Transcript

line which is various coats, flues and other things going around and they don't want to flick it on the rest of us. So with that I will ask Taylor to get us started. Thank you. Thank you, Kenvener. So this meeting is being held in the Denov Guild courtroom in the city chambers, High Street in Edinburgh and virtually by Microsoft Teams. It will be found for live and subsequent broadcasts via the Council's website. The Council is a data controller under the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act of 2018. We broadcast Council meetings to fulfill our public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this broadcast will be detained in accordance with the Council's published policy. Generally the public seating areas will not be filmed, however by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area you should be aware that you may be recorded and images and sound will be stored. Children will not be found, although sound will be heard. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated by the sound system and that you must switch microphones on when speaking and off when finished speaking. So we have on section one on the agenda now which is Order of Business. Just a note that we have Councillor Kumar substituting for Councillor McInnes today. Version two of the papers were circulated on the 26th of April 2024. There's been a written deputation request received and circulated on item 7.6, the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, Convention Bureau funding from the Edinburgh Tourism Action Group. Have committee are happy to accept deputation? Yep, nothing. We've all received and read it, so thank you. Thank you. Motions and amendments have been circulated and are available to view by members of the public alongside the papers for this meeting. For any members joining online just a reminder that the chat function should be used to indicate to the convener that you wish to speak, please label your comment, question, contribution, point of order, etc. The chat function should not be used for any other purpose and also to draw you to your attention that for the chat box is not shown in the webcast. Any new messages do pop up on screen so your comments may be visible to the public. If members are planning to substitute for other members at any point, please make this clear to the convener by confirming who is left and who has joined the meeting. Just to note that it's been requested that item 8.2 is deferred due to audit Scotland officer availability. Committee agree to this. Yep, no comment in the next one. Thank you. And all items are subject to a 14-minute time limit unless standing order 22.16 is suspended. In that case, we'll move on to section 2 on the agenda, which is declarations of interest. The Councillor's code of conduct requires members to publicly declare interest in items being considered at these meetings. These interests can be financial or non-financial. Do members have anything they wish to declare? I know this is not normal, but I think in light of the discussion, I'm a director of CEC holding some relation to item 7.6. And that's just a transparency statement because it's a council role. Councillor Mumford, do you have a declaration? Thank you. Just a transparency statement in a similar vein that I'm a board member of EICC. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any more declarations? Move on to section 3, which is deputations. And a written deputation has been circulated by the Edinburgh Tourism Action Group in relation to item 7.6. So move on to section 4. At 4.1, we have the minute of the Finance and Resources Committee of the 14th of March 2024, which has been submitted for approval as a correct record. Any questions, comments, or are we happy to agree the minute? That's agreed. Thank you. Thank you. Move on to section 5. And at 5.1, we have the Finance and Resources Committee Work Program and Committee is asked to know the work program. Do we have any questions? Are we happy to know the work program? Thank you. Thank you. And at 5.2, we have the Finance and Resources Committee Role and Actions Log and Committee is asked to close actions 1, 5, 9, 11 and 12 and note the remaining outstanding actions. Councillor Roth. Thanks. Convener, I had a question relating to Rowing Action 5 as to whether it was, in fact, complete ready for closure. So I'm just looking for it now. Councillor interjecting. The officer here that Rowing Action 5 refers to the... [inaudible] [silence] [silence] Sorry. Yeah. No, it's just to say we haven't had a report on this. It is mentioned in one of the reports by the quadrangle, but we haven't had anything feedback-wise. So I don't see why we'd be closing it. Does that make sense? Okay. We'll keep a 5 open and we'll come back. Any? My other comment is relation to 7, item 7, which is to do with the item 7, South Bridge Resource Centre. We're expecting updates in business bulletin. There is one in the business bulletin today, for example, and there will be others in the business bulletin. But that isn't reflected in the comment or the item on the Rowing Actions episode. Sorry. I'm not sure about the question. So no, it's fine. It's just the comment in the Rowing Actions log. It doesn't include reference to what we're anticipating to come. So we're anticipating business bulletin updates as progress is made with negotiations, discussions and relocations. There is one obviously in today's business bulletin, and it was simply to note that we were expecting business bulletin items to come, and that wasn't reflected in the comment episode. Okay. Good to amend it. Thank you. So will we pick that up? I don't know if I'm having a bit difficult hearing you, Councillor Ross. I don't know if it's me or everybody, but I was just not struggling to hear you either there. Thank you. Is there anything else on the Rowing Action log? We'll find out. Thank you. Thank you. So moving on to item 6.1 in that case, which is the business bulletin. Committee is asked to note the business bulletin. Okay, so Bruce? Yeah, just a brief question regarding the core HR payroll. I mean, how confident are you at the revised timescale for implementing the core HR payroll system in October? So that would give you any doubts as to not making that target. So I think we've got a green term ball here with us, and I think she can give us an offerable update. Thanks, Candina. Yeah, so program is progressing well to the first of October. We've got quite a milestone deadline for Friday, which is the go-no-go decision on moving into PPR. We had our program board yesterday, and we really contract to meet that, so that that is a significant move forward. So at this stage, we are not seeing any significant shoe stoppers that's going to hamper that date. So looking forward to getting into PPR after Friday. Okay, thanks. Just one small question for anyone from that. You mentioned that recruitment module and HR help desk being implemented before the end of the financial year. I'm just wondering what the knock-on effects if you don't make that time period for implementation. Thanks. In terms of the recruitment module, if that had to slip, there wouldn't really be any impact, because we've still got the current module available, and we're going to sign up to that, and it is continually available to all local authorities in terms of the current system. So there is crossover of that, but the aim is to try and and get the full of the Oracle piece by the end of the financial year. The recruitment piece is probably more resource-intense for the accounts of staff than it is for any of the third-party providers in terms of CGI or Oracle, because it has more of an impact on our systems, sorry, more of our processes and procedures and training for hiring managers. So that's the only bit that we're mindful of in terms of our planning around that just now to make sure, because it will be same resource, so we're just making sure that we can follow on quite quickly soon after, but it won't impact on any recruitment if it did proceed into the next financial year, but that's clearly not where we want to be. Okay, thanks. Okay, and Councillor Mumford. Thank you. Yeah, I just had a question about the South Bridge Resource Centre, and thank you for the updating there. It just says that engagement with the development workers and tutors will be completed by the 26th of April, so I just wondered if there was any sort of themes in feedback or anything coming back from there that you felt committee needed to be aware of. Thanks. Peter, are you able to respond to that? Effectively feedback from tutors is informing next fees, which is feedback from students, so there has been in the diary the programme for engagement with the students comments, I think, yesterday actually, and it's going to consist of PowerPoint presentation, Q&A session, and on the survey, we've booked in 18 in-person presentations to be held at South Bridge plus two online, and that will be available to everybody's student tutors. So once we get that information back, it will inform part of the business building at Next Cycle, and there's more information that members wish to come from that than we can address that at that time. Okay, any further questions on the business building, or can we agree that? Thank you. Thank you. Move on to section seven on the agenda now, which is executive decisions, and at 7.1 we have the annual report date right off, so report by the executive director of corporate services, and Nicola Harvey and Neil Jameson will speak to the report. Hi Neil, good morning. Do we have any questions on this report, or is there anything you'd like to add, Neil? No, it's your standard report that you see every year, and there's less write-off, compared this year to the previous year, so we're in a reasonably good place with our write-off position. Councillor Ross, then Councillor Bruce. Thanks for being here, thank you for this report, and I've just been really wanted to comment. I'm pleased to see at item 6.3 there is our details of inhibitions which have been settled during the year, so we can see recoveries being made from previous year actions taken, whereas previously the report focused only on the current year's write-offs and not the bigger story, is it well, so I'm pleased to see that, thank you. Also, it's interesting to note, as you have at 6.2, the appointment of a secondary sheriff officer, what the impact has been in terms of parking collections, and more than half, certainly the unusual situation we had the year before, with 19% written off effectively, and we're now down to a much lower figure. You might want to comment on that, and if there is any applicability of that approach elsewhere in these debt write-offs. The parking date is probably two-fold, I think. It is definitely the secondary provider is helping in that area, and we have rolled that into a number of other council attacks, NDR, etc. are big date types, so we're using that secondary sheriff officer account, so once it's gone through the first one, if they've found it unrecoverable and more target approach undertaking, I think it's also worth highlighting that the parking was subject to a fairly extensive data cleanse, so that's allowed us to write off a lot of legacy date, and that was done for 18 months, 18 months, two years ago, so that also driven that deduction to something I would see as much for being business-as-usual returns. Thank you, Councillor British. Thank you, Convener, and thank you for the report. In Appendix 4, the write-off for penalty charge notices is nearly 130,000 with no trace at DVLA, and the same for bus lanes, no trace at DVLA. It seems to be a lot of UK vehicle, illegal vehicles roaming the streets of Edinburgh. What do you do with the information that you receive about these no trace vehicles? So we engage with the DVLA in an attempt to try and find who the registered owner is, but if they don't have that recognition, then there isn't that much we can do, but we do engage and share that information with them around the owner isn't currently registered on the system, or we can't trace them. So we exhaust all the recovery we can with them, but it's the DVLA that obviously registers in that sense. Is there any further questions? Councillor CUMAR. Thank you, Convener. Thank you very much for the report. My question is on Appendix 2. Fifth row is on non-counsel debt write-off. This is some of 215,000 with very little recovery. I don't actually know what non-counsel means. Could you please explain or give me a couple of examples of what that might entail? Thank you. It could just be third party date that we're recovering for people. So it's a real catch-all for us in the service area, in that there'll be different types of date, but I'm happy to provide a breakdown of that that'll be useful by way of a briefing note. Yes, please. Great. Thank you. Do we have any further questions for Neil? No. Thank you. Paul just agreed. I'm happy to agree the report. Thank you. Thank you. So move on to item 7.2, which is the health and social care contract extension report. So reports by the chief officer of the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board. The Bob Moira Pringle speak to the report and there's been an S&P group at the end. I'm circulated on this item. Hey, do you have anything to add to the report? No, nothing to add. Convener but obviously happy to take any questions. Thanks Moira. Are there any questions on this? Yes, a couple of questions. So I'll go to the big one first in terms of value of the contract. So the Nottingham Rehab contract obviously notes that they have suffered a cyber attack and the procurement exercise was paused on the 3rd of April, which is only a few weeks ago. If that had not been paused, would we have had a proposal brought forward to us today in respect of a potential new contract being awarded? The procurement in prior to the notification of the cyber attack was on track. What I am not totally sure of, Councillor, is if it was to be reported to this meeting of the committee or the next one. But I can confirm that the procurement activity was on track. Yes, just actually thinking of timings for the award of the contract. We have made a point in this committee before, across all directorates, about contracts being put in place and then we're given a fair to complete around agreeing it or the convener has to agree the contract, which is something that we want to avoid. And it just seems that if it hadn't come to this meeting, we would have been back to that situation. And that is not something I think that this committee believes is acceptable. So are we just going down the route again of starting the procurement process too late and not being in a situation to give members who make the decisions or should make the decisions sufficient time and sufficient information to be able to make the decision. And in addition to that, I presume there were more than one provider. So the way this reads, it makes me think that the contract was going to be reawarded to this provider, despite the fact they've suffered a serious cyber attack, which on one hand is either not an issue in terms of delivering materials and services or is sufficiently serious enough that would actually make awarding them the contract doubtful, in which case, why we're supposed. Can I just come in? Sorry. When it operates in procurement. If you see the delivery plan report today, the Israeli Living Contract was due to come to committee in September. So it wasn't that the committee would be asked to award a report on that today. Pausing the exercise at the moment gives us the opportunity to look at the alternative options that in terms of business continue to the council needs to consider. What I would say about the contractor for the services, it's in effect like a managed prime contractor model. So there are several organizations delivering specialist equipment under that one banner. And a change in direction would have an impact on resources for the service area in terms of managing, but it's something that we will look at in terms of the strategy going forward and work through the cyber security risks that have been identified. Okay. Do we have any further questions? Councillor Nicholson, then Councillor Ross. Thanks, Canvina. And thank you for the report. Possibly not a question for F&R, but a question I think that needs to be asked. I think we've probably all been contacted by Unison about the stockpile of very usable equipment at Pepper Place, Bank Pepper Mill, whatever it is that we're storing all the used equipment at present. And I just wonder if that has been considered in moving forward with contacts and for that type of service. So I can respond to that, Canvina. Yes, Councillor Ross, all these issues are taken into account as part of this procurement process. I don't have specific details on the kind of stockpiling you're referring to, but what I can confirm is that whenever economically viable, any returned equipment is repaired and reused, but happy to pick up any specifics out with anything if that's helpful. That is very helpful and definitely would like to pick that up afterwards, especially given the recent motion that came from Kaylee Councillor O'Neill in the Greens regarding usable equipment as well. If it's not able to be usable within City of Edinburgh, perhaps we can use it in a different way. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Ross. Thanks, Canvina. Thanks for the report. My question was in a similar line to Councillor Nicholson in relation to the recycling of equipment which is distributed through this contract to individuals in need of assistance. Can I ask what, how effective is the recycling of these items and what facilities do we have on channels of opportunity for recycling because they're not ordinary things. They are very specific and they are often in a very usable, reusable condition when they have, when the person to whom they've been given, it no longer requires them and it seems that we spend an lot of money on this buying new stuff all the time. I appreciate we do have to keep these stocks up. That's just, that's my question. I probably can't respond in any more detail then I have already, but if the committee would like what I could do is ask the officers involved to produce a briefing. That'd be helpful. I'm not circulated round about that because I think there is interest in it especially after the motion that Councillor Nicholson mentioned. Thank you. Oh, Councillor Dogger. Yep, second question is around the EADP extension. Paragraph 4.9 talks about pressure on commissioning has created delays in progressing the repurment. Can I ask what the specific pressures are? I guess the specific pressures are a very limited resource to undertake that commissioning piece of work and that very small team has had some instances of unplanned and sick leave. So, just to push you on that, Moira, is the team understaffed? Are there vacancies that aren't filled? I take your subsidiary point around unexpected sick leave but unexpected sick leave and a small team shouldn't stop a team from functioning. So, how do we get around that? But the main point is, are there sufficient people in that team? So, suppose for clarity, I'm not suggesting that unplanned sick leave and stop the team from functioning. It just meant the team were not able to continue with the whole breadth of their remit and they had to, as a result, prioritize their work. It is a small team. The team is now, as I understand it, through the staff and it's also fully funded through the EADP itself. So, I think Richard wants to add something and then Councillor Nicholson has a question. Thank you. Well, just can be honest, just going to add to the response for Council Douglas' question. We have undertaken an end-to-end or we're starting to undertake an end-to-end review of commissioning from children's free to adults, transition and homelessness as well. This will be a form part of a initial exploratory work to look at process and also all of the roles and responsibilities along the lines of that and we aim to look at a future model for commissioning and how we can best operate and avoid bottlenecks in any process for commissioning and managing the commissioning envelope as best we can in relation to our demand and anticipated future need for data. I'm hoping that we're just about to agree the project initiation document for that and scope. We've undertaken a quite a number of interviews now with all staff in the process but we would be happy to share that with you at a briefing that we're planning to do as part of the build-up to the June F&R to talking that in more detail if that would be helpful. Thank you, Councillor Nicholson. Thanks very much. A question about Scottish care and I'm aware that they're kind of the only organisation available in terms of representation of the private sector and some of the good work they do and just referring to the fact that they have a work plan. I was wondering if that could be circulated by officers. I haven't seen it in a I don't sit in the performance and delivery group which I think that's come to so thanks. Sorry, can we register to respond? Yes, of course, we can set away that work plan. Thank you. Do we have any other questions or before we move to the report and because we have an addendum which I'm you know I'm happy except so I move the report saying that and if James can just second it. Happy to say thank you and then a Councillor Nicholson. Yes, there's not enough a lot to say and I think we're probably all in agreement and as a board member I understand that there have been pressures on commissioning in the Health and Social Care Partnership for a number of reasons, not least the development of the savings plan and I know that no officers took that lightly. However, as Councillor Doggert did say a lot of the procurement contracts are starting too late and the £250 amount that results in contracts being referred to committee £250,000 I should say is an awful lot less than some of the size of contracts we're seeing coming here today using contract waivers and it is concerning for all of us and I appreciate what Richard said I think it was very helpful your comments for you regarding the review of the commissioning but yeah we'd still like to move the amendment but thank you for accepting it. Is it Councillor Biajia who's seconding? Formerly. Thank you. Are we happy to agree the report with the agenda? Thank you. Thank you. So we move on to item 7.10 now which is the Edinburgh integration joint board contract feel of living wage uplift so report by the executive director of corporate services and Richard Lloyd patho will speak to the report. Thank you. So as we have previously agreed this is a report to start formalising the passover of the consequences to the EIGAB and also formalise the uplift to the £12 an hour living wages as outlined in the report also detailed in the report is a brief update on the EIGAB's finances as we progress to the June formal report discussing outtenors and interim update. Have to take any questions. Do we have any questions for Richard on this or are we happy to agree the report? Any questions? Okay Councillor Mumford. Thank you. I've got a number of questions. One is just we said we'd get a verbal update on the cozler decision and the report says that happened on the 26th about distribution. I don't know if we can have that. I'm sorry Councillor MUNFORD. I didn't quite catch a question sorry. Sorry. So the report says that cozler is due to make a decision on distribution on the 26th and we'll get a verbal update on that in this meeting. I might invite my colleague Fraser who might be able to assist at this. I can't quite remember but I think if I was to recall essentially the cozler did meet the distribution group and they'd agree the £62 million consequential to be distributed on the GA basis for this. Richard is where our £5.2 million share comes from for that. And I think that's all really to say on that Councillor MUNFORD, sorry. Anything further? Councillor Ross. Yes. Sorry. We'll go. Councillor MUNFORD's follow-up first name. We'll go to Councillor Ross. Thank you. Sorry, I wasn't sure if my hand was up. So it's also just if there was any update on the match funding from the NHS which is mentioned in the report but just says it hasn't happened if we could get an update on where that conversation is. And also if there's any concerns about disparity and potential disparity with Children's Commissioned Care Services, obviously that's a different process but that's sort of going through at the moment and we've been able to top up this funding to ensure that we are offering everyone the £12 wage but is there any concern that we won't be able to do that with Children's Services? Thanks. In terms of the Children's, we are currently looking at options that are going through the Children's Committee. We absolutely are looking at every option of how we can apply that but we'll ensure that we present options to the Committee to facilitate that at the next education committee. In regards to the NHS, I can say from my point of view we are having group meetings to discuss this between myself, Moira and my counterpart and the NHS. So we'll continue to have those discussions and continue trying to interlink our budget and planning as much as we can as part of this process. Thank you. A Councillor Ross. Thank you. It's a convener and thanks for this report. I wanted to pick up one of the first point that Councillor Mumford raised in relation to the generic allocation basis and you refer to as the GA basis. Is this something which we are participating will be used quite commonly in by Councillor in these negotiations though this sort of situation because it is very concerning to the Council obviously because we seem to be losing out as a result and as a result of the finding it difficult to make our commitments as evidenced here. I think in terms of your question I think it seems to be the preferred method from what I can see from recent decisions that have been made and made on that basis. There's always winners and losers in every distribution so I think what we can do is perhaps we'll take that away and discuss that approach and perhaps we can do a briefing on what we may want to contribute to that debate through Councillor. Yeah thank you for explaining that it's just clearly there's a need here and it's not being met and if it's well if it's an assessment of need it doesn't seem to be appropriate that's all thank you. Anything further on that or are we happy to agree the report and refer it to full council for you know further consideration there okay that agreed thank you. Thank you move on to item 7.4 now which is the children education and justice services contracts extension report so report by the executive study director of children education and justice services an SMP group amendment has been circulated on this item we've lot of people speak to the report hi Laura good morning everyone do you have anything you want to add to the or update your report thank you thank you so the report is for noting the ongoing work that has been undertaken by the commissioning team in the director as shown in the main report in the table we have achieved 94.91 of compliance and given the news circulated yesterday this is now increased to 96 percent for the first three months of 2024 which is good news and we continue to do so and therefore also seeks approval to extend a small number of contracts and we are active contract planning is ongoing due to the reasons highlighted in 4.6 and 4.7 a financial aspect to it of course taking to consideration the medium term financial plan and the reason and the need to deliver within budget and 4.7 highlighting the the need to continue to be in the best interest of children young people and their families as such no change been suggested to date and nothing to add to the report other than that thank you I'm sure there will be questions just a Councillor Kumar thank you can be now I have a I have a few questions if I can so Laura thank you very much for the report my question is around 4.8 could you please confirm the actual value of the contract it does say it's 12 million per annum but then there's an eight month extension so could you please confirm the actual amount thanks Councillor Kumar so for those frameworks that I have in 4.8 so the residential care and special schools and the uniform the value is not fixed because they're free much so and it is an estimated value it depends on what we are using so I can provide the number of placements and the actual value which changes I would say the actual spend which changes continuously but that should be private if that's okay because that is the expected value the whole framework but there's no guarantee spend as such okay so can we can I come back in yes Councillor Kumar please just go through the questions that you have thank you thank you Laura so I'm having difficulty with that I understand that they are confidential contracts or sector but I am also aware that these are extraordinary sums that we've been asked to prove and it's difficult to do that if we if we don't know the sum that we're proving today I understand where you're coming from in terms of this is the value but I think we're really good for the committee to understand what that value is but my second question is and so according to the papers the contracts are coming to an end seventh of July 2024 which is of course just a little over two months is the reason why we've not done this work ahead of time I'm just mindful that again these are a significant amount of money and we only have about two months and a bit before the contract expires thank you so going back to the value we would request approval for extending the whole framework up to a value of 12 million and we are trying I mean the service and commissioning together are trying the best not to make any placement out of area as you are aware it's in our improvement plan however that cannot be guaranteed as depending on the children's needs as such we would need to approve we're asking approval for the whole value of the framework should we need to make up the emergency placement on any placement in the best interest of the child over the next nine months and and again that goes back to point four point seven and there is an active contract planning for all of those the first main framework is actually it's already been ongoing for a while we had some engagement providers and hoping that the contract planning and the procurement tender would align with the children's services improvement plan but work is still ongoing there and as such it wouldn't be fit for purpose if we went to tender wrote a specification that does not align with the main children's plan because that would be not be fit for purpose as I said thank you and I think executive director M Manta Hatton and it was something that I'd given sort of scale of this in particular sort of framework thank you thanks convener um and apologies if if I start coughing I've also got the the cold that everybody else seems to have um yeah they might be helpful to to give you an overview of the kinds of numbers that we're talking about we had um 75 children in external placements were down now down to 150 children in external placements so those numbers are reducing significantly that's both in terms of moving children back into the city who were in those external placements but also reducing the number of children that are coming into care so the edge of care team has had a real impact on reducing children who are coming into the care system we are projecting that we're going to be in budget um on placement spend for the first time um in living memory I think um so it's a real positive improvement that we're reducing the numbers obviously it's better for children to be within the city wherever possible and within their own families wherever possible um and we have seen a really significant reduction in the amount of external placements that we're using we are looking at our in-house resource provision as well and looking at can we change the nature of some of that provision so that for example we don't now have emergency placements going into all our residential provision because what that does is on settle houses so we we're not doing that anymore um and there is an ongoing piece of work around looking at particularly a couple of the residential establishments we've currently got to see if we could repurpose them and use them differently but we've not finished that piece of work yeah drop that out. Thank you very much manda that was really helpful but can I again push on the on the question so was there because because we knew when the contract was ending why was it left two months before people would not have brought their say at the start of the year um I'm just I'm I'm just conscious that the committee is being asked to prove some of money and I wholeheartedly believe in in in our residential program what I'm struggling with is the the length of time that we've been asked to actually consider this given the contract is coming to an end in July and that's two months away and it's a big sum of money why was this not brought ahead of time? I think you know you you can see from the paper that there's been a significant improvement in contract compliance you know we're at 96% now we were in a very challenging state in relation to contracts um the number of contracts we had we didn't have an accurate contract register so this is a work in progress and absolutely we would like to bring contracts forward at an earlier date wherever possible and what we're doing is continuing to do this work to make sure that we've got the right contracts in place the right contract managers against those contracts and we're getting value for money hence we do the report to each of our exact committees now with the detail of all the contracts that we've got in place what's happening with them when when they when they're coming up for ending etc this is a continuation of a framework it's not a look to a new framework it's not a development of a framework it's a continuation of the existing framework that we've got whilst we continue to make to make those changes and continue to get to a point where you know more and more and more of our work is compliant do you have anything further councilor kumar before i go to councilor kumar if you do you can read i thank you just the last one um so now i'm looking at the the provision of independent advocacy that's provided by hootaker scotland who again do fantastic work but we've been asked to extend the contract up to 24 months um going up to the end of march 2026 i'm just mindful that the other contracts um have been asked to be extended till march 2025 um could you explain to me why the additional year um is it not better to actually have the same deadline um and consider that at that stage thank you it's that one for Laura or Amanda are you gonna pick up i'll go to Laura thank you kumbina and you will see how in the line for who cares kotland we're asking to extend the contract by up to 24 months because that will be depending on the outcome or the um the two above so it might be 12 months it's sufficient um when we work with the um with the service area to look at the uh is again aligning with the um children services improvement plan it is a core element of the promise to maintain strong relationships and we will want to do so with um whoever uh will be delivering the uh independent advocacy for the moment this is who cares kotland and we will move as quickly as we can but again in the best interest of a other children and family so again it's up to 24 months it might happen sooner that's where you can read that thank you this uh can go to kensler-dogger now we thank you um yeah so just one observation first and i'll turn two questions um in the past we've been told we're doing really well and then we get updates to committees that say well actually we weren't but we're doing much better now um you must recognize that on this side of the table it becomes quite difficult to accept those assurances that we're doing much better now when we're been told the same thing that we were told in the past that we then discover has not quite been the case context so two um questions in respect of paragraph 4.7 um so pending continuous and further development as soon as inflation rates become stable and resources are available we shall look at tendering for these few extensions and waivers so in terms of inflation um and just to correct the error in paragraph 4.6 it's about govingan target not a government target um what would you regard as stable inflation i think we are getting to more stability we are already on that pathway to more stability and i guess for first generation contracts and i'm thinking on the last two on that table for requirements that have not been tended before in the council the risk of inflation impacting on the request coming from providers for those contracts have never been tended before as a risk that we are trying to manage together with finance i do yeah we are on the right pathway with more stability that's why the work has started for those two first generation contracts and does that answer your question not really because i would like to know how do you know when you've reached stability so from my point of view from strategic planning for the organization in terms of our assumptions around inflation we're planning for around three percent now i would say that ideally um so if i recall last um CPI inflation was about 3.2 we're still slightly above our planning assumptions but in terms of a stable level of inflation ideally as i said the bank of england's 2% would be a far more ideal position to be in but i think in terms of the macroeconomic factor driving that that's going to affect every aspect of our business and price inflation how much we can control um the individual price of activity and contracts within our framework but i think there's lots of questions around market what you know our local circumstances of a number that are equally important to the context around providers our our place in the local market compared to what the private market can provide lots of questions around that they're equally important that creates challenges that Laura and her team are doing a great job both in trying to navigate and making progress on but in terms of your question inflation that's this might be yeah so i'm still not sure i recognize you know you can have national level which is irrelevant when it comes to the pricing of an individual contractor though that's fine i get that um but i'm still not sure how you know when you've got the right answer that you can then say inflation has stabilized so is it 3% is it 2% um and i'm not getting any assurance that the answers provided um mean did you know when you've hit the right position that you can then go into a contract does that mean if we're sitting at 3.2 percent in eight months time that we're going to be faced with the same issue because inflation hasn't stabilized but actually inflation has stabilized because it's sitting at 3.2 percent free at months so um i'm struggling to understand your mindset in terms of actually setting the criteria for the answer my my thinking around is the the impact of inflation stability of rates or non-stability rates willing will be on the provider so there the impact of inflation is on them who will then provide me with with the prices i need to deliver within budget it's not really on the council and so our opportunity when we tend that is is the earliest opportunity we have to make sure we get the right price for for the right service that we require over the course of the contract and if inflation rates become more stable the providers hopefully will be able to to offer prices that can allow us to deliver within budget right okay second question uh in relation to when resources are available do we have a problem with resource when it comes to these contracts and if it comes to a contract that has a value of 12 million should that not be a priority we are a small team and we work very closely with finance and procurement uh yeah not always resources are available however the contracts that you've gotten this report are all been worked on and work is started in progress just add to that um this work we're doing is part of the scope of the commission review um so i think if we do identify the need for additional resources there's there's clearly progress that's being made and um so i think the more that we invest into this if we can prove this will provide best value then we absolutely should be looking at investing more in and of course joining up the processes and the tech and everything else that comes alongside it but it's already a man's plan i think um a man to haten has some additional information to add thank you thanks thanks convenient um as as Laura said this is this is a small team we've we've already put additional posts into this team which has um achieved the the positive steps forward that you can see in the report we've now got i think it's three more posts in the team that we're trying to recruit to um that they're difficult skills to recruit to and and lots of people want people that have got really good contracts management and commissioning skills um but but we are actively recruiting into the team thank you anything further so thank you if there's no further questions um going to move the report um and say that um you know going to accept um or minded to accept the amendment uh by the S&P group um the the main thing is the committee is requesting that report and as quickly as possible um about these issues and with contract contract management commissioning um and we've uh heard the director of finance um say that he's working on that very actively um and will be uh bringing bring in a report to committee as soon as possible and so i'm a we're going to move the uh report and say that we're going to accept the amendment um counselor jaul gleech if you could formally convener thank you um is it counselor um is it counselor kumar that's moving the um amendment hi um thank you very much convener and thank you for indicating um that we will be uh accepting our amendment i think that's really useful thank you very much um i want to just start by saying that we are we are very firm in our commitment to provide services for our residential care services and our special special skills and i think that's really key here and that the work of supply such as charities um and other partners are very key in the sector um and again i very much agree with the report that we should not be automatically renewing contracts with our review uh because we've had evidence of previous times where this has this has failed uh in terms of best value and community of service um the bit that has been most uncomfortable for me um and i appreciate the officer's answers to this is just that they're really more forward planning and i appreciate the the standards that we don't know the sums but actually a little bit of forward planning to actually bring this ahead of time would be really valuable just so that us as elected members have had i've got a clear view in terms of what has been asked um the sum of 12 million or around that figure is a lot of money to ask um given that we still don't have a clear understanding um in terms of uh what that might entail what that might look like in the end uh and for those reasons uh we've brought this amendment forward uh just to really put into writing that we are we are concerned and we do believe that it is you know again a lot more forward planning that it would be useful for and beneficial for this for this council and committee um again as if as if our client can read that we are asking for what to be brought back as soon as possible um just so that we are also future proofing our our processes going forward um happy to move thank you thank you and is it Councillor Nicholson or Councillor Bianchi that's seconded formally thank you thank you Councillor Nicholson um everybody happy agree that thank you thank you thank you conveners move on to item 7.5 now which is the award of contract for Edinburgh's Winter Festivals so report by the executive director of corporate services there has been a liberal democrat group amendment and an in-group addendum circulated on this item and have Kevin McKee here to speak to the report okay so there's um no much to add to the report but it is perhaps worth noting um that the contract will be in a joint in several liability basis and therefore in terms of the successful consortium we'll be entering into contract with all three members of that consortium um you'll also see that there's a confidential appendix which sets out some detailed financial information in relation to the successful bidder which um we would hear on the B agenda as I say there's also been a threat of legal challenge which I think you're all aware of and again we can offer or I can offer advice on myself and my colleague Keith but that would have to be on the B agenda for obvious reasons thank you um do we have any questions on the the agenda a part of this item a Councillor uni thank you convener I have a few if that's okay um hope so and first one this is maybe perhaps more for the convener than the officers but it was not entirely helpful for I think the council leader to have made comment on the award of contract um before the contract was awarded by this committee so I don't know if that's that's one free I don't know if you'd like to speak to that yes I'll feed that back to um and uh just check with the media briefing team um that they make sure that they get these these kind of things just um quite accurate when there are contracts and legal things um obviously we're keen to say that there was a sort of recommendation but yeah they pushed it pushed it probably a bit further um than would have been ideal so I will certainly feed that back to um thank you oh sorry and you have a question for the officers do as well if that's okay convener thank you yes of course then we'll go and case the wrong part and thank you for that um it relates to the KPIs um and their inclusion in the report or rather the fact that I don't think they they were including the report despite the fact that they were agreed I think in um our meeting last year in in June and I appreciate that they don't have to be they don't have to be included but it I think speaks to the trans transparent transparency element around the award of the contract here that I'd be grateful for a bit more information on yet the KPIs and the fact they're not included in this report that's in front of us I think that one's possibly best answered by Lynette or David to his online yeah I'm hoping convener David Waddle is online and we'll pick that up and describe how we undertake that process if that's okay David yeah certainly um thank you Paul thank you convener um the KPIs as kindly as mentioned were um taken to committee back in August 23 and to cultural communities committee and agreed as part of the specifications sign off and they were then included as part of the tender pack and we um updated members that the KPIs and the final KPIs would be updated once we'd had um the final bid in um and we knew what was going to be included as part of that in effect the KPIs that were included back in August 23 and reported to committee were kind of baseline minimums that we were looking for um across the um the life of the contract there's obviously going to be additional elements that would be proposed by the um the bidders and we wanted to include them as part of the final KPIs once they're developed so if the bidder is proposing or saying that they will deliver X, Y and Z we would like to include X, Y and Z in the final set of KPIs. Yeah just one more just if that's okay convener just on and thank you for that David that was very helpful um I don't know how much this of this can be answered in a agenda just regarding the financials of the awards and there has I don't know if that'd be better left to be agenda or I think it depends on the question the thing weekends it's not a typical answer um you know I think we can talk about um at what stage finances were tested then the the general nature of any additional financial tests that were undertaken and then successful but if we're talking about pound shillings and pains then when people would be agenda systems. I think much most of the former would be very helpful if you could draw out and give us a bit of reassurance and clarity on um yeah the the former part that you'd refer to there um not the pound shillings and pains. Right um I think Fraser from our finance team is Fraser on Fraser maybe best um please answer that. Sorry Councillor could you just clarify the question just specifically if that's okay. So there's I think reference has been made um by uh Kevin to some concerns that were raised with Councillors around the like property and um when we started to ask people for financial information and the process around um when we asked and I think it would be helpful to go into that a little bit more in public session. You mean around financial checks and so on okay thank you. Okay thanks very much. Can I say uni? Um uh I'll let my colleagues contribute as appropriate. At the stage one uh SPD stage the simple single procurement document. Yeah the contract specification or invitation of that stage uh included a minimum turnover requirement which was equal to um twice the value of the expected contractor board and also the minimum current ratio which is the comparison between current assets and current liabilities and a figure of 1.2 was included in the specification at that stage and so that was done at the initial stage um as the progress as the um process continued then further checks were undertaken particularly when we reached the stage four at which a detailed analysis was taken further questions were asked as appropriate of the remaining bidders at that stage but I'm going to be pass over to other colleagues just to elaborate. Thanks. We um agreed that it was appropriate to do further due diligence as the end of the tender process approached and therefore we built in additional checks as part of that process so that meant that rather than looking back which is what we would have done in in the October time and we were asking bidders to provide more up to date financial information about their organisations. Um we also advised that we would do a range of due diligence checks on the back of that not just turnover and um not just threshold but we would also look would intently at other external financial information that was available for example credit reference checks we'd form part of that we would look at balance shoots we would look at cash bank and so we would um and provided a lot more rigor around all of those areas before we were satisfied with the outcome. We also asked additional questions um or bidders were appropriate to to get an explanation of any figures that we weren't sure about um and get more detail around that and all of that information was passed back to finance colleagues and shared with legal colleagues as well as we worked through each of the processes to get to the end result. Does that answer your question? Thank you. As much as we can in the session although I think that you know gave a very good um outline and background of what the process and time and was um so so I think that was very helpful and count them on first. Thank you um I've got two probably quick questions and a couple of tricky ones and so the quick ones are just um the procurement costs that are listed in the report I presume that doesn't include the um procurement manager um that will be managing this um and I just wondered if it seems like this is a big one to manage um given a lot given all of the different elements of it so I just wondered if we could talk anything about the the impact on council costs of that procurement manager and how that is factored into this and then also just a question about timings if we if committee decided to defer this report what um what impact might that have is that possible and thank you and then if if I could get answers to those and then I'll come back in for the sorry big one thank you. Okay I'll take the first question um on the procurement costs so those costs are um essential and assessed group cost of what it takes to procure a service so it includes all the costs for procurement services, legal services, the service area support and building together the specification and the documentation it does not include the cost of the contract management and the contract management cost will sit with the service area and and poll will will manage that cost going forward. Just on the second question convener which I'll I'll pick up David David if you uh want to add anything please feel free I think simply council and Mumford officers would much prefer members um to take a decision um today if at all possible clearly if members don't feel as if their questions um have been answered either in the report or in questions then members will want to continue but I think we would like if it's all possible to resolve this um today for the very simple reason um that it's now nearly the end of April um once members make a decision there is a uh period to go through around standstill and procurement then we have to mobilize the contract and to actually undertake the work um both by the contractor by council colleagues and by others um to make the event a reality starts getting extremely tight in reality we're already slightly behind so uh we we would like to uh try and find a way of of giving assurance to members on any information you have either on the A or B agenda today to allow you to make a decision if at all possible. Thank you and sorry I think Kevin wants to add something uh council Mumford if that's okay before we move to the next one just in relation to deferment or delay um if that was in light of the perspective legal challenge then I can cover some of that if and where we go to be a gender for for questions in in that regard. Thank you and council Mumford do you have thank you and yeah and also just to follow up on that I've just like that will make sense I suppose just to echo what SMP colleagues have been saying today about um feeling a little bit like sometimes things come to this committee with not much choice um you know we knew this was going to be a really big contract and it's been controversial so um in the past so I suppose um in terms of committee work planning it would be helpful to know when these things are going to come up and if there is any way to put this slightly earlier in the year although I know Christmas comes around quicker every year and so my other questions were just around um there's probably more for David just uh obviously we've had issues in the past with these contracts what has changed in this um contract that means we are we're protected if things go wrong and also if you could just talk briefly through the changes that have been made around environmental um uh protection silicate tree protection looking at air pollution and diesel generators in this contract if you I know the waiting's changed if you could just talk a little bit about that that would be really helpful thank you sure um I'll maybe ask colleagues and legal to step in and anything around um protections and T's and C's based um it's that they've been covering that certainly in terms of changes from um the previous um procurement exercise that was undertaken um obviously that was reported to a number of committees um GRBV uh this committee and culture and communities um and as a result of that we have implemented a number of changes um first of all we've done a slightly different procedure for this time um the competitive procedure with negotiation is supposed to open procedure from last time we've changed the weightings um around quality and cost to um add further weighting to the quality element of it this time um we have uh changed the number of the criteria or sorry the um the tender submission questions reflecting concerns that have been raised by members in the past specifically around community benefits um and environmental impact and sustainability as well um we've included a new question around um event accessibility and inclusivity as well again referring to reflecting those kind of core values that have been determined through the public consultation um when that was done a couple of years ago so I think that the um the tender submission and the specification which is appended to this report and again had gone um to culture and communities committee back in August and more fully reflect um some of the concerns that were raised by members at that time and gives us something that's slightly more um for purpose than the previous version. Do we have a Councillor Ross? Sorry Convener um forgive me I think David Councillor MONFIDALS had the question on environmental and sustainability um measures. Yeah um section 21 I think it is in the specification talks specifically about some of the measures um around uh that we would want to see them see implemented by the contractor we've been working very closely with clear Marion and the Council's sustainability team who's had direct input into um the specification for this and it was one of the areas that we were able to enhance and improve um following um the specification committee last time um so there are a number of additional initiatives in there that we've instructed to be included um including membership of certain schemes um the ones around food waste food recycling um use of um electric vehicles the Elizet um it's there's a lot more information has gone into those um sections I like that we also had um from last time information around tree protection zones they've been included and updated and since that um previous procurement exercise as well we're included as an appendix giving really clear information um around what areas are able to be used within our green spaces um and we've had um a lot of input from our colleagues in parks and green space around that as well. Sorry for for jumping in before you got the chance to answer that David thanks for the the nudge poll um Councillor Ross thanks convenient and thank you for this report and and clearly um you will officers will appreciate that members have concerns around this um process and both from the point of view of ensuring that it is clear and transparent but also ensuring that we have an improved contract as and I see from I've heard from the answers to David has given that clearly there have been improvements made so I have two or three questions about contract process if that's all right just again to give committee more reassurance that this is the right way forward here um in terms of and we've heard um how the contract has been structured differently and the process is a completely different process from that taken uh the year before two years before can I ask then about the KPIs my colleague made reference to and then the assessment during the process of the contract where there are um relatively minor failures but there's a cumulative impact on uh the the the contractual performance and there may be degrees of shortcomings how is that recognized not specific major KPIs but accumulative impact how is that recognized and what provisioners are in the contract to allow the council to say this is really isn't good enough we're pulling the plug I'm happy to take that one there is a provision in the contract in the t's and c's of the contract um for the um issuing of default notices and if a certain number of default notices are issued within a set period then that can lead to termination um that has been in the in the contract that that's not new to the contract so it is there thank you can be notified may follow on that's helpful thank you for explaining that um we have a festival's APOG a group of counselors and officers who look after and oversight and scrutinize events and festivals in particular and particularly this one what engagement are we expecting once this contract is up and running with the festivals APOG? David can you um update us on that? Yes certainly um the APOG is um in the past what we've done I would intend to I thought we would intend to repeat it for this time is that we provide um a fairly regular update to um that APOG and it's not quite the understanding item in the agenda but um more or less has over the the recent meetings of um that group and just provide updates of where we are with um everything that's taken place through Edinburgh's Christmas, Edinburgh's Hogmany and the planning of it and there's also an annual report goes back to Culture and Communities Committee as the parent committee for this um contract um as well um and we would have regular contract meetings and um contract management meetings with the contractors as well um on quite specific items looking at you know finance permissions um KPIs community engagement stakeholders engagement um all these elements as well so there's quite a robust process in place for managing and monitoring that's contract keeping the APOG updated and then ultimately if a decision or an important update is required that would go back to Culture and Communities Committee. If I can just add briefly Kavina um given um what's happened to this contract in the past um that there is no officer under any illusion at all not least to me that if there are any issues um that for example Keith has mentioned or David has referred to on perhaps a more informal basis that we will report those to Councillors either through the APOG or a more appropriate map or more uh whatever is the most appropriate mechanism formally to committee as early as possible. Councillor Roth. Thank you that's very helpful because of course it is well in my view certainly important that Councillors are involved in uh in those processes should they be necessary. Can I uh move on a little bit to my final question um in in public in relation to the process of monitoring and reporting and expectations leading up to the start of the first events uh for Christmas and alluding apparently to the things which will come to licensing and planning given that I'm certain licensing committee. What what um is the expected process to ensure that the successful applicant meets the deadlines and timelines that we anticipate and have done this before so maybe we should have some confidence about that. David you picked that up. Yeah certainly um one of the area other areas that we'd um uh enhanced or made clear following from Councillor Monferd's question was around the need for permissions and the requirements that and the timescales that were associated with that and it also allows to the use of public spaces for filming and events as well where we've got very clear timescale set out to all event organizers in the city about what our expectation is for getting permissions and submissions and um there are a number of um uh there are other conditions in the contract around them notifying us of plans um ahead of getting any submissions in and very clear that they are responsible for um the contractions responsible for getting permissions and ensuring that they are in place um so we have generally done some engagement work with uh the contractions in the past to make sure that they are fully aware of what's expected and done specific meetings with licensing and with planning and building control and so that they can detail out their um timelines and um submission dates that required for this to make sure that they reach committee in good time um ahead of the events. Are there any further questions before we move to be a agenda? Councillor Ross. No can be heard in that case it was for a B agenda questions. Thank you. Okay so I think if there's nothing further on the agenda we'll move directly the B agenda on this item um and that means that I'm going to have to ask um everybody who isn't essential to this part of the uh proceedings to if they can just leave and likewise if you're on team teams can you just go off teams and the clerk will sign you an indication of when you should return for later items. Okay um thank you all. That's us back on the the webcast um and ready to resume um we're still on item 7.5 um just to remind people where we are regarding the winter festival contract we have a a report with a liberal democrat group of amendment and a green group addendum and I'm just going to check whether a the a libdame group wish to press the remainment and whether the green group wish to press the redendum. Thank you. Councillor Ross. Thanks, convener. When I first read this report I was immediately concerned as to what we would be faced with in decision making today. Partly because of the history around the this event and the contractual processes the council have been involved in in the last couple of years and the experiences the council has had um that was why we as a group asked for a briefing on this um the briefing took place yesterday afternoon with officers and for which we are very grateful um that was after the deadline for submitting amendments so we tabled this in if you like a protective capacity um we have had discussion and debate and answers to questions this morning both in A and in B agenda and I'm very grateful to officers for explaining more about how they arrived at the conclusions in this report and the reassurances that we were given both legally, financially and contractually uh to the concerns we had had um and therefore as far as our amendment is concerned we will be withdrawing it, convener. Thank you. Thank you and I'll just ask Councillor Unity seconded formally before it gets withdrawn part of the the procedures that we go through. Yeah just to oh I don't need to apparently. No. No. We usually do it in full time so so just uh could I have just a brief comment if that's okay then. Of course yes. Thank you um yeah likewise to my uh colleague Councillor Ross I'd just like to thank the officers for the reassurances provided both today and yesterday is very much I appreciate um very grateful for um people raising concerns over this as well because it is a subject of immense um importance to the city. I know how seriously everyone takes the Winter Festival and how important it is to families across the city so getting this right and applying extra scrutiny which I think we've done today is I think the right thing to have done so yeah um don't need to move it formally but yeah thank you. And then um you've already indicated that I'm going through the the formal process of uh moving in seconded that you're now um agreeing to withdraw. Yes convener. Thank you. So I'll go to Councillor Mumford to move the green agenda. Thank you. Um yeah we'll we'll be um continuing with this um we're very very grateful for the the answers and scrutiny that's been given here today um and similarly in the briefing yesterday. Um our request to refer this to GRBV um is not because there are questions that we're not comfortable of being answered and we're comfortable to proceed with the recommendation um but the fact that this has been a big issue for the city over the past years and I think it's right that a scrutiny body we've scrutinized it from the finance and resources point of view and we think it's right that the scrutiny body of the council, GRBV also scrutinized this hopefully to show the progress that's been made and the lessons that have been learned and implemented in doing this um this new way of procurement for the festival so we think it's right that that happens in public by the scrutiny committee which is why we've suggested that um out with approving the report here today it's then referred on to GRBV for scrutiny. Thank you. Thank you um it's Councillor Stana for the second. Yes as Councillor Mumford said it's just seems sensible given the history of the winter festivals and the controversy and problems that surrounded them in the past that this goes to GRBV for for a little bit of extra scrutiny so that everything so that it is clear that every every eye has been dotted and tea has been crossed with that eye second this addendum. Thank you Councillor Stana Firth so I'm going to move the report and see that I'm happy except the Green Addendum and the withdrawal of the amendment and if there's no further points I will ask Councillor Dalglish to second that for me. Formally convenient. Thank you um are there any other positions or are we happy to agree the report with the addendum? Okay so think that agreed. Yep thank you and thanks to the officers and for responding so quickly like incredibly quickly the issues that were raised it's very very much appreciated gave a series of briefings at very short notices to myself and to some of the other finance leads and it really was very very much appreciated thank you. Thank you so we'll move now on to item 7.6 on the agenda which is the Edinburgh International Conference Centre Convention Bureau funding report by the executive director of corporate services and the executive director of place of Ellen Williamson, Paul Lawrence and a number of EICC representatives here to speak to the report today. There's been an administration amendment, an S&P group amendment and a Green Group amendment circulated on this item and there's also our written deputation which has been circulated and published online on this item as well. I think we also had a request from a Councillor Cameron and members of the EICC to be heard and I will keep that very similar to a deputation I think we'll go. Councillor Cameron plus 2 be five minutes in total for yourselves and then a short period for asking and answering questions and we'll go from there thank you. Can be near on a point not really a point of order but we do have an amendment from Councillor Mckinnis who is I understand 30 seconds away. Would you like us to I have talked it out sufficient. Thank you Councillor Viyaji welcome Councillor Mckinnis and it's good to have you here you know the whole sort of deputation presentation from Councillor Cameron in the EICC thank you okay if you'd like to go ahead. Thank you convener and I'm accompanied today on my right by John Dalley who's our chair of our audit and risk committee at the EICC on my left by Marshall Dalis the chief executive of the EICC and it's quite apt that we are here today and this report is before you because earlier on today at the EICC we had a very engaging and insightful session on the importance of business events to the city where we listened to speakers from overseas that talked about the absolute value not just in monetary terms but in terms of benefits to local cities and the communities that arise out of hosting business events as members of the committee here will be aware it's set out in the report that EICC has overseen the delivery of Convention Edinburgh functions for a temporary period I think that's been hugely successful and I'm grateful to both the EICC team and council officers for coming together to produce a report that certainly the recommendations that are in front of you has the support of us as an EICC board and also just to make the point and I'll hand over to Marshall briefly and then to John to talk about the risks if the funding doesn't happen is that we need we need certainty we need a three-year funding package for this to work if we're going to be successful in attracting private sector membership and support for this and the other point just to highlight is there are big international association businesses sorry events that we bid for now these are run these are not-for-profit type events but we cannot as a venue bid for those alone we need to bid together as a city as a collective and that's the another key purpose for having a Convention Bureau I'll stop there I'll hand over to Marshall and then I'll invite John just to talk about the risks if this doesn't happen thank you thank you councillor Cameron convener we note the recommendations that the officers have come up with and we support those recommendations if I can maybe just give a bit of context or a bit of background to how we've got to hear that might it might be useful for committee members back in November 23th and November EICC board members approved the funding of the Edinburgh Convention Bureau operations to the total of £925,000 from EICC cash reserves and that was for the period of January 24th to January 26th and that the equivalent of that amount is reduced from loan stock liability due to CEC holdings in 2026 and that was subject to confirmation from a legal and accounting professional switch we took advice from lawyers pincent masons and as it's the accountants who could who didn't raise any any issues at all following that extensive discussions were had at CEC holdings on the 19th of January and in terms of the outcome of that the funding of ECB operations was agreed excuse me or the was agreed up to £925,000 from EICC cash reserves and to be offset against the loan stock the other thing that was agreed at that meeting was the extension of the guardianship period to June 26th and the other thing that we agreed was the third point was the officers have a proposal that goes to the most appropriate meeting either a budget process or F and finance and reserves committee that satisfies the aspirations of council officers it was back on the 30th of January now with the next EICC board meeting it was also explained that communication had been received from Mr Lawrence to state that there was insufficient time for this to be included in the CECC budget process and that a report would be prepared for consideration at F and R committee on the 14th of March and since then multiple meetings have taken place with CEC officers within February and the discussions that happened between CECC EICC exec and officers I'm almost finished convener thank you thanks okay so I was just gonna say it was very constructive and we had that okay I'll stop thank you um do we have any questions um for the EICC representatives councilman part thank you yeah I was wondering if you could say a little bit about the the impact of this proposal and doesn't go forward as as suggested in the report and particularly the the element of risk um to EICC if John could speak to that that would be really helpful thank you yeah um I'd speak really uh on behalf of EICC but we must remember this is the convention bureau we're talking about and and the EICC is just running it on behalf of the city so I'm really talking in those terms and I've had the benefit of working in the city in major businesses for the last 30 years and inspiring Edinburgh and how Edinburgh is as a capital is really really important to business in the city and really important to the city in the wider sense the economic value that it brings to the city and you've seen that in the report and it's all there um so this is something that a city of our great city we really should be supporting it's so essential you've seen in the comparisons with uh other cities that we aren't spending the same amount as other cities and we are starting to fall behind we fall behind grads go and that says it all really so I think this is really really important and we heard as as Leslie said earlier we heard some really important things this morning about the impact of covid and how that was meant that face-to-face meetings come with more purpose these days and you actually get things done we heard about how a conference helped Parkinson's helped um hip and all sorts of things that these these conferences do so they're not just about people having a chat because you can do that online now so it's a risk it's a risk to the city it's a significant risk and as chair of the audit committee at the ICC and really a person that believes in business in Edinburgh I really would hope that you would support this proposal um the ICC have come up with a compromise which means that there's no short-term impact to the to the city um so I'd hope that it would be accepted thank you okay counselor McInnes thank counselor Ross thank you very much computer and I appreciate a lot of the work that's gone into this um and also the fact that um you've lead out an ambition for a larger bureau but you've pulled it back given um the the financial considerations at the moment but I did just want to pick up on one aspect of it which is it when we look at a competitor to other cities um London of course bigger scale different opportunities and so on um is running a very successful function um using 11 staff and our original basis was to look at 10 staff coming in now I'm just I'm I'm interested in getting your thoughts on how you marry that up with our the scale of our ambitions which are right for the city and but also the scale of our resources that are available to us at the moment and if in fact there is a possibility of looking at delivering the same kind of impact and economic benefit but without quite such a a large scale in proposed and then in investment in staffing and the associated costs attached to that and having said that I do would meet the point I do recognize the fact you pulled that back in terms of today's report but I'm talking about the overall intent thank you thank you yeah it's an interesting point you make about London um you don't set up a bureau based on the per head capita you set up a bureau um we're Scotland's capital city and as john has highlighted there were a you know we have ambition as we should do for Scotland's capital city London is set up in a way um you can't really compare the eggs for eggs because the structure is different down there but all I would say is that we wouldn't you know we wouldn't normally look at setting up a bureau based on the population head count um the nature of business events is that it's it's um you know there's a two or three year lead into these I think it was highlighted earlier there that um there are events that we can't bid for for the city without a bureau support so so that was that and in terms of the in terms of the scaling back um it's not really a scaling back this is the first stage of of of uh potentially a two stage approach where we want to get the five people on board that's five new jobs um for the city um we want to get them on board and we want to give them absolute focus to bring 10 staff on would be very difficult to do in one stage so it's really a two stage process and our our sort of I guess our remit would be that we would um we would employ those five people we would do a review at the end of the period and we would take a view from there as to whether or not that is adequate for the city or we'd need potentially an increase on that so I hope that's I thought that's been helpful can we know if I might come back in uh yes of course I wasn't really looking at the comparison with London on a question of population headcount I was thinking about it more in terms of the flow of business um the opportunity is a scale of of London in terms of convention opportunities is going to be larger than ours inevitably because of the geographic scale of everything to an extent population headcount and so on and I also was interested in noting um what you said about this being a first stage I was simply referring to the fact that you had you've stated an ambition to get the bureau to this particular size and yes it is a first stage here but what I'm questioning about is what I'm questioning is need to have a bureau that's of that larger size in the first place other other ways to deliver the same impact but with a different structure which would take less public money or indeed could be balanced better with membership fees etc. Well I think the first thing maybe to say there uh councillor is that that in order to collect membership fees we need to have something and I think what we have currently is not attractive to the private sector who want to contribute funds for for a bureau um so in order for us to get to that I mean the point the point you make is a well-made point I think and and I would agree with that that that's something that further down the line that should this be agreed today hopefully that we can you know we can get the ball moving with with five staff then that's a that's a review process that would take place um you know with any business there's a stabilization period so for for us it would be it would be um at the end of a three-year period so 2026 we would take a view as to how successful that the bureau has been um so far and having you know having generated over 40 million pounds worth of economic impact to the city and these are other venues these are not EICC benefits these are benefits to the rest of the the venues within the city um you know that I think what I think that's a really good start and but I hear what you're saying I think that's something that we we should um perhaps review at 2026 when you know we've we've seen it operating for three years and see what the successes are thank you. Councillor Ros. Thanks. I can be here um I very much appreciate the report in front of us the explanation of justifications around the need for a convention bureau. I completely understand the value that has to Edinburgh as a city commercially and individually and tourism wise as well um and my questions are around the not the size of the model but the method and arrangements for external funding so that's key to the whole enterprise and the structure and support for the convention convention bureau. I look at this objectively from the point of view of um who benefits from this bureau who is it which businesses and to what extent do individual businesses benefit from the existence and the active actions of the bureau and therefore how and this question must have been looked at before so what is your experience understanding of how we could as a as a city have a convention bureau that is adequately supported by those who benefit from it and therefore in a way that reflects the benefits accruing to the businesses and EICC obviously in the council and other universities and others who are clearly all benefiting from the actions and the activities of having an effective bureau because I'd like I'm sure this has been explored before perhaps you can enlighten the committee as to what has led you to a subscription model how that is graded or varied between members who are contributing how does that compare to other cities how is it funded elsewhere. Thank you council Ross there are there are there are is no one model that fits all and there are some cities throughout Europe and the rest of the world that the bureau is is funded by the transient visitor levy there are some cities that government and local government choose to fund a hundred percent of of the bureau and we sort of took the view of how we were going to fund this by understanding that the council is like many councils strapped for cash and so we tried to create a model that wouldn't affect that going forward and the the the debt reduction model as I call it was one that I felt was was right for the city for this city because it it it positively says that we understand from a council perspective that funds are tight which is what we're being told and the ICC was going to put in 92927 million 927 000 pounds over three years and that would be that would be with an ask of the public sector of the private sector to contribute to that and there are various different sort of funding arrangements that would be made for each business so so it was to try and I suppose to try and you know address the fact that the city was struggling for money I think EICC's had a particularly good year last year and we were keen to put some of that money into a city a city fund like this a councillor Ross if I may thanks can be done thank you very much for that and so ideally as a council I think we should be working towards a self-financing option model which allows businesses that benefit from it to contribute and fund it and run it and that it's then the city's bureau but it is in that way not dependent on very restricted council public sector financing ideally from your own point of view I'm sure you'd prefer that too but nevertheless we are where we are today and obviously there is a contribution required from the council to keep this going as it should but but I think in terms of the way forward we should be looking at ways to ensure that we work towards a eventually a zero funding requirement from the council thank you thank you Councillor I'm going to answer that I think you're quite right when marketing Edinburgh was set up we had a 1.2 million pound subsidy or input rather cash from the council and that was on a model that the private sector's membership fees would you know grow and so the council's contribution reduced year on year till it was about 800 800 000 at the time when a decision was taken to wind up marketing Edinburgh and the council also said to marketing Edinburgh at that time which was overseeing and delivering the convention bureau that marketing Edinburgh then had to come up with a self-financing plan going forward entirely to your to your point so we've been without marketing Edinburgh and a kind of formal entity for doing convention bureau work for some six years now and absolutely the vision and the model for whatever comes next is entirely that which is what you know having an increased council contribution in the first year which is why we think we need at least 250 000 in order to do two things one it's it's a very strong indicator of of commitment by the city and a signal to the business community that we're serious about this we're serious about our reputation as a city and how we hold ourselves out to the world and also it's not just the businesses I mean we heard today about face-to-face meetings being even more important and especially with their our academic and scientific conferences because it allows people who are students here to attend events that are all about ideas and they meet the experts and the scientists so there's not just the cash benefits there are benefits that that cannot be counted financially but you know are absolutely right that we should we should pursue so at the end of the day the EICC is a hundred percent owned allio of the council it's not part of our core business is a conference center to deliver a convention bureau because the entity that used to do that was wound up by the council and but it's clear that the competitive landscape out there is such that we need a convention bureau the council asked us to do something on a temporary basis which we've done we've come to the end of that temporary period and we've kind of set out the achievements given a very limited amount of funding and indeed the EICC has has committed 150 000 per year over the period that we've had the guardianship so we've shown faith our two commitments to the shareholder is the EICC is one to deliver economic benefit to the city and two to make sure that we are self-financing as a conference center so we're happy to do that and that's part of the reason we're doing the hotel project but we have also through being the guardian of the convention bureau for this time born cost of 150 000 a year twice because the period is almost a two-year period we have done that and good faith we have not done it with an expectation that there would suddenly not be a convention bureau the council this committee and council can indeed make a decision for there not to be a convention bureau function but that would put us for actually over time councilor Cameron so i'm gonna i'll just finish my scientists that's all right Peter yeah and so we would put ourselves a very distinct disadvantage compared to the city's worldwide thank you thank thanks very much um and uh now uh ask uh um sort of return the the gallery um well we go through this item uh questions to um officers um i think it's happy to introduce the report convener if that's okay uh just two or three things mindful of time first of all um in terms of officers um uh Richard and Alison uh the far end are able to answer questions on the financial aspects of this particularly loan stock if uh members have got questions on that and uh Elaine Williamson has been working with EIC on the proposal um that's now in the report um in front of you i've also been asked to pass on to the committee uh the view of CEC Holdings um which was to support the EICC um proposal i think it's important that members hear the view of EICC um holdings and so i want to make sure that's clearly recorded and and lastly convener just just to say um in respect to the proposal which i suppose where where officers got to with this is set out largely um uh from paragraphs 4 12 onwards um and that's to recognize that there is a need here but there is a significant financial problem as i think a number of members have pointed out so what we tried to do is bring forward a proposal which was time limited um because um i think as council camera and just said um EICC being in this arrangement may not be the right thing for the long term so it was time limited but within enough time to make a difference uh and from a financial point of view was uh designed at a level where we thought it was manageable um within the potential resource available and i think um that was uh partly uh officer's discussions in some ways mirroring uh councilor mckinis's questions to EICC colleagues about whether this was over ambitious at the time and so what officers did particularly um elin working with colleagues at EICC was to try and if you're like bring this back to a a minimal level of affordable affordability but a position where the relevant impact could still be made so i suppose the optimal position uh because there comes to a point where there's simply not enough money to do a decent job and that's what we tried to get to and set out in in paragraph four twelve onwards um it is my personal view and this is another reason uh around um uh the limited time limited period suggestion um is that this is an area which if the government passes the visitor levy legislation if the council agrees to move forward with the visitor levy and if members agree that this kind of area uh might be eligible for spend that we would look at that so this gives us if you're like a bridging period gives a degree of medium-10 certainty for EICC but doesn't tie our hands in any future arrangements post the introduction of a visitor levy and that's why we came up with i suppose that that compromise suggestion that's that sat out in four twelve um onwards uh we're very happy to answer any questions convene thank you do we have questions for officers? Councillor doggart yeah i'd like to ask a question not so much related to the report itself but how we got here um so in q1 of 2023 poll um when the convention bureau was on a small part of uh an item in the agenda at one of these meetings uh with around 10 months to go to the end of the contract you gave me assurances that a solution would be in place by the time uh the temporary arrangement concluded at the end of 2023 but you have referred from mr. Dallas today that um when you had a conversation with them you said it was too late to be included in the um budget process for 24 25 can you tell me what went wrong? yeah i mean uh simply Councillor um the relationship between the proposal submitted by EICC to officers and our ability to scrutinize that and discuss them in terms of affordability um took a significant amount of time and hence the report being in front of you today as you know we were hoping to get um to the previous F&R um on this item but again we were still in dialogue with EICC about reaching that optimal point so we were mindful of those time deadlines but wanted to work with EICC to a point where there was a mutually acceptable proposal indeed i'd conversations with Councillor Cameron the chair of EICC about uh the little point officers presenting something here if the EICC board didn't think that was something they could accept so there was a lot of back and forth between what was affordable what was desirable and what was possible and it's taken time for that to be in front of you today so we've had discussion already today around things not been done quickly enough um and things been left too late but we were in an 18 month process where the conference center was looking after the bureau on our behalf i think that should be emphasized with 10 months to go so we weren't even halfway through the process there was an assurance that this was going to be done now that was going to involve difficult conversations i don't think anybody would have thought that was unexpected but i still don't understand given the importance of the work of the bureau to the council's asset EICC as well as some of our partners around the city particularly the universities as to why we were not in a why was there no urgency in terms of getting this done at to this extent that even when the budget proposals were brought forward there was nothing in any of the proposals that would have suggested there was going to be a requirement to spend money in the EICC so it was left out completely despite the fact that we knew we all knew there was going to be have to be a replacement solution in place by the end of June this year that i do not understand okay um maybe i'll answer that in in two ways i'll try and answer that because i do understand your point counselor and and i do in some ways regret that this is being dealt with relatively late in the process but i would emphasize that we've been in dialogue with the EICC colleagues at all stage of this process it's not as if somehow that delay has been a surprise or an issue so we've maintained dialogue throughout but first of all i can assure you there has been urgency about this and perhaps beyond urgency that there's been a very significant workload on this is predominantly been carried by um Eileen uh and finance colleagues um to the point potentially actually of distracting them um from other pieces of work so balancing the complexity of this bringing forward a proposal which we thought as i said before was optimal um and you'll see in in Richard's remarks particularly um the the challenge of affordability to support something like this in in the report so we wanted to work to bring something forward that we felt we could justify from a time point of view from a money point of view and from an economic impact point of view that meant EICC submitting proposals to us us going back and saying hang on a minute we don't think that is justifiable from the financial point of view us working particularly in working with the ICC colleagues to go look if we dialed that down in terms of the resource requirement would we still have the same input packed and hence the proposal as I say in front of you today that takes time and negotiation and partnership working and I think that's been a hallmark of this process as you say it's not easy to do this in a time where there is no money and you know if i'm candid from a director at point of view um we are generally not in the business of putting forward uh to members proposals to spend more money through the budget process given the pressures on us so we're trying to manage these existing pressures and manage them down as much as we can to a point where we can get something which we think is deliverable. Councilman Furt thank you um and thanks very much for all the work in the report and also that you've set out there Paul that's that's gone on um continuously and behind the scenes. My question I've got two questions one is around how um the ECB um fits in with our sustainable tourism strategy or tourism strategy so the PayPal obviously links to our tourism strategy but business tourism is mentioned only once there and there's no mention of conferences of conventions of the sort of need for this um either of marketing Edinburgh or or of ECB in the tourism strategy and so I'll be keen to get the office of you on where this fits to make sure we're not doing things in a piecemeal way I think I can absolutely see the benefit of the of the ECB but how does that fit with our strategic vision for the future of tourism in the city and then a second question is just around you mentioned um the potential for TVL and this fitting sort of quite nicely into some views of what TVL should be used for. Do you see uh what do you see is the risk for the council of delaying significant investment in ECB until we had TVL and had certainty on whether that's what that was going to be used for. Thank you. Councilor from a strategic point of view if the importance of business tourism um wasn't highlighted in the tourism strategy as as effectively as it should have been that's something we need to go back and look at when we refresh that because it is certainly my view and I would think Elon's as well who can speak for a self in a moment that business tourism is um extremely important in the way that colleagues from EICC have set out I think it's probably true that when we're in the midst of COVID which actually I think from memory was when that strategy was signed off we didn't really know what the whether the online piece was going to largely replace in person events that does not seem to be the case so I do think um that um emphasizing the importance of business tourism is an important part of ongoing tourism and economic development strategy but like other aspects of that strategy um I think the climate crisis um brings a lens to that which is why we set out in 8.2 that um it to be clear that there is the potential for this activity to have significant carbon impact and that if this report is approved we would want to work with the EICC on understanding how that could be mitigated and minimized so I do think it's strategically important in terms of um TVL um I think I've said what I've said about that that I personally do think this is the kind of um activity that should be eligible that's obviously a decision from members down the line I think it would leave us with a problem if we did nothing and waited for that to come in I think latest um uh officer estimate subject to parliamentary approval and so on is that we may be looking around um mid or late 26th for that to come in I think that period of hiatus is problematic and would have a negative economic impact I don't know Elon whether you want to add anything to that no so okay um just to say on the tourism strategy I think what we've tried to do in the terms of strategy was actually not to specific specifically focus on either leisure or business tourism we're talking we've talked about the visitor economy as a whole in that strategy um Paul is right we perhaps haven't emphasized um strongly enough the importance of business tourism in this in the aspects of most people think about leisure tourism when they when you talk about tourism visitor economy you think about leisure tourism you think about when you go on holiday and all that and perhaps we should have emphasized that stronger but try to do that in the report by showing that actually business tourism is an important complement to leisure tourism in the sense of not just not substituting but actually complementing helping us spread out but also in in a certain to a certain extent enabling us to to increase visitors uh leisure tourism as well a lot of business tourists may come to the city for a conference and fall in love with the city and decide to come back bring their family um indeed they may have brought the family along for for the conference and staying before or after so we do see a lot of complement around that as well so and I do think that it is a very important part of the visitor economy and I do think that business tourism fits in very nicely with the wider aspects of the tourism strategy which is a lot about dispersal and ensuring that we have frequent visitors throughout the year and throughout the city not just um and shorter time periods and on the visitor level use I think Paul put that very nicely as well we I think the very earliest we will see any income is mid to late 2026 obviously the current events in the Scottish government may may further delay that I don't know I hope not and but even though if we could and and that is also up to council to decide whether that is something that we do want to invest in I personally as as an officer would say that that would make a lot of sense but there is a lot of demands on the visitor level already so we need to make sure that we're putting that in the context of that those wider demands as well so I don't think we can assume that that will happen and I also think that it would be a shame and certainly from a long-term perspective and given what we just heard from the ICC as well about the long-term planning or on conventions we would lose all that so if we did no activity until 2026 that would mean perhaps not something up until 2026 but in the period between 26 to maybe 2030 we would have a a distinct lack of conferences and business events in the city so I think it's it's more that long-term perspective hey Councillor Ross thanks can be known thanks to officers for the report and I ask and follow up on the question I put to the ICC in terms and your report doesn't really reference this too much but it really just to bring out a bit more about your thoughts on how there could be more direct contribution from the businesses who benefit by hosting conventions and who's who have those conventions arranged through the bureau to make a more substantial contribution to the overall costs of running it I just thought up I'm sure Paul will add to it and I think that what we've what we've tried to do so not being an expert in in business tourism myself and and I think that's that is much the reason why we've asked the ICC to lead on this we know that they are experts in the area they know what they're doing they've worked without the Convention Bureau's as well and are aware of the type of work that that is required and I think that the membership proposal the membership structure that they proposed seemed like a sensible one and it would seem to make sense to me that the industry contributed through that way and I think that the more activity they can show and evidence the more industry will also come behind it and support and and that again so it is a little bit of getting them up getting you're all up and running and actually getting something concrete established will then attract more interest and more engagement and I know that they've already engaged a lot with the Britain with the Scotland as well and and received national support so again I think that there's a lot that can be built on on that aspect as well just to I briefly convene that I thought that I suppose the inference of your your question to EICC was was something I would agree with which is that I do think that there is there is a lot to go at in that membership piece with the private sector organizations and of course our higher education and partners as Councillor Doggett suggested they are the beneficiaries of this activity and it is common across the UK I was involved in establishing one of these bureaus in Newcastle and Gates had a long long time ago and it is common to ask private sector colleagues to play that role it's not easy given the pressure on their bottom lines to ask them to do so but given the benefit and if the benefits are clear and tangible it seems to be entirely reasonable to set that target. Do we have any further questions for officers on this oh okay and moved to saying that we have on this we have the administration amendment which I'm going to speak to and we have an S&P group amendment and we have a green group amendment so moving the amendment by the administration the reason I put this forward is that funding such things from right and off loan stock is just not the way that we do things it is regrettable that a proposal didn't come as part of the budget process and during that budget process we had groups scratching around for you know what comparatively small amounts of money in comparison to what's been asked here to try to do some very good things in the city and so when when we have this taken out of the context of the actual budget just going to keep reminding people that this is actual real money that could be spent on other priorities and that's why you know we have to take it very seriously and as to spend in TVL money in advance we don't even know if that'll you know pass through parliament we don't know if it'll pass through the council when it comes here and and if we open the door to people putting dips on TVL money before we're open we're as far out from getting it as we are now there will be an absolute landslide it requests and therefore that in right in my amendment that that just did not factor into my view of the thing because it's too remote and it's completely unfair to start making commitments for money that we don't have that nobody else has been asked and what they would do if they were given a slice of it and so that's the context that I'm looking at and however I've tried to find a reasonable consensus across all the groups which may not be possible but I have tried in this amendment and I have noted that the EICC have told us that they've achieved a tremendous amount and you know and fantastic results by spending approximately £150,000 per year I've taken that on board that it could be congratulated for their efforts on that and so that's the amount of funding I have to consider and we heard from Mr Dallas and others that this is effectively a two-stage process I was listening to that and that is why I said okay we'll look at can we fund this a whole 150,000 which is what it's costing them, can the council step in and fund that for a year whilst they get absolute firm cash not in kind cash commitments from the sector who are telling us either directly or through the EICC what a huge value this is to their sector there's maybe some spin-off benefits to the the city and how it's perceived but the the money value goes to the sector that they're in and so I you know I'm looking at from that point of view that it's a two-stage process we would put in this 150,000 and that's ahead of and not with standard we actually already commit resources to this we um you know staff and other resources not least office or time and capital and yes loan stock that we have tied up in the conference center that we have guaranteed the or tried to guarantee the future of that conference center with the whole hotel project the commitment to this council has been outstanding and for the sector to come back and keep asking for more and more of a commitment from the council before they'll commit to anything I'm quite surprised by that you know as are others um here so I thought that I was proposing something that was actually quite generous it would give them that year we would come back and review it a year with firm details of a membership scheme and a firm money commitment um and that we would um you know find that try find that from related reserves obvious in the the the clear situation that there is huge need in this city and it's not 150,000 where when you're talking over the scale of the whole council budget it seems like not a lot but it's a lot of money um when when you're you know when you're having to look at everything that you do the way that we did during our budget process um I'm not able I wouldn't accept a great amount from other groups and because you know the other groups positions for the main part are you know don't progress this at this time whereas I think we should progress a little bit not with um we'll request now the final paragraph of the S&P um amendments says request a further report ahead of the budget decision meeting process which provides among other information more detail on how further funding could be so and I would begin add that paragraph um to uh the amendment that I'm putting forward and we're also uh the Greens are requesting that the allio review is followed by a review and a lone stock and other assets relating allios I think Richard and uh Dr Smart have already understood you know said that they'll undertake that to look at how all the the funding finance and assets loan stock everything within all the different council allios once they they've got the full picture of sheer structures governance structures and where they are similar and where they're different if it's possible we would have the one holistic strategy that you're asking for but we don't know if that's possible yet till we've done all that groundwork but that's the direction of travel anyway um so I absolutely have the sentiments on that um so that's that's by way of me um moving the amendment by the administration that you know the main thing is that one year and then yearly reviews based on the commitment from the sector to to put more money in um and of course that could go out for two or three years or whatever's appropriate um but we would need the annual review um and so with that um I will move my amendment um it's kind of an amendment and to sum it up because I'm more or less set where I'm other people's things but I will come back at the end um and if I could ask Councillor Douglass to second and if you would do that formally Councillor Douglass I would appreciate it because I've taken up rather a lot of time more like you Vina that's fine thank you thank you and now go to a Councillor McKinnis um for the ASAP amendment thank you and I want to just to start by seeing that I think everybody in the room recognizes the importance of the importance and the economic impact of of business tourism in its sense however I've brought forward quite a detailed um um amendment which reflects our concerns um and it reflects in fact that was the questioning that has come forward to do both to the the reputation and wider to officers because I think there is a a general concern um about who pays and who benefits and I think it was very ably described by Councillor Ross and his line of questioning there and I am quite concerned about the the model that is being proposed through this both in the stage one and stage two with the assumption underlining it that it's going to be public money that will essentially fund a good chunk of this and by public money I'm using of a loose term but I'm also conscious about EICC funding as well as directly from CEC funding um I think I'm pretty uncomfortable about it because I think in my line of question to the deputation where I raised the comparison with London and the idea that we're going that we're aiming towards reaching a function of such a scale that is compatible to London and yet we're dealing with a city albeit our capital city which I am immensely proud of but it's it's it's not a compatible um approach I don't think and it sets alarm bells ringing for me about the continuing commitment that we'd have to have as a council to continue to fund what might be a bigger than necessary operation and I think that's the part which I think requires a bit of redrafting a bit of fresh understanding and a better more information coming to us really on what we could do with less and what that impact would be hence my last paragraph and I'm very grateful to the convener for for noting the content of that because that's the thrust of it nobody wants to store business tourism or convention presence in the city I'm just concerned about who's going to benefit from it and who's going to pay for it and I am very uncomfortable outside the budget process of being asked to commit to a recurring annual payment of almost a million pounds in total over the next few years and then what follows on after that um it's a it's a big concern for me um it's clear that there's been some good work done already on this in terms of bringing in that 45 million I think it is in terms of economic impact but the metrics that we use to describe that in the report reference a hundred thousand hotel nights now we know on top of that there are also other beneficiaries you know the retroances you know all sorts of aspects of it and the partners that have been listed are very um are benefiting you know on the stage from that and I keep wondering where that balances of public sector investment versus either private sector or partnership benefit and I'm deeply uncomfortable I started my career working for the inward investment um partnership the Scottish well at that time it was UK government but the Scottish Development Agency at that time and that balance between the investment of public money and then the outcome the broader economic benefits and the benefits to the individual companies was always a difficult principle to straddle so the the principle of public funding in here underlines our um amendment here very clearly um I am uncomfortable with the idea that we're being asked to need to commit to over a million pounds worth of public expenditure over a number of a short number of years and for that basis and I'm pushing on with my amendment I would say however that I think the content of the green group amendment is very compatible with ours I think it highlights particularly in that first paragraph um how we would want this to go forward so in other words we continue the the commitment that the council already has in the shape of a full-time staff member and all the all the sort of marketing and related costs as as um appropriately described in the in the green group amendment there and I also think we have to look at this in a wider sense as part of the allio reform area reform um there are clearly always going to be issues between the ambition of allios and the council um expectations shall we see understanding of what can be done um but you know remember where where where we have to look at this in a very constructive manner that takes into account public sector funding the economic aims who will benefit and how the mechanisms are put in place to actually ensure that that benefit does come to the city and benefits the right people the last point I'd also like to meet very quickly is I do want to associate myself with the community remarks about um basically the opportunity cost the three hundred thousand that were being asked to this year I can think of probably a list as long as my arm of things I'd rather see it being spent on because it is very real need in the city and and I'm not convinced that that may real need can be satisfied necessarily by the economic impact that is brought in via the convention bureau there is an economic benefit I no doubt about it but does it reach the parts of the city that we need that three hundred thousand to reach I don't think that link has been effectively made and I don't think it can be effectively made and for that reason I'm pushing ahead with our amendment um and incorporating if the greens will allow it um the amendment by the green group because I think that that um that adds considerably our last paragraph is not meant to close down the discussion it's not meant to stop this in its tracks it's meant to see we need more information we need a greater degree of understanding and we need to understand the scale of ambition and our ability to meet that ambition thank you okay thank you um and second thing is Councillor Biaci yes it can be now I have rarely listened to your remarks I agreed with them more than when you were setting out the context for how you were coming to your position on this and I think we have different ideas about how far we should go but essentially those pressures that you outlined are exactly the pressures that were in our minds and coming up with our position as well I think we show seriousness to the private sector if we are willing to say put up or shut up essentially to go even further because the private sector need to know we're serious about this the private sector need to know that if they're benefiting from all of these conferences that they should be coming in and not expecting the council to bail them out and maybe that needs some different kind of resource where we create a facilitator that will bring people together rather than continuing to directly fund an office but we need to be serious on this that this is something that the private sector needs to start paying for as well and I would just say as well we are all veterans of several rounds now even for the new Councillors of the annual budget process the annual budget process consumes a vast amount of political effort energy concentration we meet so many people we go through tombs of information and we have a painful ritualistic Byzantine process that eventually gets us to something that is meant to stand for a year like it or not surprises along the way the occasional lived-in budget passing you know whatever happens we have that process and it is big and it is complicated and it absorbs our effort for a reason that it should be taken seriously and I am unhappy with something like this landing on us out with that process and us coming under some pressure with implied timescales that we need to fund this or else xy or z will happen I would like to see this come back as part of the budget process and to be judged alongside all the other many many computing pressures that there are for this cash thank you Councillor Baje Councillor longboat thank you and I'd also like to start with with expressing thanks to EICC and officers fully appreciate all of the work that's gone into this and the arguments throughout the officer proposals by our amendment as your seat does not support the recommendations in this proposal you know this is this is a proposal with history and the history is that the council agreed to end funding marketing marketing Edinburgh back in the day in order to save the council money but now council finances are even tighter I'd like to echo lots of comments from yourself convener and councilor mckinis about prudent spending this this is public money and I don't like to take an unnuanced view of council budgets things aren't always as simple as if we don't fund this we could build care homes but spending somewhere does impact on spending elsewhere especially if it's we're spending unknown money if this proposal had come up in budget discussions it would not have appeared in the green budget and I question whether it would have been included in any group's budget and that's that's the attitude with which we've approached what to do with this proposal if it had come at budget time would we have put it in our spreadsheet and we we would not have and I just wanted to comment on our second paragraph and the proposal around using loan stock for this we're really concerned about the ad ad hoc approach contained in the proposal to use use this and more broadly on the occasionally different approaches and understanding we've had in committees in council around loans dot and debt owed to the council I'm really grateful that we've had verbal commitment that dr smart and rich will be looking at this but I am disappointed that the written confirmation we're seeking isn't it going to be accepted by the convener the the wording of the paragraph in our amendment is not an attempt to dictate what that review should look like but just that this is a wider conversation which councillors and committees need to be involved in not just CLT so I would ask the convener to reconsider accepting that last paragraph but and with that I will I will propose our amendment thanks does it councillor stanifer through seconding thank you yes this thank you convener um the EICC have said and I have no reason to doubt excuse me this is why I'm remote today have said and I have no reason to doubt them that this will have palpable benefits to private sector businesses and therefore the question to my mind is why should we fund it and not private sector businesses this it's a decent business plan go to them with it would be my position here it we decided when we wound up marketing everyone last turn it is not the council's duty essentially to spend marketing money for private business that is on private businesses so if they want this service they can fund it themselves and we will continue to fund things that are of more general public benefit now a lot of other things I can think of as every other speaker said including yourself convener that I can think of to spend this money on to my mind it is not a council priority so not only that we have had steer from offices in the past that we shouldn't spend money without a clear idea of where it's coming from and I don't really feel I've got a clear idea where this money is coming from so with that I'm in second our position that we should maintain the status quo as the council and I would advise that EICC should really go to private business to fund this oh thank you so I'm going to move to sorry sorry I'm going to ask the sorry I'm going to try and remember how many people have got positions in and I think it was not to or contributions is that because everything that's been put in it's been yet so if people want to make contributions a councillor a Ross thank you thank you thank you convener just briefly Mola I've heard I think there is a need for our convention bureau that's evidenced by the EICC contributions and clearly has has been well debated this morning by the afternoon now that the at the end of the day we want to see those who benefit from it paying for it essentially and we need to find a way to get to that point where the council is no longer contributing funds to this because as has been explained we have plenty of other things that that money could be spent on multiple times and so I'm content with your proposal convener and the addition of the request at the very end of the S&P amendment that we should have a report on this with further information about how funding could be sought and generated outside of council funding and that that should be part of budget setting to assess I'm happy with that I'm also quite happy to accept 1.1.6 from the green addendum if you are too thanks and thank you thank you thank you Councillor Ross Councillor yeah thanks convener a few things that have actually made me quite annoyed you said yourself that you've come up with something that meets the requirements of all parties I think I must have missed that meeting invite however that is what it is I'm also taken by those who were quite willing to vote for the abolition of marketing Edinburgh now backtracking recognizing that something has to be done and not recognizing that it was the EICC that bailed the council out in terms of of what was required so perhaps those who were so rash to stick their hand up when that decision was taken could perhaps have a moment of reflection before they vote today I'm also struggling with the overt socialism that says public sector bad sorry private sector bad public sector good and there's no one between I think people forget that the private sector pays a significant amount of tax to fund the public sector and all those people who work in the city who work for private sector organizations paying their council tax to this organization so that we can pontificate on whatever we wish to pontificate if they didn't have those jobs the money wouldn't come in so let's think about that as well and let's have no eye rolling about this economic facts of life the private sector matters let's also have a recognition that the EICC is not a private sector body it is owned by the council it is carrying out a service on our behalf for people who come to the city I'm probably alone on this side of the table and having been someone who was involved in arranging conferences not booking them but arranging programs and I can guarantee you that organizations that came to EICC were unanimous that Edinburgh was the best place in the UK to come for a conference for lots of reasons and not only did they come for the conference but they brought their partners as well and they came and contributed to the economy of the city it's just not the private sector though on the 22nd of March I went to the civic reception that was held here I think I might have been the only member of this committee who was at it other committees councillors were there for the Arctic summit wasn't held in the EICC it was held at the University of Edinburgh well accommodation was provided by University of Edinburgh but everyone I spoke to people from all around the world with a common interest in scientific research were unanimous that Edinburgh was a great place to come and have a conference and for them it wasn't a joy they were engaging in serious scientific research that was going to benefit not only where they came from but it also benefited one of our great institutions namely the university academia benefits financial services benefit the medical world benefits from a lot of the activity that takes place in our city as a result of the work of the EICC and other organizations that provide venues and for us to sit here and say we really do not understand the benefit that comes to us as an organization from having our asset used as much as possible I really don't understand that I think we're in a really strange position we have to do something to market ourselves on a global stage and it is a global stage it's not just the UK it's all over the world where people will come and if you ever walk down Morrison Street when there's a big event on you will hear lots of many different languages spoken EICC works for the benefit of the city it works for the benefit of this council the people who come to the EICC and other venues provide something that if we didn't have the bureau we would really struggle to attract so before you cast your vote today think seriously about the consequences on not just in our asset but on all the other organizations that depend on people coming to the city to debate discuss and indeed network but it's of benefit to all of us and it's essential that we provide an appropriate level of funding to make sure that the success of the EICC and other organizations continues okay if we don't have any further contributions I will move to a summing up as I said earlier I'm happy to accept the final paragraph of the S&P amendment to put a framework around the medium term decision making that we're going to take on this and we'll get a report that would come back in a report and I'm having listened to what Councillor Mumford said and you know with support from others I'm going to accept one point one point there one point one point six and and also acknowledge that within you know within the the ongoing support of the 150 thousand potentially 150 000 pounds also that we would the council would continue with the resources described by Councillor Mumford at one point one point five so that would be you know additionality but I can't obviously can't accept the whole paragraph and I don't just want to pick it to bet so I'll just then get better if I just explain it and I do think that again just in summing up I don't think that the council's commitment to the sector the business tourism sector in Edinburgh can be questioned we've got a whole massive conference centre we're going to try and work around our net 2030 ambitions to to continue and you know attracting international conferences and we're going to try and find a way for the city to to meet all these competing objectives and I tried to reach out a compromise hopefully a consensus across political parties and that's what I was trying to do I maybe haven't succeeded but that is what I was trying to do and I thought it was you know a reasonable compromise and and that's where I am so I'm going to move the report with the amendment by the administration and the final paragraph of the S&P group amendment and I'll call it the second paragraph of the Greens amendment because we'll need to sort the word now later and that's a sorry convenient I think we need to sort the wording out now so that we know we're voting them so it's it's the numbering I said it's sort of the numbering because the the Greens have is 1.1.6 so I'm accepting the the wording of the Greens 1.1.6 but I'm not accepting the numbering because it will need to be renumbered so it's the one about looking at all the the loan stock the alley was yeah and that that paragraph and the final paragraph of the S&P amendment and I think that don't think that the about I'll go with Councillor McInnes next and and then Councillor Mumford for their positions appreciate the fact that you've accepted her last paragraph but I think the point with me the rest of our amendment are worth making and so we're going to press ahead with ours and incorporate the Green Group amendment and we agree with the content of that thank you and I'll go to Councillor Mumford and ask if she wants to press separately thank you now we'll withdraw and thanks very much for accepting that fine paragraph thank you okay so I think we've got two positions but I'll let Taylor thank you Canvina yeah so in that case we have two positions we have the motion by Councillor Wart seconded by Councillor Douglass which is to move the motion as circulated including the final progress of the S&P amendment and 1.1.6 of the Green Amendment as addendums and we have the amendment by Councillor McInnes seconded by Councillor Biagie just to move the S&P amendment accepting the Green Amendment as an addendum so we can have votes for the motion by Councillor Wart please and for the amendment by Councillor McInnes please thank you so that is six votes for the motion and five for the amendment so the motion is carried thank you I think this is probably a good time to break for lunch and I'm going to say can we try to keep it to half an hour we're really keen to keep it to half an hour come back at sort of two o'clock quite sharp because I'm aware that a lot of people including Councillor Doggett and various other could have other meetings later on thank you. so you [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you all, thank you all, thank you everybody, back and just remind us where we are, please still.

Thank you, Convener, so we're on item 7.7, which is the passenger transport, transport sorry, framework agreement. So report by the executive director of place, there's an S&P group at the end, I'm circulated on this item and Frank Henderson will speak to the report. [BLANKAUDIO] Hi, welcome to committee, Frank, do you have anything you want to add to the report? Thank you, Convener, nothing to add to the report, happy to take questions. Thank you, questions about this for Frank, Council McInnis, did you have a question, I wasn't sure if you were just. [BLANKAUDIO] Councillor Mumford. Thank you, yes, I had a question on clause 5.2 of the framework agreement, which is about actually making the decision. So it says that an award recommendation will be submitted to the executive director of place in consultation with finance and resource committee spokespeople with an update then being provided to next committee. I suppose my question is for clarity on who makes that final decision if we all disagree. Presumably it's delegated to the executive director, but what form will that consultation take and what happens if there's a sushi, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Mumford, I'm going to defer that actually to my procurement specialist online, Lynette. Hi there. And normally there have been previous delegate reports. The reason the report has come early asking for that delegate authority is basically because the timeline attached to trying to get the framework in place before the new one expires. The committee timeline didn't quite line up with where we were. There was some delays along the way we've had to extend the opportunity for suppliers to complete all the requirements for the tender process. So it was just really to introduce a smooth running. This is a large framework, it covers all the home to school transport as well as the wider care services. And it's quite a multi supplier arrangement. So as long as the suppliers are meeting all the minimum requirements as part of the tender process that, you know, there should be a successful outcome for the event. If, you know, if members would like to see the recommendation report that goes to Mr Lawrence, I'm sure he'd be happy to circulate that round members as part of everything before we proceed to approve. That would be okay. Just so just on a technical governance question, Council Mumford, technically therefore the decision would be taken by Paul Lawrence under urgency provisions. That would be the governance mechanism that we do. So that would be in consultation with the relevant convener and group leaders. But clearly other people can be involved in that as well, but that would be the minimum of people who be consulted. Thanks, so I could just come back and be like, that's really helpful. I suppose it's just that that's not what the report says. So that is helpful, but I guess. Yeah, I'm confused as to why. If we're saying the conversation will happen with finance and resources committee suppose people I think that was helpful, but if actually it would be group leaders. That's different. So yeah, I suppose just maybe a request, but I think that's been clear for this report, but, but in future, because I was a little confused when I read that. Thanks. I think that was in response to if we didn't agree, you know, if there was complications, what would be the most formal process. Do you know if there was a problem? I never liked doing everybody knows that. That's convenient. I never liked doing things. I think sorry, I've got a hand up on screen and I can't. Oh, Gareth with a light bouncing off. Would you like to add something Gareth or. Thanks. Yeah, it's like bouncing off the screen. Your face is really dark on the screen and I couldn't see who it was. Just briefly, I think just hopefully clarifies. I can take Council month as point that. This is what we're actually seeking here is delegation of the power that committee hold because. Well, the Deborah is correct on this and normally urgency powers are given to exec directors. I think members would say, well, this isn't necessarily urgent because we're pre planning. A date, but obviously what we're asking to is to delegate the authority that committee would have to the exec director because to keep the service on track, we wouldn't be able to come back to committee in the future timescale and keep this contract timescale running. So hopefully that clarifies your point, Council month. I do appreciate what you were saying. Thank you. I think a casual dog has a question. Yeah, I can be there. Again, I'm going to turn to the same subject that was raised time and time again. Why is it that we have this so often that we're been asked to delegate decision making to an officer. The committee schedule is not a surprise. We know it. I think most officers know it. And I would really like to understand. Why is it so often that we seem incapable of getting reports to committee at the right time with all the right information that allows us to take the decision and not pass the decision on to someone else. I will, I'll maybe try and answer that one. Carina, just to start. So I think that's a question. Council, I know that's been raised a couple of times today. In this particular case, I would bring members attention to the fact this contract expires in July, 2024. I think I agree with the point, Councillor. In this case, I genuinely believe this is just unfortunate at the timing of committees that are pre scheduled against the contract expiry and the need to notify new contractors of a contract award. Just to give a bit of detail on Frank and give more detail on this, that obviously for a number of service users that use the service that this is a quite a sensitive service. They need to be quite comfortable knowing in advance who will be transporting them and other arrangements. So we clearly want to try and keep this on track to ensure that our service users have that comfort that they can be introductions from. If there are going to be new taxi companies, etc. So I can't argue with your point, Councillor, I just think you're genuinely in this case. This isn't my view, a misalignment of contract planning. It's more unfortunately a misalignment of committee dates with the need to keep this on track. Can I just follow up on what I think is a valid line of questioning from Councillor Duggart? We know when the committees are probably a couple of years in advance. I am very concerned at the scale of delegated authority that we're being asked to approve today and you'll see that in the addendum that I've put forward. Now clearly nobody wants to interrupt service delivery because that has an impact on, as you said, quite a sense of service, including some vulnerable users of that service. Nobody wants to interrupt that or to cause difficulties to it. But I feel as an elected member that I've been squeezed into a corner on this. And I suspect the rest of the committee does as well because we're being asked to delegate enormous sums of money in terms of authority. Absolutely enormous. And yet we've not been given a full opportunity to scrutinise. Now I hear what you say about contract processes and things can get knocked off. I mean there was one of the earlier reports talked about a cyber attack on a supplier and so on. We all know that there are aspects of the contract process that can be difficult to manage. But when it's something like this of this magnitude and this, it almost sees a regularity attached to it. I appreciate the question of the combination of the framework and that adds pressure. I still don't understand why it's coming to this committee and a delegated authority when it could have come to the last one and given as enough space or whatever it is that would be required at the timing. It undermines, and I use this word really carefully, it undermines elected member authority. And we ultimately have the responsibility for these contracts, we have the responsibility for service delivery. But that responsibility is being forced on us when we don't have all of the information and we don't have all of the time to scrutinise effectively. I'm not sure that that's much of a question as a statement, I apologise Gareth, but I'd be interested in getting your response to that because leaving aside the vagaries of contract process. And I think we're all reasonable people, we understand that there's some things that will go by. Your answer earlier about committee dates doesn't really gel. Nice Councillor noted. It is a, but we would always want to give members appropriate sign off on any contract wherever possible. Certainly I can guarantee off to level executive director level and all the way down, bringing a report to committee that is kind of seeking to deviate from standards and I'm standing orders and something we would take lightly. Without going into lots and lots of detail, and I can maybe ask Frank to come in, Councillor and Kenneth, but that there is, you actually, we are, I come back to we're bringing a report here in April on a mobilising prior to a contract expiring in July. I think it's a fair thing to take away, maybe Frank, I can ask Frank to come in just in front of comment, whether it would have been feasible to bring an updated report to the previous committee taking Council on a Genesis point, can you maybe touch upon that. Yeah, thanks, Councillor, thanks, Councillor McKness. I appreciate the difficulties and normally I'm not used to being in the sort of situation with these sorts of contracts. We have been working hard with our procurement partners, not just on bringing two very large contracts together under one banner, but also making sure that we address enhanced safeguard dig measures and introducing new technology at the same time. Trying to do all that operationally at the same time is bringing together a procurement framework, a framework that will mean security for a lot of vulnerable adults and children has been a challenge, not just for myself, but also for procurement. And I'm more than happy to make sure that you get regular updates on the performance from now on. Mike, come back slightly on it. Thank you for the answer, Frank and Gareth, and I appreciate that there are always going to be operational constraints around, particularly when you're producing changes. But I think this speaks to a much wider issue around contract management and timing and elected member responsibility and rights, I suppose, is one way of putting it, the right that we have to scrutinise to satisfy ourselves on behalf of the people that we represent that we're making the best use of public money, that we are making the right choices and that we have confidence that the service delivery will go forward as it should. And so I think this is an area that needs to be looped at in a lot more detail. I'm not talking here specifically about this particular framework, it's just one example, and I would hope that officers would take that away and understand very clearly the sense of discomfort that's sitting in this committee and elsewhere amongst elected members around this kind of process. Thank you. Thank you. And just, you know, for the avoidance of Frank and Gareth feeling like the, I think this is a third one today from different departments. And it's that kind of pattern where millions and millions of pounds of future expenditure lands in committee with waivers and delegated authority and so on and so forth. And what we get told is it's so important to keep these services running that we just must sign it off. Well, if these services are so important and so critical, why do we not have the visibility to see that they're coming up and manage the time and inappropriate way is, you know, the overall feedback from today. I am after I am not just this one. And but that's that's the feedback from committee. And don't think that there's any further questions for Frank. So, with that, I'm going to move the report and say that I'm happy to accept the agenda by the S&P group. Because again, it's about how do we improve these processes and visibility on these things. And so I'm going to accept that. And so I will ask Councillor Dargweesh to second. I'll be to say good thanks. Thank you. And then I'll go to Councillor Mckines. Thank you very much. And as I said in my addendum, I regret that we're in this position and I've heard very clearly what the officers have said and I know that they're not comfortable with this either. But given the fact that we don't want to interrupt service delivery, I'm, you know, it can be put it very well. You know, we're backed into corner on this. Nobody wants to cause any difficulties attached to this, but we want to stake our claim around scrutiny and governance. And I think it's a very important aspect. You'll see in the addendum that I'm not trying to put a roadblock in the way of delivery. Although I do wonder whether or not you should consider referring this to full council. That might be a possibility for us as a committee. And I raise that just to get reaction. I think it's the question of regular updates. I think it becomes really important when we're talking about a delegated authority of this size. And I appreciate the fact that you came back and said that that would be possible. I think it's that level of closing the loop for us as elected members, which is really important because we've been backed into a conversation on this. We've been backed into a decision on this. And I want to reassure us that we're going to get the level of detail that the contract is being fulfilled. That the service delivery is appropriate, that the users are happy, and that we can then have retrospective confidence that the right decision was made. And if it hasn't been made, if we don't get that reassurance, that we can find some way to improve the processes. Clearly, we're committing a lot of money across a couple of years, and that's a very big commitment. And I am very uncomfortable meeting that commitment now without further information. But as I said, our agenda is not designed to put blockages in the way it's designed to be, I hope, helpful and to pinpoint what our concerns are around process. Thank you Councillor McInnes. Is it Councillor Villager who's seconding? Formerly. Thank you. Did we have any other contributions? Councillor Uni. Sort of a question on process. Is it possible for us to refer this to agree the recommendations of the report, but still refer it on to full council? Is that something that can happen? Yeah, so once the decision has been made, then you can invoke standard orders and vote whether or not the decision should be referred to council. It would be a third of the committee that would need to agree for it to be referred to council. I might ask you in a minute what standing order that is. This is something that usually only happens when there's a split vote rather than Councillors agreeing to do it. I'm just kind of explaining this for anybody that's watching the webcast, but we are having the clerk check whether we can agree this as a committee and still refer it on to full council for further scrutiny. There is of course the option to refer it on the GRB fee, but depending on the timing, we're being asked to do this now for, you know, speech and the next full council is the ninth of me, so that would not be a huge delay if we did that. There is some just to look at when the next GRB fee is. So that might be an option as well, although I don't know if Councillor Campbell thank us for referring so many things on, but that is an option that we could look at. I must say full council I think would be the best option that allows a wider to be attached to the principles that sit behind us, especially if we're agreeing to proceed today, but in addition to which GRB fee, I think the papers will be published either today or tomorrow, so we may not have time to take it through that route. And Councillor Uni, you just landed my voice, that's exactly the point I was going to meet and I think I'm agreeing today and then so we don't derail any contract, but yeah I think full council is where it should go to, especially with, as Councillor McInnes says, the papers are probably being published today. [silence] So we have to do in stages, first stages we approve the report and I'm assuming that we're accepting the amendment. Yeah, a down job, a bigger pardon, a down job, because it becomes an amendment when we agree it, doesn't it? Just to further confuse people. So we're going to do that and we'll agree that, which doesn't need to go to vote, so I assume that's agreed. And then, oh, sorry Councillor interjecting. Could we refer this to full council, please, convener? Yeah, and so that's what we do next, this is second stage, we get, and then two-thirds of us have to refer it, but I think we're all agreed that we're going to refer it, so I think that that's, so that's us. I have managed to turn that into a trickle, but we go there, so thank you very much everybody. Thank you, so that decision will be prepared to cancel. So we'll move on to item 7.8 now, which is the city chamber's quadrangle operations report. So by the executive did it replace, there's a gangdupe amendment on the site and Alison Coburn will speak to the report. Alison here, welcome Alison. Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, Councillors. I've not got anything to add to the report, but happy Gareth and I would be happy to take any questions. Do we have any questions on this? Councillor Ross. And then Councillor Mumford. Thanks very much for this report, and I have plenty of questions, I'm afraid. So we never got to the position of having the 2019 policy actually fully implemented, but my questions are partly around that and the practicalities of accessing city chambers by anyone who is physically disabled. And the implication from the report I read is they could be dropped off in the high street and with a blue badge, they could park a car or vehicle in the high street, potentially. Perhaps nearby, alternatively, they could be dropped off at the back door, the trades entrance on Coburn Street, either by taxi or private high car, potentially. But I want to understand what we would be doing here in those circumstances. In addition, I also want to understand the implications for the council that is posting and offering to outside groups. We saw the city chambers, the European room, etc, facilities for holding events, how supplies are delivered and collected and so on with this proposed policy approach. Thank you. I'll maybe start, if that's okay Councillor Anderson can come in. So, to the first point, I think it's fair to say the 2019 procedure, I think was implemented possibly hasn't been adhered to would maybe with the description. I would use them clearly members asked via Councillor Arthur's motion to come back and look at this issue again so that's what we've done. The point around disabled access clearly is important to us. As you state, the access immediately outside city chambers is felt is adequate to be able to be dropped off and get access to the building. As I understand that we've been, I think it's some internal concern around the provision of disabled parking, legally required to provide parking where there is a car park. But actually, the quadrangle isn't officially a car park. It's a quadrangle that has been parked in and clearly in looking at a new operating procedure, what we've taken the view of is if we are rebasing this and subject to members approval, then we aren't treating the quadrangle as a car park. We're treating it as a quadrangle to which some vehicles are permitted access and that's set out in the procedure. And as you say, Councillor Ross, between immediately outside the city chambers, there is access for taxis, private hire, and there is local blue badge parking for those with a blue badge. So we feel that that is that's catered for clearly. There may be certain events where the relevant department of organised it will need to make extra provisions to support somebody that's got mobility access and mobility or disability issues and we can, we can certainly sort that out. To the point of access for events, as you say, there is a gods access and things like catering, av equipment, that kind of thing is regularly brought in through the gods access from Coburn Street. But again, I think that's something we would expect to build into our workflows with things like the events team catering team, et cetera, and the poll and the wider facilities management team and the building to make sure that those access arrangements are set out to people that are booking the facilities. If I may come back very briefly, thank you for that explanation, both points with regard to disabled access. You said that we could cater for disabled visitors to city chambers reception through some arrangements that would have to be put in place where they to be dropped off in the high street and not to therefore outside the front door immediately outside the front door. Or what sort of facility are you thinking of? So, that's a good question, Councillor. There are clearly going to be ad hoc visits where a member of the public or a visitor may wish to just come to reception and clearly we're not going to know about that visit in advance. I think it's important that our website information sign folks local parking for people to use if they're wanting to come unannounced for whatever reason that may be the people use the front desk for a number of purposes. In terms of pre-arranged visits, then again, what the procedure sets out is we have a facilities management team. There are always going to be different circumstances we need to look to put. Ultimately, our aim is to allow people access to this building, however possible, the aim of this is to not allow vehicles into the quadrangle, wherever possible, but there is going to be something in between that I think our staff need to be interested to do that. I think what we've made clear for all purposes is, in the worst case scenario, this is a drop-off area. It's not expected to be a car parking area hence what's been set out for, wedding, civil partnership cars, for the civic cars, the intention is that in those limited point, the situations they could come in, drop off and then leave. Maybe the case if officers are comfortable, it's the only solution that that kind of drop off facility would be required for somebody with a disability. Thank you, that's helpful. In case I'm on for it. Thank you. And actually, Councillor Ross's questions have raised another with me that just a brief one that the operating procedure talks about and that the request for sort of special dispensation has to be done by email and I just wondered. I presume that means email as opposed to a sort of posted letter, but I'm obviously thinking of a scenario where a disabled constituent might ring up wanting a signing and ask if they can access so I presume there'd be some leniency in having to be by email. I just wondered if you could say why that's specified in the operating procedure. So, yeah, absolutely. I think we'll be able to answer, Councillor, the idea of having email is to try and focus, particularly internal colleagues on thinking about this in advance and therefore the use of email should be appropriate, but as you've just set out, Councillor Mumford, there will be kind of short term quick reactions needed. Usually I would speculate via people like the registrar's team or switchboard or the front desk that are getting the kind of calls you're talking about. Those relationships already exist with the FM team and with the colleagues that set out and so I think that would be easily achievable. Thank you. If we can come back and come in and so the original questions I was going to ask was, we talk about reviewing this in a year. Will there be any monitoring of car use, particularly if there's any requests out with the operating procedure. And throughout the year, so we know how well this is working, I think, I'm sure my colleague, Councillor, has done a fourth has been through more of this than I have. This is my, but my first quadrangle radio, but I know this has been discussed many times and not many changes. So, how are we going to ensure this actually works. And then my second question relates to obviously our amendment talks about the issue of civic regular insurance. And I know from our emails that that hasn't been looked at specifically, but obviously the Council did pass that we believe that the civic cars should not be using the quadrangle, if possible. So, I suppose I'm disappointed that that hasn't been looked into to understand actually what the financial implications would be. So if you could say a little bit about that, that would be helpful. Thank you. Yep, that sounds lit. So, in terms of evaluation, mindful of not over promising the level of evaluation, we can do, but I think certainly a more kind of qualitative approach. So members may have a view, and I think officers that obviously the building will have a view and at least going to be very visible to how successful this policy has been because we will walk past it on a regular basis. So, I think that's the level assessment, we will have an email trail, for example, to see the number of requests that were sought from the FM team. So again, until you last question, there will be a, as we've done another policies we can report back to members and say, there were this many requests to put in these certain sectional circumstances, in terms of the second party question, I've just come, no, I haven't forgotten it. I've just remembered it. The insurance arrangements. So, again, what we have worked in, certainly, I've must credit Alison, who has to be honest, has done more of the work on this than I have particularly, but what we've set out and as a policy that we wanted members to be clear in that we are allowing the six civic cars as one of the vehicles in comment, but clearly we're working with colleagues in the law provost, lord of tenant office to say, wherever possible, clearly, if we can avoid that, that would be great, but it would be very hard to write a policy that gives that kind of vagueness and divinity around other work. So we needed to be clear in the policy that the civic cars we felt for security purposes. Given the role, particularly the lord of tenants, the vehicles that are using the civic office are also used, for example, for transporting the royal household on occasion. So, unfortunately, we just felt that it was appropriate to keep that in there. As we've said on email counselor and just for public record, I'm more than happy to get more detail in the business bulletin update around the insurance implications, but certainly, whilst the wording around insurance was put in their security was more at the forefront of our mind as opposed to a lightly increase in the insurance premium. Do we have any further questions for officers on this one? Okay, so I'm going to remove the report as is. I did circulate around my group, which includes counselor as mentioned in the amendment by the green group. I did put around them. What I did get comments back on was actually the use by the tours, the walking tours, which I said did not really covered, it's mentioned, but it's not covered in this report. And there is some concern from my group around that, but as we can't refer anything on the culture and communities, we can only, you know, so I've been told that we can't ask for a report by another committee, we can only ask for a word by our own committee. So suggested to them that they do it through culture and communities to have that looked at in more detail. So, I feel that we've not quite worked out how we would deal with the lord province cars sitting in the Royal Mile, dropping people off, the, you know, the congestion that might cause, sometimes coburn street is, you know, wouldn't work. And, you know, I've seen the vehicles, sometimes delivery vehicles and everything there, and you just, you'd be not being able to get deliveries if the province cars were picking up and dropping people off and coburn street. Do I would really bottom that out, that's my disquiet, and I think that the fact that we're going to try and gather information and come back to this, it's reasonable for us just to take the report as is. And so I'm going to move that. And if, Councillor Dauguish would second, that would be appreciated. Happy to second convener. Thank you. Thank you. And then I'll go a Councillor, a Mumford for the Green Group amendment. Thanks, Camina. So this amendment is meant to be in the spirit of the report that as Gareth has set out that we want to pedestrianise the quad, but it's, it's difficult to do that for particular reasons. So what this amendment attempts to do is to switch it from saying saying civic cars can come in, but please don't, which is set out by saying they can come in, but we're engaging with staff to say, right, avoid if you can, to saying you can't come in, but ask us if you really need to. So I think it's changing that assumption away from, from the civic cars using the quadrangle. And, you know, I know in the, in the amendment that we as a Council all agreed this just back in September. We said the count, we believe the Council should lead by example by restricting access of motor vehicles, including the Lord Provers car or civic cars. So we felt that in, in September, if Council has changed his mind that's disappointing, but that's what we agreed as a Council and, and that's, that was the motion that led to this report coming, which is why I'm disappointed not to see that recommendation in there. So we're proposing to changes that we would say that the automatic assumption would be that the civic cars on official businesses can't come in and official vehicle supporting the Lord Lieutenant can't come in, but obviously acknowledging that security risk. My understanding is that the Coben Street entrance is often used for this situation anyway. But of course, whether it's security risk, whether it's insurance, whether it's accessibility, we think that discretion should be applied to these, but it is about trying to change that assumption. So, and, and therefore I'm asking for a little bit more information about the value of the civic regalia I feel this is used quite often as reasons for various things and we don't actually have that information so it'd be really good to get concrete understanding once and for all what the insurance arrangements are with that. And finally we haven't talked about in the questioning but we just note with thanks that there is talk about increasing the cycle cycle parking provision around the city chambers, particularly looking at Coburn Street, given the space limitations in the quadrangle so just suggesting that it be helpful to get an update on this within three cycles or whenever there is one available very happy to change that to a more more open ended something given given that we don't know time skills I understand the offices will move on it when there is something to move on. So happy to change that away from three cycles to when relevant. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, it really does feel like we've been trying to ban cars in the quadrangle since forever. And by we don't just mean the Scottish Green Party I mean we as a council. But often when I walk through there it's as busy as any other car park busier than some. It shouldn't be a car park. It should be a space primarily for people from pedestrians to move through. And so let's try it again. And let's do it right this time and keep the quadrangle for people with that I second this amendment. Do we have any other contributions? So I'm assuming they want to the Greens Award press there. Yeah, and I've moved to report of a lot of sympathy for what the Greens are saying and I do think the officers should, you know, strive over this period to provide the information that's needed to look and see how, you know, potentially Coburn Street could be made a suitable alternative my way that when there's sometimes security issues visitors and even royal visitors occasionally use that area presumably their security people clear it all make sure it's all fine. So, you know, I think that we do need to take a hard look at that. But in the meantime, I'm, you know, going to move, move, continue with the report as it is. So Taylor. Thank you. Thank you. Can be nurse in that case we have two positions. We have the motion by Councillor. Well, seconded by Councillor Douglass, which is to move the report recommendations as circulated. And we have the amendment by Councillor. No, not my kin. Sorry, by Councillor Mumford. Seconded by Councillor Stanworth, which is to move the Greens of Amendment. So now votes for the motion, please, by Councillor. And for the amendment by Councillor Mumford, please. So that is four for the motion and seven for the amendment. So the amendment is carried. Thank you. So move on to section eight on the agenda now, which is routine decisions. These will be taken by exception if members have any specific questions on any of the reports. Any further reports that Councillor Mumford. And thank you. We have a question on. I'll take eight point one for eight point one zero. Sorry, a cash the dog er, it's three. Okay, so that's eight three, which is a workforce dashboard, eight one zero, and then eight one two. I think probably what's most straightforward is to take them in the agenda order. And if that's fine with everybody, although they came in and reverse order. Yeah, really straightforward question. So useful information, and I like the shape of the appendix and how it's transforming itself. Do you have any plans to ring to use power BI that would allow us to have an interactive dashboard that elected members could access and get information that each of us might find useful. Thanks for your question, Councillor Dogger. I think the answer to that is yes, I think across the council, particularly the strategy and insect team are doing a lot of work around the power BI dashboard and just getting to stage. I have not already and devs can keep me right here that they're about to launch the council wide performance piece. So we are in discussions with the team about how we extend that out to include the workforce piece as well, as well as making it much more widely available across the council. I think what we really want to also do is have absolutely live workable management dashboards for all of our managers as well so that they can see what's happening in real time. The slight delay to that is we're still kind of pulling out what we can get a vertical. And as that develops leading up to October, then that'll help build the workforce BI dashboard. But yeah, absolutely. That's the aspiration. That's what we're hoping to have. And so that you can go in and kind of click on this and see see this information yourself and at kind of more of a service level as well. But as well as for elected members, but also for their managers so they can see what's happening in service real time. Thank you. That'll give us all something to look forward to learning. For those of us that haven't used it before, learn and use per BI. And for those of us who have, I'm hoping that it's better than it used to be because I used to break it all the time. So hopefully it's improved. So if we can go to 8.10 now and I think it's Graham McGarland that's here answer questions on that one. Hope he's here. Oh, you're over here now. Yeah, yeah, just asking me this question. Thank you. And so thank you. It was just a question and I raised this at the APM as well. So, sorry for some of this repetition, but I'm interested in understanding. So this is an area of over provision. And, but this is going to, so we haven't done anything to seek change of use before sort of marketing this for a new tenant. And I just wondered, I understand that the answer I was given at APM was just we try and fill the void as quickly as possible, but I'm keen to understand the interrelation between things in areas of over provision and situations like this. And why we don't have a procedure that that says this is an opportunity to try and rebalance the area. So I'd be interested to hear your views on that and also what would the implications be if we didn't, if we didn't agree this today on 8.10. Thanks. Okay, so we did not look at changing the use when seeking to remarket the property. I mean, you, the existing lease was coming to an end. We placed it on the market to seek notes of interest to basically remove a liability of an empty property as quickly as possible. I'm with a view to existing the rent, which is the way we manage the commercial portfolio. To be blunt, that's my job to make money for the council. So that's what we did in this instance. If we were not to approve, then the existing lease will end at the point is going to end and the property will remain vacant at that time. Any further questions on that one? No, fine. So, 8.12. Do have any questions for a room on this? Does anybody have any questions on this one? 8.12. I think I've moved no action on this one. I'm not sure if we have to take a decision on that first. I was given a councilor's opportunity to ask questions. Before we moved to either do no action or approve it or not. So, what we need to do is we would approve the ones that we've spoken about and ones that we've not questioned. So, we would approve or ask for committee approve 8.3 because we've spoken about it. Do I think I need to formally move it and second it? Just ask for approval. So, are committee happy to approve 8.3 and 8.10 and the other ones that we haven't discussed? And then we move to 8.12 for our vote on that one. So, I'll move 8.12. I'll move the report. Councillor Dargesh, could you second please? Happy to second. Thanks. Then we have a new action from Councillor McKinnister. Do you want to speak to that? I don't think I'm required to give reasons, but it's been a newsworthy item on this particular decision to go ahead with the planning commission. It's just to give you the opportunity to speak on it if you wanted to. So, we'll just move to our vote on it. Thank you. So, in that case, we have two positions. We have motion by Councillor Watt, which is to move the report recommendations and the amendment by Councillor McKinnister, which is to move no action. So, can I take votes for the motion first please by Councillor Watt? Thank you for the amendment please by Councillor McKinnister. So, that is six votes for the motion, five for the amendment, so the motion is carried. Thank you. And then I think that's us completed all the routine ones and what's next? Thank you. So, in that case, we'll move on to section nine, which is motions at 9.1. We have the motion by Councillor Mumford on retaining visitor information services on the Royal Mail. Thank you very much. This is hopefully a fairly straightforward motion that tries to do what it says on the tin. I think we're all disappointed by the news that the visitor centre was due to be closing, although it's pleased that it's a phased close, but it is a very newly refurbished fit for purpose building in the heart of Edinburgh. And I hope people will agree that as a capital city, it's right that we have a physical place that people can come and find information. Not everyone still wants to book online. Sometimes information isn't available online. I know the officers have already been having some conversations with visit Scotland and others about what can be done with this space. So this is an attempt to give, give a mandate to that, to say that this is something that finance and resources committee, the Council supports, and also to not attempt to preempt anything but to suggest that there are, there might be other uses for this building and still within the visitor economy, but that fit in well with the Council's aim. So looking at the nighttime economy, we've agreed we're going to have a nighttime coordinator. Maybe we need a base for that. There are organisations, third sector charities working in the city that can use bases. There are, there are independent tour guides working in the city that needs somewhere to put bags, all sorts of things. There's, there's a huge host of things that could be used for this, this venue could be used for, and we're keen that we see some options on that rather than just be proposed with a final option or worse, they're sort of slipping away and just nothing happening with it. So really keen to see an options appraisal. I would like to make a verbal amendment. I've requested offices and after conversations, I'd like to request that it is the Executive Director of Corporate Services that holds this. So if we could make that, that change verbally, that would be really helpful. And I also haven't put a time limit on that. I realise now, but having discussed with offices, it was felt that three cycles would be appropriate. And so I'm happy to add that in. If that's helpful, or just leave it as is. And I'll hand over to Council, stand for the second. Thanks. Yes, thank you. A visitor centre isn't just an area where tourists go for information such as where they can get a coffee or such like. There's actually a big humanitarian element to what a visitor centre does, because of course when tourists come here, they're coming to an unfamiliar city and our problems may arise. Transport might fall through and they need to find accommodation at the last moment. Some people, somewhat foolishly, may have come to the city without preparing accommodation first and have difficulty finding it. You know, in these situations, in emergency situations, the visitor centre is there and it helps tourists out. Our visitor centre in Edinburgh is always busy. It's always got people inside it. I don't understand the decision of a visit Scotland to close it down. But I think in order to keep tourism to the city safe, to maintain a tourist sector that has an international reputation and in line with our aims to make the tourist sector greener, a visitor centre is useful and that we should therefore do everything we can to keep some kind of visitor centre going in that spot. And with that, I second this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stanworth. Do we have any other contributions? Our committee happy to agree with the motion, with the verbal tweaks to clarify who has the action and when we're expecting it back. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. So move on to 10.1 then, which is very solution to considering private. The committee has requested under Section 50A4 of the Local Government Scotland Act to exclude the public from the meeting for the full items of business on the grounds that they would involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 6, 8 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Act. Our committee in the agreement to address the reports in private. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

line, various coats, flues and other things going around, and they don't want to flick it on the rest of us. So with that, I will ask Taylor to get us started. Thank you. Thank you, Canvenor. So this meeting is being held in the Denov Guild courtroom in the city chambers, High Street in Edinburgh and virtually by Microsoft Teams. It will be found for live and subsequent broadcasts via the Council's website. The Council is a data controller under the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act of 2018. We broadcast Council meetings to fulfil our public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this broadcast will be detained in accordance with the Council's published policy. Generally, the public seating areas will not be filmed. However, by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you should be aware that you may be recorded and images and sound will be stored. Children will not be filmed, although some will be heard. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated by the sound system and that you must switch microphones on when speaking and off when finished speaking. So we have one section one on the agenda now, which is Order of Business. Just a note that we have Councillor Kumar substituting for Councillor McKinnis today. Version two of the papers were circulated on the 26th of April 2024. There's been a written deputation request received and circulated on item 7.6, the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, Convention Bureau funding from the Edinburgh Tourism Action Group. Have committee are happy to accept deputation? Yep, nothing. We've all received and read it, so thank you. Thank you. Motions and amendments have been circulated and are available to view by members of the public alongside the papers for this meeting. For any members joining online, just a reminder that the chat function should be used to indicate to the convener that you wish to speak, please label your comment, question, contribution, point of order, etc. The chat function should not be used for any other purpose and also to your attention that for the chat box is not shown in the webcast. Any new messages do pop up on screens, so your comments may be visible to the public. If members are planning to substitute for other members at any point, please make this clear to the convener by confirming who is left and who has joined the meeting. Just to note that it's been requested that item 8.2 is deferred due to audit Scotland officer availability committee agreed to this. Yep, no comment in the next one. Thank you. And all items are subject to a 14-minute time limit unless standing order 22.16 is suspended. In that case, we'll move on to section 2 on the agenda, which is the evolutions of interests. The Councillors could have conducted requires members to publicly declare interest in the items being considered at the meeting. These interests can be financial or non-financial. Do members have anything they wish to declare? I know this is not normal, but I think in light of the discussion, I'm a director of CEC Holdings in relation to item 7.6. And that's just a transparency statement, because it's a council rule. Councillor Mumford, do you have a declaration? Thank you. Just a transparency statement in a similar vein that I'm a board member of EICC. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any more declarations? Move on to section 3, then, which is adaptations, and a written adaptation has been circulated by the Edinburgh Tourism Action Group in relation to item 7.6. So, move on to section 4. At 4.1, we have the minute of the Finance and Resources Committee over the 14th of March 2024, which has been submitted for approval as a correct record. Any questions, comments, or are we happy to agree the minute? That's agreed. Thank you. Thank you. Move on to section 5. And at 5.1, we have the Finance and Resources Committee Work Program and Committee is asked to know the work program. Do we have any questions? We happy to know the work program. Thank you. Thank you. And at 5.2, we have the Finance and Resources Committee Rule and Actions log and Committee is asked to close actions 1, 5, 9, 11, and 12, and note the remaining outstanding actions. Councillor Roth. Thanks. Can be now, I had a question relating to Rowing Action 5 as to whether it was, in fact, complete ready for closure. So, I'm just looking for it now. It's the officer here that Rowing Action 5 refers to the... [No audio] [No audio] Sorry. Yeah. No, it's just to say, we haven't had a report on this. It is mentioned in one of the reports by the quadrangle, but it's not. We haven't had anything feedback-wise. So, I don't see why we'd be closing it. Does that make sense? We'll keep a 5 open and we'll come back. My other comment is relation to 7, item 7, which is what to do with the item 7, South Bridge Resource Centre. We're expecting updates in business bulletin. There is one in the business bulletin today, for example, and there will be others in the business bulletin. But that isn't reflected in the comment or the item on the Rowing Action set, but I'm not sure about the question. So, no, it's fine. It's just the comment in the Rowing Action's log. It doesn't include reference to what we're anticipating to come. So, we're anticipating business bulletin updates as progress is made with negotiations, discussions, and relocations. There is one obviously in today's business bulletin, and it was simply to note that we were expecting business bulletin items to come, and that wasn't reflected in the comment. That was all okay. Good, that meant it. Thank you, so we'll pick that up. I don't know if I'm having a bit difficulty hearing you, Councillor Ross. I don't know if it's me or everybody, but I was just not struggling to hear you either. Thank you. Is there anything else on the Rowing Action log? Fine now, thank you. Thank you. So, moving on to item 6.1 in that case, which is the business bulletin. Committee is asked to note the business bulletin. Okay, so, Bruce? Yeah, just a brief question regarding the core HR payroll. I mean, how confident are you at the revised timescale for implementing the core HR payroll system in October? So, that would give you any doubts as to not making that target? So, I think we've got a green term ball here with us. I think she can give us an offerful update. Thanks, Candina. Yeah, so, program is progressing well to the first of October. We've got quite a milestone deadline for Friday, which is the go-no-go decision on moving into PPR. We had our program board yesterday, and really contract to meet that, so that that is a significant move forward. So, at this stage, we are not seeing any significant shoe stoppers that's going to hamper that date. So, looking forward to getting into PPR after Friday. Okay, thanks. Just one small question for anyone from that. You mentioned that recruitment module and HR help desk being implemented before the end of the financial year. I'm just wondering what the knock-on effects, if you don't make that time period for implementation. Thanks. In terms of the recruitment module, if that had to slip, there wouldn't really be any impact, because we've still got the current module available, and we can sign up to that, and it is continually available to all local authorities in terms of the current system. So, there is crossover of that, but the aim is to try and get the full of the oracle piece by the end of the the financial year. The recruitment piece is probably more resource-intense for the accounts of staff than it is for any of the third party providers in terms of CGI or oracle, because it has more of an impact on our systems, sorry, more of our processes and procedures and training for hiring managers. So, that's the only bit that we're mindful of in terms of our planning around that, just now to make sure, because it will be same resource, so we're just making sure that we can follow on quite quickly soon after, but it won't impact on any recruitment if it did proceed into the next financial year, but that's clearly not where we want to be. Okay, thanks. And Councilor Mumford. Thank you. Yeah, I just had a question about the South Bridge Resource Centre, and thank you for the updating there. It just says that engagement with the development workers and tutors will be completed by the 26th of April, so I just wondered if there was any sort of themes in feedback or anything coming back from there that you felt committee needed to be aware of. Thanks. Peter, are you able to respond to that? Effectively feedback from tutors is informing next fees, which is feedback from student, so there has been, in the diary, the programme for engagement with the students commenced, I think, yesterday, actually, and it's going to consist PowerPoint presentation, Q&A session, and on the survey, we've booked in 18 in-person presentations to be held at South Bridge, plus two online, and that will be available to everybody, student tutors. So once we get that information back, it will inform part of the business building at Next Cycle, and that there's more information that members wish to come from that than we can address that at that time. Okay, any further questions on the business building, or can we agree that? Thank you. Thank you. Move on to section seven on the agenda now, which is executive decisions, and at 7.1 we have the annual report date right off, so report by the executive director of corporate services, and Nicola Harvey and Neil Jameson will speak to the report. Hi, Neil. Good morning. Do we have any questions on this report, or is there anything you'd like to add, Neil? No, it's your standard report that you see every year, and there's less right off with the previous years, so we're in a reasonably good place with our right off position. Councillor Ross, then Councillor Bruce. Thanks for being here, thank you for this report, and I've just been really wanted to comment. I'm pleased to see at item 6.3 there is our details of inhibitions which have been settled during the year, so we can see recoveries being made from previous year actions taken, whereas previously the report focused only on the current year's right offs and not the bigger story, is it well, so I'm pleased to see that, thank you. And also it's interesting to note, as you have at 6.2, the appointment of a secondary sheriff officer, what the impact has been in terms of parking collections, and more than half, certainly the unusual situation we had the year before, with 19% written off effectively, and we're now down to a much lower figure. You might want to comment on that, and if there is any applicability of that approach elsewhere in these debt right offs. The parking date is probably two-fold, I think, it's definitely the secondary provider is helping in that area, and we have rolled that into a number of other council tax, NDR, etc. are big date types, so we're using that secondary sheriff officer account, so once it's gone through the first one, if they found it unrecoverable, a more targeted approach undertaking, I think it's also worth highlighting that the parking was subject to a fairly extensive data cleanse, so that's allowed us to write off a lot of legacy date, and that was done for 18 to years, 18 months, two years ago, so that also driven that deduction to something I would see as much for being business as usual returns. Thank you, Councillor Bress. Thank you, Convenor, and thank you for the report. In Appendix 4, the right off for penalty charge notice is nearly 130,000 with no trace at DVLA, and the same for bus lanes, no trace at DVLA. It seems to be a lot of UK vehicle, illegal vehicles roaming the streets of Edinburgh. What do you do with the information that you receive about these low trace vehicles? So we engage with the DVLA in an attempt to try and find who the registered owner is, but if they don't have that recognition, then there isn't that much we can do, but we do engage and share that information with them around, you know, the owner isn't currently registered on the system, or we can't try and trace them, so we exhaust all the recovery, we can with them, but it's the DVLA that obviously registers in that sense. Is there any further questions? Councillor KUMAR. Thank you, Convenor. Thank you very much for the report. My question is on Appendix 2. 5th row is on non-counsel dead right off. This is some of 215,000 with very little recovery. I don't actually know what non-counsel means, could you please explain or give me a couple of examples of what that might entail, thank you. It could just be third party day that we're recovering for people, so it's a real catch-all for us in the service area, in that there'll be different types of day, but I'm happy to provide a breakdown of that that'll be useful by way of a briefing. Great, thank you. Do we have any further questions? No, no, thank you. Paul just agreed. Happy agreed report, thank you, thank you. So move on to item 7.2, which is the Health and Social Care Contract Extension Report, so reports by the Chief Officer of the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board, the Baba Moira Pringle speak to the report and there's been an S&P group at the end, I'm circulated on the site. Do you have anything to add to the report? No, nothing to add, I'm obviously happy to take any questions. Thanks Moira, are there any questions on this? Yeah, a couple of questions, so I'll go to the big one first in terms of value of the contract. So the Nottingham Rehab contract, obviously note that they have suffered a cyber attack and the procurement exercise was paused on the 3rd of April, which is only a few weeks ago. If that had not been paused, would we have had a proposal brought forward to us today in respect of a potential new contract being awarded? The procurement, prior to the notification of the cyber attack, was on track what I am not totally sure of, Councillor, as if it was to be reported to this meeting of the Committee or the next one, but I can confirm that the procurement activity was on track. Yeah, so just actually thinking of timings for the award of the contract. We have made a point in this committee before, across all directorates, about contracts being put in place and then we're given a fair to complete around agreeing it or the convener has to agree the contract, which is something that we want to avoid and it just seems that if it hadn't come to this meeting, we would have been back to that situation and that is not something I think that this committee believes is acceptable. So are we just going down the route again of starting the procurement process too late and not being in a situation to give members who make the decisions or should make the decisions sufficient time and sufficient information to be able to make the decision? And in addition to that, I presume there were more than one provider. So the way this reads, it makes me think that the contract was going to be reawarded to this provider, despite the fact that they've suffered a serious cyber attack, which on one hand is either not an issue in terms of delivering materials and services or is sufficiently serious enough that would actually make awarding them the contract doubtful in which case why was opposed. Can I just come in, sorry, when it operates in from procurement. If you see in the delivery plan report today, the Israeli Living Contract was due to come to committee in September. So it wasn't that the committee would be asked to award a report on that today. Pausing the exercise at the moment gives us the opportunity to look at the options, alternative options that in terms of business continue to the council needs to consider. What I would say about the contractor for the services, it's in effect like a managed prime contractor model. So there are several organizations delivering specialist equipment under that one banner. And a change in direction would have an impact on resources for the service area in terms of managing. But it's something that we will look at in terms of the strategy going forward when we work through the cyber security risks that have been identified. Okay, do we have any further questions, Councillor Nicholson, then Councillor Ross. Thanks, Combinar. And thank you for the report. I'm possibly not a question for F&R, but a question I think that needs to be asked. I think we've probably all been contacted by Unison about the stockpile of very usable equipment at Pepper Place, Bank, Pepper Mill, whatever it is that we're storing all the used equipment at present. And I just wonder if that has been considered moving forward with contacts and for that type of service. So I can respond to that, Combinar. Yes, Councillor, all these issues are taken into account as part of this procurement process. I don't have specific details on the can of stockpiling you're referring to. But what I can confirm is that whenever economically viable, any returned equipment is read, is repaired and reused, but happy to pick up any specifics out with anything if that's helpful. That is very helpful and definitely would like to pick that up afterwards, especially given the recent motion that came from Kaylee Councillor O'Neill in the Greens regarding usable equipment as well. If it's not able to be usable within City of Edinburgh, perhaps we can use it in a different way. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Roth. Thanks, Combinar. Thanks for this report. My question was in a similar line to Councillor & Councillor in relation to the recycling of equipment which is distributed through this contract to individuals in need of assistance. Can I ask what, how effective is the recycling of these items and what facilities do we have on channels of opportunity for recycling because they're not ordinary things. They are very specific and they are often in a very usable, reusable condition when they have, when the person to whom they've been given, it no longer requires them and it seems that we spend an lot of money on this buying new stuff all the time. I appreciate we do have to keep those stocks up. That's my question. I probably can't respond in any more detail than I have already, but if the committee would like what I could do is ask the officers involved to produce you everything. That'd be helpful. I'm not circulated roundabout that because I think there is interest in it, especially after the motion that Councillor NICKLE has mentioned. Thank you. Oh, Councillor DOGGER. Yeah, second question is around the EADP extension. paragraph 4.9 talks about pressure on commissioning has created delays in progressing the re-precurement. Can I ask what the specific pressures are? I guess the specific pressures are a very limited resource to undertake that commissioning piece of work. That very small team has had some instances of unplanned and sick leave. Just to push you on that, Moira, is the team understaffed? Are there vacancies that aren't filled? I take your subsidiary point around unexpected sick leave, but unexpected sick leave and a small team shouldn't stop a team from functioning. How do we get around that? But the main point is, are there sufficient people in that team? Suppose for clarity, I'm not suggesting that unplanned sick leave and stop the team from functioning. It just meant the team were not able to continue with the whole breadth of their remit and they had to, as a result, prioritize their work. It is a small team. The team is now, as I understand it, through the staff and it's also fully funded through the EADP itself. So I think Richard wants to add something and then Councillor Nicholson has a question. Thank you. Well, just can be honest, just going to add to the response for Council Douglas's question. We have undertaken an end-to-end, or we're starting to undertake an end-to-end review of commissioning from children's free to adults, transition and homelessness as well. This will be a fun part of an initial exploratory work to look at process and also all of the roles and responsibilities along the lines of that. And we aim to look at a future model for commissioning and how we can best operate and avoid bottlenecks in any process for commissioning and managing the commissioning envelope as best we can in relation to our demand and anticipated future need for data. I'm hoping that we're just about to agree the project initiation document for that and scope. We've undertaken quite a number of interviews now with all staff in the process, but we would be happy to share that with you at a briefing that we're planning to do as part of the build-up to the June F&R, to talking that in more detail if that would be helpful. Thank you. Councillor Mickelson. Thanks very much. A question about Scottish care and I'm aware that they're kind of the only organisation available in terms of representation of the private sector and some of the good work they do. And just referring to the fact that they have a work plan, I was wondering if that could be circulated by officers. I haven't seen it in a I don't sit in the performance and delivery group which I think that's come to. So thanks. Sorry, can we register to respond? Yes, of course we can set away that work plan. Thank you. Do we have any other questions or before we move to the report? And because we have an addendum which I'm happy to accept. So I'll move the report saying that. And if James can just second it. Yeah, happy to say thank you. Thank you. And then Councillor Mickelson. Yeah, there's not enough a lot to say and I think we're probably all in agreement. And as a board member I understand that there have been pressures on commissioning in the Health and Social Care Partnership for a number of reasons, not least the development of the savings plan and I know that no officers took that lightly. However, as Councillor Doggert did say a lot of the procurement contracts are starting too late and the £250 amount that results in contracts being referred to committee £250,000 I should say is an awful lot less than some of the size of contracts we're seeing coming here today using contract waivers and it is concerning for all of us. And I appreciate what Richard said. I think it was very helpful. Your comments for you regarding the review of the commissioning. But yeah, we'd still like to move the amendment. But thank you for accepting it. Is it Councillor Biajia who seconded it? Formerly. Thank you. Are we happy to agree with the report with the agenda? Thank you. Thank you. So move on to item 7.10 now, which is the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board Contract Fuel of Living Wage Uplift. It's a report by the Executive Director of Corporate Services and Richard Lloyd Pithle will speak to the report. Richard, if you. Thank you. So as we have previously agreed, this is a report to start formalising the passover of the consequences to the EIGAB and also formalise the Uplift to the £12 an hour living wages as outlined in the report. Also detailed in the report is a brief update on the EIGAB's finances as we progress to the June formal report discussing outtenors and interim update. Have to take any questions. Do we have any questions for Richard on this or are we happy to agree the report? Any questions? Okay. Councillor Mumford. Thank you. I've got a number of questions. One is just that we said we'd get a verbal update on the causular decision and the report says that happened on the 26th about distribution. I don't know if we can have that. I'm sorry, Councillor Mumford. I didn't quite catch a question, sorry. Sorry. So the report says that causular is due to make a decision on distribution on the 26th and we'll get a verbal update on that in this meeting. I might invite my colleague Fraser if you might be able to assist at this. I can't quite remember. I think if I was to recall essentially the causular did meet the distribution group and did agree the £62 million consequential to be distributed on the GA basis for this. Rootroom is where our £5.2 million share comes from for that. And I think that's all really to say on that, Councillor Mumford, sorry. Anything further? Councillor Ross. Yes. Sorry. We'll go. Councillor Mumford's follow-up first name. We'll go to Councillor Ross. Thank you. Sorry, I wasn't sure if my hand was up. So it's also just if there was any update on the match funding from the NHS, which is mentioned in the report, but just says it hasn't happened if we could get an update on where that conversation is. And also if there's any concerns about disparity and potential disparity with Children's Commissioned Care Services, obviously that's a different process. But that's sort of going through at the moment and we've been able to top up this funding to ensure that we are offering everyone the £12 wage, but is there any concern that we won't be able to do that with Children's Services? Thanks. In terms of the Children's, we are currently looking at options that are going through the Children's Committee. We absolutely are looking at every option of how we can apply that. But we'll ensure that we present options to the Committee to facilitate that at the next education committee. In regards to the NHS, I can say from my point of view, we are having group meetings to discuss this between myself, Moira, my counterpart and the NHS. So we'll continue to have those discussions and continue trying to interlink our budget and planning as much as we can as part of this process. Thank you. Councillor Ros. Thank you. It's a convener and thanks for this report. I wanted to pick up one of the first point that Councillor Mumford raised in relation to the generic allocation basis and you refer to as the GA basis. Is this something which we are participating will be used quite commonly in by Councillor in these negotiations, though this sort of situation, because it is very concerning to the Council, obviously, because we seem to be losing out as a result and as a result of the finding it difficult to make our commitments as evidenced here. I think in terms of your question, I think it seems to be the preferred method from what I can see from recent decisions that have been made and made on that basis. There's always winners and losers in every distribution. So I think what we can do is, perhaps we'll take that away and discuss that approach and perhaps we can do a briefing on what we may want to contribute to that debate through Councillor. Yeah, thanks. We don't thank you for explaining that. It's just clearly there's a need here and it's not being met. And if it's, well, if it's an assessment of need, it doesn't seem to be appropriate. That's all. Thank you. Anything further on that, or are we happy to agree the report and refer it to full Council for further consideration there? Okay, that agreed. Thank you. Thank you. Move on to item 7.4 now, which is the Children Education and Justice Services contract extension report, so the report by the executive, sorry, the director of children education and justice services. An SMP group amendment has been circulated on this item. We've lost and are not able to speak to the report. Hi, Laura. Good morning, Karina. Good morning, everyone. Would you have anything you want to add to the or update your report? Thank you. Thank you. So the report is for not in the ongoing work that has been undertaken by the commissioning team and the director as shown in the main report in the table. We have achieved 94.91% of compliance and given the news circulated yesterday, this has now increased to 96% for the first three months of 2024, which is good news and we're continuing to do so. And the report also seeks approval to extend a small number of contracts where active contract planning is ongoing due to the reasons highlighted in 4.6 and 4.7, a financial aspect to it, of course, taking to consideration the medium-term financial plan and the reason and the need to deliver within budget and 4.7 highlighting the need to continue to be in the best interest of children, young people and their families. There's such no change being suggested to date. Nothing to add to the report. Other than that. Thank you. I'm sure there will be questions. Just a Councillor Kumar. Thank you, Linda. I have a few questions if I can. So Laura, thank you very much for the report. My question is around 4.8. Could you please confirm the actual value of the contract? It does age 12 million per annum, but then there's an eight-month extension. So could you please confirm the actual amount? Thanks, Councillor Kumar. So for those frameworks that are having 4.8, so the residential care and special schools and the uniform, the value is not fixed because they're free much, and it's an estimated value. It depends on what we're using. So I can provide the number of placements and the actual value, which changes, I would say, the actual spend, which changes continuously, but that should be private if that's okay. Because that is the expected value, the whole framework, but there's no guarantee in spend as such. Okay. So can I come back in? Yes, Councillor Kumar, please just go through the questions that you have. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Laura. So I'm having difficulty with that. I understand that there are confidential contracts, etc. But I am also aware that these are extraordinary sums that we've been asked to prove, and it's difficult to do that if we don't know the sum that we're proving today. I understand where you're coming from in terms of this is the value, but I think we're really good for the committee to understand what that value is. But my second question is, so according to the papers, the contracts are coming to an end 7th of July, 2024, which is, of course, just a little over two months. Is there a reason why we've not done this work ahead of time? I'm just mindful that, again, these are significant amount of money, and we only have about two months and a bit before the contract expires. Thank you. So going back to the value, we would request approval for extending the whole frame up to a value of 12 million. We are trying, I mean, the service and commissioning together, are trying the best not to make any placement out of area as you are aware. It's in our improvement plan. However, that cannot be guaranteed as depending on the children's needs, as such, we would need to approve, we're asking approval for the whole value of the framework. Should we need to make an emergency placement or any placement in the best interest of the child over the next nine months? And again, that goes back to .4, .7. There is an active contract planning for all of those. The first main framework is actually, it's already been ongoing for a while. We had some engagement with the providers hoping that the contract planning and the procurement tender would align with the children's services improvement plan, but work is still ongoing there, and as such, it wouldn't be fit for purpose if we went to tender, wrote a specification that does not align with the main children's plan, because that would not be fit for purpose, as I said. Thank you. And I think Executive Director Manta Hatton was something that I had given the sort of scale of this in particular framework. Thank you. Thanks, Convina. And apologies if I start coughing. I've also got the cold that everybody else seems to have. It might be helpful to give you an overview of the kinds of numbers that we're talking about. We had 75 children in external placements. We're down to 150 children in external placements, so those numbers are reducing significantly. That's both in terms of moving children back into the city who were in those external placements, but also reducing the number of children that are coming into care. So the edge of care team has had a real impact on reducing children who are coming into the care system. We are projecting that we're going to be in budget on placements spend for the first time in living memory, I think. So it's a real positive improvement that we're reducing the numbers. Obviously, it's better for children to be within the city, wherever possible, within their own families, wherever possible. We have seen a really significant reduction in the amount of external placements that we're using. We are looking at our in-house resource provision as well and looking at can we change the nature of that provision so that, for example, we don't now have emergency placements going into all our residential provision, because what that does is on settle houses. So we're not doing that anymore. And there is an ongoing piece of work around looking at particularly a couple of the residential establishments we've currently got to see if we could repurpose them and use them differently, but we've not finished that piece of work. Yeah, drop that out. Thank you very much, Amanda. That was really helpful, but can I again, push on the question? Because we knew when the contract was ending, why was it left two months before? Could we not have brought the say at the start of the year? I'm just conscious that the committee is being asked to prove some of money and I wholeheartedly believe in our residential program. What I'm struggling with is the length of time that we've been asked to actually consider this, given the contract is coming to an end in July, and that's two months away, and it's a big sum of money. Why was this not brought ahead of time? I think you can see from the paper that there's been a significant improvement in contract compliance. We're at 96 percent now. We were in a very challenging state in relation to contracts. The number of contracts we had, we didn't have an accurate contract register, so this is a work in progress, and absolutely we would like to bring contracts forward at an earlier date wherever possible. What we're doing is continuing to do this work to make sure that we've got the right contracts in place, the right contract managers against those contracts, and we're getting value from money. Hence we do the report to each of our exact committees now with the detail of all the contracts that we've got in place, what's happening with them when they're coming up for ending, etc. This is a continuation of a framework. It's not a look to a new framework, it's not a development of a framework. It's a continuation of the existing framework that we've got whilst we continue to make those changes and continue to get to a point where more and more of our work is compliant. Do you have anything further, Councillor CUMAR before I go? Councillor CUMAR. A deacon Rina, thank you. Just the last one. So now I'm looking at the provision of independent advocacy that's provided by who Councillor Scotland, who again do fantastic work, but we've been asked to extend the contract up to 24 months, going up to the end of March

1. I'm just mindful that the other contracts have been asked to be extended till March 2025. Could you explain to me why the additional year, is it not better to actually have the same deadline and consider that at that stage? Thank you. Councillor interjecting. I'm going to pick up, I'll go to Laura. Thank you, Cumbina. You will see how in the line for who cares, Scotland, we're asking to extend the contract by up to 24 months because that will be depending on the outcome of the two above. So it might be 12 months, it's sufficient when we work with the service area to look at the, it's again aligning with the children services improvement plan. It is a core element of the promise to maintain strong relationships and we will want to do so with whoever will be delivering the independent advocacy for the moment. This is who cares Scotland and we will move as quickly as we can, but again in the best interest of other children and families. So again, it's up to 24 months, it might happen sooner. That's where you can read that. Thank you. This can go to Councillor DOGR now, we thank you. Yeah, so just one observation first and I'll turn to questions. In the past, we've been told we're doing really well and then we get updates to committees that say, well, actually we weren't, but we're doing much better now. You must recognize that on this side of the table, it becomes quite difficult to accept those assurances that we're doing much better now when we're being told the same thing that we were told in the past that we then discover has not quite been the case context. So two questions in respect to paragraph 4.7. So pending continuous and further development, as soon as inflation rates become stable and resources are available, we shall look at tendering for these few extensions and waivers. So in terms of inflation and just to correct the error in paragraph 4.6, it's a bike of England target, not a government target, what would you regard as stable inflation? I think we are getting to more stability. We are already on that pathway to more stability. I guess for first generation contracts and I'm thinking on the last two on that table for requirements that have not been tended before in the Council, the risk of inflation impacting on the request coming from providers for those contracts have never been tended before as a risk that we are trying to manage together with finance. We are on the right pathway with more stability, that's why the work has started for those two first generation contracts. Does that answer your question? Not really, because I would like to know how do you know when you've reached stability? So from my point of view, from strategic planning for the organisation, in terms of our assumptions around inflation, we're planning for around 3%. Now, I would say that ideally, so if I recall last CPI inflation was about 3.2, we're still slightly above our planning assumptions, but in terms of a stable level of inflation, ideally, as I said, the Bank of England's 2% would be a far more ideal position to be in. But I think in terms of the macroeconomic factor driving, that's going to affect every aspect of our business and price inflation, how much we can control the individual price of activity and contracts within our framework. But I think there's lots of questions around market, what our local circumstances of Edinburgh that are equally important to the context around providers, our place in the local market compared to what the private market can provide, lots of questions around that that are equally important, that creates challenges that Laura and her team are doing a great job of things trying to navigate and making progress on. But in terms of your question and inflation, that might be. Yeah, so I'm still not sure. I recognise you can have a nice level, which is irrelevant when it comes to the pricing of an individual contractor, that's fine, I get that. But I'm still not sure how you know when you've got the right answer that you can then say inflation has stabilised. So is it 3%? Is it 2%? And I'm not getting any assurance that the answers provided mean that you know when you've hit the right position, that you can then go into a contract. Does that mean if we're sitting at 3.2% in eight months time, that we're going to be faced with the same issue because inflation hasn't stabilised, but actually inflation has stabilised because it's sitting at 3.2% for eight months. So I'm struggling to understand your mindset in terms of actually setting the criteria for the answer. My thinking around it is the impact of inflation. Stability of rates or non-stability of rates will be on the provider. So the impact of inflation is on them who will then provide me with the prices I need to deliver within budget. It's not really on the council. So our opportunity when we tend is the earliest opportunity we have to make sure we get the right price for the right service that we require over the course of the contract. And if inflation rates become more stable, the providers hopefully will be able to offer prices that can allow us to deliver within budget. Okay, second question. In relation to when resources are available, do we have a problem with resource when it comes to these contracts? And if it comes to a contract that has a value of 12 million, should that not be a priority? We are a small team and we work very closely with finance and procurement. Not always resources are available. However, the contracts that you've got in this report are all been worked on and work is started. And progress. Just to add to that, this work we're doing is part of the scope of the commission review. So I think if we do identify the need for additional resources, there's clearly progress that's being made. And so I think the more that we invest into this, if we can prove this will provide best value, then we'd absolutely be sure to be looking at investing more in. And of course, joining up the processes and the tech and the finance that comes alongside it. I think Amanda Hatton has some additional information to add. Thank you. Thanks, as Laura said, this is a small team. We've already put additional posts into this team, which has achieved the positive steps forward that you can see in the report. We've now got, I think it's three more posts in the team that we're trying to recruit to. They're difficult skills to recruit to. And lots of people want people that have got really good contracts management and commissioning skills. But we are actively recruited into the team. Thank you. Anything further? So thank you. If there's no further questions, I'm going to move the report and say that I'm going to accept or minded to accept the amendment by the S&P group. The main thing is the committee is requesting the report as quickly as possible about these issues with contract management commissioning. And we've heard the director of finance say that he's working on that very actively. And we'll be bringing a report to committee as soon as possible. So I'm going to move the report and say that we're going to accept the amendment. Councillor Gail Gleish, if you could. What will the convener? Thank you. Is it Councillor? Is it Councillor Kumar that's moving the amendment? I am. Thank you very much, convener. And thank you for indicating that we will be accepting our amendment. I think that's really useful. Thank you very much. I want to just start by saying that we are, we are very far in our commitment to provide services for our residential care services and our special special skills. And I think that's really key here and that the work of suppliers such as charities and other partners are very key in the sector. And again, I very much agree with the report that we should not be automatically renewing contracts with our review because we've had evidence of previous times where this has failed in terms of best value and continuity of service. The bit that has been most uncomfortable for me and I appreciate the officer's answers to this is just that they're really more forward planning. And I appreciate the standards that we don't know, the sums, but actually a little bit of forward planning to actually bring this ahead of time would be really valuable just so that as elected members have had, I've got a clear view in terms of what has been asked. The sum of 12 million or around that figure is a lot of money to ask. Given that we still don't have a clear understanding in terms of what that might entail, what that might look like in the end. And for those reasons, we've brought this amendment forward. Just to really put into writing that we are, we are concerned and we do believe that it is, you know, again, a lot more forward planning that it would be useful for, and beneficial for this, for this Council and Committee. But again, as if, as if our client can read that, we are asking for a report to be brought back as soon as possible, just so that we are also future proofing our processes going forward. Happy to move. Thank you. Thank you. And is it Councillor Nicholson or Councillor Biaje that's seconded? Formerly. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Nicholson. Everybody happy to agree that? Thank you. Thank you, conveners. Move on to item 7.5 now, which is the award of contract for Edinburgh's Winter Festivals, so a report by the executive director of corporate services. There has been a Liberal Democrat Group amendment and a King Group addendum circulated on this item and have Kevin McKee here to speak to the report. Okay, so there's no much to add to the report, but it is perhaps worth noting that the contract will be in a joint and several liability basis, and therefore, in terms of the successful consortium, we'll be entering into contract with all three members of that consortium. You'll also see that there's a confidential appendix which sets out some detailed financial information in relation to the successful bidder, which we would hear on the Bee Agenda as I say. There's also been a threat of legal challenge, which I think you're all aware of. And again, we can offer, or I can offer advice on that myself and my colleague, Keith, but that would have to be on the Bee Agenda for these reasons. Thank you. Do we have any questions on the Bee Agenda part of this item? A Council Uni. Thank you, Commissioner. I have a few if that's okay. I hope so. And first one, this is maybe perhaps more for the convener than the officers, but it was not entirely helpful for, I think, the Council leader to have made comment on the award of contract before the contract was awarded by this committee, so I don't know if that's one free. I don't know if you'd like to speak to that. Yes, I'll feed that back to them and just check with the media belief in team that they make sure that they get these kind of things just quite accurate when there are contracts and legal things. Obviously, we're keen to say that there was a sort of recommendation, but yeah, I pushed it probably a bit further than it would have been ideal, so I will certainly feed that back to them. Thank you. Oh, sorry. And do you have a question for the officers? Do as well, if that's okay, a convener, thank you. Yes, of course, and then we'll go to the case tomorrow. And thank you for that. It relates to the KPIs and their inclusion in the report, or rather the fact that I don't think they were included in the report, despite the fact that they were agreed, I think, in our meeting last year in June, and I appreciate that they don't have to be, they don't have to be included, but I think speaks to the transparency element around the award of the contract here that I'd be grateful for, but more information on yet the KPIs and the fact they're not included in this report that's in front of us. I think that one's possibly best answered by Lynette, or David, who's online. Yeah, I'm hoping convener David Waddle is online and we'll pick that up and describe how we undertake that process, if that's okay. David? Yeah, certainly. Thank you, Paul, thank you, convener. The KPIs, as Councillor Uni, as mentioned, were taken to committee back in August 23 and to Culture and Communities Committee and agreed as part of the specification sign-off. They were then included as part of the tender pack, and we updated members that the KPIs and the final KPIs would be updated once we'd had the final bid and we knew what was going to be included as part of that. In effect, the KPIs that were included back in August 23 and reported to committee were kind of baseline minimums that we were looking for across the life of the contract. There's obviously going to be additional elements that would be proposed by the bidders, and we wanted to include them as part of the final KPIs once they're developed. So if the bidder is proposing or saying that they will deliver X, Y, and Z, we would like to include X, Y, and Z in the final set of KPIs. Okay. Yeah, just one more, just if that's okay, convener just on, and thank you for that, David, that was very helpful. I don't know how much of this can be answered in a agenda, just regarding the financials of the awards, and there has, I don't know if that'd be better left to be agenda, Kevin, or? I think it depends on the question. The thing we can start a typical lawyer answer, I think we can talk about what stage finances were tested, and the general nature of any additional financial test that were undertaken and then successful, but if we're talking about pound shillings and pens, then when the people would be a judge. I think most of the former would be very helpful if you could draw out and give us a bit of reassurance and clarity on, yeah, the former part that you'd refer to there, not the pound shillings and pens. Right. I think Fraser from our finance team is Fraser on. Fraser might be best, please answer that. Sorry, Councillor, could you just clarify the question, just specifically if that's okay. So there's, I think reference has been made by Kevin to some concerns that were raised with Councillors around the property, and when we started to ask people for financial information and the process around when we asked, and I think it would be helpful to go into that a little bit more in public session. You mean around financial checks and so on. Okay, thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Uni. I'll let my colleagues contribute as appropriate. The stage one SPD stage, the simple procurement document. Yeah, the contract specification or invitation of that stage included a minimum turnover requirement, which was equal to twice the value of the expected contractor board and also the minimum current ratio, which is the comparison between current assets and current liabilities. And a figure of 1.2 was included in the specification at that stage, and so that was done at the initial stage. As the progress, as the process continued then further checks were undertaken, particularly when we reached the stage 4, which a detailed analysis was taken, further questions were asked as appropriate of the remaining bidders at that stage, but I'm going to be pass over to other colleagues just to elaborate. Thanks. We agreed that it was appropriate to do further due diligence as the end of the tender process approached, and therefore we built in additional checks as part of that process. So that meant that rather than looking back, which is what we would have done in the October time, we were asking bidders to provide more up-to-date financial information about their organisations. We also advised that we would do a range of due diligence checks on the back of that, not just turnover and not just threshold, but we would also look more intently at other external financial information that was available. For example, credit reference checks, we'd form part of that. We would look at balance shoots, we would look at cash at bank, so we would, and provided a lot more rigour around all of those areas before we were satisfied with the outcome. We also asked additional questions or bidders were appropriate to get an explanation of any figures that we weren't sure about and get more detail around that, and all of that information was passed back to finance colleagues and shared with legal colleagues as well as we worked through each of the processes to get to the end result. Does that answer your question? Thank you. As much as we can in the session, although I think that, you know, gave a very good outline and background of what the process and timing was. So I think that was very helpful. Councillor MUNFORD. Thank you. I've got two probably quick questions and a couple of chunky ones. So the quick ones are just the procurement costs that are listed in the report. I presume that doesn't include the procurement manager that will be managing this. I just wondered if it seems like this is a big one to manage, given all of the different elements of it. So I just wondered if we could talk anything about the impact on council costs of that procurement manager and how that is factored into this. And then also just a question about timings. If we, if committee decided to defer this report, what impact might that have, is that possible? Thank you. And then if I could get answers to those and then I'll come back in for the slightly bigger one. Thank you. Okay. I'll take the first question on the procurement costs. So those costs are essential and assessed group costs of what it takes to procure a service. So it includes all the costs for the procurement services, legal services, the service area, support and building together the specification and the documentation. It does not include the cost of the contract management and the contract management cost will sit with the service area and Paul will manage that cost going forward. Just on the second question convener, which I'll pick up David. David, if you want to add anything, please feel free. I think simply Councillor Mumford officers would much prefer members to take a decision today if at all possible. Clearly if members don't feel as if their questions have been answered either in the report or in questions, their members will want to continue. But I think we would like if at all possible to resolve this today for a very simple reason that it's now nearly the end of April. Once members make a decision, there is a period to go through around Stanstell and procurement, then we have to mobilise the contract and to actually undertake the work both by the contractor, by Council colleagues and by others to make the event a reality starts getting extremely tight. In reality, we're already slightly behind. So we would like to try and find a way of giving assurance to members on any information you have, either on the A or B agenda today, to allow you to make a decision if at all possible. Thank you. I think Kevin wants to add something, Councillor Mumford, if that's okay, before we move to the next one. Just in relation to deferment or delay, if that was in light of the prospective legal challenge, then I can cover some of that if and where we go to be agenda for questions in that regard. Thank you. And, Councillor Mumford, do you have time? Thank you. And also just to follow up on that, that will make sense, I suppose, just to echo what SMP colleagues have been saying today about feeling a little bit like sometimes things come to this committee with not much choice. We knew this was going to be a really big contract and it's been controversial in the past. In terms of committee work planning, it would be helpful to know when these things are going to come up and if there is any way to put this slightly earlier in the year, although I know, Christmas comes around quicker every year. And so my other questions were just around, there's probably more for David, just obviously we've had issues in the past with these contracts. What has changed in this contract, that means we are protected if things go wrong. And also, if you could just talk briefly through the changes that have been made around environmental protection, silicate tree protection, looking at air pollution and diesel generators in this contract, I know the waiting's changed, if you could just talk a little bit about that, that would be really helpful. Thank you. Sure, I'll maybe ask colleagues from legal to step in and anything around protections and T's and C's based, that they've been covering that. Certainly in terms of changes from the previous procurement exercise that was undertaken, obviously that was reported to a number of committees, GRBV, risk committee and culture and communities. And as a result of that, we have implemented a number of changes. First of all, we've done a slightly different procedure for this time. The competitive procedure with negotiation is supposed to open procedure from last time. We've changed the waitings around quality and costs to add further waiting to the quality element of it this time. We have changed the number of criteria or, sorry, the tender submission questions, reflecting concerns that have been raised by members in the past, specifically around community benefits and environmental impact and sustainability as well. And we've included a new question around event accessibility and inclusivity as well. Again, we're further reflecting those kind of core values that have been determined through the public consultation when that was done a couple of years ago. So I think that the tender submission and the specification, which is appended to this report and again have gone to culture and communities committee back in August, more fully reflect some of the concerns that were raised by members at that time and gives us something that's slightly more fit for purpose in the previous version. Do we have Councillor Ross? Sorry, Convener. Forgive me. I think David, Councillor MONFEDLES had the question on environmental and sustainability measures. Yeah. Section 21, I think it is in the specification talks specifically about some of the measures around that we would want to see them see implemented by the contractor. We've been working very closely with Clear Marion and the Council's sustainability team who's had direct input into the specification for this. And it was one of the areas that we were able to enhance and improve following the specification committee last time. So there are a number of additional initiatives in there that we've instructed to be included, including membership of certain schemes. The ones around food waste, food recycling, use of electric vehicles, the LEZ. There's a lot more information that's gone into those sections. I like that we also had from last time information around tree protection zones. They've been included and updated since that previous procurement exercise as well. We're included as an appendix, giving really clear information around what areas are able to be used within our green spaces. And we've had a lot of input from our colleagues in parks and green spaces around that as well. Sorry for jumping in before you got the chance to answer that. David, thanks for the nudge, Paul. Councillor Ross. Thanks, convenient. And thank you for this report. And clearly, you will officers will appreciate that members have concerns around this process, both from the point of view of ensuring that it is clear and transparent, but also ensuring that we have an improved contract, as I've heard from the answers to David has given that clearly there have been improvements made. So I have two or three questions about contract process if that's all right. Just again to give committee more reassurance that this is the right way forward here. In terms of how the contract has been structured differently, and the process is a completely different process from that taking the year before, two years before. Can I ask then about the KPIs, my colleague made reference to, and the assessment during the process of the contract, where there are relatively minor failures, but there's a cumulative impact on the contractual performance, and there may be degrees of shortcomings. How is that recognized, not specific, major KPIs, but a cumulative impact? How is that recognized, and what provision is there in the contract to allow the council to say this really isn't good enough, we're pulling the plug? I'm happy to take that one. There is a provision in the contract, in the t's and c's of the contract, for the issuing of default notices, and if a certain number of default notices are associated within a set period, then that can lead to termination. That has been in the contract, that that's not new to the contract, so it is there. Thank you. Can be near if I may follow on. That's helpful, thank you for explaining that. We have a festival as APOG, a group of Councillors and officers who look after and oversight and scrutinize events and festivals in particular, and particularly this one, what engagement are we expecting once this contract is up and running with the festival's APOG? David, can you update us on that? Yes, certainly. The APOG is, in the past what we've done, I would intend to, I thought we would intend to repeat it for this time, is that we provide a fairly regular update to that APOG, it's not quite the understanding item on the agenda, but more or less has over the recent meetings of that group. Just to provide updates of where we are with everything that's taken place through Edinburgh's Christmas, Edinburgh's Hogmane, and the planning of it. There's also an annual report goes back to Culture and Communities Committee as the parent committee for this contract as well, and we would have regular contract meetings and contract management meetings with the contractors as well, on quite specific items looking at finance permissions, KPIs, community engagement, stakeholder engagement, all these elements as well. So there's quite a robust process in place for managing and monitoring that's contract, keeping the APOG updated, and then ultimately if a decision or an important update is required, that would go back to Culture and Communities Committee. If I can just add briefly, Kavina, given what's happened to this contract in the past, there is no officer under any illusion at all, not least me, that if there are any issues, that, for example, Keith has mentioned, or David has referred to on perhaps a more informal basis, that we will report those to Council as either through the APOG or a more appropriate, or whatever is the most appropriate mechanism formally to Committee as early as possible. Council Ross? Thank you, that's very helpful, because, of course, it's my view, certainly important that Councillors are involved in those processes, should they be necessary. Can I move on a little bit to my final question in public, in relation to the process of monitoring and reporting and expectations leading up to the start of the first events for Christmas and alluding, apparently, to the things which will come to licensing and planning, given that I have certain licensing committee. What is the expected process to ensure that the successful applicant meets the deadlines and timelines that we anticipate have done this before, so maybe we should have some confidence about that? David, you picked that up? Certainly, one of the other areas that we'd enhanced or made clear following from Councillor Mumford's question was around the need for permissions and the requirements and the time skills that were associated with that. It also allows to the use of public spaces for filming and events as well, where we've got very clear time skills set out to all event organizers in the city about what our expectation is for getting permissions and submissions in. There are a number of other conditions in the contract around them notifying us with plans ahead of getting any submissions in and very clear that they are responsible for the contractures responsible for getting permissions and ensuring that they are in place. So we have generally done some engagement work with the contractors in the past to make sure that they are fully aware of what's expected, done specific meetings with licensing and with planning and building control so that they can detail out their timelines and submission dates that are required for this to make sure that they reach committee in good time ahead of the events. Are there any further questions before we move to be agenda? Councillor Ros. No, it can be in that case it was for be agenda questions. Thank you. Okay, so I think if there's nothing further on the agenda, we'll move directly to be agenda on this item and that means that I'm going to have to ask everybody who isn't essential to this part of the proceedings to if they can just leave and likewise if you're on team, teams, can you just go off teams and the clerk will sign an indication of when you should return for later items. Okay, thank you all. That's us back on the webcast and ready to resume. We're still on item 7.5. Just to remind people where we are regarding the Winter Festival contract, we have a report with a Liberal Democrat group of amendment and a green group of addendum and I'm just going to check whether the ledem group wish to press the remaining amendment and whether the green group wish to press the addendum. Thank you. Councillor Ros. Thanks, convener. When I first read this report, I was immediately concerned as to what we would be faced with in decision making today. Partly because of the history around this event and it contract your processes, the council have been involved in in the last couple of years and the experiences the council has had. That was why we as a group asked for a briefing on this, the briefing took place yesterday after noon with officers and for which we are very grateful. That was after the deadline for submitting amendments, so we tabled this in, if you like, a protective capacity. We have had discussion and debate and answers to questions this morning, both in A and in B agenda and I'm very grateful to officers for explaining more about how they arrived at the conclusions in this report and the reassurances that we were given, both legally, financially and contractually, to the concerns we had had and therefore, as far as our amendment is concerned, we will be withdrawing it, convener. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just ask, Councillor Unity, seconded formally before it gets withdrawn, part of the procedures that we go through. Oh, I don't need to, apparently. We usually do it in full time. Just a brief comment if that's okay then. Of course, yes. Thank you. Likewise to my colleague, Councillor Ross, I'd just like to thank the officers for the reassurances provided both today and yesterday. It's very much appreciated and very grateful for people raising concerns over this as well, because it is a subject of immense importance to the city. I know how seriously everyone takes the Winter Festival and how important it is to families across the city, so getting this right and applying extra scrutiny, which I think we've done today, is I think the right thing to have done, so don't need to have moved it formally, but thank you. And then you've already indicated that I'm going through the formal process of moving in seconded, that you're now agreeing to withdraw. Yes, Computer. Thank you. So I'll go to Councillor Mumford to move the Greena Den down. Thank you. We'll be continuing with this. We're very, very grateful for the answers and scrutiny that's been given here today and similarly in the briefing yesterday. Our request to refer this to GRBV is not because there are questions that we're not comfortable having answered and we're comfortable to proceed with the recommendation, but the fact that this has been a big issue for the city over the past years, and I think it's right that a scrutiny body, we've scrutinized it from the Finance and Resources point of view, and we think it's right that the scrutiny body of the Council, GRBV, also scrutinized this, hopefully to show the progress that's been made and the lessons that have been learned and implemented in doing this, this new way of procurement for the festival. So we think it's right that that happens in public by the scrutiny committee, which is why we've suggested that out with approving the report here today, it's then referred on to GRBV for scrutiny. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stana for the second. Yes, as Councillor Mumford said, it's just seems sensible given the history of the Winter festivals and the controversy and problems that surrounded them in the past, that this goes to GRBV for a little bit of extra scrutiny, so that it is clear that every eye has been dotted and tea has been crossed with that eye second this addendum. Thank you, Councillor Stana for the time. So I'm going to move to the report and see that I'm happy to accept the green addendum and the withdrawal of the amendment. And if there's no further points, I will ask Councillor Dalglish to second that for me. Formerly Convener. Thank you. Are there any other positions or are we happy to agree the report with the addendum? Okay. So that's agreed. Yep. Thank you. And thanks to the officers and for responding so quickly, like incredibly quickly, the issues that were raised, it's very, very much appreciated, gave a series of briefings at very short notices to myself and to some of the other finance leads. And it really was very, very much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll move now onto item 7.6 on the agenda, which is the Edinburgh International Conference Centre Convention Bureau funding report by the Executive Director of Corporate Services and the Executive Director of Place of Ellen Williamson, Paul Lawrence, and a number of EICC representatives here to speak to the report today. There's been an administration amendment, an S&P group amendment, an agenda amendment circulated on this item, and there's also our written deputation, which has been circulated and published online on this item as well. I think we also had a request from Councillor Cameron and members of the EICC to be heard, and I will keep that very similar to a deputation. I think we'll go. Councillor Cameron, plus two, be five minutes in total for yourselves, and then a short period for asking and answering questions, and we'll go from there. Thank you. Can be near on a point, not really a point of order, but we do have an amendment from Councillor Mckinnis who is, I understand, 30 seconds away. Would you like us to I have talked about sufficient. Thank you, Councillor Villagie. Welcome, Councillor Mckinnis. It's good to have you here the whole deputation presentation from Councillor Cameron in the EICC. Thank you. Okay, if you'd like to go ahead. Thank you, Convener. I'm accompanied today on my right by John Dally, who's our chair of our Audit and Risk Committee at the EICC, all of my left by Marshal Dallis, the Chief Executive of the EICC. It's quite apt that we are here today, and this report is before you, because earlier on to date at the EICC, we had a very engaging and insightful session on the importance of business events to the city where we listened to speakers from overseas that talked about the absolute value, not just in monetary terms, but in terms of benefits to local cities and the communities that arise out of hosting business events. As members of the committee here will be aware, it's set out in the report that the EICC has overseen the delivery of Convention Edinburgh functions for a temporary period. I think that's been hugely successful, and I'm grateful to both the EICC team and council officers for coming together to produce a report that certainly the recommendations that are in front of you has the support of us as an EICC board, and also just to make the point, and I'll hand over to Marshal briefly and then to John to talk about the risks if the funding doesn't happen, is that we need certainty, we need a three-year funding package for this to work if we're going to be successful in attracting private sector membership and support for this. The other point just to highlight is there are big international association businesses, sorry, events that we bid for. Now these are not for profit type events, but we cannot as a venue bid for those alone, we need to bid together as a city, as a collective, and that's the another key purpose for having a Convention Bureau. I'll stop there, I'll hand over to Marshal and then I'll invite John just to talk about the risks if this doesn't happen, thank you. Thank you, Councillor CUMRIAN, convener. We note the recommendations that the officers have come up with and we support those recommendations. If I can maybe just give a bit of context or a bit of background to how we've got to hear, it might be useful for committee members. Back in November 23, 28 November, EICC board members approved the funding of the Edinburgh Convention Bureau operations to the total of £925,000 from EICC cash reserves, and that was for the period of January 24 to January 26, and that the equivalent of that amount is reduced from loan stock liability due to CEC holdings in 2026, and that was subject to confirmation from a legal and accounting professional switch. We took advice from lawyers, pincent masons, and as it's the accountants who didn't raise any issues at all. Following that, extensive discussions were had at CEC holdings on the 19th of January, and in terms of the outcome of that, the funding of ECB operations was agreed
2. excuse me - or it was agreed up to £925,000 from EICC cash reserves and to be offset against the loan stock. The other thing that was agreed at that meeting was the extension of the guardianship period to June 26, and the other thing that we agreed was the third point was the officers have a proposal that goes to the most appropriate meeting - either a budget process or finance and reserves committee - that satisfies the aspirations of council officers. It was back on the 30th of January now with the next EICC board meeting. It was also explained that communication had been received from Mr Lawrence to state that there was insufficient time for this to be included in the CECC budget process, and that a report would be prepared for consideration at F&R committee on the 14th of March. Since then, multiple meetings have taken place with CEC officers within February, and the discussions that happened between EICC exec and officers. Point up now, please, that's five minutes. I'm almost finished, Canvina, thank you. Okay, so I was just going to say it was very constructive, and we had that. Okay, I'll stop. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the EICC representatives? Councilman Pard? Thank you. I was wondering if you could say a little bit about the impact of this proposal and does go forward as suggested in the report, and particularly the element of risk to EICC. If John could speak to that, that would be really helpful. Thank you. Yeah, I'd speak really on behalf of EICC, but we must remember this is the Convention Bureau we're talking about, and the EICC is just running it on behalf of the city. So I'm really talking in those terms, and I've had the benefit of working in the city in major businesses for the last 30 years, and inspiring Edinburgh, and how Edinburgh is as a capital is really, really important to business in the city, and really important to the city in the wider sense the economic value that it brings to the city. And you've seen that in the report, and it's all there. So this is something that, a city of our great city, we really should be supporting. It's so essential, you've seen in the comparisons with other cities that we aren't spending the same amount as other cities, and we are starting to fall behind, we're falling behind grads go. And that says it all really. So I think this is really, really important. And we heard, as Leslie said earlier, we heard some really important things this morning about the impact of COVID, and how that has meant that face-to-face meetings come with more purpose these days, and you actually get things done. We heard about how a conference helped Parkinson's, helped HIP, and all sorts of things that these conferences do. So they're not just about people having a chat because you can do that online now. So it's a risk, it's a risk to the city, it's a significant risk. And as chair of the audit committee at EICC, and really a person that believes in business in Edinburgh, I really would hope that you would support this proposal. EICC have come up with a compromise, which means that there's no short-term impact to the city, so I'd hope that it would be accepted. Thank you. Councillor MACKINIS, then Councillor ROSS. Thank you very much, Commissioner. I appreciate a lot of the work that's gone into this, and also the fact that you've laid out an ambition for a larger bureau, but you've pulled it back given the financial considerations at the moment. But I did just want to pick up on one aspect of it, which is when we look at a competitor to other cities, London, of course, bigger scale, different opportunities and so on, is running a very successful function using 11 staff. And our original basis was to look at 10 staff coming in. Now, I'm interested in getting your thoughts on how you marry that up without the scale of our ambitions, which are right for the city, but also the scale of our resources that are available to us at the moment. And if there, in fact, there is a possibility of looking at delivering the same kind of impact and economic benefit, but without quite such a large scale proposed in investment in staffing and the associated costs attached to that. Having said that, I do would meet the point. I do recognise the fact you pulled that back in terms of today's report, but I'm talking about the overall intent. Thank you. Thank you. It's an interesting point you make about London. You don't set up a bureau based on the per head capital. You set up a bureau where Scotland's capital city, and as John has highlighted there, we have ambition, as we should do, for Scotland's capital city. London is set up in a way. You can't really compare the eggs for eggs because the structure is different down there, but all I would say is that we wouldn't normally look at setting up a bureau based on the population headcount. The nature of business events is that there's a two or three year lead into these. I think it was highlighted earlier there that there are events that we can't bid for for the city without a bureau support, so that was that. In terms of the scaling back, it's not really a scaling back, this is the first stage of potentially a two stage approach where we want to get the five people on board. That's five new jobs for the city. We want to get them on board and we want to give them absolute focus. To bring 10 staff on would be very difficult to do in one stage, so it's really a two stage process, and our sort of, I guess, our remit would be that we would employ those five people. We would do a review at the end of the period, and we would take a view from there as to whether or not that is adequate for the city, or we'd need potentially an increase in that, so I thought that's been helpful. Can we know if I might come back in? Yes, of course. I wasn't really looking at the comparison with London on a question of population headcount. I was thinking about it more in terms of the flow of business. The opportunity is a scale of London in terms of convention opportunities is going to be larger than ours inevitably, because of the geographic scale of everything, to an extent population headcount and so on. And I also was interested in noting what you said about this being a fresh stage. I was simply referring to the fact that you've stated an ambition to get the bureau to this particular size, and yes, it is a first stage here, but what I'm questioning is need to have a bureau of that larger size in the first place. Other ways to deliver the same impact, but with a different structure which would take less public money, or indeed could be balanced better with membership fees, etc. Well, I think the first thing maybe to say there, Councillor, is that in order to collect membership fees, we need to have something, and I think what we have currently is not attractive to the private sector who want to contribute funds for a bureau. So in order for us to get to that, I mean, the point you make is a well-made point, I think, and I would agree with that. That's something that further down the line that should this be agreed today, hopefully, that we can get the ball moving with five staff. Then that's a review process that would take place. With any business, there's a stabilization period. So for us, it would be at the end of a three-year period, so 2026, we would take a view as to how successful the bureau has been. So far, and having generated over £40 million worth of economic impact to the city, and these are other venues, these are not EICC benefits, these are benefits to the rest of the venues within the city. I think that's a really good start, but I hear what you're saying, I think that's something that we should perhaps review at 2026 when we've seen it operating for three years and see what the successes are. Thank you. Councillor Ros. Thanks. Convener, I very much appreciate the report. In front of us, the explanation of justifications around the need for a convention bureau, I completely understand the value that has to Edinburgh as a city commercially and individually and tourism-wise as well. And my questions are around the model, but the method and arrangements for external funding, so that's key to the whole enterprise and the structure and support for the convention, convention bureau, I look at this objectively from the point of view of who benefits from this bureau, who is it, which businesses and to what extent do individual businesses benefit from the existence and the actions of the bureau. And therefore, how, and this question must have been looked at before, so what is your experience and understanding of how we could, as a city, have a convention bureau that is adequately supported by those who benefit from it, and therefore, in a way that reflects the benefits accruing to the businesses and EICC, obviously in the Council and other universities and others who are clearly all benefiting from the actions and the activities of having an effective bureau, because I'd like, I'm sure this has been explored before, perhaps you can enlighten the committee as to what has led you to a subscription model, how that is graded or varied between members who are contributing, how does that compare to other cities, how is it funded elsewhere. Thank you, Councillor Ross. There are, there are, there are no one model that fits all. There are some cities throughout Europe and the rest of the world that the bureau is, is funded by the transient visitor levy. There are some cities that government and local government choose to fund 100% of the bureau. We sort of took the view of how we were going to fund this by understanding that the Council is like many councils strapped for cash, and so we tried to create a model that wouldn't affect that going forward, and the debt reduction model, as I call it, was one that I felt was, was right for the city, for this city, because it, it, it positively says that we understand from a council perspective that funds are tied, which is what we're being told, EICC was going to put in 927,927,927,000 pounds over three years, and that would be, that would be with an ask of the public sector, of the private sector to contribute to that, and there are various different sort of funding arrangements that would be made for each business. So, so it was to try and, I suppose to try and, you know, address the fact that the city was struggling for money, I think EICC's had a particularly good year last year, and we were keen to put some of that money into a city, a city fund like this. Councillor Ross. If I may, thanks. Can we thank you very much for that, and so, ideally, as a council, I think we should be working towards a self-financing option, a model which allows businesses that benefit from it to contribute and fund it and run it, and that it's then the city's bureau, but it is in that way not dependent on very restricted council public sector financing. Ideally, from your own point of view, I'm sure you'd prefer that too, but nevertheless, we are where we are today, and obviously there is a contribution required from the council to keep this going as it should, but I think in terms of the way forward, we should be looking at ways to ensure that we work towards a eventually a zero funding requirement from the council. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I'm going to answer that. I think you're quite right. When marketing Edinburgh was set up, we had a £1.2 million subsidy or input rather cash from the council, and that was on a model that the private sector's membership fees would grow, and so the council's contribution reduced year on year till it was about 800,000 at the time when a decision was taken to wind up marketing Edinburgh. The council also said to marketing Edinburgh at that time, which was overseeing and delivering the Convention Bureau that marketing Edinburgh then had to come up with a self-financing plan going forward entirely to your point. So we've been without marketing Edinburgh and a formal entity for doing Convention Bureau work for some six years now, and absolutely, the vision and the model for whatever comes next is entirely that, which is having an increased council contribution in the first year, which is why we think we need at least 250,000 in order to do two things. One, it's a very strong indicator of commitment by the city and a signal to the business community that we're serious about this. We're serious about our reputation as a city and how we hold ourselves out to the world, and also it's not just the businesses. I mean, we heard today about face-to-face meetings being even more important, and especially with our academic and scientific conferences, because it allows people who are students here to attend events that are all about ideas and they meet their experts in the science. So there's not just the cash benefits, there are benefits that cannot be counted financially but are absolutely right that we should pursue. So at the end of the day, the EICC is 100% owned allio of the council. It's not part of our core business as a conference center to deliver a convention bureau, because the entity that used to do that was wound up by the council. But it's clear that the competitive landscape out there is such that we need a convention bureau. The council asked us to do something on a temporary basis, which we've done. We've come to the end of that temporary period and we've set out the achievements, given a very limited amount of funding, and indeed the EICC has committed 150,000 per year over the period that we've had the guardianship. So we've shown faith. Our two commitments to the shareholder as the EICC is one, to deliver economic benefit to the city and two, to make sure that we are self-financing as a conference center. So we're happy to do that, and that's part of the reason we're doing the hotel project. But we have also, through being the guardian of the convention bureau for this time, born cost of 150,000 a year twice, because the period is almost a two-year period. We have done that in good faith. We have not done it with an expectation that there would suddenly not be a convention bureau. The council, this committee and council can indeed make a decision for there not to be a convention bureau function. But that would put us as a city. We're actually over time, councilor Cameron, so I'm going to... I'll just finish my scientists. That's all right, Peter. So we would put ourselves a very distinct disadvantage compared to the city's worldwide. Thank you. Thanks very much. And now I'm sort of determined the gallery, where we go through this item, questions to officers. I think it's... Yeah, I'll happy to introduce the report convener, if that's okay. Just two or three things, mindful of time. First of all, in terms of officers, Richard and Alison, at the far end are able to answer questions on the financial aspects of this particularly loan stock, if members have got questions on that. And Elaine Williamson has been working with EIC on the proposal that's now in the report in front of you. I've also been asked to pass on to the committee, the view of CEC Holdings, which was to support the EICC proposal. I think it's important that members hear the view of EICC holdings. And so I want to make sure that's clearly recorded. And lastly, Convener, just to say, in respect to the proposal, which I suppose where officers got to with this is set out largely from Paragraph 4, 12 onwards. And that's to recognise that there is a need here, but there is a significant financial problem, as I think a number of members have pointed out. So what we tried to do is bring forward a proposal which was time limited, because I think as Councillor KAMARA just said, EICC being in this arrangement may not be the right thing for the long term. So it was time limited, but with enough time to make a difference. And from a financial point of view was designed a level where we thought it was manageable within the potential resource available. And I think that was partly at office's discussions in some ways, mirroring Councillor Mckinis' questions to EICC colleagues about whether this was over-ambitious at the time. And so what officers did, particularly Eileen working with colleagues at EICC, was to try and, if you like, bring this back to a minimal level of affordability, but a position where the relevant impact could still be made. So I suppose the optimal position, because it comes to a point where there's simply not enough money to do a decent job, and that's what we tried to get to and set out in paragraph 412 onwards. It is my personal view, and this is another reason around the limited time limited period suggestion, is that this is an area which, if the government passes the Visitor-Levy legislation, if the Council agrees to move forward with the Visitor-Levy, and if members agree that this kind of area might be eligible for spend, that we would look at that. So this gives us, if you like, a bridging period, gives a degree of medium to uncertainty for EICC, but doesn't tie our hands in any future arrangements, post the introduction of a Visitor-Levy. And that's why we came up with, I suppose, that compromise suggestion that's set out in 412 onwards. We're very happy to answer any questions, Comveen. Thank you. Do we have questions for officers? Councillor Daugart. Yeah, I'd like to ask a question not so much related to the report itself, but how we got here. So in Q1 of 2023, Paul, when the Convention Bureau was on a small part of an item in the agenda at one of these meetings, with around 10 months to go to the end of the contract, you gave me assurances that a solution would be in place by the time the temporary arrangement concluded at the end of 2023. But you have referred from Mr. Dallas today that when you had a conversation with him, you said it was too late to be included in the budget process for 24/25. Can you tell me what went wrong? Yeah, I mean, simply, Councillor, the relationship between the proposals submitted by EICC to officers and our ability to scrutinise that and discuss them in terms of affordability took a significant amount of time. And hence, the report being in front of you today, as you know, we were hoping to get to the previous F&R on this item. But again, we were still in dialogue with the EICC about reaching that optimal point. So we were mindful of those time deadlines, but wanted to work with the EICC to a point where there was a mutually acceptable proposal. Indeed, I had conversations with Councillor CASSIDY and the chair of the EICC about the little point officers presenting something here if the EICC board didn't think that was something they could accept. So there was a lot of back and forth between what was affordable, what was desirable, and what was possible, and it's taken time for that to be in front of you today. So we've had discussion already today around things not been done quickly enough, and things been left too late. But we were in an 18-month process where the Conference Centre was looking after the Bureau on our behalf. I think that should be emphasised. With 10 months to go, so we weren't even halfway through the process, there was an assurance that this was going to be done. Now, that was going to involve difficult conversations. I don't think anybody would have thought that was unexpected. But I still don't understand, given the importance of the work of the Bureau to the Council's asset, EICC, as well as some of our partners around the city, particularly the universities, as to why we were not in a – why was there no urgency in terms of getting this done? To the extent that even when the budget proposals were brought forward, there was nothing in any of the proposals that would have suggested there was going to be a requirement to spend money in the EICC. So it was left out completely, despite the fact that we knew, we all knew, there was going to be – have to be a replacement solution in place by the end of June this year. That, I do not understand. Okay. Maybe I'll answer that in two ways or try and answer that, because I do understand your point, Councillor, and I do in some ways regret that this is being dealt with relatively late in the process. But I would emphasise that we've been in dialogue with EICC colleagues at all stage of this process. It's not as if somehow that delay has been a surprise or an issue, so we've maintained dialogue throughout. But first of all, I can assure you there has been urgency about this, and perhaps beyond urgency, that there's been a very significant workload on this. It's predominantly been carried by Ellen and finance colleagues to the point potentially actually of distracting them from other pieces of work. So balancing the complexity of this, bringing forward a proposal which we thought, as I said before, was optimal. And you'll see in Richard's remarks particularly, the challenge of affordability to support something like this in the report. So we wanted to work to bring something forward that we felt we could justify from a time point of view, from a money point of view, and from an economic impact point of view. That meant EICC submitting proposals to us, us going back and saying, hang on a minute, we don't think that is justifiable from the financial point of view, us working particularly in working with EICC colleagues to go, look, if we dialed that down in terms of the resource requirement, would we still have the same impact and hence the proposal as I say in front of you today? That takes time and negotiation and partnership working. And I think that's been a hallmark of this process. As you say, it's not easy to do this in a time where there is no money. And if I'm candid from a director at point of view, we are generally not in the business of putting forward to members' proposals to spend more money through the budget process, given the pressures on us. So we're trying to manage these existing pressures and manage them down as much as we can to a point where we can get something which we think is deliverable. Councillor MUNFORT. Thank you. And thanks very much for all the work and the report and also that you've set out there, Paul, that's that's gone on continuously and behind the scenes. My question, I've got two questions. One is around how the ECB fits in with our sustainable tourism strategy or tourism strategy. So the PayPal obviously links to our tourism strategy, but business tourism is mentioned only once there. There's no mention of conferences, of conventions, of the sort of need for this, either of marketing Edinburgh or of ECB in the tourism strategy. And so I'd be keen to get the office of you on where this fits to make sure we're not doing things in a piecemeal way. I think I can absolutely see the benefit of the ECB, but how does that fit with our strategic vision for the future of tourism in the city? And then a second question is just around, you mentioned the potential for TVL and this fitting sort of quite nicely into some views of what TVL should be used for. Do you see, what do you see is the risk for the council of delaying significant investment in ECB until we had TVL and had certainty on whether that's what that was going to be used for? Thank you. Councillor, from a strategic point of view, if the importance of business tourism wasn't highlighted in the tourism strategy as effectively as it should have been, that's something we need to go back and look at when we refresh that, because it is certainly my view on our think-ealing as well, who can speak for a self in a moment, that business tourism is extremely important in the way that colleagues from EICC have set out. I think it's probably true that when we're in the midst of COVID, which I think from memory was when that strategy was signed off, we didn't really know whether the online piece was going to largely replace in-person events. That does not seem to be the case. So I do think that emphasizing the importance of business tourism is an important part of ongoing tourism and economic development strategy, but like other aspects of that strategy, I think the climate crisis brings a lens to that, which is why we set out in 8.2 to be clear that there is the potential for this activity to have significant carbon impact, and that if this report is approved, we would want to work with EICC on understanding how that could be mitigated and minimized. So I do think it's strategically important. In terms of TVL, I think I've said what I've said about that, that I personally do think this is the kind of activity that should be eligible. That's obviously a decision from members down the line. I think it would leave us with a problem if we did nothing and waited for that to come in. I think the latest officer estimate subject to parliamentary approval and so on is that we may be looking around mid or late 26 for that to come in. I think that period of hiatus is problematic and would have a negative economic impact. I don't know, Elon, whether you want to add anything to that. Just to say on the terms of strategy, I think what we've tried to do in the terms of strategy was actually not to specifically focus on either leisure or business tourism. We've talked about the visitor economy as a whole in that strategy. Paul is right. We perhaps haven't emphasized strongly enough the importance of business tourism in the aspects of most people think about leisure tourism. When you talk about tourism, you think about leisure tourism, you think about when you go on holiday and all that. Perhaps we should have emphasized that stronger. We've tried to do that in the report by showing that actually business tourism is an important complement to leisure tourism in the sense of not just not substituting but actually complementing, helping us spread out but also in a certain extent, enabling us to increase the leisure tourism as well. A lot of business tourists may come to the city for a conference and fall in love with the city and decide to come back, bring their family. Indeed, they may have brought the family along for the conference and staying before or after. We do see a lot of complement around that as well. I do think that it is a very important part of the visitor economy and I do think that business tourism fits in very nicely with the wider aspects of the tourism strategy which is a lot about dispersal and ensuring that we have frequent visitors throughout the year and throughout the city, not just in shorter time periods. On the visitor level use, I think Paul put that very nicely as well. I think the very earliest we will see any income is mid to late
3. Obviously, the current events in Scottish Government may further delay that. I don't know, I hope not. But even though if we could and that is also up to council to decide whether that is something that we do want to invest in, I personally as an officer would say that that would make a lot of sense. But there is a lot of demands on the visitor level already so we need to make sure that we're putting that in the context of those wider demands as well. So I don't think we can assume that that will happen and I also think that it would be a shame and certainly from a long-term perspective. Given what we just heard from the ICC as well about the long-term planning or on conventions, we would lose all that. So if we did no activity until 2026, that would mean perhaps not something up until 2026. But in the period between 26 to maybe 2030, we would have a distinct lack of conferences and business events in the city. So I think it's more of that long-term perspective. Hey Councillor Ross. Thanks Convener. Thanks to officers for the report. And I ask and follow up on the question I put to the ICC in terms and your report doesn't really reference this too much, but it really just to bring out a bit more about your thoughts on how there could be more direct contribution from the businesses who benefit by hosting conventions and who have those conventions arranged through the Bureau to make a more substantial contribution to the overall costs of running it. I just thought I'm sure Paul will add to it. I think that what we've tried to do, so not being an expert in business tourism myself and I think that that is much the reason why we've asked the ICC to lead on this. We know that they are experts in the area, they know what they're doing, they've worked without the Convention Bureau's as well and are aware of the type of work that is required. I think that the membership proposal, the membership structure that they proposed seemed like a sensible one and it would seem to make sense to me that the industry contributed through that way. I think that the more activity they can show and evidence, the more the industry will also come behind it and support. It is a little bit of getting your all up and running and actually getting something concrete established will then attract more interest and more engagement. I know that they've already engaged a lot with Britain, with the Scotland as well and received national support, so again I think that there's a lot that can be built on that aspect as well. Just to briefly convene, I thought that I suppose the inference of your question to EICC was something I would agree with, which is that I do think that there is a lot to go at in that membership piece with the private sector organisations and of course our higher education. Partners as Councillor Doggett suggested they are the beneficiaries of this activity and it is common across the UK, I was involved in establishing one of these bureaus in Newcastle and Gates had a long, long time ago and it is common to ask private sector colleagues to play that role. It's not easy given the pressure on their bottom lines to ask them to do so, but given the benefit and if the benefits are clear and tangible, it seems to be entirely reasonable to set that target. Do we have any further questions for officers on this? Saying that we have on this, we have the administration amendment, which I'm going to speak to, we have an S&P group amendment and we have a green group amendment. So moving the amendment by the administration, the reason I put this forward is that funding such things from right and off loan stock is just not the way that we do things. It is regrettable that a proposal didn't come as part of the budget process. During that budget process, we had groups scratching around for comparatively small amounts of money in comparison to what has been asked here to try to do some very good things in the city. And so when we have this taken out of the context of the actual budget, I'm just going to keep reminding people that this is actual real money that could be spent on other priorities. And that's why we have to take it very seriously. As to spend in TVL money in advance, we don't even know if that'll pass through parliament, we don't know if it'll pass through the council when it comes here. And if we open the door to people putting dibs on TVL money before we're open, we're as far out from getting it as we are now, there will be an absolute landslide request. And therefore that, in writing my amendment, that just did not factor into my view of the thing because it's too remote and it's completely unfair to start making commitments for money that we don't have, that nobody else has been asked what they would do if they were given a slice of it. So, that's the context that I'm looking at in. However, I've tried to find a reasonable consensus across all the groups which may not be possible, but I have tried in this amendment. I have noted that the EICC have told us that they've achieved a tremendous amount. You know, and fantastic results by spending approximately £150,000 per year. I've taken that on board that it could be congratulated for their efforts on that. And so that's the amount of funding I have to consider. We heard from Mr Dallas and others that this is effectively a two-stage process. I was listening to that and that is why I said okay, we'll look at, can we fund this £150,000 which is what it's costing them, can the council step in and fund that for a year whilst they get absolute firm cash, not in kind, cash commitments from the sector who are telling us either directly or through the EICC what a huge value this is to their sector. There are maybe some spin-off benefits to the city and how it's perceived. But the money value goes to the sector that they're in. And so, you know, I'm looking at from that point of view that it's a two-stage process we would put in this £150,000 and that's ahead of and not with Standard, we actually already commit resources to this. We, you know, staff and other resources, not least officer time and capital and yes, loan stock that we have tied up in the conference centre that we have guaranteed or tried to guarantee the future of that conference centre with the whole hotel project. The commitment to this council has been outstanding and for the sector to come back and keep asking for more and more of a commitment from the council before they'll commit to anything. I'm quite surprised by that, you know, as are others here. So, I thought that I was proposing something that was actually quite generous. It would give them that year, we would come back and review it a year with firm details of a membership scheme and firm money commitment and that we would, you know, find that, try to find that from related reserves, obviating the clear situation that there is huge need in this city and it's not 150,000 when you're talking over the scale of the whole council budget, it seems like not a lot, but it's a lot of money. When you're, you know, when you're having to look at everything that you do, the way that we did during a budget process. I'm not able, I wouldn't accept a great amount from other groups because, you know, the other group's positions for the main part are, you know, don't progress this time. Whereas, I think we should progress a little bit, not with requests now. The final paragraph of the S&P amendment says requests are further report ahead of the budget decision-making process, which provides, among other information, more detail on how further funding could be sought. And I would begin to add that paragraph to the amendment that I'm putting forward. And we're also, the Greens are requesting that the allio review is followed by a review and a loan stock and other assets relating allios. I think Richard and Dr Smart have already, you know, said that they'll undertake that to look at how all the funding, financing, assets, loan stock, everything within all the different council allios. Once they've got the full picture of sheer structures, governance structures, and where they are similar and where they're different, if it's possible, we would have the one holistic strategy that you're asking for, but we don't know if that's possible yet, till we've done all that groundwork. But that's the direction to travel anyway. So I absolutely have the sentiments on that. So that's by way of me moving the amendment by the administration that, you know, the main thing is that one year and then yearly reviews based on the commitment from the sector to put more money in. And of course that could go out for two or three years or whatever is appropriate. But we would need the annual review. And so with that, I will move my amendment. It's kind of an amendment and to sum it up because I've more or less said where I'm other people's things, but I will come back at the end. And if I could ask Councillor Dalgley to second, and if you would do that formally, Councillor Dalgley, I would appreciate it because I've taken up rather a lot of time. More than the convener. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. And now go to Councillor Mckinnis for the S&P amendment. Thank you. And I want to just to start by seeing that I think everybody in the room recognises the importance of the importance and the economic impact of business tourism in its sense. However, I've brought forward quite a detailed amendment which reflects our concerns. And it reflects, in fact, the question that has come forward to do both to the deputation and wider to officers. Because I think there is a general concern about who pays and who benefits. And I think it was very ably described by Councillor Ross and his line of questioning there. And I am quite concerned about the model that is being proposed through this, both in the stage 1 and stage 2, with the assumption underlining it that it's going to be public money that will essentially fund a good chunk of this. And by public money, I'm using of a loose term, but I'm also conscious about EICC funding as well as directly from CEC funding. I think I'm pretty uncomfortable about it because I think in my line of question to the deputation where I raised the comparison with London, the idea that we're aiming towards reaching a function of such a scale that is comparable to London and yet we're dealing with a city, albeit our capital city, which I am immensely proud of, but it's not a compatible approach, I don't think. And it sets alarm bells ringing for me about the continuing commitment that we'd have to have as a council to continue to fund what might be a bigger than necessary operation. And I think that's the part which I think requires a bit of redrafting, a bit of fresh understanding, and a better, more information coming to us really on what we could do with less and what that impact would be, hence my last paragraph and I'm very grateful to the convener for noting the content of that because that's the thrust of it. Nobody wants to stop business tourism or convention presence in the city. I'm just concerned about who's going to benefit from it and who's going to pay for it. And I am very uncomfortable outside the budget process of being asked to commit to a recurring annual payment of almost a million pounds in total over the next few years. And then what follows on after that? It's a big concern for me. It's clear that there's been some good work done already on this in terms of bringing in that 45 million, I think it is, in terms of economic impact, but the metrics that we use to describe that in the report reference 100,000 hotel nights. Now we know on top of that there are also other beneficiaries, the retroances, all sorts of aspects of it and the partners that have been listed are very benefiting from that. And I keep wondering where that balances of public sector investment versus either private sector or partnership benefit. And I'm deeply uncomfortable. I started my career working for the inward investment partnership, the Scottish, well at that time it's UK government, but the Scottish Development Agency at that time. And that balance between the investment of public money and then the outcome, the broader economic benefits and the benefits to the individual companies was always a difficult principle to straddle. So the principle of public funding in here underlines our amendment here very clearly. I am uncomfortable with the idea that we're being asked today to commit to over a million pounds worth of public expenditure over a short number of years. And for that basis, I'm pushing on with my amendment. I would say, however, that I think the content of the Green Group amendment is very compatible with ours. I think it highlights, particularly in that first paragraph, how we would want this to go forward. So in other words, we continue the commitment that the Council already has and the shape of a full-time staff member and all the marketing and related costs, as it is appropriately described in the Green Group amendment there. And I also think we have to look at this in a wider sense as part of the Allio Reform, every new form. There are clearly always going to be issues between the ambition of Allios and the Council expectations, shall we see understanding of what can be done. But remember, we have to look at this in a very constructive manner that takes into account public sector funding, the economic aims, who will benefit, and how the mechanisms are put in place to actually ensure that that benefit does come to the city and benefits the right people. The last point I'd also like to meet very quickly is I do want to associate myself with the coronavirus remarks about basically the opportunity cost. The $300,000 that we're being asked to this year, I can think of probably a list as long as my arm of things I'd rather see it being spent on, because it is very real need in the city. And I'm not convinced that that may real need can be satisfied necessarily by the economic impact that is brought in via the Convention Bureau. There is an economic benefit, I know doubt about it, but does it reach the parts of the city that we need that $300,000 to reach? I don't think that link has been effectively made, and I don't think it can be effectively made. And for that reason, I'm pushing ahead with our amendment and incorporating if the Greens will allow it the amendment by the Green Group, because I think that adds considerably. Our last paragraph is not meant to close down the discussion, it's not meant to stop this in its tracks, it's meant to see we need more information, we need a greater degree of understanding, and we need to understand the scale of ambition and our ability to meet that ambition. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Second thing is Councillor Biyashi. Yes, I have rarely listened to your remarks and agreed with them more than when you were setting out the context for how you were coming to your position on this. I think we have different ideas about how far we should go, but essentially those pressures that you outlined are exactly the pressures that were in our minds and coming up with our position as well. I think we show seriousness to the private sector if we are willing to say put up or shut up, essentially, to go even further, because the private sector need to know we're serious about this, the private sector need to know that if they're benefiting from all of these conferences that they should be coming in and not expecting the Council to bail them out, and maybe that needs some different kind of resource where we create a facilitator that will bring people together rather than continuing to directly fund an office. But we need to be serious on this, that this is something that the private sector needs to start paying for as well. And I would just say as well, we are all veterans of several rounds now, even for the new Councillors of the annual budget process. The annual budget process consumes a vast amount of political effort, energy, concentration. We meet so many people, we go through tomes of information, and we have a painful, ritualistic Byzantine process that eventually gets us to something that is meant to stand for a year like it or not, surprises along the way the occasional down-budget passing. Whatever happens, we have that process, and it is big, and it is complicated, and it absorbs our effort for a reason that it should be taken seriously. And I am unhappy with something like this landing on us out with that process, and us coming under some pressure with implied timescales that we need to fund this or else, X, Y, or Z will happen. I would like to see this come back as part of the budget process and to be judged alongside all the other many, many competing pressures that there are for this cash. Thank you Councillor Baje, Councillor Mumford. Thank you, and I'd also like to start with expressing thanks to EICC and officers, fully appreciate all of the work that's gone into this and the arguments throughout the officer proposals. By our amendment, as you'll see, does not support the recommendations in this proposal. This is a proposal with history, and the history is that the Council agreed to end funding marketing Edinburgh back in the day in order to save the Council money, but now Council finances are even tighter. I'd like to echo lots of comments from yourself, Convena, and Councillor McInnes about prudent spending. This is public money, and I don't like to take an unnuanced view of Council budgets. Things aren't always as simple as if we don't fund this, we could build care homes, but spending somewhere does impact on spending elsewhere, especially if we're spending unknown money. If this proposal had come up in budget discussions, it would not have appeared in the green budget, and I question whether it would have been included in any grouped budget, and that's the attitude with which we've approached what to do with this proposal. If it had come up budget time, would we have put it in our spreadsheet? We would not have. I just wanted to comment on our second paragraph, and the proposal around using loan stock for this. We're really concerned about the ad hoc approach contained in the proposal to use this, and more broadly, on the occasionally different approaches and understanding we've had in committees, in Council, around loan stock, and their own to the Council. I'm really grateful that we've had verbal commitment that Dr Smart and Richard will be looking at this, but I am disappointed that the written confirmation we're seeking isn't it going to be accepted by the convener. The wording of the paragraph in our amendment is not an attempt to dictate what that review should look like, but just that this is a wider conversation which Councillors and committees need to be involved in, not just CLT, so I would ask the convener to reconsider accepting that last paragraph, but with that, I will propose our amendment. Thanks. Councillors, stand for the second thing. Thank you. Yes, yes, thank you, convener. The EICC have said, and I have no reason to doubt them, excuse me, this is why I'm remote today, have said, and I have no reason to doubt them, that this will have palpable benefits to private sector businesses. And therefore, the question to my mind is, why should we fund it and not private sector businesses? It's a decent business plan, go to them with it, would be my position here. We decided when we wound up marketing Edinburgh last turn, it is not the Council's duty essentially to spend marketing money for private business, that is on private businesses. So if they want this service, they can fund it themselves, and we will continue to fund things that are of more general public benefit. Now, a lot of other things I can think of, as every other speaker said, including the other convener, that I can think of, to spend this money on. To my mind, it is not a Council priority. So not only that, we have had steer from offices in the past that we shouldn't spend money without a clear idea of where it's coming from. And I don't really feel I've got a clear idea where this money is coming from. So with that, I would second our position that we should maintain the status quo as the Council. And I would advise that AICC should really go to private business to fund this. Oh, thank you, Councillor Stanford. So I'm going to move to, oh, sorry, sorry, I'm going to ask the, sorry, I'm going to, okay, I'm trying to remember how many people have got positions in. I think it was, it was not to, or contributions, is that, because everything that's been put in, it's been yet. So if people want to make contributions, a Councillor, a Ross and Councillor Joker, thank you. Thank you, Kivina. Just briefly, from all I've heard, I think there is a need for our convention bureau that's evidenced by the AICC contributions. And clearly, as has been well debated this morning of this afternoon, that the, at the end of the day, we want to see those who benefit from it, paying for it, essentially. And we need to find a way to get to that point where the Council is no longer contributing funds to this, because as has been explained, we have plenty of other things that that money could be spent on multiple times. And so I'm content with your proposal, a convener, and the addition of the request at the very end of the SNP amendment, that we should have a report on this with further information about how funding could be sought and generated outside of Council funding, and that that should be part of budget setting to assess. I'm happy with that. I'm also quite happy to accept 1.6 from the Green Addendum if you are too. Thanks. And a thank you, thank you, Councillor Ross, Councillor DOGR. Yeah, thanks, convener. A few things have actually made me quite annoyed. You said yourself that you've come up with something that meets the requirements of all parties. I think I must have missed that meeting invite. However, that is what it is. I'm also taken by those who were quite willing to vote for the abolition of marketing Edinburgh. Now backtracking, recognizing that something has to be done and not recognizing that it was the EICC that bailed the Council out in terms of what was required. So perhaps those who were so rash to stick their hand up when that decision was taken could perhaps have a moment of reflection before they vote today. I'm also struggling with the overt socialism that says public sector bad, sorry, private sector bad, public sector good, and there's no in between. I think people forget that the private sector pays a significant amount of tax to fund the public sector, and all those people who work in the city who work for private sector organizations paying their council tax to this organization so that we can pontificate on whatever we wish to pontificate. If they didn't have those jobs, the money wouldn't come in. So let's think about that as well, and let's have no eye-rolling about this. Economic facts of life, the private sector matters. Let's also have a recognition that the EICC is not a private sector body. It is owned by the Council. It is carrying out a service on our behalf for people who come to the city. I'm probably alone on this side of the table, and having been someone who was involved in arranging conferences, not booking them, but arranging programs, and I can guarantee you that organizations that came to EICC were unanimous that Edinburgh was the best place in the UK to come for a conference. For lots of reasons, and not only did they come for the conference, but they brought their partners as well, and they came and contributed to the economy of the city. It's just not the private sector though. On the 22nd of March, I went to the civic reception that was held here. I think I might have been the only member of this committee who was at it. Other committee's councillors were there. For the Arctic Summit, it wasn't held in the EICC. It was held at the University of Edinburgh. Our accommodation was provided by the University of Edinburgh. But everyone I spoke to, people from all around the world, with a common interest in scientific research, were unanimous that Edinburgh was a great place to come and have a conference. And for them, it wasn't a joy. They were engaging in serious scientific research that was going to benefit not only where they came from, but it also benefited one of our great institutions, namely the university. Academia benefits. Financial services benefit. The medical world benefits from a lot of the activity that takes place in our city as a result of the work of the EICC and other organisations that provide venues. And for us to sit here and say, we really do not understand the benefit that comes to us as an organisation. From having our asset used as much as possible, I really don't understand that. I think we're in a really strange position. We have to do something to market ourselves on a global stage. And it is a global stage. It's not just the UK. It's all over the world where people will come. And if you ever walk down Morrison Street when there's a big event on, you will hear lots of many different languages spoken. EICC works for the benefit of the city. It works for the benefit of this council. The people who come to the EICC and other venues provide something that if we didn't have the Bureau, we would really struggle to attract. So before you cast your vote today, think seriously about the consequences, not just in our asset, but on all the other organisations that depend on people coming to the city to debate, discuss and indeed network. But it's of benefit to all of us. And it's essential that we provide an appropriate level of funding to make sure that the success of the EICC and other organisations continues. Okay. If we don't have any further contributions, I will move to a summing up. As I said earlier, I'm happy to accept the final paragraph of the S&P amendment to put a framework around the medium term decision making that we're going to take on this. And we'll get a report that will come back in a report. I'm having listened to what Councillor Mumford said. And with support from others, I'm going to accept their 1.1.6. And also acknowledge that within the ongoing support of the potential £150,000, also that the council would continue with the resources described by Councillor Mumford at 1.1.5. So that would be, you know, additionality, but obviously I can't accept the whole paragraph and I don't just want to pick it to be. So I'll just, I think it's better if I just explain it. And I do think that again, just in summing up, I don't think that the council's commitment to the sector, the business tourism sector in Edinburgh can be questioned. We've got a whole massive conference centre. We're going to try and work around our net 2030 ambitions to continue and, you know, attracting international conferences. And we're going to try and find a way for the city to meet all these competing objectives. I tried to reach a compromise, hopefully a consensus across political parties, and that's what I was trying to do. I maybe haven't succeeded, but that is what I was trying to do. And I thought it was, you know, a reasonable compromise. And that's where I am. So I'm going to move the report with the amendment by the administration and the final paragraph of the S&P group amendment. And I'll call it the second paragraph of the Greens' amendment because we'll need to sort the word out later. And that's... Sorry, Convener, I think we need to sort the wording out now so that we know we're voting on. So it's the numbering. I said it's sort of the numbering because the Greens have is 1.1.6. So I'm accepting the wording of the Greens 1.1.6, but I'm not accepting the numbering because it will need to be renumbered. So it's the one about looking at all the lunch talk, the alley, it was... Yeah. That paragraph and the final paragraph of the S&P amendment. And I think that... Don't think that the... I'll go with Councillor McKinnis next and then Councillor Mumford for their positions. Appreciate the fact that you've accepted her last paragraph, but I think the point we've made in the rest of our amendment are worth making. And so we're going to press ahead with her as an incorporate the Green Group amendment. We agree with the content of that. Thank you. And I'll go to Councillor Mumford and ask if she wants to press separately. Thank you. No, we'll withdraw and thanks very much for accepting that one paragraph. Thank you. Okay, so I think we'll go two positions, but I'll let Taylor. Thank you. And we know, yeah, so in that case we have two positions. We have the Motion by Councillor Watt, seconded by Councillor Douglass, which is to move the motion as circulated, including the final paragraphs of the S&P amendment and 1.1.6 of the Green amendment as addendums. And we have the amendment by Councillor McKinnis, seconded by Councillor Biage, just to move the S&P amendment accepting the Green amendment as an addendum. So we can have votes for the motion by Councillor Watt, please. And for the amendment by Councillor McKinnis, please. Thank you. So that is six votes for the motion and five for the amendment, so the motion is carried. Thank you. I think this is probably a good time to break for lunch. I'm going to say can we try to keep it to half an hour? We're really keen to keep it to half an hour, come back at sort of two o'clock quite sharp, because I'm aware that a lot of people, including Councillor DORGAR and various other meetings later on. Thank you. [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript] [end of transcript]
4. I hope you'd take questions.
5. Thank you. Questions about this for Frank? Council McKiddiss, did you have a question? I wasn't sure if you were just... (indistinct chatter) Councillor Mumford.
6. Thank you, yes. I had a question on Clause 5.2 of the framework agreement which is about actually making the decision. So it says that an award recommendation we submit to the Executive Director of Place in consultation with Finance and Resource Committee spokespeople with an update then being provided to next committee. I suppose my question is for clarity on who makes that final decision if we all disagree. Presumably it's delegated to the Executive Director, but what form will that consultation take and what happens if there's a sushi? Thanks.
7. Thank you, Councillor Mumford. I'm gonna defer that actually to my procurement specialist on line limit.
8. Hi there. I had normally, there have been previous delegate reports. The reason the report has come early asking for that delegate authority is basically because the timeline attached to trying to get the framework in place before the new one expires. The committee timeline didn't quite line up with where we were, there was some delays along the way. We've had to extend the opportunity for suppliers to complete all the requirements for the tender process. So it was just really to introduce a smooth running. This is a large framework, it covers all the home to school transport as well as the wider care services. And it's quite a multi-supplier arrangement. So as long as the suppliers are meeting all the minimum requirements as part of the tender process, that there should be a successful outcome for the event. If members would like to see the recommendation report that goes to Mr. Lawrence, I'm sure he'd be happy to circulate that round members as part of everything before we proceed to approve, if that would be okay.
9. Just on a technical governance question, Councillor Mumford, technically therefore, the decision would be taken by Paul Lawrence under urgency provisions. That would be the governance mechanism that we'd use. So that would be in consultation with the relevant convener and group leaders. But clearly other people can be involved in that as well, but that would be the minimum people who'd be consulted.
10. Thanks, we could just come back and communicate. That's really helpful. I suppose it's just, that's not what the report says. So that is helpful, but I guess, yeah, I'm confused as to why, if we're saying the consultation will happen with Finance and Resources Committee, I suppose people I think that was helpful, but if actually it would be group leaders, that's different. So yeah, I suppose just maybe a request for that. I think that's been clear for this report, but in future, because I was a little confused on it, I read that. Thanks.
11. I think that was in response to if we didn't agree, if there was complications, what would be the most formal process? Do you know if there was a problem? I never liked doing, everybody knows that. That's convenient, I never liked doing things. Out of urgency, sorry, I've got a hand up on screen and I can't, oh, Gareth, with the light bouncing off. Would you like to add something, Gareth, or?
12. Thanks, I'm not sure who the light was bouncing off there, but yeah.
13. Yeah, it's a light bouncing off the screen. Your face is really dark on the screen and I couldn't see who it was.
14. That was no problem, Corvin. Just briefly, I think just hopefully clarify, because I can take Councilman for his point that this is what we're actually seeking here is delegation of the power that Committee hold because whilst the Deborah is correct, I'm just saying normally, urgency powers are given to exec directors. I think members would say, well, this isn't necessarily urgent because we're pre-planning a date, but obviously what we're asking to do is to delegate the authority that Committee would have to the exec director because to keep the service on track, we wouldn't be able to come back to Committee in the future timescale and keep this contract timescale running. So hopefully that clarifies your point, Councilman, for example, I do appreciate what you were saying.
15. Thank you. I think a council member has questioned.
16. Yeah, I can be narrow. Again, I'm gonna turn to the same subject that was raised time and time again. Why is it that we have this so often that we're been asked to delegate decision-making to an officer. The Committee schedule is not a surprise. We know it. I think most officers know it. And I would really like to understand why is it so often that we seem incapable of getting reports to Committee at the right time with all the right information that allows us to take the decision and not pass the decision under someone else?
17. I'll maybe try and answer that one, Karina, just to start. So I think that's a third question, Councilman. I know that's been raised a couple of times today. In this particular case, I would bring members attention to the fact this contract expires in July, 2024. I think I agree with the point, Councilman. In this case, I genuinely believe this is just unfortunate at the timing of Committee so that our pre-scheduled against the contract expiry and the need to notify new contractors of a contract award. Just to give up a detail on Frank and give more detail on this, that obviously for a number of service users, the user service, that this is a quite a sensitive service. They need to be quite comfortable knowing in advance who will be transporting them and other arrangements. So we clearly want to try and keep this on track to ensure that our service users have that comfort, that there can be introductions from, if there are going to be new taxi companies, et cetera. So I can't argue with your point, Councilor Dogget, I just think genuinely in this case, this isn't my view, a misalignment of contract planning. It's more unfortunately, a misalignment of Committee dates with the need to keep this on track.
18. Councillor McInnes.
19. Can I just follow up on what I think is a very valid line of questioning from Councillor Dogget. We know when the committees are, we know when the committees are probably a couple of years in advance. I am very concerned at the scale of delegated authority that we are being asked to approve today. And you'll see that in the addendum that I've put forward. Now clearly nobody wants to interrupt service delivery because that has an impact on a huge state, quite a sense of service, including some vulnerable users of that service. Nobody wants to interrupt that or to cause difficulties to it. But I feel as an elected member that I've been squeezed into a corner on this. And I suspect the rest of the committee does as well, because we're being asked to delegate enormous sums of money in terms of authority. Absolutely enormous. And yet we've not been given a full opportunity to scrutinise. Now I hear what you say about contract processes. And things can get knocked off. I mean there was one of the earlier reports talked about a cyber attack on a supplier and so on. We all know that there are aspects of the contract process that can be difficult to manage. But when it's something like this, of this magnitude. And this, I'd almost see a regularity attached to it. I appreciate the question of the combination of the framework and that adds pressure. I still don't understand why it's coming to this committee under delegated authority, when it could have come to the last one and given as enough space or whatever it is that would be required at the timing. It undermines, and I use this word really carefully, it undermines elected member authority. And we ultimately have the responsibility for these contracts. We have the responsibility for service delivery. But that responsibility is being forced on us when we don't have all of the information and we don't have all of the time to scrutinise effectively. I'm not sure that that's much of a question as a statement. I apologise Gareth. But I'd be interested in getting your response to that because leaving aside the vagaries of contract process. And I think we're all reasonable people. We understand that there's some things that will go by. Your answer earlier about committee dates doesn't really gel.
20. Thanks, Councillor, it's noted. It is a, but we would always want to give members appropriate sign-off on any contract wherever possible. Certainly, I can guarantee you're off to level, exact director level and all the way down, bringing a report to a committee that is kind of seeking to deviate from standards and I'm standing orders and it's something we would take lightly. Without going into lots and lots of detail and maybe I can maybe ask Frank to come in, Councillor and Kenneth, but that there is, you actually, we are, I come back to, we're bringing a report here in April on a mobilising prior to a contract expiring in July. I think it's a fair thing to take away. Maybe Frank, I can ask Frank to come in, just in Frank to comment whether it would have been feasible to bring an updated report to the previous committee taking Council on the chemist's point. Can you maybe touch upon that?
21. Yeah, thanks, Councillor. Thanks, Councillor McKenna. I appreciate the difficulties and normally I'm not used to being in the sort of situation with these sorts of contracts. We have been working hard with our procurement partners, not just on bringing two very large contracts together under one banner, but also making sure that we address enhanced safeguard dig measures and introducing new technology at the same time, trying to do all that operationally at the same time as bringing together a procurement framework, a framework that will mean security for a lot of vulnerable adults and children has been a challenge, not just for myself, but also for procurement. And I'm more than happy to make sure that you get regular updates on the performance from now on.
22. Mike, come back slightly on it. Thank you for the answer, Frank and Gareth. And I appreciate that there are always going to be operational constraints around, particularly when you're producing changes. But I think this speaks to a much wider issue around contract management and timing and elected member responsibility and rights, I suppose, is one way of putting it, the right that we have to scrutinise to satisfy ourselves on behalf of the people that we represent that we're making the best use of public money, that we are making the right choices and that we have confidence that the service delivery will go forward as it should. And so I think this is an area that needs to be looped at in a lot more detail. I'm not talking here about specifically about this particular framework, it's just one example. And I would hope that officers would take that away and understand very clearly the sense of discomfort that's sitting in this committee and elsewhere amongst elected members around this kind of process. Thank you.
23. Thank you. And just, you know, for the avoidance of Frank and Gareth feeling like the, I think this is the third one today from different departments and it's that kind of pattern where millions and millions of pounds of future expenditure lands in committee with waivers and delegated authority and so on and so forth. And what we get told is it's so important to keep these services running that we just must sign it off. Well, if these services are so important and so critical, why do we not have the visibility to see that they're coming up and manage the time and in an appropriate way is, you know, the overall feedback from today, I am after, I am not just this one. But that's the feedback from committee. Don't think that there's any further questions for Frank. So with that, I'm gonna move the report and say that I'm happy to accept the agenda by the S&P group because again, it's about how to be improved these processes and visibility on these things. So I am going to accept that. So I will ask Councillor Dauguish to second.
24. Happy to second, thanks.
25. There he is, thank you. And then I'll go to Councillor McKinnis.
26. Thank you very much. As I said in my addendum, I regret that we're in this position. I've heard very clearly what the officers have said and I know that they're not comfortable with this either. But given the fact that we don't want to interrupt service delivery, it can be put it very well. You know, we're backed into a corner on this. Nobody wants to cause any difficulties attached to this but we want to stake our claim around scrutiny and governance. And I think it's a very important aspect. You'll see in the addendum that I'm not trying to put a roadblock in the way of delivery. Although I do wonder whether or not you should consider referring this to full council. That might be a possibility for us as a committee. And I'll raise that just to get reaction. I think it's the question of regular dates. I think becomes really important when we're talking about a delegated authority of this size. And I appreciate the fact that you came back and said that that would be possible. I think it's that level of closing the loop for us as elected members, which is really important because we've been backed into a conversation on this, we've been backed into a decision on this. And I want to reassure us that we're going to get the level of detail that the contract is being fulfilled, that the service delivery is appropriate, that the users are happy and that we can then have retrospective confidence that the right decision was made. And if it hasn't been made, if we don't get that reassurance that we can find some way to improve the processes. Now, clearly we're committing a lot of money across a couple of years and that's a very big commitment. And I am very uncomfortable meeting that commitment now without further information. But as I said, our addendum is not designed to put blockages in the way. It's designed to be, I hope, helpful and to pinpoint what our concerns are around process.
27. Thank you, Councillor McInnes. Is it Councillor Villager who's seconding?
28. Formerly.
29. Thank you. Did we have any other contributions? Councillor Uni.
30. Sort of a question on process. Is it possible for us to refer this to agree the recommendations of the report, but still refer it on to full council? Is that something that can happen?
31. Yeah, so once the decision has been made, then you can evoke standard orders and vote whether or not the decision should be referred to council. It would be a third of the committee that would need to agree for it to be referred to council. I'm going to ask you in a minute, what standing order that is?
32. This is something that usually only happens when there's a split vote rather than Councillors agreeing to do it. Just kind of explaining this for anybody that's watching the webcast. But we are having a clerk check whether we can agree this as a committee and still refer it on to full council for further scrutiny. There is of course the option to refer it on the GRB fee, but depending on the timing, we're being asked to do this now for speed. And the next full council is the ninth of me, so that would not be a huge delay. If we did that, where as some people just have a look at when the next GRB fee is. So that might be an option as well, although I don't know if Councillor Campbell thank us for referring so many things on. But that is an option that we could look at.
33. Councillor McKinnis and then I'll go back to Councillor Ioannoni.
34. I must say full council, I think would be the best option. It allows a wider debate attached to the principles that sit behind us, especially if we're agreeing to proceed today. But in addition to which GRB fee, I think the papers will be published either to the year tomorrow, so we may not have time to take it through that route.
35. And Councillor Ioannoni.
36. Just landed my voice. That's exactly the point I was going to make. I think agreeing today. And then so we don't derail any contract, but yeah, I think full council is where it should go to, especially with as Councillor McKinnis says, the papers are probably being published today. (silence)
37. So we have to do it in stages. The first stage is we approve the report, and I'm assuming that we're accepting the amendment. Yeah, a dangerous, a beg your pardon. A dangerous, 'cause it becomes an amendment when we agree it, doesn't it? (laughs) Just to further confuse people. So we're going to do that, and we'll agree that, which doesn't need to go to vote, so I assume that's agreed. And then, oh, sorry, Councillor--
38. Could we refer this to full council, please, convener?
39. Yeah, and so that's what we do next. This is second stage, we get it, and then 2/3 of us have to refer it, but I think we're all agreed that we're going to refer it. So I think that that's us. I have managed to turn that into a trickle, but we go there, so thank you very much, everybody.
40. Thank you. So that decision will be referred to council. So we'll move on to item 7.8 now, which is the City Chamber's Quadrangle Operations Report. It's by the Executive Director of Place. There's a green group amendment on the site and Alison Coburn will speak to the report.
41. Alison here, welcome Alison.
42. Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, Councillors. I've not got anything to add to the report, but happy Gareth and I will be happy to take any questions.
43. Do we have any questions on this? Councillor Ross. And then Councillor Mumford. Thanks very much for this report, and I have plenty of questions on my feet. So we never got to the position of having the 2019 policy actually fully implemented. But my questions are partly around that, and the practicalities of accessing City Chambers by anyone who is physically disabled. And the implication from the report I read is they could be dropped off in the high street and with a blue badge, they could park a car or a vehicle in the high street, potentially. Maybe not, perhaps nearby, alternatively, they could be dropped off at the backdoer, the trade's entrance on Coburn Street, either by taxi or private high car, potentially. But I want to understand what we would be doing here in those circumstances. In addition, I also want to understand the implications for the council that is posting and offering to outside groups, the use of the City Chambers, the European Room Etcetera facilities for holding events, how supplies are delivered and collected and so on, with this proposed policy approach, thank you.
44. I'll maybe start, if I saw a quick answer, Alison can comment. So to the first point, I think it's fair to say the 2019 procedure, I think was implemented, possibly hasn't been adhered to, would maybe be the description I would use. Then clearly members asked via Councillor Arthur's motion to come back and look at this issue again. So that's what we've done. The point around disabled access clearly is important to us. As you state, the access immediately outside City Chambers is felt is adequate to be able to be dropped off and get access to the building. As I understand that we've been, I think it's some internal concern around the provision of disabled parking. Legally required to provide parking where there is a car park. But obviously the quadrangle isn't officially a car park. It's a quadrangle that has been parked in. And clearly in looking at a new operating procedure what we've taken the view of is, if we are rebasing this and subject to members approval, then we aren't treating the quadrangle as a car park. We're treating it as a quadrangle to which some vehicles are permitted access and that's set out in the procedure. As you say, Councillor Ross, between immediately outside the City Chambers, there is access for taxis private hire and there is a local blue badge parking for those with a blue badge. So we feel that that is catered for clearly. There may be certain events where the relevant department is organized, it will need to make extra provisions to support somebody that's got mobility access and mobility or disability issues. And we can certainly sort that out. To the point of access for events, as you say, there is a God's access and things like catering, av equipment, that kind of thing is regularly brought in through the God's access from Coburn Street. But again, I think that's something we would expect to build into our workflows with things like the events team, catering team, et cetera, and the pool and the wider facilities management team to build into make sure that those access arrangements are set out to people that are booking the facilities.
45. If I may come back very briefly, thank you for that explanation, both points. With regard to disabled access, you said that we could cater for disabled visitors to the City Chambers reception through some arrangements that would have to be put in place where they'd be dropped off in the high street and not therefore outside the front door, immediately outside the front door. What sort of facility are you thinking of?
46. So that's a good question, Councillor. There are clearly going to be ad hoc visits, where a member of the public or a visitor may wish to just come to reception and clearly we're not going to know about that visit in advance. I think it's important that our website information sign folks local parking for people to use if they're wanting to come unannounced for whatever reason that may be. The people use the front desk for a number of purposes. In terms of pre-arranged visits, then again, what the procedure sets out is, we have a facilities management team. There are always going to be different circumstances we need to look support. Ultimately, our aim is to allow people access to this building, however possible. The aim of this is to not allow vehicles into the quadrangle, wherever possible, but there is going to be something in between that I think our staff need to be interested and to do that. I think what we've made clear for all purposes is in the worst-case scenario, this is a drop-off area. It's not expected to be a car parking area, hence what's been set out for. Wedding, civil partnership cars, for the civic cars, the intention is that in those limited points, they're access situations. They could come in, drop off and then leave. It may be the case if officers are comfortable, it's the only solution that kind of drop-off facility would be required for somebody with a disability. Thank you, that's helpful. In case I'm on, folks. Thank you. And actually, Councillor Ross' questions have raised another with me, just a brief one that the operating procedure talks about and that the request for special dispensation must be done by email. And I just wondered, I presume that means email as opposed to a sort of posted letter. But I'm obviously thinking of a scenario where a disabled constituent might ring up wanting a signing and ask if they can access. So I presume there'd be some leniency in having to be by email. I just wondered if you could say why that's specified in the operating procedure. So, yeah, absolutely, I think we'll be able to answer, Councillor. The idea of having email is to try and focus, particularly internal colleagues on thinking about this in advance. And therefore, the use of email should be appropriate, but as you've just said, Councillor Mumford, there will be kind of short-term, quick reactions needed. Usually, I would speculate via people like the registrar's team or the switchboard or the front desk that are getting the kind of calls you're talking about. Those relationships already exist with the FM team and with the colleagues that set out. And so I think that would be easily achievable. Thank you. I think we can come back in, Councillor. And the original questions I was going to ask was, we talk about reviewing this in a year. Will there be any monitoring of car use, particularly if there's any requests out with the operating procedure throughout the year? So we know how well this is working. I think, I'm sure my colleague, Councillor Stananforth, has been through more of this than I have. This is my first quadrangle rodeo, but I know this has been discussed many times and not many changes since how are we going to ensure this actually works. And then my second question relates to obviously our amendment talks about the issue of civic regalia insurance. And I know from our emails that hasn't been looked at specifically, but obviously the Council did pass that we believe that the civic cars should not be using the quadrangle if possible. So I suppose I'm disappointed that that hasn't been looked into to understand actually what the financial implications would be. So if you could say a little bit about that, that would be helpful. Thank you. Yep, that sounds lit. So in terms of evaluation, mindful of not over promising the level of evaluation we can do, but I think certainly my more kind of qualitative approach. So members may have a view, and I think officers that obviously the building will have a view and let's be honest, it'll be very visible to how successful this policy has been because we will walk past it on a regular basis. So I think that's the level assessment. We will have an email trail, for example, to see the number of requests that were sold from the FM team. So again, until your last question, there will be a, as we've done another policies, we can report back to members and say, there were this many requests to, in these certain, exceptional circumstances. In terms of the second party question, I've got to be honest, I've just come to, no, I haven't forgotten it, I've just remembered it. The insurance arrangements. So again, what we have worked in, certainly I've must credit Alison, who, I've asked to be honest, has done more of the work on this than I have particularly, but what we've set out, and as a policy that we wanted members to be clear, in that we are allowing the civic cars as one of the vehicles can come in, but clearly we're working with colleagues in the law provost, law lieutenant officer. So wherever possible, clearly, if we can avoid that, that would be great. But it would be very hard to write a policy that gives that kind of vagueness and divinity around other work. So we needed to be clear in the policy that the civic cars we felt for security purposes, given the role, particularly the law of lieutenant, so the vehicles that are used in the civic office are also used, for example, for transporting the rural household on occasion. So unfortunately, we just felt that it was appropriate to keep that in there. As we've said on email counsellor and just for public record, I'm more than happy to get more detail in the business bulletin update around the insurance implications, but certainly whilst the wording around insurance was put in there, security was more at the forefront of our mind, as opposed to a lightly increasing the insurance premium.
47. Do we have any further questions for officers on this one?
48. Okay, so I'm gonna remove the report as is. I did circulate around my group, which includes counsellor as mentioned in the amendment by the Green Group. I did put around them. What I did get comments back on was actually the use by the tours, the walking tours, which I said did not really covered. It's mentioned, but it's not covered in this report, and there is some concern from my group around that, but as we can't refer anything on the culture and communities, we can only, so I've been told that we can't ask for a report by another committee. We can only ask for one by our own committee. So suggested to them that they do it through culture and communities to have that looked at in more detail. So, I feel that we've not quite worked out how we would deal with the Lord Provis cars, sitting in the Royal Mile, dropping people off, you know, the congestion that might cause, sometimes Coburn Street is, you know, we didn't work, you know, I've seen the vehicles, sometimes delivery vehicles and everything there, and you just, you'd be not being able to get deliveries if the Provis cars were picking up and dropping people off in Coburn Street. Do I really button that out? That's my disquiet, and I think that the fact that we're going to try and gather information and come back to this, it's reasonable for us just to take the report as is. So, I'm going to move that. And if Councillor Dauguish would second, that would be appreciated.
49. Happy to second convener, thank you.
50. Thank you. And then I'll go to Councillor Mumford for the Green Group Amendment.
51. Thanks, Camina. So this amendment is meant to be in the spirit of the report as Gareth has set out that we want to pedestrianise the quad, but it's difficult to do that for particular reasons. So, what this amendment attempts to do is to switch it from saying civic cars can come in, but please don't, which is set out by saying they can come in, but we're engaging with staff to say, right, avoid it if you can, to saying you can't come in, but ask us if you really need to. So I think it's changing that assumption away from the civic cars using the quadrangle. And I know in the amendment that we as a council all agreed this just back in September, we said we believe the council should lead by example by restricting access of motor vehicles, including the Lord Provost's car or civic cars. So we felt that in September, if council office changes mind, that's disappointing, but that's what we agreed as a council. And that was the motion that led to this report coming, which is why I'm disappointed not to see that recommendation in there. So we're proposing two changes that we would say that the automatic assumption will be that the civic cars on official businesses can't come in and official vehicles supporting the Lord Lieutenant can't come in, but obviously acknowledging that security risk, mind-standing is that the Coben Street entrance is often used for this situation anyway. But of course, whether it's security risk, whether it's insurance, whether it's accessibility, we think that discretion should be applied to these, but it is about trying to change that assumption. So, and therefore I'm asking for a little bit more information about the value of the civic criteria. I feel this is used quite often as reasons for various things and we don't actually have that information. So it'd be really good to get concrete understanding once and for all what the insurance arrangements are with that. And finally, we haven't talked about it in the questioning, but we just note with thanks that there is talk about increasing the cycle parking provision around the city chambers, particularly looking at Coben Street, given the space limitations in the quadrangle. So just suggesting that it'd be helpful to get an update on this within three cycles or whenever there is one available, very happy to change that to a more open-ended something given that we don't know timescales, I understand the offices will move on it when there is something to move on. So happy to change that away from three cycles to one relevant. Thank you.
52. And Councillor Stana for that, thank you.
53. Yes, yes, thank you.
54. Yeah, it really does feel like we've been trying to ban cars in the quadrangle since forever. And by we, I don't just mean the Scottish Green Party, I mean we as a council. And yet, often when I walk through there, it's as busy as any other car park, busier than some. It shouldn't be a car park, it should be a space primarily for people, for pedestrians to move through. And so let's try it again, and let's do it right this time and keep the quadrangle for people. With that, I second this amendment.
55. Thank you, do we have any other contributions? So I'm assuming they'll want to, the Greens will want to press there. Yeah, and I've moved to report of a lot of sympathy for what the Greens are saying, and I do think the officers should strive over this period to provide the information that's needed to look and see how potentially Coburn Street could be made a suitable alternative. We had that when there's sometimes security issues, visitors and even royal visitors occasionally use that area, presumably there's security people, clear it all, make sure it's all fine. So I think that we do need to take a hard look at that, but in the meantime, I'm going to move a continue with the report as it is. So, Taylor.
56. Thank you, conveners. In that case, we have two positions. We have the motion by Councillor Watt, seconded by Councillor Douglass, which is to move the report recommendations as circulated, and we have the amendment by Councillor, oh, no, not my can of sorry, by Councillor Mumford, seconded by Councillor Stanworth, which is to move the Greens of Amendment. So now votes for the motion, please, by Councillor Watt.
57. And for the amendment by Councillor Mumford, please. So that is four for the motion, and seven for the amendment, so the amendment is carried.
58. Thank you.
59. So we'll move on to section eight on the agenda now, which is routine decisions. These will be taken by exception if members have any specific questions on any of the reports.
60. Councillor McKerliss.
61. On 8/12 at Jock's Lodge, we'd like to move no action on that, please. Any further reports that Councillor Mumford?
62. And thank you. We have a question on apologies, 8.10.
63. I'll take 8.10.
64. Councillor Dauger.
65. 8.3.
66. Okay, so that's 8.3, which is a workforce dashboard. 8.10, and then 8.12. I think probably what's most straightforward is to take them in the agenda order. If that's fine with everybody, although they came in in reverse order. And I think it's, Nadine is here for 8.3, Councillor Dauger.
67. Yeah, really straightforward question. So useful information, and I like the shape of the appendix and how it's transforming itself. Do you have any plans, Nering, to use Power BI that would allow us to have an interactive dashboard that elected members could access and get information that each of us might find useful?
68. Thanks for your question, Councillor Dauger. I think the answer to that is yes. I think across the council, particularly the strategy and insight team are doing a lot of work around the Power BI dashboard and just getting to a stage. If not already, and Dave's can keep me right here that they're about to launch just the council-wide performance piece. So we are in discussions with the team about how we extend that out to include the workforce piece as well, as well as making it much more widely available across the council. I think what we really want to also do is have absolutely live workable management dashboards for all of our managers as well so that they can see what's happening in real time. The slight delay to that is we're still kind of pulling out what we can get out of Oracle. And as that develops leading up to October, then that'll help build the workforce BI dashboard. But yeah, absolutely, that's the aspiration. That's what we're hoping to have. And so that you can go in and kind of click on this and see, see this information yourself in at kind of more of a service level as well, but as well as for elected members, but also for our managers so they can see what's happening in service real time. Thank you, that'll give us all something to look forward to learning for those of us that haven't used it before, learning to use per BI. And for those of us who have, I'm hoping that it's better than it used to be 'cause I used to break it all the time. So hopefully it's, yeah, hopefully it's improved. So if we can go to eight point, one zero now, and I think it's Graham McGarr one that's here answer questions on that one. Hope he's here, he was here earlier, please. Oh, you're over here now. Yeah, yeah, just ask that we squasted, thank you.
69. Thank you. So thank you, it was just a question and I raised this at the APM as well. So, sorry for some of this repetition, but I'm interested in understanding, so this is an area of over provision. But this is gonna, so we haven't done anything to seek change of use before sort of marketing this for a new tenant, and I just wondered, I understand that the answer I was given at APM was just we try and fill the void as quickly as possible, but I'm keen to understand the interrelation between things in areas of over provision and situations like this, why we don't have a procedure that says, this is an opportunity to try and rebalance the area. So I'd be interested to hear your views on that and also what would the implications be if we didn't agree this today on 8.10, thanks.
70. Okay, so we did not look at changing the use when seeking to re-market the property. I mean, you, the existing lease was coming to an end. We placed it on the market to seek notes of interest to basically remove a liability of an empty property as quickly as possible, and with a view to existing the rent, which is the way we manage the commercial portfolio. To be blunt, that's my job to make money for the council, so that's what we did in this instance. If we were not to approve, then the existing lease will end at the point it's going to end and the property will remain vacant at that time.
71. Any further questions on that one? Not fine. So, 8.12, do you have any questions for a degree among this? Does anybody have any questions on this one? 8.12.
72. Can, you know, I think I've moved no action on this one. I'm not sure if it's, if we have to take a decision on that first.
73. I was given a councilor's opportunity to ask questions before we moved to either due to the lease, either due to no action or, not no action or approving or not. So, so, what we need to do is, we would approve the ones that we've spoken about and ones that we've not questioned. So, we would approve or ask for committee approve 8.3 because we've spoken about it. Do you think I need to properly move it and second it? Just ask for approval, yeah. So, are committee happy to approve 8.3 and 8.10 and the other ones that we haven't discussed? And then we move to 8.12 for our, and vote on that one. Okay. Yeah. So, I will move 8.12. I'll move the report and councilor Giesh, could you second, please?
74. Happy to second, thanks.
75. Then we have a new action from councilor McKinnister. Do you want to speak to that or?
76. I don't think I'm required to give reasons, but it's been a newsworthy item on this particular decision to go ahead with the planning commission.
77. It's just to give you the opportunity to speak on it if you wanted to. So, we'll just move to our, sorry, seconder, thank you. We'll move to everyone.
78. Thank you, so in that case, we have two positions. We have motion by Councillor Watt, which is to move the report recommendations and the amendment by Councillor McKinnister, which is to move no action. So, we're going to take votes for the motion. First, please by Councillor Watt. And for the amendment, please by Councillor McKinnister. So, that is six votes for the motion, five for the amendment, so the motion is carried.
79. Thank you. And then I think that's us, completed all the routine ones and what's next?
80. Thank you. So, in that case, we'll move on to section nine, which is motions at 9.1. We have the motion by Councillor Mumford on retaining visitor information services on the Royal Mail.
81. Councillor Mumford.
82. Thank you very much. This is hopefully a fairly straightforward motion that tries to do what it says on the tin. I think we were all disappointed by the news that the visitor centre was due to be closing, although it's pleased that it's a phased close, but it is a very newly refurbished fit-for-purpose building in the heart of Edinburgh. And I hope people will agree that as a capital city, it's right that we have a physical place that people can come and find information. Not everyone still wants to book online, sometimes information isn't available online. I know that officers have already been having some conversations with visits, got and done others about what can be done with this space. So, this is an attempt to give a mandate to that, to say that this is something that finance and resources committee to council supports, and also to not attempt to preempt anything, but to suggest that there might be other uses for this building and still within the visitor economy, but that fit in well with the council's aims. So, looking at the nighttime economy, we've agreed we're gonna have a nighttime coordinator, maybe we need a base for that. There are organizations, third sector charities working in the city that can use bases. There are independent tour guides working in the city that needs somewhere to put bags, all sorts of things. There's a huge host of things that could be used for this, or this venue could be used for. And we're keen that we see some options on that, rather than just be proposed with a final option, or worse, they're sort of slipping away and just nothing happening with it. So, really keen to see an options appraisal. I would like to make a verbal amendment, I've requested offices, and after conversations I'd like to request that it is the executive director of corporate services that holds this. So, if we could make that change verbally, that would be really helpful. And I also haven't put a time limit on that, I realise now, but having discussed with offices, it was felt that three cycles would be appropriate. And so, I'm happy to add that in, if that's helpful, or just leave it as is. And I'll hand over to council, stand the floor for a second. Thanks.
83. Yes, thank you. A visitor centre isn't just an area where tourists go for information, such as where they can get a coffee or such like. There's actually a big humanitarian element to what a visitor centre does, because of course, when tourists come here, they're coming to an unfamiliar city, and our problems may arise. Transport might fall through, and they need to find accommodation at the last moment. Some people, somewhat foolishly, may have come to the city without preparing accommodation first, and have difficulty finding it. You know, in these situations, in emergency situations, the visitor centre is there, and it helps tourists out. Our visitor centre in Edinburgh is always busy. It's always got people inside it. I don't understand the decision of a visit Scotland to close it down, but I think in order to keep tourism to the city safe, to maintain a tourist sector that has an international reputation, and in line with our aims to make the tourist sector greener, a visitor centre is useful, and that we should therefore do everything we can to keep some kind of visitor centre going in that spot. And with that, I second this motion. Thank you.
84. Thank you, thanks, Lestanfer. Do we have any other contributions? Our committee happy to agree with the motion, with the verbal tweaks to clarify who has the action, and when we're expecting it back. Yep. Thank you very much. Thank you.
85. Thank you. So move on to 10.1 then, which is very solution to considering private. The committee has requested under section 50A4 of the Local Government Scotland Act to exclude the public from the meeting for the fall items of business on the grounds that they would involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 6, 8 and 9 of part one of Schedule 7 of the Act are committing an agreement to the rest. The reports in private. (silence) [BLANK_AUDIO]