a)    By Councillor Bond

 

The motion is proposed in response to the recently published government white paper on health & social care ‘Integration and Innovation’.

 

This Council: 

i)     Notes approvingly that in putting the Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) on a statutory footing and encouraging cooperation rather than competition, it is essentially an evolutionary change rather than a top down reorganisation of the NHS.  

ii)    Considers that the following should be part of the development and implementation of the proposals: 

a.    The ICSs should encompass a range of stakeholders including doctors (GPs) to continuing to give them a voice, and local authorities to reflect peoples’ ‘place-based’ experience of health and care services 

b.    Besides continuing to improve collaboration across health and social care, that decision-making bodies recognise the importance of effective prevention & public health, addressing the social determinants of health and wellbeing, and of mental health services.  

iii)   Looks forward to the government’s proposals on the funding of social care.  

b)   By Councillor Rayner:

 

The provision in legislation allowing council meetings to take place virtually ceases on 6 May 2021. High Court proceedings are being pursued to seek confirmation that councils can continue with virtual meetings post 6 May. If this is unsuccessful, to ensure Annual Council can take place in a COVID-safe environment, it is proposed to amend the date of the meeting.

 

This Council:

 

i)             Agrees to amend the date of Annual Council from 25 May 2021 to 4 May 2021; and as a result:

ii)            Agrees an Extraordinary meeting of full Council be held on 29 June 2021 to consider the Development Management Review.

iii)           Agrees that for the municipal year 21/22 only, the requirement in the constitution for each Overview and Scrutiny Panel to meet within 30 days of Annual Council be waived (noting all O&S Panels already have a meeting scheduled in June 2021)

 

c)    By Councillor Johnson

 

This Council believes that all Members should, under Regulation 13 of the (LA Members Allowances) Regs 2003 and as detailed in the RBWM Members’ Allowances Scheme,  give notice in writing to the Head of Governance that they wish to forgo the indexation applied in 21/22 in relation to the Basic Allowance and any Special Responsibility Allowances they receive.

 

d)   By Councillor Hill

 

This Council agrees that in the interests of full and open debate all time-limits on debates at full Council meetings be removed and the prerogative for the duration of debates be given solely to the Mayor

 

(A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

 

Motion a)

 

Councillor Bond introduced his motion. He explained that the council had significant involvement in the health and care system, through its Health & Wellbeing Board and its responsibilities for public health and the Better Care Fund. With the significant changes going on he had felt it was an appropriate time for councillors to be better aware in order to make the system and changes more accountable. Because the changes were evolutionary, it would be easy for the ground to move without there being a particular point at which the council took stock.

As well as increasing cooperation among different parts of the system rather than working in silos, another trend had been to become geographically larger in order to capture economies of scale. For example, when the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) of GPs started, the local one covered most of the borough. They then started working more closely with neighbouring CCGs, and now all they all worked together in an organisation called ‘the collaborative’ that covered the same six council areas as the Frimley Hospitals Trust and the Frimley Integrated Care system, a population of 800,000. There was potential for tension between organisations covering a big geographical area and therefore perhaps feeling distant and on the other hand the importance of place and councils’ knowledge of their local area. The motion therefore set out areas that the council might consider to be important. To give an example, he had not seen much comment on the role of GPs in the new structure but involving them more in how health and care services were run seemed to be to be one of the good aspects of the last government reorganization, as they had experience at the front line. On health prevention, health inequalities and mental health, although he was not suggesting they were being overlooked at the moment, in the past he was sure they had felt like the poor relation of health services so the motion highlighted their importance.

The White Paper provided a framework rather than being prescriptive about detailed organisational structure, so a lot of the local arrangements were down to local decisions.  Councillor Bond commented that it would be wrong to take the message from this that the White Paper was all ‘motherhood and apple pie’. There were proposals about increasing the Minister’s say over the running of the NHS that had been more controversial, however those did not seem relevant to a motion from the perspective of a local council. Councillor Bond explained that he had added the last point about looking forward to government proposals on the funding of social care because otherwise it would be a an elephant in the room. 

 

Councillor Carroll commented it was an interesting motion and raised some reasonable points although he had been disappointed that Councillor Bond had not reached out to him as he felt some improvements could have been made. However, he was broadly supportive of the motion. The point about competition needed to be placed in the proper historical context. Labour had introduced the ‘any willing provider’ scheme and the Health and Social Care Act still stood as the principal piece of legislation for the English NHS. The coalition government had then moved to ‘any qualified provider’ with a number of constraints. NHS Improvement and the Care Quality Commission were introduced to ensure the competition point was not simply an internal market but to allow a diversity of supplier to ensure the patient could get what was best for them. The principle of cooperation was enshrined in the NHS constitution. It was also important to acknowledge the outstanding contribution that Frimley ICS had made and its ongoing record of delivering a word class vaccination programme.  The White Paper already mandated a broad stakeholder involvement in the proposals. This informed the ongoing consultation process on the White Paper.  It was not possible to view the White Paper in isolation to Public Health. There was a critical need to have an intrinsic connectivity to the newly formed UK Health Security Agency. A centrally funded solution for adult social care remained vitally important and the council would continue to push for this.

 

Councillor Coppinger explained that he had previously been responsible for Public Health and had chaired the first Health and Wellbeing Board. He had worked with the three CCGs and the Chief Executive of Frimley. This had now evolved into the ICS. Over time, the NHS realised the value of working with local government as the only people who really understood place. They also realised they had to work closely with doctors. He was supportive of the motion in terms of the direction all wanted to go in.

 

Councillor Stimson supported the motion. She had been invited to take part in debates of a group called the Public Policy Project. The issue was being debated earlier in the week, including how to integrate the whole health and wellbeing system.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa commented that the issue would continue to grow and evolve; it was just one part of the full picture of how to integrate public health. The council was already working hard to improve the delivery of care services. The current transformation consultation was looking at innovating concepts in providing services to the vulnerable in our communities. The Health and Social Care White Paper referred to the avoidance of a one-size-fits-all approach and left many decisions to local systems and leaders. The motion would enable the council to build on the consultation by including all service providers and users to aspire to provide a seamless, individual care driven service, especially as there was an increase in the numbers of people reliant on multiple services. It was essential that the council worked together with the NHS, care services and the voluntary sector to provide the best level of service at the best value for money. This would require a new inclusive way of working. It may have its challenges, but it would lead to the seamless wrap around service all desired for the most vulnerable and needy in the Royal Borough.

 

Councillor Bond commented that he hoped the debate had at least updated people and encouraged them to take an ongoing interest.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Bond, seconded by Councillor C. Da Costa, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: This Council:

i)     Notes approvingly that in putting the Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) on a statutory footing and encouraging cooperation rather than competition, it is essentially an evolutionary change rather than a top down reorganisation of the NHS.  

ii)    Considers that the following should be part of the development and implementation of the proposals: 

a.    The ICSs should encompass a range of stakeholders including doctors (GPs) to continuing to give them a voice, and local authorities to reflect peoples’ ‘place-based’ experience of health and care services 

b.    Besides continuing to improve collaboration across health and social care, that decision-making bodies recognise the importance of effective prevention & public health, addressing the social determinants of health and wellbeing, and of mental health services.  

iii)  Looks forward to the government’s proposals on the funding of social care.  

 

 

Motion b)

 

Councillor Rayner introduced her motion. She explained that the legislation allowing virtual meetings to take place would cease on 7 May 2020, therefore the motion proposed that the date of Annual Council be amended. The benefits of virtual meetings had included better communication, transparency and democracy.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that in line with most councils, the borough would support the call for councils to have the right to hold meetings virtually. In the long term a return to face to face meetings would be welcomed but whilst the pandemic continued there should eb flexibility. Virtual meetings had worked broadly well allowing the business to be managed whilst giving the public access and the ability to hold councillors to account. The proposal would allow the Annual Council meeting to be held in a covid-safe way without the need to hie a large venue.

 

Councillor Stimson supported the motion. At a Rotary meeting she had spoken at the previous day, a young person had said that virtual meetings had afforded much better public access and there were environmental benefits. However it had been alleged that the council had one of the highest mileage claims. The borough was quite large, and some members therefore had to travel quite far. If meetings could continue virtually, this would be a positive.

 

Councillor Tisi commented that online meetings helped with accessibility for those with disabilities and caring responsibilities. It helped a range of people to become involved in the democratic process.

 

Councillor L. Jones commented that she had found it  a lot easier at times to access meeting s online but she was aware that some officers and Members did not have separate spaces at home and therefore meetings could be disruptive to families.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa commented that internet problems could be a disadvantage. As someone who was disabled the ability to hear the debate whilst also being able to walk and stretch was very helpful. She could see both sides of the argument.

 

Members noted that if the High Court decided that virtual meetings could continue, the decision had already been taken to amend the date of Annual Council.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Rayner, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: This Council:

 

i)             Agrees to amend the date of Annual Council from 25 May 2021 to 4 May 2021; and as a result:

ii)            Agrees an Extraordinary meeting of full Council be held on 29 June 2021 to consider the Development Management Review.

iii)          Agrees that for the municipal year 21/22 only, the requirement in the constitution for each Overview and Scrutiny Panel to meet within 30 days of Annual Council be waived (noting all O&S Panels already have a meeting scheduled in June 2021)

 

 

Motion c)

 

Councillor Johnson introduced his motion. He referred Members to the budget agreed at full Council in February, as part of which Members had agreed a pay rise for officers of 2%. This was the first time in a significant number of years that staff had received an increase. Member allowances were index-linked to staff pay rises. He had made a commitment at the meeting to bring forward a motion to forgo the increase in allowances given the broad agreement when Members had considered the Independent Remuneration Panel report in late 2020.

 

The Mayor considered a point of order by Councillor Baldwin but determined that no point of order had been raised.

 

Councillor L. Jones commented that the basic allowance and special responsibility allowance was paramount in ensuring that a wide cohort of residents had the opportunity to represent their area as a Borough Councillor and bring differing skill sets and outlooks to the council. All were aware that councillors could forgo part or all of any allowance at any time by writing to the Head of Governance. The motion did not compel Members to do so, it just said that they should. She completely supported the fact that councillors should be foregoing the indexation but, in recognition of the financial situation that local charities found themselves in and their lack of opportunity to hold normal fundraising activities she put forward the option of giving the indexation to charity.

 

Councillor Jones also acknowledged the financial situation RBWM was experiencing and the cuts to services such as libraries, that no Member wanted to see. Therefore, to support these services she proposed that Members consider foregoing 10% of their Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) and it being used to offset these reductions.

 

Councillor Jones proposed the following amendment:

 

This Council believes that all Members should, under Regulation 13 of the (LA Members Allowances) Regs 2003 and as detailed in the RBWM Members’ Allowances Scheme, either give notice in writing to the Head of Governance that they wish to forgo the indexation applied in 21/22 in relation to the Basic Allowance and any Special Responsibility Allowances they receive or donate the amount ( less taxes)  to a local charity. Members in receipt of a Special Responsibility Allowance should also give notice in writing that 10% of their allowance should be transferred into a council department budget of their choice. 

 

Councillor Hill seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that Members should give the proposal serious consideration as residents were being asked to pay more for less. Everyone he had spoken to about the SRA had said that when they had voted for councillors they had only been aware that Councillors would receive the Basic Allowance and therefore they had not provided a mandate for any other remuneration. SRAs were in the gift of the Leader and were the source of political largesse. SRAs were sold on the idea of burdensome duties but this argument ran into difficulties when the Licensing Panel Chairman had had to dust off his skills for just one meeting in the last municipal year. The figure of £6107 was eye watering in addition to the Basic Allowance. However, this example paled into insignificance in comparison to the committee that had never met. Those who supported the amendment would be able to hold their head up in May 2023.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that some who took up the role of councillor relied on it as supplementary income for the additional time put in. Therefore, he did not believe it should be mandatory for all but he would be happy to give up the additional amount for officer training. He asked it if was possible to give the funds to a specific charity.

 

Councillor Luxton commented that she was a seasoned fundraiser and had raised £200,000 for national charities. Every day she gave to charities; what she decided to do with her allowance was up to her. She did not need to publish what she gave to charity.

 

Councillor Haseler commented that the amendment was well intentioned, but he already gave monthly payments to local charities. He understood the proposal was not mandatory, but all should have a choice. It should be left to each individual councillor to decide.

 

Councillor Carroll commented that he gave to charity on a weekly and monthly basis and had done so before he was a councillor. It was important not to assume everyone’s personal circumstances were the same. The principle of encouraging people to give to charity was positive but the council should not seek to mandate to any councillor what they should do with their allowance.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that many councillors contributed to local and national charities. The motion did not compel anyone to do anything; the aim was to formalise the generosity of spirit.

 

Councillor Bhangra commented that he had also given a lot to charity, including Norden Farm and the Youth Centre in his ward. It was a personal choice to give to charity and should remain so.

 

Councillor Walters stated that he could not support the amendment. Giving to charity was a private matter. When he had first joined the council he had not taken any allowance at all as he felt it was a public service.

 

Councillor Hill commented that the proposal was for just one year and was only 10%. The motion sought to ask those who received the most in the borough to pay the most and would therefore be an important gesture particularly after so many residents had had a torrid time in the pandemic.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that he was surprised by the amendment because Members had previously discussed the difficulty of accepting motions tabled at the meeting. However laudable those behind the motion felt it was, it was not a collegiate way of working. He also questioned why it had not been proposed as part of the budget setting process. It was not for him to direct where Members gave to charity. The overall cost of allowances had been reduced and the full complement of allowances had not been claimed. Given the pandemic it was absolutely right that all did their bit. The council would continue to provide value for money services to residents, keep council tax as low as possible. In relation to a comment on libraries, he suggested Members await the outcome of the transformation report before taking any decisions about what would be included.

 

Councillor Jones commented that if it had been put in the budget that would compel Members rather than being a personal choice. The original motion had been published five days previously and since then she had been taking advice, She had put a call in to the Leader that afternoon to advise him of the amendment but there had been no answer so she had left a voicemail.

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment fell.

 

Members returned to debate the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Werner commented that it had been an interesting debate and he had heard many say that it was up to the individual to decide how they spent their allowance. He highlighted that he was the only councillor who had taken a drop in allowance following the last review. He suggested that Members’ reticence to support the amendment would mean they also would not support the original motion.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that anything that created a saving was good. He asked if the published allowances would list who had opted out.

 

Councillor Bond commented that as the topic had been reopened it had provided the opportunity for a re-think. A backbench councillor who became chair of an Overview & Scrutiny Panel received extra; looking at other councils the range was from 43% (a Liberal Democratic administration) to 100%, with the average about 60% which was where RBWM was. An MP chairing a the Parliamentary equivalent of a select committee received only 20% extra, yet MPs still wanted to do it. The difference was that select committee chairs were chosen by secret ballot. In May 2019 a MHCLG review of oversight and scrutiny (with Rishi Sunak as the minister) advised, “The method for selecting a Chair is for each authority to decide for itself, however every authority should consider taking a vote by secret ballot.”  Councillor Bond recommended the issue to the Constitution Working Group.

 

Councillor Davey commented that the alternative motion was for all intents and purposes the same thing yet there had been significant negativity towards the proposal. He commented that if he gave up £100 but then he had to put an extra 100 hours to raise money to subsidise his local library in Dedworth, that was £1 an hour. He had heard councillors singing the praises of Cox Green Parish Council for bailing them out. The bottom line was the Parish Council had been sensible and saved their money for a rainy day meant they were in a position to do something on the basis of decisions made by the administration. He felt the motion was all about virtue signalling. Many people did things for charity without the need to talk about it. It would be interesting to see if those who gave up their allowances went to the Advertiser first before going to the Head of Governance.

 

Councillor Carroll commented that he felt the speech from the Leader of the Opposition had been sadly political and polemical. No one was saying they deserved the money, and no one was asking for sympathy, and therefore it was wrong to say so. Councillor Carroll stated that he already gave more than 10% of his allowance to charity and had done so  from his salary before he was a councillor. He had never publicised this before, but it had been accentuated by the discussion underway. He would not judge other people’s circumstances; it was up to the individual to make their own decision, but he actively encouraged people to give what they could. Telling people what to do was not the way forward.

 

Councillor McWilliams commented that he felt the description of what Cox Green Parish Council had done had been unfair. The parish council had taken the sensible decision to look at a holistic way to deliver the library in a long-term, sustainable way and had provided bridge funding for the next year. It was part of a wider approach to devolve responsibility down to the parish council.

 

The Mayor considered a personal explanation by Councillor Werner but determined that no personal explanation was required.

 

Councillor Jones commented that she supported the motion, but it did not give councillors the option to put the money where they thought it should go.

 

Councillor Baldwin stated that his issue was whether individuals were deserving of the allowances. When the issue was discussed in October, a number of councillors had made declarations and had only been allowed to speak by being required to make a declaration of interest. They had not made such a declaration during the debate this evening yet were making the same points as in October.  Residents must be confused.

 

Councillor Hill stated that he supported the motion, however it was regrettable that the Conservatives had not gone the extra mile with the 10% on SRAs. He would like the option to put the 2% into an organisation in the ward he represented and asked Councillor Johnson whether he would consider his motion to allow this to happen.

 

Councillor Davey stated that in no way was he degrading Cox Green Parish Council; he had been praising them for being in the position to support libraries in the way they were doing so. His concern was the way that the administration was expecting the Parish Council to step up and take the strain.

 

Councillor Luxton clarified that she was not against Councillor Johnson’s motion; she was not supporting the amendment.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that the motion said councillors ‘should,’ which meant it was not mandatory. The constitution did not allow Members to forgo their allowance and have it paid to charity therefore Councillor Jones’ amendment added more granularity. The motion Members were now discussing did not allow Members to do anything they could not already do.

 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that under the current Members’ Allowance Scheme, Members could choose not to receive all or part of their allowance, by notifying the Head of Governance in writing. Alternatively, they could choose to take the allowance and direct it to charity themselves.

 

Councillor Rayner highlighted that it was a matter of public record what allowances councillors received each year.

 

Councillor Johnson stated that unfortunately Councillor Hill’s request was not one he could accept at the time. In February the budget for 2021/22 had been agreed that included a 2% pay rise for employees. The 2% increase in Member Allowances was index linked. This reason for the motion was to rectify this unintended consequence. He could not accept the request by Councillor Hill as if Members gave up part of their allowance, the money would go back into general council finances and therefore would not be a cost pressure and reallocated elsewhere or potentially carried forward as an underspend in the democratic services budget, which could be used to support the provision of frontline services the following year. The onus rested with individual councillors to decide what was the right thing to do. At the October meeting he had stated that he did not think that any Member allowances should be increased. He had also stated this view to the press at the time and declared an interest at the meeting as he had felt it was the right thing to do. He had agreed to a reallocation of allowances between the Leaders of the Opposition Groups to ensure the money was spread more evenly among the main groups. Given recent events and at times a lack of scrutiny of the current administration and the previous one, and in the context of some of the large decisions taken such as the earlier discussion on the RTS, Councillor Johnson commented that he wondered at the value for money that had been achieved for some of those positions. If Members wished to give to charity out of their Basic Allowance and SRA after forgoing the 2%, he would wholeheartedly encourage them to do so. He also highlighted that significant savings had been made on mileage and other expenses associated with face to face meetings. Overall, the council was underspending on democracy without cutting corners on the quality of that democracy.

 

The Mayor confirmed that all Member allowances wee published at the end of the financial year. This would show which councillors had chosen to forgo any part of their allowance.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Rayner, and:

 

RESOLVED: This Council believes that all Members should, under Regulation 13 of the (LA Members Allowances) Regs 2003 and as detailed in the RBWM Members’ Allowances Scheme,  give notice in writing to the Head of Governance that they wish to forgo the indexation applied in 21/22 in relation to the Basic Allowance and any Special Responsibility Allowances they receive.

 

 

CONTINUATION OF MEETING

 

At this point in the meeting, and in accordance with Rule of Procedure Part 4A 23.1 of the council’s constitution, the Chairman called for a vote in relation to whether or not the meeting should continue, as the time had exceeded 9.30pm.

 

Upon being put to the vote, those present voted in favour of the meeting continuing.

 

 

Motion d)

 

Councillor Hill introduced his motion:

 

 

 

This Council agrees that in the interests of full and open debate all time-limits on debates at full Council meetings be removed and the prerogative for the duration of debates be given solely to the Mayor.

 

He explained that the issue was close to his heart as it was close to democracy. He complimented the Mayor as on a number of occasions he had used his discretion in relation to time limits to allow debates to continue. Councillor Hill felt this had been to the benefit of the decision-making process by improving the quality of debate and allowed residents to see their opinions were being heard. He highlighted to Members that Section 7.2 of the constitution referred to full and effective debate at the discretion of the Mayor.

 

Councillor Jones seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Baldwin echoed the comments by Councillor Hill on the state of democratic debate in the chamber and the role of the Mayor in the Chair. He commented that various clauses in the constitution appeared to contradict Part 2 7.2. It was a clause that dealt specifically with full Council meetings and gave the Mayor absolute discretion on the fullness and fairness of the debate. It was interesting to juxtapose that overriding clause with the farcical events of earlier the evening when an extended debate took place which Councillor Baldwin felt had been unnecessary. Members would like the Mayor to be more active as they trusted his judgement.

 

Councillor Davey commented that residents deserved better and more thorough debate. Closing down debates rapidly was not good for freedom of speech. He thanked the current Mayor for being an excellent judge on when to extend debates. It was a shame that many of the Conservatives seemed to be in a constant state of fear that they would get found out and that they would struggle to defend their position if challenged in an open forum. By example he had been trying to have a debate around 5G for the last two years and there seemed to be a resistance to do so. He could only assume this was based on a fear of what information might come out. Councillor Davey commented that this was not democracy as he understood it but then he had been naive when he had begun the journey. He asked Members to vote for democracy and remove the 30-minute rule.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that it was the quality of speeches not the length of time people spoke that made the difference in the debate. The Mayor already had the necessary discretions in his opinions.

 

Councillor Cannon highlighted the irony of having such a debate at 10.30pm. He recalled previous complaints from some Opposition councillors about how long meetings lasted. All were aware 30 minutes was the limit, with discretion by the Mayor. This was a far more sensible option than unlimited debate. Democracy was not served by people talking for the sake of it. Democracy was served by informed debate. Awareness of a time limit helped people focus on relevant points.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa stated that the Mayor had been fantastic in using his discretion and acting in a neutral manner. The motion would however give clear direction to any future Mayor and ensured future fairness.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that he felt an overall limit was a detriment to debate. The time limits applied to individual speeches and interventions were good and provided some discipline. The Independent Group had worked hard not to repeat earlier speeches and use some brevity. He felt this was across the board now, possibly due to the way the meetings were now chaired and a realisation that residents did not want to simply hear people repeating what had been said before. He supported the motion as he trusted the framework.

 

Councillor Jones suggested that the Constitution Working Group could consider part 2 C12.4 of the constitution:

 

A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote

 

Councillor Jones explained that this clause had meant on occasion the seconder of the motion had not had the opportunity to speak if they had reserved their right at the start.

 

Councillor Hill commented that he had been severely disappointed by some of the comments on the debate from the Conservatives. Good quality debate had been from all sides and curtailing such debate would therefore lower quality. If any Councillor was uncomfortable at being in a meeting at 10.30pm at night, then they were uncomfortable with the service to which they had signed up. Members had rights to speak and any time limit was impinging on those rights. He felt the Mayor should be given full authority and discretion to manage the debates rather than have an artificial limit.

 

On being put to the vote, the motion fell.

 

 

Members agreed that there was no need for the meeting to move into Part II to consider the Part II appendix to the earlier Part I report ‘Urgent Decision’. All Members had noted the appendix when considering the Part I item.