Meeting Details

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meetings held on 18 November 2025, and 20 January 2026 be confirmed as a correct record.

The Committee considered a report which demonstrated (in the City Council’s capacity as landlord of social housing) compliance and delivery of the Regulator of Social Housing’s Consumer and Rent Standards by Colchester Borough Homes (CBH).

Chris Wait, Director of Assets, CBH attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. The Committee heard that a summary of the Q3 performance was contained in the report which was before it, and its attention was drawn to several key areas. Performance on compliance remained strong across all 6 key areas, with electrical safety the current main area of focus for CBH.  Additional resources had been assigned to this area, and it was hoped that that an improved position would be achieved by April 2026. The 3 outstanding high risk priority safety actions had been reduced to 0. CBH was in a positive position with regard to repairs, as customer satisfaction was above target at 91.88%, and repairs completed on time were also above target at 94.37%. In respect of decent homes standard, at the end of Q3, 3.84% of homes had been non-decent, however, as at the date of the meeting this figure had dropped down to 0.7%, and was expected to be lower by year end. Void re-let times were above target, and improvements in sickness absence had also been achieved.

The Committee welcomed the update, and sought clarification on the difficulties which may be experienced with gaining access to properties. At what point was CBH unable to access a property to carry out necessary improvements, and how would this situation be resolved? The Director of Assets, CBH, advised the Committee that there were some circumstances which made property access difficult, for example when the tenant was a hoarder, however, it was possible to force access to a property when this was urgently required to carry out gas servicing or electrical safety work. A robust policy covered all such situations, and CBH took great care to adhere to the letter of this policy.  

Although the Committee welcomed the improvements which had been made, a Committee member requested further information in relation to complaints data, noting that communication had formed a key theme. Philip Sullivan, Chief Executive, CBH, attended the meeting and advised the Committee that complainants were generally concerned with the lack of communication, for example failing to give advanced notice of an appointment or improvement works. This was an area which had been subject to a detailed investigation by the Corporate Management Team of CBH, as communication had been a consistent theme for a while. Training had been carried out on several occasions, and the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on communication had been considered and shared with staff. Additional actions had been developed to improve the position further, and improving communications would remain a focus.

In response to questioning from the Committee, the Chief Executive, CBH confirmed that the levels of sickness absence in CBH and the Council were now broadly similar, although in the past CBH had had a higher level of sickness absence. Levels of sickness absence were higher among CBH operatives, when compared to back office staff.

A Committee member considered the details around ombudsman which had been provided in the report, noting that there were some common areas such as pigeons nesting around solar panels. The Director of Assets, CBH, confirmed that works to combat this problem had been completed on over 330 properties, with approximately £600,000 having been spent on the netting required. Over the forthcoming 5 years, significant investment had been allocated to tackling the remaining roofs, and CBH was fully committed to combatting this problem.

RESOLVED that:

• Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) Quarter 3 performance 2025/2026 be noted, and that;
• The Quarter 3 complaints update including Ombudsman cases be noted, and that;
• The additional regulatory assurance being provided by CBH’s Board and Committees for Q3 be noted, and that;
• The remaining updates which had been provided in the report be noted.

The Committee considered a report which proposed enhancements to the governance in respect of Colchester Commercial (Holdings) Ltd (CCHL), a wholly owned Local Authority Trading Company (LATCO). The proposal included changes to CCHL governance, as well as how the Council oversaw and made decisions in relation to CCHL

Simon Coward, Managing Director, Amphora, attended the meeting and gave a presentation to the Committee. There were 3 parts to the proposed Amphora Governance Model, creating a balanced Board, refocusing the Governance and Audit Committee and Scrutiny Panel, and carrying our annual Board effectiveness reviews.

The proposed balanced Board would consist of an independent Chair, the Managing Director, shareholder representation in the form of 4 Councillors, business and industry advisors, together with support from Amphora Senior Officers and Officers from the Council working together to provide strong governance.

A revised cohesive system of Council control was proposed, with the Council’s Governance and Audit Committee having oversight of the governance, risks, control and reporting of Amphora, the Scrutiny Panel having oversight of the business plans and performance of Amphora, and Cabinet being responsible for key decision making and strategic direction.

The Committee offered general support for the proposals but sought to understand the rationale behind splitting governance functions over both the Governance and Audit Committee and Scrutiny Panel. Lucie Breadman, Strategic Director attended the meeting and advised the Committee that for a wholly owned company, the shareholder was the Council, and the shareholder function was concerned with safeguarding public funds, providing effective oversight and providing good governance. This was a function which was distinct from the management of the company which rested with its Board. A number of audits had been carried out which had demonstrated a need for an increased level of oversight and compliance with the latest guidance for a Local Authority Trading Company (LATCO).

The Committee heard that the shareholder function was an executive function, and as such could only be exercised by Cabinet. Cabinet could carry out this function itself or could create an executive sub-committee of Cabinet members. These options had been considered, and it had been proposed that the Governance and Audit Committee would no longer be the shareholder committee, and this function would be taken up by Cabinet. However, the Governance and Audit Committee would retain a very important role in respect of Amphora, which was in relation to overseeing the accounts, risk and audit functions, which was a role in which it was very experienced. Furthermore, it had been suggested that Scrutiny Panel dealt with broader business planning which was also an area it was used to dealing with. Although responsibility would be split across these 2 committees, this was in line with the work which the committees already carried out, and would result in greater oversight of the companies.

The Committee accepted that the strategic direction of the businesses had always been set by Cabinet, however it had made recommendations in the past in relation to company business plans. It was suggested that it was important to ensure that when the Committee was being asked to consider Amphora’s risks, audit and accounts that the business plans were also presented to it which would be essential to an accurate interpretation of the finances of the companies. The Strategic Director confirmed that this would be the case.

A Committee member sought to understand the role of the Scrutiny Panel in considering the business plans of Amphora, when this was a Panel which run by the opposition. The Strategic Director Communities confirmed that Scrutiny Panel played a vital role as a ‘critical friend’ for Cabinet, and so would scrutinise the plans to gain oversight and public transparency, which was an essential function to a democratic authority. Although the Governance and Audit Committee could provide this function, what was being proposed was a different focus towards governance and risk, with Scrutiny Panel considering business planning and performance.

Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, attended the meeting and advised the Committee that both of the Council’s key committees which provided oversight should be apolitical. All panels and committees of the Council were required to be politically balanced, and although Scrutiny Panel did have an opposition Chair, it did not have an opposition majority among its membership.

A member of the Committee welcomed the appointment of an independent Chair, but considered that businesses worked best when their structure consisted of someone in charge with a Board to supervise them. It appeared that more layers of governance were now being added to Amphora consisting of 3 committees and the Council which would lead to a lack of direct responsibility. The Committee had not seen the proposed Articles of Association, and these should be presented to it. The provision of additional scrutiny was welcomed, however, would this actually be better delivered by increasing the number of people involved in the process, or by retaining a smaller, more focussed supervisory group? The Strategic Director considered that the approach which had been suggested was a balanced one which had been recommended by the independent review, and which had been adopted by Councils countrywide to provide an appropriate level of scrutiny. The Chief Operating Officer understood the desire for optimised commercial performance, however, he reminded the Committee that the key differential between a LATCO and a privately managed company was the potential risk to public funds associated with a LATCO which required higher levels of safeguarding and governance to be in place.

Although a member of the Committee was supportive of the suggestions for enhanced governance which had been proposed, he sought additional assurance that Amphora would be able to remain competitive, particularly in light of the forthcoming local government reorganisation (LGR). The Managing Director, Amphora assured the Committee that the new structure of the companies which was being proposed would ensure the best framework was in place to both work within the Council and trade externally.

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Assets, attended the meeting online, and, with the permission of the Chair, addressed the Committee. He understood the points which had been made by some members of the Committee, however, wished to emphasise that he believed that the leadership of the company did rest with its Managing Director, in whom he had the highest confidence in the light of the progress which had been made under his leadership. The Council would always remain the shareholder in the LATCO, and it was appropriate that all steps were taken to ensure that the company was run in the most efficient way, and in accordance with the advice which had been provided by CIPFA, which had resulted in the proposals before the Committee to implement appropriate levels of scrutiny. He believed that the day to day running of the company was the responsibility of its Managing Director, subject to any necessary approvals by Cabinet.

The Committee continued to discuss the nature the Council’s wholly owned companies, and the reasoning behind their creation, which had included a desire to generate a profit from areas of operation which were separated from service orientated activities. In addition to the recommendations contained in the report before it, the Committee also wished to request that the full business plans and management accounts of Amphora were presented to it when it was being asked to consider risk and audit matters, to enable a full understanding of these issues.

In response to questioning from the Committee, the Managing Director, Amphora confirmed that report before the Committee contained a breakdown of the areas of proposed responsibility of the Governance and Audit Committee and Scrutiny Panels. With regard to the appointment of an independent Chair, this would be done via the company, in conjunction with the Council.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that:

• The Governance and Audit Committee be provided with the full business plans and management accounts of the Council’s wholly owned companies, when it was being asked to consider risk and audit matters in relation to the companies, to enable the understanding of these issues.

The Committee considered a report which detailed proposed changes to the Amphora Group and Company structure, which sought to ensure that Amphora was able to grow and realise the trading / delivery opportunities that would come through the forthcoming devolution and local government reorganisation.

Simon Coward, Managing Director, Amphora, attended the meeting and gave a presentation to the Committee which detailed the proposed changes to the structure of the company currently known as Colchester Commercial (Holdings) Ltd. The name ‘Colchester’ would be removed, and the companies would be called Amphora Holdings, Amphora Services and Amphora Trading.

The first step would be to set up Amphora Services Ltd, which would be a teckal compliant business, meaning that more than 80% of its business would be trading with the Council. It was proposed to re-use the hibernated company Colchester Amphora Energy Ltd (CAEL) for this purpose, following guidance which had been received from the Committee, and the grounds maintenance contract would sit within this teckal compliant business, easing the procurement process. The existing company, Colchester Amphora Trading Ltd (CATL) would be renamed Amphora Trading Ltd, and would focus on contracts with external organisations.

It was hoped that because Amphora Services Ltd would be exclusively trading with the Council, that it would be able to secure mutual trading status, which was given by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and which would be a way to ensure effective tax mitigation.

The approval of Cabinet would be sought in relation to the proposed changes, and legal and tax advice had been received. The goal was to implement the changes by 31 March 2026, so that from 1 April 2026 the full benefits of the proposed new structure could be gained.

The Committee welcomed the proposed tidying up of the Council’s wholly owned companies, and sought further clarification on the intention behind seeking to take on the Council’s grounds maintenance contract, was this to provide a method of reducing corporation tax liability through generating a loss in the business? In response, the Managing Director, Amphora, confirmed that the primary goal was to set up Amphora Services Ltd as a teckal company to enable it to take on the grounds maintenance contract, and this would be achieved. A secondary benefit of the proposal was that buy placing all Council contracts within Amphora Services Ltd, tax liability would be removed from the business.

The Committee considered mutual trading status, wondering whether this would be overly complicated to set up? Additionally, if the company did generate a loss on the grounds maintenance contract, the Council would be obligated to fund this loss, which Committee or Council body would be specifically responsible for the approval of this funding? Was teckal status dependent on the turnover of the business or its purchases, and would the company be truly independent if it relied on buying in Council owned venues for the entertainment business, as well as fibre for the fibre business?

By way of response, the Managing Director, Amphora, confirmed that the proposed company structure had been implemented before by other local authorities across the country. Advice had been received from tax experts who had been clear that the proposed approach was standard for a Local Authority Trading Company (LATCO) to enable it to carry out mutual trading. The Articles of Association would be brought before the Committee once these had been finalised, potentially at its meeting scheduled for 23 March 2026. The focus of the teckal company would be around trading revenue, and the contract between Amphora Connect for fibre, would be able to sit within Amphora Services, together with the grounds maintenance contract and any elements of events management. The activities of the companies would be supported by a complex tax mitigation strategy, and in response to concerns which had been raised, the Committee was assured that Amphora Services would not make a loss in relation to the grounds maintenance contract.

RECOMMENDED to Cabinet that:

• Amphora Services Ltd (ASL) be set up, utilising hibernated business CAEL (Colchester Amphora Energy Ltd), utilising expert legal advice and guidance, and that;
• Amphora’s Governance Framework documents, including associated Articles of Association for AHL (Amphora Holdings Ltd), ASL (Amphora Services Ltd) and ATL (Amphora Trading Ltd), be revised utilising expert legal advice and guidance, and that;
• Mutual trading status for Amphora Services Ltd be secured, utilising expert tax advice and guidance.

The Committee considered a report which set out the 2024/25 General Fund and Housing Revenue Account positions, for both revenue and capital, as at 31 December 2024 (Q3).

Narj Sanghera, Senior Finance Business Partner, attended the meeting remotely and provided a presentation to the Committee which set out key points contained in the report which was before it.

A Committee member noted that at the end of Q2 there had been an anticipated year end overspend of approximately £6.8m, but this position had now improved. The bulk of the overspend was accounted for in 2 main areas, the Colchester Northern Gateway (CNG) Leisure Park, and staffing overspend of approximately £2m. When considering staffing overspend, how much of this overspend would be carried over into the 2026/2027 financial year, and how much had been budgeted as one-off expenditure? Assurance was sought that when the Committee considered the Q1 report of 2026/2027 the overspend would not be continuing. Anna D’Alessandro, Interim S151 Officer, attended the meeting remotely and advised the Committee that any continued overspend would be taken into account when setting the budget by each individual service Area.  Budgets were not just rolled forward from 2025/26 to 2026/27. The Finance team had questioned individual service areas, and taken advice from them on likely future staffing needs which had been accounted for in the budget which had recently been approved by Full Council.

A Committee member considered that linking the monitoring reports which were presented to the Committee throughout the year were difficult to reconcile with the budget which had been approved. He was concerned that the current budget had been based on that of the previous year and not on forecast expenditure which could lead to a £2m deficit at year end. A request was made for a breakdown of salary and property costs via departmental budgets to be provided, together with a breakdown of the Council’s finance costs including interest charged to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), and minimum revenue provision (MRP). The Council should carefully consider areas in which expenditure exceeded income. The Interim S151 Officer confirmed that departmental budgets would again form part of the reporting to the Committee for the forthcoming financial year, together with financing costs in the usual manner. The Council empowered each budget holder to manage their budget envelope in the best way they saw fit, not on a line by line basis.

Councillor Pearson, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, attended the meeting, and at the invitation of the Chair addressed the Committee. He confirmed that Cabinet had carried out a detailed analysis of all of the Council’s costs in anticipation of changes to be made through the Council’s Fit for the Future (FFF) programme. As a result of this analysis savings had been identified, which would no doubt be presented to Cabinet in the near future.

Returning to Sport and Leisure forecasting, a Committee member sought to reconcile the Q3 figures with those presented in the most recently approved budget. Was it the case that Sport and Leisure income was predicted to rise significantly over the forthcoming financial year?

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, attended the meeting remotely, and, with the permission of the Chair, addressed the Committee. He recognised the challenges which existed in relation to Sport and Leisure income, and assured the Committee that consideration had been given to developing the parts of Leisure World which were not currently economically viable. Both he and the Interim S151 Officer remained focussed on the income pressure which was evident in this area, and care would be taken in relation to improvements which were felt achievable.

A Committee member considered that it was important to be able to reconcile the actual financial position to figures in the budget, as this was key to the understanding of the savings which were being made as part of FFF.

Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, attended the meeting and assured the Committee that the Council’s Senior Leadership Board had taken a very active role in preparing the recently approved budget, and that this budget had not been based on a rollover of budget figures from the previous year. It had been the result of a very detailed exercise to explore cost pressures and budgetary changes had been made to take account of these.

To assist the Committee further, the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation suggested that some clarifying information could be provided to the Committee in relation to the Sport and Leisure financial position. 

RESOLVED that:

The revenue, capital and Housing Revenue Account forecasts as at Q3 2025/26 be noted.

The Committee considered a report which asked that it consider the overall Audit Strategy for 2026/29, to ensure that it reflected the key areas of assurance required to enable the Committee to comply with its core functions, and to agree the detailed Internal Audit plan for 2026/27 which was proposed.

Hayley McGrath, Corporate Governance Manager, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The internal audit process consisted of a 3 year rolling programme, however, an individual Internal Audit Plan (the Plan) was also prepared at the start of each year to provide the Committee with the necessary assurance that key areas were being covered. The Plan was before the Committee and contained details of the audits which were proposed for 2026/2027. The Plan was aligned with the Council’s Strategic Risk Register, and contained an audit in relation to cyber security to ensure that this threat was acknowledged and appropriate mitigation was in place. Audits were combined in some areas to provide assurance for Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) and Colchester Commercial (Holdings) Ltd (CCHL). CCHL maintained its own internal audit programme, however, some audits were carried out jointly with the Council to provide assurance to both organisations. Work was ongoing with CCHL to consider a more dynamic approach to internal audit including more detailed management reviews which would be subject to verification by TIAA, the internal auditors. It was hope that this approach would lead to a more efficient use of the audit days available to TIAA, allowing for greater assurance to be provided.

In response to questioning from the Committee in relation to the Plan addressing particular areas of current risk, the Corporate Governance Manager confirmed that audits had been carried out in 2025/2026 which were not reflected in the forward looking Plan. These audits had included key areas of concern such as cyber security, and work was ongoing with IT colleagues and the Council’s Resilience Officer to address areas such as business continuity and disaster recovery.

The Committee sought further detail in relation to the planned internal audit work around the Leisure World Site, and the Corporate Governance Manager advised that Leisure World was audited annually because of the income which was generated by the facility, as part of the process of providing assurance for the Council’s statement of accounts. Different areas of the facility were audited each year, which was necessary as the operation as a whole was on a huge scale. The internal audit would not address areas such as the cleaning regimes of the site, however, these areas would be considered as part of the Council’s health and safety processes.

Considering audits which had received a limited assurance in the past, the Committee wondered whether these were areas which would be subject to greater levels of scrutiny in the future? The Corporate Governance Manager confirmed that when a limited assurance rating, or lower, had been received in respect of an audit, the frequency of future audits in that was increased to ensure that standards were improved and maintained. An ongoing process of risk assessment sought to ensure that key risks were identified and targeted, and the timing of an audit in the Plan could be changed to ensure that any identified risks were subject to audit sooner than had been planned.

Noting that the Plan highlighted the risks associated with financial resilience and the Council’s assets, a Committee member sought assurance that the controllers of 2 of the Council’s main assets, Colchester Cemetery and Leisure World, would be subject to audit. Would such an audit consider the financial stability of these assets, including the costs of necessary repairs? The Corporate Governance Manager confirmed that the internal audit process would not consider the condition of the buildings, but would be concerned with the processes, systems and procedures which were in place. Items of expenditure such as repairs would be dealt with via the Council’s Corporate Landlord Model, and would therefore be picked up when this area was subject to audit.

A Committee member wished to highlight an area which he believed should be subject to greater scrutiny, which was the risks associated with larger projects such as the turnstone development of the Heart of Greenstead project. The Council still did not maintain a project risk register, and it was suggested that the largest areas of concern were located in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). When would the governance of the HRA be subject to audit? Should the internal auditors be focussed on the accuracy of the base level of data which was used to compile the financial accounts? In terms of project audits, the Corporate Governance Manager confirmed that this was an area of work which would be developed as part of the auditing process for individual projects in the forthcoming year, starting with a review of the Council’s Capital Programme. The Committee would receive a report at its next meeting on risk management which would contain an element on project risks. The Committee heard that it was the role of audit to look back over what had happened in the past, while risk management was concerned with what may happen in the future.  Work had been carried out in relation to Turnstone development, which would be reported to the Committee in the future, and it was intended to put together an audit programme to provide greater assurance on larger projects.

Turning to the HRA, the Corporate Governance Manager advised the Committee that the majority of internal audit work carried out considered individual areas of the Council and would not consider the HRA in total. Colchester Borough Homes, however, did have an audit programme which examined the areas of its operation. The Council’s internal audit function did liaise with the external auditors, KPMG, on a regular basis. KPMG were fully aware of the audit programme and were provided with the opportunity to comment on this by identifying what they considered were key risks. Additionally, all internal audit reports were provided to KPMG as part of the year-end accounts process.

Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, attended the meeting and assured the Committee that contained within the Plan was an audit which considered the key financial controls of the Council, which incorporated tests on the financial systems, budgetary control, income and debt management, payroll, treasury management and the general ledger.

RESOLVED that:

• The overall Audit Strategy for 2026/29 reflected the key areas of assurance required to enable the Committee to comply with its core functions, and that;

   

• The detailed Internal Audit plan for 2026/27 be agreed.

The Committee considered a report which provided it with an overview of the Council’s Business Continuity activity and Emergency Planning work for the period 01 January 2025 to 31 December 2025.

Hayley McGrath, Corporate Governance Manager, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. Business continuity was an important part of the Council’s risk management framework, ensuring that key services would be provided in the event of an interruption such as the loss of power, or a pandemic. Each service area was asked to consider what its key risks were, in particular key business areas where continuation of service was critical, such as benefit payments.

The report which was before the Committee sought to highlight some of the work which had been undertaken during the year with regard to emergency planning, including a tabletop exercise undertaken by the First Call officers (FCO) group. FCOs provided a response to emergencies 24 hours a day, and an effective training exercise had recently been carried out. Following an issue where the fire service had not been able to reach an appropriate officer during the day to respond to an incident, processes had been changed, customer service staff had been trained on how to route a call through to the correct person, and a dedicated phone line had been set up. A total of 13 members of staff had undergone training with the Essex Resilience Forum, which was an effective group which considered how Essex would respond as a whole in the event of an emergency through the provision of mutual aid. The Council did have a Business Continuity Strategy which did not form part of the Policy Framework, however, it was good practice to review this on an annual basis to provide assurance that the Council would be able to continue to provide services in the event of an incident.

In response to questioning from the Committee, the Corporate Governance Manager confirmed that insurance formed an important part of the Council’s Rick Management Framework. Risk was transferred through insurance policies, and a comprehensive insurance programme was in place, containing approximately 18 different types of cover. Insurance was a significant expense for the Council of approximately £1m per year, and formed part of the Risk Management Framework.  The Corporate Governance Manager was happy to bring a report providing some background information and oversight on this issue to a future meeting of the Committee. This suggestion was welcomed, and a Committee member wondered whether the current level of insurance was a necessary expense, or whether there was scope for reducing this in areas of non-critical risk.

The Committee was pleased to note the review which had been undertaken in respect of the FCOs, and the Corporate Governance Manager confirmed that the FCO function was the subject of regular briefings and training sessions with all calls received the subject of a bi-monthly review.

Seeking to further exploring the excellent business continuity work which had been undertaken, the Committee enquired about the Council’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. The Corporate Governance Manager advised the Committee that the biggest lesson which had been learned from the pandemic was the adaptability of staff, and their ability to work together collaboratively under pressure. Business continuity plans were designed to be flexible and would be adapted to the scenario which presented itself. The Council’s management team was very supportive of the FCOs, and trusted them to make quick decisions in response to an emerging situation. The speed of the Council’s response to the pandemic had been a key factor in its success, and work had commenced on business continuity planning for the coronavirus in January 2020, ahead of the lock down which was then implemented in March 2020.

Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, attended the meeting and advised the Committee that the contribution which had been made to the Council’s pandemic response by voluntary and community sectors had significantly supported its success. The Council’s dedicated workforce had additionally changed its way of operating at very short notice, with all services actively contributing.

The Committee was very pleased to have received the update, and considered that it was representative of the Council operating at its best.

Returning to the discussion around insurance, the Corporate Governance Manager explained to the Committee that the level of cover which was appropriate was reviewed on a regular basis, and the process was currently underway as the Council was working with a new insurance broker to ensure that the cover was appropriate to the authority’s needs,  especially given the approach of local government reorganisation (LGR).

RESOLVED that:

• The Committee had considered and commented on the Business Continuity work undertaken during the period, and that;
• The Business Continuity Strategy for 2026 be approved.

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

Matthew Evans, Democratic Services Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with tis enquiries. The attention of the Committee was drawn to the changes to the work programme which were detailed in the report before it.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the work programme be noted.