as TOMS) which encompassed a wide variety of measures including employment, buying locally, training needs, working with charities, carbon footprint, and health issues. Colchester had approximately 50 TOMS, and work was ongoing to reduce this list to make it easier for suppliers to apply. The social value portal requirements were only implemented for tenders worth in excess of £100,000, and contracts with a value below £100,000 did not use the TOMS system because there was a cost implication to using this for both the Council and the supplier. Questions were, however, asked in relation to whether local apprenticeship schemes were used by the potential supplier or whether they subscribed to the Armed Forces Covenant, as well as questions around environmental issues such as a potential supplier’s carbon footprint. Obtaining social value was quite key to the procurement process, but this was an element of the process were improvements were sought, and potential suppliers were offered assistance when engaging with the Council’s procurement process to increase the available analysis of the social value which was offered in more detail.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Senior Procurement Consultant confirmed that significant work was undertaken with Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) to ensure that there was compliance with the Council’s aggregated spend limit of £45,000. CBH was keen to use local suppliers wherever possible, as well as seeking to obtain the best value for money from its contracts. Less work of this nature was undertaken with the Colchester and Ipswich Museums Service, but advice was offered in relation to procurement processes whenever necessary.

A Committee member noted that an area of significant expense for the Council was the provision of temporary accommodation, how was it ensured that the procurement rules worked well in this area given the Council’s relationships with a large number of suppliers? The Senior Procurement Consultant confirmed that this was an area of procurement which had been identified as warranting careful monitoring for this reason, and work was underway with CBH Officers to offer any assistance which was necessary.

In discussion, the Committee sought clarification of the limit of £45,000 for any single spend, was this a limit which was applied to a single contract, or aggregated over the financial year? If the limit applied over the financial year, how was it possible to prevent multiple invoices being submitted to the same supplier which individually were below the limit, but which exceeded the £45,000 scrutiny threshold for the financial year? The Senior Procurement Consultant confirmed that the implementation of a new finance system would provide the capacity for far greater analysis of the Council’s spend during a financial year, and the capacity to monitor this spend more closely. At the present time, aggregated spend per supplier was considered retrospectively as past invoices were considered, however, when any purchase order which was over £10,000 was submitted, this first went to the Senior Procurement Consultant to examine and to determine that the correct process had been followed, which also allowed for a tally of expenditure to be maintained. More training was now offered to staff so that Officers were more aware of the Council’s rules with regard to spending with suppliers, and it was anticipated that significant improvements would be made to compliance in a short time.

RESOLVED that: the actions which had been taken in response to the procurement audit be noted.

The Committee considered a report which provided members with an overview of the Council’s risk management activity undertaken during the financial year from 01 April 2023 to 31 March 2024.

Hayley McGrath, Corporate Governance Manager, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee heard that 2 reports concerned with risk management were presented to it during the financial year, a year-end report and a six-monthly interim report which provided an update on the Council’s strategic risks.

The Committee was invited to consider the Council’s performance for the preceding financial year, and consider the Council’s current Strategic Risk Register making comments as necessary. The Committee was also invited to consider the Risk Management Strategy 2024/2025 which was before it and to endorse the presentation of the Officer’s report to Cabinet to seek approval of this Strategy. The Risk Management Strategy formed part of the Council’s policy framework and as such was approved by Cabinet and then ratified by Full Council.

During the preceding year, there had been significant focus on the Council’s governance arrangements in the preceding year, in addition to the usual risk management activity, and the Committee had received several reports as a result of this focus, particularly in relation to the Council’s wholly owned companies. Services across the organisation had been advised in respect of issues within the Strategic Rick Register to ensure that the necessary controls were in place, and operational risks had also been addressed.

The Council’s Risk Management Strategy was reviewed each year to ensure that it remained fit for purpose, and any audit recommendations had been taken into account. The Strategic Risk Register set out what the Council considered to be its key strategic risks, and this Register was now reviewed by the Council’s Senior Leadership Board every month, whereas it had previously been reviewed quarterly. The increase in frequency of these reviews enabled swifter responses to be taken to any emerging issues, and recognised that the Council operated in a rapidly changing risk environment.

For the majority of 2023/2024, the strategic risks had remained consistent, and it was considered that the key risk remained in relation to the Council’s Information Technology (IT) and cybersecurity, which were issues of fundamental importance. Other areas identifying key risks were organisational resilience, budget strategy, workforce wellbeing, financial equality and the management of the Council’s assets.

The Committee acknowledged the work which was undertaken to consider the high-level risks which the Council faced, but considered that this alone did not address one very important area, that of risks associated with the Council’s projects. In discussion, it was suggested that there was a need to assess the risks associated with development projects which were the responsibility of the Council. These risks needed to be accurately reported and assessed so that a mechanism existed to provide assurance that the Council had the necessary resources to cope with complicated development projects.

The Corporate Governance Manager confirmed to the Committee that the topic of project risks had been raised with the Chief Operating Officer, and it was recognised that project risks did need to be reported as strategic risks to the Committee. Accordingly, it was intended that an overview of these project risks would form part of the standard risk reporting which was presented to the Committee in the future.

The Committee noted the high-level risk of organisational resilience, which had been reported as being low. Was organisational resilience still considered to be low, or had the position now improved? The Chief Operating Officer attended the meeting and offered assurance to the Committee that organisational resilience had been improving. A range of activities had been identified to respond to this risk, with a firm focus on employee wellbeing and morale, and these activities included an improved employee assistance programme and activities to build camaraderie in the workforce.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Corporate Governance Manager confirmed that data which the Council held electronically in the ‘cloud’ was exclusively stored on servers located within Europe.

A Committee member again considered organisational risks, and noted that it had been intended to cut 25% from the Council’s budget as part of the Council’s ‘Fit for the Future’ programme. It was suggested that such a high reduction in budgets would prove unsustainable and would carry a high risk of demoralising staff and local residents, with reduced access to key Council services such as the Planning Team, leading to long-term reputational damage. The Chief Operating Officer addressed these concerns and explained to the Committee that the ‘Fit for the Future’ programme sought to achieve a reduction in the net operating costs of the Council, and the budget savings in the first year of the programme had been predicated not on budget cuts but on the Council’s income, which was performing well. The Committee was assured that no savings had been taken from the Council’s Planning Service, and the team was held in very high regard by developers.

In discussion, the Committee discussed the risk concerned with financial inequality and the cost of living crisis. Updates on the Council’s work to address this risk had been provided to the Council’s Policy Panel, which no longer existed. How were these updates considered now? The Chief Operating Officer confirmed to the Committee that support for most vulnerable residents of Colchester was a key element of the Council’s Strategic Plan, and performance against this plan was reported to the Council’s Scrutiny Panel on a 6 monthly basis, as well as to Cabinet.

The Committee suggested that a definitive list of the Council’s corporate assets was needed, which also contained information on how these assets were being used to best effect, did the Council have this information? The Corporate Governance Manager assured the Committee that a large programme of work had been undertaken to provide a comprehensive review of the Council’s corporate assets, and to consider how the benefits of these assets could be maximised in the future.

RESOLVED that:

- The Council’s progress and performance in managing risk during the period from April 2023 to March 2024 be noted.

- The current strategic risk register be noted.

- The Risk Management Strategy for 2024/25 had been considered.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that:

- the Risk Management Strategy for 2024/25 be approved subject to the inclusion of project risk management.

- Councillors be more closely involved in the project risk management process.  

The Committee considered a report which requested that it consider the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) published, revised, guidance for the operation of Local Authority Audit Committees in 2022.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee had before it a detailed report and appendices and was reminded that Full Council had considered a report concerning constitutional changes at Full Council in May 2024. The report which was before the Committee represented the start of the process of ensuring compliance with the CIPFA Position Statement on audit committees and further reports would be presented to it as the process continued. The CIPFA Position Statement had been published in 2022, and related to Local Authority and Police Audit Committees, and it set out the practice and principles which audit committees should adopt. These practices and principles were not mandatory but represented best practice, and it was considered that the Council should make the best effort possible to adopt the principles contained in the Statement. The Statement was accompanied by guidance which had been circulated to the Committee separately as this guidance was not a public document. It was intended to create an online repository of documents for the use of the Committee which would be added to over time, and which would contain such documents as CIPFA guidance to assist the Committee in performing its role.

The Position Statement set out key information including the purpose of an audit committee as an independent committee, the core function of an audit committee, the membership and composition of an audit committee, the engagement and output of the committee and its impact in the organisation. The core functions of an audit committee and the expected characteristics of the committee were set out in the Officer’s report, however, there was the need to recognise that the Governance and Audit Committee in Colchester fulfilled additional functions given to it by Full Council such as the Council’s Standards and Shareholder Committee, together with other governance functions, and was therefore not just operating as an audit committee.

The CIPFA guidance did say that the Council should undertake a self-assessment and map the results of this against the requirements of the Position Statement. Accordingly, an initial assessment had been undertaken which was appended to the Officer’s report, and which had provided a score of 108 out of a maximum possible score of 200. It was considered that the Committee complied with the basic principles of the Position Statement, however, areas of potential improvement had been identified for the Committee to consider. It was suggested that some key areas for improvement centred around the roles of the Committee and the capacity in which it was acting, together with reporting the effectiveness of the work of the Committee and ensuring that Committee members had appropriate skills.

Following on from the initial assessment, an action plan had been drawn up together with proposed revised Procedure Rules for the Committee and these documents were appended to the Officer’s report. The Committee was invited to submit the revised Procedure Rules to Full Council for ratification and inclusion in the Council’s Constitution. Additionally, a draft revised work programme layout was also appended to the Officer’s repot which intended to clarify to the Committee in which capacity it was acting when considering particular agenda items and how these related to the core function of the audit committee. If the draft action plan was agreed, then a draft annual report to Full Council would be prepared for the Committee to review and approve at a future meeting, and this draft report would detail the activities of the Committee during the municipal year.

It was necessary to undertake a skills gap analysis to ensure that the Committee had the necessary skills in its members to be effective in accordance with the guidance. The Position Statement also suggested that the Committee should maintain a close relationship with the Council’s internal and external auditors, and should hold meetings with these auditors which would be private and held in an informal setting.

The Position Statement indicated that, if possible, the Committee should contain independent members, and possibly have an independent Chair, however, it was considered that this suggestion needed significant further thought and would be the subject of detailed review in the future.

The Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer noted that the guidance also mentioned the potential separation of the Committee from the Council’s executive and its Scrutiny Panel so that there was no crossover, which meant that ideally no members of this Committee or the Scrutiny Panel would also be members of the Council’s executive. However, he believed that given the political makeup of the authority, a pragmatic view was necessary in relation to this element of the guidance, and that it was more appropriate to consider this proposed degree of separation further into the compliance process.

The Committee heard that it was accepted that further action was needed, but at present the Committee was asked to confirm that it agreed with the initial self-assessment, proposed action plan, revised work programme template and the revised Governance and Audit Procedure Rules for commendation to Full Council.

The Chair reminded the Committee that attaining compliance with the Position Statement and guidance would take some time, and he considered that the Committee should use its best endeavours to introduce best practice in readiness for the next municipal year. He was anxious about the membership of the Committee and did not wish to disenfranchise any Member of the Council, and although it was accepted that some Councillors would not wish to sit on the Committee care had to be taken that Councillors without a financial background could still be members of the Committee if they wished, and adequate training was required to support this. He offered support for the proposed changes to the structure of future agendas.

In discussion, the Committee acknowledged the volume and complexity of the suggestions which were contained within the Officer’s report. It considered that the introduction of lay members of the Committee would involve a high level of commitment, particularly if this was to be implemented by the start of the next municipal year. Inherent difficulties which may exist in recruiting lay members of the Committee could include ensuring that they were politically neutral, and had the necessary expertise and sufficient time to devote to the role. When considering the training requirements that suitable to support the Committee, it was suggested that training should not be limited to Member’s Code of Conduct and the Council’s statement of accounts, but should additionally seek to support the other roles of the Committee. In general terms any training would be welcomed, and this should be offered to all Members of the Council to provide opportunities to join the Committee in the future, and to make the training as cost effective as possible.

The pragmatic approach which had been suggested by the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer when considering appropriate membership of the Committee was supported, and it was considered that of primary importance was to ensure that the most appropriate Councillors were members of the Committee, and rigid independence from the administration may not therefore be practical. It was noted that Colchester was a small Council with a relatively limited pool of Councillors to draw upon for Committee membership, and it was considered that it was important to maintain the ability to send substitute members to sit on the Committee if needed. It was suggested that one of the biggest challenges facing the Committee in its role as an audit committee was the lack of a set of audited accounts, and independent meetings with the Council’s auditors would be very useful, and would be welcomed. The proposed suggestion that a document library be created to support the work of the Committee by providing access to relevant guidance documents and other pertinent information was met with approval.

Returning to the possibility of introducing independent members of the Committee, a number of Committee members raised their concerns. The Council had introduced independent members in the past as part of its Best Value Panel, and it was suggested that these members had not added a great deal of value to the Panel as the Council had a very complicated structure, and truly independent lay Committee members would have no background in the functioning of a local authority. It was suggested that it would be extremely difficult to find someone with the skills and interest necessary to understand local authority finances, and the desire to come to meetings in the evenings. Although the guidelines should be adopted wherever possible, if not all the criteria were able to be met then any areas of discrepancy should simply be declared as part of the Committee’s annual report to Full Council. Had any evidence been sought from other local authorities who had introduced independent members onto its audit committees? Any positive outcomes or issues which had been experienced as a result of this would be extremely useful to inform future discussion on the topic.

Considering the initial self-assessment which had been completed, a Committee member considered that some of the scores which had been awarded were potentially too low, and the Committee did have positive meetings which generated good outcomes, for example the work which it had recently undertaken in respect of the Council’s wholly owned companies.

Hayley McGrath, Corporate Governance Manager, attended the meeting and answered questions which had been raised by the Committee. No official sanctions would be imposed if the Council failed to implement the suggestions which were contained within the guidance, however, the suggestions were considered to be examples of good practice which would be noted by both the Council’s internal and external auditors in the future. Examples of how to proceed with a skills gap analysis were contained within the CIPFA guidance, which suggested what appropriate skills may be for Committee members. Officers would present a proposed approach to the skills analysis work to the Committee in the future for its approval, and the results of the analysis would then be used to generate an appropriate training programme to target areas where the need for improvements may have been identified. Any and all training provided would be made available to all Councillors.

Turning to the process of the potential appointment of independent persons, the Committee heard that the Council already had 2 independent members of the Committee who were consulted when standards matters were considered. These persons were appointed every 4 years via a recruitment process which involved advertising a suitable job description. The independent persons were very involved with Code of Conduct complaints and would verify the findings of any investigation which had been carried out, and they would also form part of the Committee when it met to consider a Code of Conduct complaint. If lay members were to take up a position on the Committee itself, it would be proposed that a similar recruitment process would be followed, with a job description and advertisement to seek interested people who wished to be involved, with additional checks carried out to ensure political independence. The Council was a member of the Eastern Region Audit Committee Chairs Group, which contained some independent Chairs of audit committees, and advice would be sought from this group in relation to the appointment of lay members of the Committee in due course. The Committee was reminded that its purpose was not limited to financial matters, but other areas of governance and internal control, as well as risk management and control processes. The Committee also received internal audit reports which were of equal importance to the reports it received from the Council’s external auditors.

A Committee member considered that there was a difference between an independent member of the Committee when considering standards issues and when the Committee was considering financial matters, and he did not consider that what worked well for standards hearings would also work well for the financial work of the Committee. It was important to analysis the experience of other local authorities before any future decision was made in relation to lay members of the Committee.

In discussion, the Committee noted the large amount of work which may be required to implement the suggestions contained within the Position Statement and guidance, and suggested that Officers approach this work with caution to ensure that work which was carried out delivered appropriate improvements to the work and structure of the Committee.

The Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer advised the Committee that in May 2024, the government had published statutory guidance on best value interventions, which indicated that one of the characteristics of a failing local authority was the lack of effectiveness of its audit committee. It could therefore be argued that if an issue arose in the future, failure to implement the suggestions which had been made could be seen as a characterisation of potential failure of the authority.

Summing up the debate, the Chair believed that the report contained a significant number of positive suggestions for the composition and function of the Committee in the future, however, was mindful of the likely volume of work that delivering the proposed changes would involve. The Committee had indicated that it did not wish to go ahead with the appointment of independent members at this time, but consider this in the future when additional information had been made available. It was also necessary to remain cautious in relation to implementing every recommendation which had been made in the guidance. The presentation of an annual report to Full Council was supported by the Committee, and it was essential that all Councillors were aware of the work which it had undertaken during the year, including work around risk management, internal and external as well as governance oversight.

RESOLVED that:

- The contents of the Position Statement had been considered and reviewed;

- The results of the initial self-assessment, and the Council’s current arrangements compared to the position statement, had been reviewed and commented on;

- The proposed action plan be agreed, subject to amendments suggested by the Committee;

- The proposed change in layout of the Committee’s work programme be agreed

RECOMMENDED to Council that:

- The proposed revised Governance and Audit Committee Procedure Rules be recommended to Council for adoption and incorporation into the Council’s Constitution. 

The Committee had expected to consider a report setting out the Quarter 4 provisional outturn for 2023/2024.

The Chair explained that he had decided to deal with this item first during the meeting, which was a change to the order of the published agenda, as Councillor Cory, the Portfolio Holder for Resources, had attended the meeting remotely and no members of staff from the Council’s Finance Team were present at the meeting. The Committee had been expecting to receive a written report on the Quarter 4 Budget Monitoring Report 2023/2024 (Provisional Outturn), but unfortunately this report had not been available in time for this meeting, and it would now form an item on the agenda of the Committee at its meeting scheduled for 10 September 2024. Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, attended the meeting and explained to the Committee that the Council’s Deputy S151 Officer had attended a briefing meeting with the Chair and Group Spokespersons of the Committee to explain the progress with the outturn position. There had been 2 key factors in the delay of the report, which were the complexities around the hibernation of 2 of the Council’s wholly owned commercial companies, and a particular human resource issue within the Council’s Finance Team.

Councillor Cory, attended the meeting remotely, and, at the invitation of the Chair, addressed the Committee. He provided an overview of the contents of the Quarter 4 Budget Monitoring Report and explained that the Council’s financial position had improved since the Committee had last considered a Budget Monitoring Report. The Council’s overspend had been lower than previous reports had anticipated, and the costs associated with the hibernation of the Council’s wholly owned companies had been managed within the current financial year. He understood that the Committee wished to focus on the risks associated with assets which the Council held, and these risks would be included in the outturn report when it was presented to the Committee. The overspend on the Council’s General Fund was considered to be approximately £450,000, however, the largest area of overspend was related to homelessness within the city and the cost of temporary accommodation. Underspend against budget had been delivered by the cautious approach which had been taken by the Council in respect of its Capital Programme. The Chair had been in receipt of information provided by the Deputy S151 Officer, and advised the Committee that The Council’s that general fund reserves were slightly in excess of £30m at the end of March 2024, taking into account additional surpluses of business rates of £4.2m at December 2023. Final figures in respect of the Council’s Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and capital outturn would be provided in the final report which would be presented to the Committee in September 2024.

A Committee member noted that the forecast position which had been presented to the Committee was continually changing, and the last forecast which had been considered had seemed to indicate that there would be a decline in the Council’s reserves by approximately £6m. What did the Portfolio Holder for Resources now believe that the final use of reserves would be? An index which had provided by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) indicated that the Council was using its reserves, and the Council’s reserve position needed to be considered very carefully. Did the Council intend to carry out a valuation of the development at the Northern Gateway as at 31 March 2024, and had such a valuation been commissioned yet?

The Portfolio Holder for Resources was not able to provide detailed feedback in respect of a valuation of the Northern Gateway site, but assured the Committee that significant work was being undertaken in this area. A general book valuation of the site had been obtained, and a full valuation would be confirmed in due course. Turning to the Council’s use of reserves, he confirmed that the Council’s administration was balancing the budget, and the reserve position was positive, and a final review of this position was being caried out. It was the aim of the administration to provide a balanced budget each year, but there had been some overspend during this financial year due to factors such as increased demand for housing, however, this overspend had been offset by increased income or reduced expenditure elsewhere. The Committee was assured that the Council was not depleting its reserves, and the position would be explained when the full outturn report was presented to the Committee.

The Committee noted that the Council’s financial position appeared to have greatly improved since it had considered the Quarter 3 Outturn Report, and accepted that this improved position had arisen as a result of the decision which had been taken not to roll forward unspent budgets in a range of areas, totalling approximately £1.45m. In addition to this, additionally, the Portfolio Holder for Resources confirmed that the additional expenditure associated with the pay award for Council staff which had been approved during the year had been addressed in-year through resource cuts, in addition to the savings which had been delivered by the Council’s Capital Programme. Further details would be provided to the Committee at its meeting scheduled for 10 September 2024.

The Committee considered a report setting out its work programme for the current municipal year.

The Head of Governance and Monitoring suggested that the item currently listed on the work programme for the meeting of the Committee scheduled for 10 September 2024; Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Annual Review 2023/2024 could be moved to the meeting of the Committee scheduled for 26 November 2024.

The Chair noted the large proposed agenda for the meeting of the Committee scheduled for November 2024, and requested that Officers identify a date in December for an additional meeting of the Committee to take place.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the work programme be noted, subject to the addition of the presentation of a draft annual report and revised action plan to the meeting of the Committee scheduled for 10 September 2024.