Transcript

I think that's ten o'clock and we've got everybody here, which is terrific. Great to see everybody all here in person. So if we're ready, we'll kick off to you. Yeah, thank you, convener. So this meeting is being held in the Dean of Girl Courtroom in the City Chambers High Street in Edinburgh and virtually by Microsoft Teams. It will be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast 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 webcast will be retained 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 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'll move now into section one on the agenda, which is the Order of Business. We have two substitutions today. We have Councillor Griffiths for Councillor Dalglish and Councillor Millet for Councillor Doggart. So version three of the papers were circulated on the 21st of June 2024. Motions and amendments have been circulated and are available to view by members of the public alongside the papers for this meeting. If members are planning to substitute for other members at any point, please make this clear to the convener by confirming who has left and who has joined the meeting, and just to note that items are subject to a 40-minute time limit unless standing order 22.16 is suspended. So we'll move on to section two now, which is Declinations of Interests. The Councillor's Code of Conduct requires members to publicly declare interest in the items being considered at today's meeting. These interests can be financial or non-financial. Do members have anything they wish to declare? No? So section two of the... Sorry. Yes, just in case, if it comes up, I do have a declaration on charitable trust because sometimes I work at Lauriston Castle. I'm not going to automatically recuse myself because there's nothing specific about Lauriston Castle in the paper, but if it comes up, I will recuse myself. I'll note it as a transparency statement for now, and then if it changes, you can declare it. Is there any other declarations? Thank you. So I'll move on to section three, which is Deputations. There are no deputations today. Section four of the agenda is minutes. At 4.1, we have the minute of the Finance and Resources Committee of the 30th of April, 2024, which is submitted for approval as a correct record. Is that approved, Jess? Thank you. Thank you. Move on to section five. At 5.1, we have the Finance and Resources Committee Work Programme, and committee is asked to note the work programme. Councillor Montfort. I just wanted to say how much I like the end of the work programme where it's in months by reports that we're going to get. Thank you very much. Is that fine? We're agreed. Thank you. At 5.2, we have the Finance and Resources Committee Role and Actions log, and committee is asked to close actions 16 and 18 and note the remaining outstanding actions. Councillor Montfort. Thank you. A couple of questions, if that's okay. One, action 12 asked for a report as quickly as possible in April, and there isn't a date by which we're due to get that. I just wondered where that sat in the plans. And action 17, it says there's a note saying it won't come until September, but it actually is on this agenda, so I think that just needs to be updated and closed, therefore. And finally, item 18, which is recommended for closure, the second point of that action is actually that there's going to be a report in a year's time on progress made, so I don't think that can be closed. I think the action's been taken, but the motion still asked for an update in a year. Sorry, Councillor Montfort, I didn't catch the last one. So 13, I agree that the other one, passenger transport, is on the agenda date, so it could be closed. What was the last question, sorry? On 18, it's just the council tax discount, which is on the business bulletin for today, but then the second point of that motion asks for an update to be brought back in a calendar year on the progress made, so I think we can't close it off yet. Okay, happy to leave that open. Thank you. That's it, 12 or 13? Sorry, Amanda, are you here? Can you speak to number 12, please? I think I saw you earlier. Thanks, convener. I thought we'd done it, so I don't understand why it's not here, so it can certainly come on the next agenda. Apologies for that. It may have happened, it just is not recorded as such on the Rolling Actions log, so that might just be an error on that. Thanks. I'll double check. Other than that, are we fine to agree this? Thank you. Thank you. Move on to section 6 now. At 6.1, we have the business bulletin and committee has asked to note the business bulletin. Councillor Mumford, then Councillor Mowat. I'm not sure. Councillor uni, did you have your hand up? No, no. Thank you. It was just on that council tax item, so thank you very much for the work that's really, really great to see. I just wanted to check, it talks about other institutions out with Edinburgh University, and I wondered if there was any more information on those other institutions, and particularly whether SIUC had been involved, as people often forget they have a campus in Edinburgh, so I just wanted to check that they'd been included in these conversations. Thanks. Happy to take that away, Councillor Mowat, and come back to you. Sorry, Councillor Mumford. It's the same subject, and it's the same sort of area. In one point, it says there's been discussion with Edinburgh University and other establishments, and then in the final paragraph, it says Edinburgh University also agreed to highlight the process through the appropriate communication channels. But we've got other universities, not all the universities offer PhDs, but there are some that do, Queen Margaret and Harriet Watt both offer PhDs, and I don't know if the Scottish, I don't know if the SIUC offers PhDs itself, but it's just, if we're engaging with Edinburgh University and highlighting the process, are the other universities as well? I'll come back with some clarification on the next business bulletin, I think. Other than that, are we, oh, Councillor McInnis. Thank you. On the Southbridge resource centre, I'm looking for a bit of reassurance that the pottery group has found a new home, because I know that that was a bit of a stumbling block as far as making progress, it was concerned, because they're kilns, so I'm just wondering if anybody can give me an answer on that? Sir, did you say the pottery group? Yes. Yeah, we've identified a property at 165A Leith's Walk. Right. It's currently being designed for a new studio, and as far as I'm aware, everybody's happy. That's good to hear, thank you. If there's nothing further, can we agree the business bulletin? Thank you. Thank you. In that case, we'll move on to section 7, which is executive decisions. At 7.1, we have the local government benchmark and framework for 2022/23, finances and resource services report by the executive, sorry, director of corporate services, and Catherine Sturt is here to speak to that report. Hi Catherine, is there anything that you want to add to your report? Good morning all. Just to say this is a report covering the local government benchmarking data for 2022/23. It covers two of the themes, financial sustainability and corporate services. Happy to take any questions. Do we have questions for Catherine or are we? We seem to all be very happy with that report, it's very comprehensive, and I got a good briefing on it, which again, thank you for that. Good. Oh, Councillor Millard does have a question for you. Yeah, sorry, I had to scroll through my papers and I've forgotten my mouse, so I'm not as quick with my trackpad because that's because my colleague tells me I'm old. Yeah, it's the cost per dwelling of collecting council tax, other councils have seen big reductions in costs, but we're fairly static. Is that because they're starting from a lower base, or can we do more to catch up and there are IT improvements in train to deal with it? I suppose the question is really, is this one of those things where we were doing really well and they've caught us up so it just looks as if we haven't made any progress, or are they doing something we're not doing that we could benefit from? Thanks for the question, Councillor. I don't know the answer to that because I kind of focus on the Edinburgh data. I'll go away and have a look and see whether it's us that shifted or whether it's actually the other councils and get back to you. Thank you. We are happy to agree the report. Thank you. Item 7.2 on the agenda is the revenue budget framework and medium term financial plan for 2024 to 2029 progress update as a report by the Chief Officer of Edinburgh Integration Joint Board. It's a report by the Executive Director of Corporate Services. I was looking there like, and there's a green group addendum being circulated on this item and Richard Lloyd-Bithill will speak to this report. Thanks. Jack, do you have things to add? Thank you. Thank you, Kavina. So thank you everybody for considering the report. We've had a number of briefings obviously in the lead up to this report. And just to also note that we did have a union briefing on the contents of this report last Monday as part of the Partnership at Work group. So just to set out briefly the report before we go to questions. This is just setting out as we've discussed a program of work for the budget process to look at the delivery of the business plan, implementing the budget strategy that was agreed for the 24/25 budget year and us working towards a stable financial plan. Also, part of this report is to inform of the strategic financial risks that we are facing as an organisation and the incremental budget gap that we have over the number of years and setting out our preferred option of a strategic program of best value reviews and investment and model review over the next few years. And we are seeking a mandate similarly to last year for us to pursue that program through the relevant executive committee and through the timeline that is outlined in the appendices. Just to note as well that this is also giving detail on budget engagement arrangements and also the commitment that if we have proposals to engage on we will go out to public consultation on specific proposals no later than the 10th of October. To ensure we have timely information to inform decision making later in the year and also to note the arrangements for quality impact assessments to be taken through relevant executive committees and also we will develop an overall quality impact assessment on the budget and council tax setting. Happy to take any questions, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Richard? Councillor Mumford and then Councillor Uni. Thank you. Thanks very much for the report and all the briefings. It's been really helpful. I'm really pleased to see the unions have been involved as well. I've got my broad questions around the costings of homelessness and which seems to be a theme throughout the paper and a really big risk to the council. So obviously some of this is covered in our addendum but I'd like to understand if we know why the budget has tripled, is it that demand has just tripled or is there something else going on? And then there's just two very specific questions, one on 3.2 which is talking about the budget not, the savings not being realised and I just wanted to check if, does that mean the budget that was passed was not competent or has something else happened there? Was it too optimistic a budget? And at 4.3 we talk about an additional 2.7% of council tax being needed and I wasn't sure if that was additional on top of what. Thank you. So I'll just quickly cover your last point. So just in terms of savings delivery, no it's not incompetent, it's just the risk of time lag and implementation of particular savings. It's just recognising that risk. Apologies, I missed just your last point on the specific question, sorry. No, that's fine. So at 4.3 we're talking about if the savings aren't realised it would mean an additional 2.7% of council tax? Yeah. But I'm not clear if that's this year, next year and what it's on top of or something. Yeah, so that's for next year. So if we don't deliver those savings or those risks being realised, that would be the carried forward cost in 25/26 setting that's coming up. So it would be 2.7 on top of whatever council decides that would be the council tax. So just to go back to your question on homelessness, yes demand has exponentially risen over the previous three years but I will just cover a bit about what has changed since we set the 24/25 budget. So since we did set last year's budget and the approved budget which was there, we have seen a significant increase in demand for temporary accommodation from asylum seeker related households. So following some of the UK wide changes to dispersal policy, at the end of May there were 204 households in temporary accommodation and that number is expected to increase as set out in the scenario plan over the remainder of 24/25. We are taking a number of actions to try and mitigate that risk such as the work that is going on in voids and some of the work we're doing on process around the housing service and changes to the plan. But this is really a demand lead and sort of out with our control in terms of UK national policy. So in terms of working through COSLA, working through our relationship with Scottish Women, actions are being taken there. So there is at the end of May, if we were to take in terms of what we would consider that financial impact to be of those 204, that is estimated at about 6.6 million extra on top of the budget that was agreed for 24/25. So as you can see, this is a real significant financial risk for the council that we need to take corrective action and investment and other mitigating actions to ensure that this doesn't come out of control. Okay, and Councillor uni. Thank you, and thank you for the report. Just a few questions if I'm okay to do that. The first one, the strategic budget working group, can I just ask, will that be feeding back to any committee? The work that we're going to be carrying out in that group when it is decided, the membership is decided, will that be feeding back into this committee? Yes, it will be under FNR as the parent committee. But it's a working group, Councillor uni, so the paper that sets that out is actually on council on Thursday. Super, because we won't get a chance to ask too many questions of it probably on Thursday, so I just wanted to ask that. In the very helpful briefing that you gave to our group, I asked about Richard, which is quite a difficult question I think, about confidence in achieving a lot of this, because there's a lot of fantastic change I think outlined in the medium term financial plan and I think it's probably the most important thing that we as a Councillor are working on just now. Could you speak to your confidence in achieving the plan as a whole and also if there's specific elements that are more at risk of not being realised than others? Yes, absolutely. I think this might be one we can cover together, I think. I am confident that we can do this. I think it is really dependent on a couple of things. We are bringing in additional capacity to help us deliver, because you are right, it is a very ambitious challenge, I'll call it for now, in terms of the scale that we are dealing with. But we are bringing in additional capacity and skills to help us both within finance, within change and transformation, and also working with the services as well. I think the approach that we are outlining in the recommended option is the right one. I think taking a targeted risk and outcomes based approach to how we deliver our services, either looking at the best value and immediate tactical plans to maintain service delivery to the best possible and provide the best outcomes that we can in the short term is absolutely right. Alongside a more medium to long term programme of transformation that is outlined in the – and taking that approach that is really outlined in the value streams, I think I am confident that the approach that we are developing and continue to develop, because it will always be an iterative process, the way that we deal with the finances of such a big organisation, given the complexity and diverse nature of the services we deliver. Sorry, I am confident, but I think what will be dependent on success is really us continuing to take this approach as a group with the SLT and heads of service, us continuing to, as a collective CLT, really be behind this programme to work with it, and us continuing to provide you the best information that we are committing to in this report to aid decision making, and also creating these new relationships like the strategic programme or strategic budget working group. The briefings we are doing and continuing to work as hard as we did on the build up to this report to every committee and every relevant exec committee will be important for getting the success of this programme. So, Councillor Ross, I think. Sorry, Councillor, another one. Could I just, I think this is an appropriate report to ask that on, can I just ask how that is going? Yes, absolutely. So I think there's two angles to that of the work that we are doing. We are doing two things that are ongoing at the moment. First off, we are doing a bit of re-profiling work on the revenue budget. So we are looking at last year's out turn, which is referenced in the report, and looking at where we do have underspends, overspends in the budget, analysing that where we are finding demand and activity outstripping budgets or underscoring budgets. And making sure that we get an effective realignment so it's clear, transparent and budget holders have got a good basis to work off, but also looking at where we can potentially find some best value out of those. And then also, as you agreed, we are looking at the reserves as well to make sure that we are identifying the maximum best value use out of that over the course of the programme. I expect that we will conclude that piece of work by July and report back to CLT. So I hope that when we come to do the briefings in the build up to September, we can share some of the outcomes of that work with you. Then we've got Councillor Ross and then Councillor Mayotte. Councillor Ross. Thanks, convener, and thank you for this report. And my word, it's a sobering read. And that hasn't even given us all the detail that's going to come forward in detailed proposals, so it's going to be even more sobering in future. I would just like to ask a question about the approach being taken and how important it is that the council is open to consider all possible options. Clearly, we're facing a situation where over the next few years, we have to realistically assess where we are and where we're going and how to achieve the desired outcomes. And that we are not closing down options in advance. So my question really around that is in terms of the resource we have available and the expertise we have in house, but where we have gaps in that, we clearly have to use, I think, or seek to use outside expertise, if necessary. And that there shouldn't be any constraints on doing that in order to achieve the objectives where we have set. Is that the way that you're proceeding? Thank you, Councillor Ross. No, I think a lot of the points you picked up are essential to us having success, and it's just to talk a bit about in terms of all services. I think it's fair to say there is a point about bringing out appendix, I've forgotten the number of which appendix, but essentially the 24, 25 setting where we do provide the makeup of the budget in terms of what the makeup of services are. I think it's something that we have said in previous things. You could wipe out the whole of corporate services and you still wouldn't make the budget gap. And we are still doesn't preclude us looking at that. We are going to look at that and we've agreed that in the previous year's budget. But we do need to have a whole system approach of prevention, looking at how we are interacting and interdependencies between each services, because the budgets and the quantum of budgets are one thing. But the interactions between each part of this organisation's, we need to transcend past looking at it from just the high level overall quantum of what we're spending on a particular service. Because I think as we all agree, it doesn't always, spending lots of money on one particular thing doesn't always provide the best value or the best outcome. So we've got to be much more focused on the system, the processes that underlie our service delivery and what outcomes and information we are achieving out of that. And that's what we need to aim to get with this programme is to pull that out and paint a picture on that. I think going back to your point about benchmarking, self assessment will be really important in terms of this programme. So things like the public services, the improvement service, that public service performance framework will be really, really important. So we already use it in education to provide some of the information, but rolling that methodology out to some of our services and piloting those will be really important to give us a good basis upon which to develop these plans on and make progress against them. So the report indicates that proposals will go to executive committees for consideration, which is the right way to do this. Will they go in the context that there are savings that require to be made, that your committee isn't any more special than any other committee, if you like. And if you don't accept the proposal as it stands, then what's the alternative, because that's how we need, we still need to meet the budget gap. In short, Councillor Ross, yes. I think one of the things that we're going to have to be especially vigilant on this year is making sure that the challenge and the finances are the business of every committee, not just the Finance and Resources Committee. So that will be through much more committee briefings from finance, much more context in reports on the financial implications. And as you say, options appraisal, because if we don't pursue these options, the do nothing and the status quo is not an option, unfortunately. Thank you. Councillor Myer. Sorry, microphone's off, just as well, because I was just gathering my thoughts there. Those who have seen me at committee over many years, Mr Lawrence, because you're the only one who's been here long enough, will know that I have a bit of an issue. And Mr Waton, I have a bit of an issue about home to school transport, because this has been sitting on our books for so long. And whilst I notice that, you know, it's there as a major saving, but there's no details, there's just progress is being made. So how much progress is being made? How close are we to doing this? And is the difficulty in addressing this because the problems are so intractable that we just haven't found an answer? Or there are increases in this service that we and where does that report back to? Because my feeling is that it's been sitting around for so long, I can only think that either this is just a really wicked problem. Not, you know, as one that is really difficult or there is an sufficient officer focus on it, but it's quite a chunky save. It's quite it's there in the agenda is quite a chunky saving. So I just like a bit more information about how that's being dealt with and where that will report back to. I don't know, Amanda, if you want to come in on that particular medical transport. Thanks, Amanda. Yeah, thanks, Convener. And thanks, Richard. It is a difficult issue and there is significant demand pressure in this area. There is a paper coming to Education, Children and Families Committee in September, which is outlining some of the pilot work that's being done and that's going to be rolled out across the special school estate. So that's particularly some work that's being done at Gorgie School, which is looking at the use of minibuses and transport assistance rather than individual taxis, which is increasing independent travel abilities of the young people that go into school, but also a significantly saving cost. So that pilot approach is to be rolled out across other schools. And as I said, paper coming in September. Thank you. Any further questions? Councilman Port. Thank you. Just a quick question. It's looking back to last year's budget, but did we get the budget book that was planned to explain that to people? Yes. A draft is currently sitting in my inbox. I'm hoping to take it to CLT next week and then I'm hoping we can distribute it as soon as possible after that. Councilman Port. Great. Thank you. And I guess it would be great to know in plans for future budgets how that will be aligned. Thank you. OK, if there's no further questions. So I'm going to move the port and we also have an addendum by the Green Group, which a the important thing to emphasise is this would be scenarios. It wouldn't be for a decision. So, you know, it would be information, but there wouldn't be any decision because it's part of the running the budget proposals. And so I think it's important to emphasise that. I think, you know, from that perspective, I think that one, two and three is generally, you know, how we approach things anyway. Although maybe not in as much detail as would have been liked in the past. I think four and five, that very much just picks up on, I think, work that we're doing anyway around the conservative amendment that was added to the administration budget about doing this review of the homelessness and homelessness spend. I'm wondering if five, four conflicts a wee bit with six, three. So, you know, I'll kind of take that as read, but neither are absolute. I think that for five, that would be working along with the Housing and Fair Work Committee that that would get put in place. You know, the timing and the process for the HRA budget. And we usually work with that committee on this. So, you know, up to that point with that sort of clarifications that I've mentioned, I think I'm fine. When we go to six, I'm not happy with six, one. I don't think that it's appropriate to be looking at, you know, setting down something like this about staffing. I just don't think that's appropriate. And we also, that was one of the things that we looked at in the previous budget and wasn't accepted. And it wouldn't be significant. The civic budget isn't significant in terms of the whole council budget. It's actually very, very modest, but particularly unhappy with the part about staffing. You know, going away on recess. So I'm not going to, you know, I'm going to recommend to committee that we don't accept that. I think on two, reprofiling of the roads budget, that's always something that gets looked at. And then it goes to the budget and then it goes to tech to make the decision. Because that's one that's really quite technical. You know, you get lots of reports on what road conditions are and what money might be available from SUSTRANS and other. So I accept that, but, you know, sort of limiting it. And then again, the three, the reduction in the use of consultancy and external agencies. I mean, that's something that's always ongoing. You know, we always look at that anyway. But again, balance it with, as I say, your own thing. You know, for five, you always have to consider whether their value for money or not. And I think that we do that. So, you know, I would limit that to see business that, you know, that's pretty much business as usual and what was asked for at the last budget. And the other ones I'm happy with because, you know, they're ongoing, they're what we do anyway. So there's a lot in that that I think is absolutely fine. But there's a 6.1, I'm just not going to accept that. I think for pretty good reasons. And yeah, so that's where I am at the moment. I'm obviously going to hear from your comments from other members of the committee as we go into the next stage. But firstly, Councillor Mumford, would you like to move your agenda? Thank you. Oh, sorry. Oh, process. Sorry, Councillor Griffith, would you please second that? Formally. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Mumford, would you move your addendum? Thank you. Thanks, Kavina. I feel in a slightly odd position proposing this when every item of it has just been gone through in some detail. So I will keep it brief, I suppose, seeing as people have heard about it from the negative. So, yeah, this is an amendment, an addendum in three parts. The first is looking at climate change. Of course, this came up a lot in, as you would expect from us, but it came up a lot in the briefings as well. And in conversation with Richard acknowledging that actually this is this is a big risk to the council that isn't necessarily sufficiently reflected. So, as you've said, Mandy, lots of it's already being done. I think point three is worth drawing out, because I think what we often see actually is that costs represented is for not is for not the best practice. And actually, it's the job of counselors then to say, OK, we want to add more money. And if we want to do it with suds or within the best way possible, actually, it should be the job of counselors, if they decide to to strip things out to make it less good. But what we often get presented with is not the best practice. And yet grateful for the points about homelessness is really concerning. And I think that they're you know, we need it's an issue, obviously, that housing, homelessness and fair work look at and they look at it very much from the end point. And I think we need to be looking at it from that preventative point, from the financial point, from the resources point. And so I think that's really important that this committee is is clued up on everything that it's you know, it does present the greatest risk to the council at the moment. Some of some of the pressure exists due to national legislation, but actually if we sort it out, the other problems which we can do through prevention, through looking at looking at I.J.B., through looking at reducing the risks of homelessness to people, then we can we can make more space to welcome people into Edinburgh, as we all want to do. And if we if we've managed to solve those cases of homelessness that are caused by by issues within the city. And on the point about the H.R.A., I think I think actually it's it's not done fully at housing, homelessness, fair work committee. And this is the problem. Sometimes it does fall between the cracks. And again, H.R.A. needs to look at the houses that are being sorry, housing, homelessness, fair work, look at the H.R.A. budget from the point of view of what is the rent increase? What's the impact on tenants? And what does this mean we can build? Again, I think there needs to be a step back and looks at how does the H.R.A. budget work or doesn't work in our view? And I think that's a job for finance and resources to look at actually how does this big chunk of council budget, which is just sort of person as an additional paper at budget time. Actually, that needs more eyes on it. And yet finally, on the list of proposals, that is absolutely, as you say, kind of what meant to be suggestions, proposals. I think in line with what Council Ross was saying, we need to be not make making sure things aren't off the table. Obviously, if it's for groups and for the council to decide what is included. But we need to be thinking outside the box a little bit. We need to be going, for example, looking at point four for their own spend to save, using that to the best of our abilities and making sure, again, things like climate, things like poverty, which require investment. But we know pay off if we invest at the right points can be done properly. Absolutely agree that we made. I'm not saying we need to ban consultants in external agencies. There is a place for all of these and homelessness could very well be one of those where external expertise is absolutely required. So, again, this is just asking that these are included in the range of proposals that the working group will be looking at. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Staniford. Thank you, Convenor. I was just going to second formally, but I do want to address a point you raised, which is that five four and six three seem contradictory. I would say that if six three was saying abolish the use of consultancy and external agencies, they would necessarily conflict. But obviously, as Councillor Mumford said, we aren't saying that. We're simply saying reduce. And it's perfectly possible to reduce overall use of consultancy and external agencies while recognizing that the introduction of external expertise may help in one specific area. So I don't actually think there's a fundamental contradiction between those two. And with that, I'll second this. Thank you. It's very helpful clarification there. Much appreciated. So I don't think there's other proposals. I'll take contributions. Yeah. Well, just before we move just to contributions, could I clarify what you were not taking from the green addendum, which points you were you're intending to drop? So I think that I'm very clear that a six six point one is I'm not accepting that. And I think six point two and six point three. And I think six point two, as I say, is absolutely a scenario. But it would be for tech and for the technical expertise to be fed into that. That, you know, there wouldn't be a position taken on in the report. And in six point three is, as we've heard, that's, you know, trying to maybe reduce unnecessary spend. Spend isn't value for money, which, you know, we try to do anyway, but just focus in. In fact, I think I recall the budget correctly yourselves had an amendment to that effect around procuring procurement and procuring external services. So, you know, with that kind of thing that, you know, it's not a decision. I'm OK with exception. And those those two just clarify. That's helpful. Thank you. I think we're. Oh, I'm sorry. We speak the same language, obviously. Sorry. Sorry, we do want to make a contribution case. Yes. Can we not think so? Could you just be very explicit then? Which you which points you are accepting of that. That'd be helpful for me. And so, yep, I'm not accepting six one. And I'm saying that in six two and six three, that making it very, very clear that we would be looking at scenarios. It's not a change to clearly not a change to decisions that were made at the last budget that were made to take. And going forward, my expectation would be that, you know, these wouldn't be for decision, they're for exploration. And it would be the decisions will come at budget time and through the executive committees. And that seems as. Yeah, I think we're content with the position. You find out if it's just six point one that you're dropping, given the provides and provides those that you've outlined there. So. OK, do we have any further contributions? I'll go back and just check with Councillor Mumford whether she wants to place with six one. We won't press. We'll just put it in our own budget. Thank you. Thank you. So I think that we're agreed on that. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. Move on to item seven point three now, which is our response to the Conservative group amendment. City of Edinburgh Council on 9th of May, 2024, 7.6, the passenger transport framework agreement. It's a report by the executive director of corporate services and Lynette Robertson is here to speak to the report. Welcome Lynette. Do you have anything you'd like to add to the report before we? No, nothing to add to the report. Hopefully you'll be happy to take questions. Yes, of course. Do we have any questions for Lynette? Thank you very much. It must be a good, clear answer report. And so with that, are we happy to agree the report? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Move on to item seven point four, which is the health and social care contract extension report. This report is the report by the chief officer for the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board and Moira Pringle is here to speak to the report. Before, Pat was very specific about sending his apologies for committee. And he had something that was absolutely unavoidable that he had to do. But Moira's here to speak to this. I don't know if you've got anything to add, Moira? No, nothing to add, but obviously happy to respond to any queries. Councillor Mumford. Thank you. Thanks for the report. Yeah, I had a question on four point seven. So just the the reason that it's a nine month extension is sought to allow sufficient time for this work to conclude while maintaining the level of service. So I just was after a little bit more information about what the what the conclusion of the work looks like and then what happens after March 25. Will there be a new contract in place and how will those families still gain support? Thanks. So if I can respond and convener through you. So the chief officer has commissioned a review of the service and it's that review that will inform the answer to your question, Councillor Mumford. So at this point, I'm not not able to be definitive, but we'll be working very closely with colleagues in education, children's and justice services who also fund an element of this contract at the moment. And convener, if I could just have a follow up. And thanks. So just is there a timeline on that review? Just when will the review conclude before the end of this contract? Thanks. I'll have to take that a week and come back if that's all right. Great. Thank you. I'm obviously just keen that we're not in a situation where there's two weeks before the end of March to figure out what's happening with for these families and with the service. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Mumford. Councillor Nicholson. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the report. Might be another one to take away for you, Moira, but we've just approved the prevention strategy and the draft IGB strategic plan, which is also underpinned by prevention. And so to this end and also understanding the complexities of working across the two directorates. I'm just keen to know how the work that we're already doing in house with our team, such as family group decision making Thrive teams, et cetera, are going to feed into this report as well, because a lot of the work that we're doing within City of Edinburgh Council, I think, would complement the work that is being done by this organisation. I'd like some just clarification that that will be part of the review as well. Responding again through you, convener. So there are probably a couple of things to say in response to that, Councillor Nicholson. Firstly, that this service is at the moment commissioned through the Edinburgh Alcohol and Drug Partnership, and they are currently working on their own strategic plan. And the points that you raised, I would expect will feature in said strategic plan. And then secondly, I will take it away and come back and confirm, but I would certainly expect that any review of this service doesn't take place in isolation, but does also meet the links that you refer to. Thank you, Moira. Are there any further questions? We're happy to agree the report. Thank you. Thanks, Moira. Thank you. Move on to item 7.5 now, which is the fourth Green Freeport non-domestic rates relief and retained non-domestic rates investment strategy report. It's by the Service Director for Sustainable Development. There's been an SNP group addendum, a Liberal Democrat group addendum, and a Green group addendum circulated on this item. And Ellen Williams will speak to this report. Hi. Do you want to add anything to the report? I don't think there's much to add to the report. It's perhaps just to be clear about the background to this report. I think some members might wonder where this is coming from. The fourth Green Freeport outline business case was approved by the Policy and Sustainability Committee in, I think it was October last year. And one of the requests that was made at the time was that the non-domestic rates policy and principles were to come to Finance and Resources Committee for approval prior to a full business case being submitted. The full business case is currently on track to be submitted to Policy and Sustainability Committee in August. Prior to that, we will make a data room available for elected members to review the full business case should they wish to do. And we should be communicating around that in the next few days, hopefully. But the main idea here is for Finance and Resources Committee to agree the principles around how we invest them and non-domestic rates that will be retained for the next 25 years as a result of inward investment into the Port of Leith as one of the tax sites in the fourth Green Freeport. And I'm more than happy to take any questions on any part of this. I should have. Kyle Drummond is hopefully going to come and join me shortly as well. He's been the one that's been working on the development of this. But between Kyle and I, we should hopefully be able to answer any questions that you may have. Well, we'll see if Kyle's joining us. But other than that, you'll need to give it your best shot, you look. Do we have any questions for you, Lynn? No? Smashing. Doesn't seem to be any questions for you. So that's a good, sort of clear report, thank you very much. And I think that we have, so we have an SNP addendum, a Liberal Democrat addendum and a Green Group addendum. And at this stage, I would move the report and say that with a bit of renumbering, I actually think that all three of the addendums are helpful and I'd be happy to accept all of them. And then I'll let Taylor sort out the renumbering. And I shall now go and let everybody, I will get Councillor Griffiths hopefully to second that. And then I will get everybody to move their, I was nearly went straight to the serbiology table, I'll let everybody move their addendums. Formerly convener. Thank you, Councillor Griffiths. Councillor McInnis. Thank you very much. How do you follow that? Just to say, first of all, we were very fortunate to have a really detailed conversation about this last Friday, and for which I'm very grateful to both you and to Kyle. Even though he won't hear that, thanks. I know that not every party was able to be there, but the addendum, sorry, that we've brought forward really emerged from that conversation. And it was about extending our knowledge as elected members around what the possibilities were on borrowing for future use against what was being represented in this report. So our addendum is very simple. It's really just looking for further information to come to us and that seemed to be agreeable in terms of the progress and to help us to understand further what our possibilities were as a council for how we could use these benefits. Simple as that. Formally. Thank you, Councillor Fiaggi. And then we'll go to the Liberal Democrat group. Councillor Uni. Thank you, convener. And yeah, I'd just like to also thank the officers for the really helpful conversation on Friday as well. It was really interesting to get under the hood. And I know you've done incredible work on this, not just on the NDR side, but the whole project. So thank you very much for that. And our addendum likewise actually came from that conversation. And it really is just to almost save officers some time, perhaps, because we often get things that are presented as approve this or don't right at the end of the process. And if I was thinking that if we can feed into the process and then more into the investment plans earlier draft stage, that might be helpful and we can help steer you where we might end up deciding it committee. So, yeah, very straightforward addendum. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ross. Formally. Thank you. And then for the green group, is it yourself, Alex? Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Stanford. Yes, that's me. Thank you, convener. Yes, obviously, Greens have made it clear. We don't think free boards are a good idea overall, but we accept that we have lost that discussion. So I wasn't going to rehash that again with an addendum. However, this does cover a five year period with regard to the Scottish government. In that time, there will be an election. We don't know how that's going to shake out. We've already had a change of leadership during the period that the Freeport has been agreed. So this addendum is just securing us to make sure that if the Scottish government changes its position, we won't be left with the bill that we can just withdraw from our end as well. So I think that's sensible. And I would also agree with you, convener, that all the addenda actually none of them contradict and all of them are useful. So very happy to go with what you've said there. With that, I propose this. Thank you. And Councillor. Formerly. Thank you. Thank you. So, as I say, I'm happy to accept all of the addendums. I think they're all helpful and sensible. And I'm wondering, is there any other position? It's not another position. It was a contribution. Oh, apologies. Yes. So I'm going to phrase this. This is really a question, but I'm sort of going to try and phrase it as a contribution. I agree with you that I think actually the addenda are all useful. And I do think that the green addenda is, you know, it's a good principle if we commit to something and that changes, there are changes out with us. Can we pull back from that? Now, that might be a decision that we can take, but the whole green forth port strategy is quite tightly bound. And obviously it's involves agreements between the Westminster government and the Holyrood government. So my question about this one, is this a decision that we can take unilaterally? In this way and whether it's competent or whether there's actually protection within the wider framework of the green forth, the fourth port. I agree the principle is sound, but I'm just not sure that we can take this unilaterally, given that this is like a tripartite. Well, it's more than a tripartite agreement, a multi-party agreement covering two governments. And whilst I know that technically one government can't bind the principle of a future government, actually, when there are agreements and there are funding agreements, that tends not to be the case. So that would be my contribution about whether that has been explored. I actually think that, because we can get officer clarification on this, if that's helpful, is this something that you can speak to? Yeah, absolutely. So we will include that when we bring back the scheme for approval in September in terms of the discretionary relief. But I think that at the moment, anyway, the legislation is very clear, this is part of the discretionary relief that all local authorities have anyway. And so from that point of view, my understanding is certainly that it will always be within the power of local authorities to say we will or we will not grant this. And I think it would make very much sense to include that in our scheme, saying that we will only grant this on the proviso, that we will be reimbursed by Scottish government, which is our understanding. So we will include that in the September report, absolutely, and we'll make sure that we've got that position fully clear. So I think that was helpful, useful clarification. With that, if we have no other positions, are we happy to agree the report with the three addenda renumbered by Taylor? Thank you very much. Thank you, convener. We'll move on to item 7.6, which is the review of missing share scheme and chargeable fees for major emergency building incidents. It's a report by the service director for housing and homelessness, and Jackie Timmons will speak to the report. Thanks, Jackie. Welcome to committee, and I know you've done a lot of briefings on this for groups and things, so thank you for that. And is there anything you'd like to add to the report? No, nothing to add. Happy to take questions. I've brought in my colleague, William Morrison, who's the finance lead for shared repairs. Do we have any questions? Councillor Ross, Councillor Muffat, and then Councillor Mumford? Sorry about that. Thanks, convener, and thank you for this report and these proposals. I may have missed a briefing, so apologies if I'm asking questions that you've already covered to groups. But in terms of -- I have a few questions, if I may. In terms of operating the scheme, your experience to date, the scheme works on the basis of a single missing share or up to three out of eight, for example, missing shares. You could find that the council is involved then in underwriting, in paying, and that it's not a single missing share in each case. But I imagine that's the majority of your -- in terms of applications, is that right? Just answer that one first. So for a missing share application to come to the council, the owners have to have taken a scheme decision under the Tenement of Scotland Act. So there has to be a majority agreement, and there also has to be the funds in place for the majority before we would accept an application. So in theory, you could have up to 14% of owners applying for a missing share, but we've not had -- I think the most we've ever had is two per tenement. Thank you. And that's -- if I may, convener, in that situation, the council's costs are borne by the missing shares, is that right? Rather than the majority who have contributed and to have agreed to proceed, is that right? So we would pay the owner's contribution. The owner who didn't pay their contribution, we would pay that and then add our fee to that. And then we would invoice the missing owner for their share and then pursue the debt recovery from that point. Thank you. That's what I thought. Sorry if I could convener, if I may. So one of the proposals is to limit the council's administration fee at 2,000 pounds, and I appreciate where you're coming from and why that's a sensible suggestion. But have there ever been any occasions that you could anticipate where 2,000 wasn't covering the council's costs? And how would you -- would you come back to committee with a proposal if that were to happen? I think every case is quite different case by case, but we haven't come across that situation where that wouldn't cover our costs. So we're quite comfortable with that at the moment. But, yes, if we came across really complex situations where we needed a lot of legal advice, for instance, or there was liability issues, then, yeah, we could easily review that fee again. If I may, my concerns are in relation to the additional scope that is built into these proposals for where dangerous buildings are involved. It strikes me as potentially technically complicated and may, therefore, involve a lot more work and time and could potentially, but you're able to say that's unlikely ever to exceed 2,000; is that right? I suppose at the end of the day it's still a tenement that needs a liability check, the costs need to be checked for reasonableness, and there are common costs as well under the Tenement Scotland Act. It's the same checks regardless really of the size of the issue, but, yeah, we have to allow a bit of flexibility in that that it might cost up to, I think we said, 30 hours in the report, and every case is different. But, yeah, at the moment we're comfortable that we didn't exceed that. Thank you. I have one other question, if I may, Camilla. In relation to the inhibitions, that's a route that has been taken, and I accept totally why you do that, and indeed it's very appropriate to do so. The legal position, though, is that inhibitions run out after 20 years; is that what you're saying in the report, and what happens after that? My understanding is they're renewed every five years, and I think they can be renewed after the 20 years as well, but I need to maybe take that away to Debt Recovery colleagues and just check that as a situation, yeah. Thank you. Obviously people own property for much longer than 20 years. Thank you. Councillor Myrick. Yes, thank you. I just had a question about the outstanding monies that were being owed. There's three invoices with quite a large outstanding, the 44,000. Are we confident of achieving realising those payments, and I'm sorry I missed the briefing as well. I can send the slides for the briefing out after two committees, that would be helpful, but there's a bit more context in there. Yeah, there's only three that are larger. They're all being pursued by Debt Recovery, and the oldest one is in a decreed situation at the moment, so yeah, we'll always secure that debt. We feel we'll always be able to secure that debt. Can I come back? The reason I asked, just because after the statutory repairs and the very outstanding sums there, if you could just describe how we're recovering those debts so that we don't get left with those outstanding sums. The preferred method from Debt Recovery colleagues is the inhibition route, and that is then registered on an inhibition register at Registers of Scotland, and that prevents a person, no matter what property, it doesn't have to be the property that's in the case of the missing share, any property that they own, it prevents them from remortgaging any property, so it will flag to a solicitor when that happens. So I think that's why it's preferred method for Debt Recovery, it will flag when an owner goes to remortgage or sell their property. Thank you. And Councillor Mumford. Thank you, thanks for the report and the briefings, and I suppose obviously lots of the conversation in the briefings and things focused on the rising of the cap, but actually the whole report is brilliant and showing that this is a great scheme and is actually making things so much better for people that otherwise wouldn't be able to get repairs, and obviously helping our tenements not fall down as well, speaking as someone who is currently ceilingless in the top floor tenement. But my question, and I know we've discussed it by email, but I'd be really keen to hear your answer here as well, is you've obviously made the recommendation about the cap on where the dangerous building notice, but are you content that the £20,000 threshold is right for this scheme? Is it pitched right? Should we be increasing that? Would there be other recommendations on this scheme you'd bring to committee? Thank you. I think the evidence that we have just now is enough, but we can always keep that under review. And this report is kind of limiting the financial risk for the council by only allowing that a potential to be changed when there's a dangerous building notice in place. So it's about support to the owners but balancing that with the risk to the council. But the evidence we have at the moment, we've had around four applications around the £20,000 mark, but only one was actually paid by the council, and that's actually been fully recovered already. So the evidence over the last seven years doesn't lead us to think that we do need to increase the general threshold for the scheme. If there's no further questions, just thank Jackie for the report and all the briefings. And I'm happy to move the report as it is. I think it's a good thing. I think this has made such a difference to tenants, to the conditional lot properties in Edinburgh. Just knowing that this is here actually sort of prompts people to get work done. And even if they don't ultimately use the mission share scheme, the fact that it's there just gives people that push to get things done. So really thank you for all your work on this. And with that, I'm going to move the report. And if Councillor Griffiths would like to second it, thank you. Formerly convener. Thank you. And I'll be happy to agree. I think we've actually got through quite a lot. I know it's a wee bit earlier than usual, but I'm wondering if this would be a good time to take a short break. Yep. So ten minutes. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move on now to item 7.7, which is the Convention Bureau funding report by the Service Director for Sustainable Development. There's an S&P group addendum and a green group addendum circulated on the site. And Ellen Williamson will speak to the report. Hi, Ellen. Do you have anything you want to add? Nothing really to add. It's just, again, to clarify this report is the natural continuation of the reports that were discussed in last F&R and consequently in the full council meeting as well. So it's just a short summary for a committee to get a point of view on how the Convention Bureau will be in housed into the council as of Monday. And a request for members to approve the allocation of the fund, the £150,000 funding. Does anybody have any questions for Ellen? So I'm going to move the report. I'm happy to accept the S&P addendum, which I think is very helpful. I think the first point one and two of the green group addendum is fine. I checked the three. We can get information about that, but the spend has already been approved by full council and so can't really accept it as it is because we wouldn't get a decision change on that. But I would ask that, Ellen, your team would keep us informed if you are going to go into that £72,000, what you're going to spend it on, and that you would send an email round the finance leads. Just for further information and feedback, that would be appreciated. So I'll just, with that, I will go to the Councillor Brackitis and ask if she would kindly move her helpful addendum. Oh, I need a seconder. [Laughter] Councillor Harris. Formerly convener. I keep missing that bit. I'm so excited about people's addendums and amendments. I just can't wait. Councillor Brackitis. I'm glad one of us is excited. Again, the addendum I brought forward emerged from the useful conversation that we had on Friday around this. I think we probably all recognise the fact that we've got a bit of a transition period for this function as we've taken it on from EICC. And I think we're all kind of a bit anxious about what happens in this transition period ahead of the next year's budget when groups can decide how much they want to support it. So we just felt it was helpful to reinforce that point and to see that what we want to do is to have a very clear bit of feedback coming back to us to enable the elected members in the different groups to understand better what this transition period has looked like. Recognising the fact that it's not going to be up to full strength, but trying to understand two important points. What is our understanding at the end of this year about potential for this function, this in-house function, and what they're likely to be delivering for the city? But also, much more importantly, one of the points that emerged in the previous committee discussion when the decision was made to bring it in-house, which is about the additional support that we can expect from the sector. Because I think it's fair to say that there was a bit of concern on the committee about the balance between public sector funding for this and funding from the very sector that will benefit from the work. So that's why we thought it was helpful at this point to request a report before the end of this calendar year. It could be a briefing, it could be put in a report, it obviously depends on what kind of timing you need to get up to speed with the function. And I appreciate there's the issue of recruitment and so on that's going on at the moment. But it's just to say that as a committee, we would like to see that sort of line in the sand so we understand exactly what we're doing before we go into the budget process. That's all. Thank you. Seconded? Formally. Thank you. And we'll go to the Green Group to move their addendum. Making a, Councillor Mumford? And I noticed that you've put in a change. Taylor, have you been able to circulate that? And we are happy that that's fine. Yep. So, notwithstanding that we'll get an email ahead, this would just make sure that it was reported in a business bulletin afterwards. But I'll let you move it and speak to it. Councillor Mumford? Thanks, Kavina. Yeah, thank you. I'm very supportive of the SMP amendment on this as well, addendum on this as well. And yeah, thanks for all the work and the paper. It's really, really good to see that things are progressing. Although, yeah, obviously, it's been an additional challenge for officers and really appreciate both the work here and the willingness of EICC to work on these short timescales. And this is just really meant to say that it's been really clear where the other two bits of funding have come from and what they're going to be used for. And just to note that £72,000 was approved by full council but isn't currently earmarked, although there is some things in the paper that it might be used for. So it's just suggesting that F&R can keep an eye on that money and taking the point from the convener about it wasn't intended to reverse that decision of council. It was intended to say, but, you know, if that money isn't needed, so if it is needed, let's get approval. And so I would like instead to change the wording from asking that a paper must come to F&R for approval to an update must be provided in the business bulletin of the following F&R committee. And just so we're all up to date on what's going on with that. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Stanford? Just formally. Thank you. Everybody happy with that? Yep. Happy to agree that. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thanks. Thank you. Move on now to item 7.8, which is the new Liberton High School and Health Centre proposed lease to NHS Lothian. It's a report by the executive director of place and Crawford McGee will speak to the report. Aye, Crawford. Do you have anything you want to add? I just want to clarify in terms of the finance section. The health centre element is a capital requirement just under 3.9 million colleagues in finance have confirmed that rather than extra borrowing being required to fund that, that will be covered by the developers contributions in the overall project. That really means that the rental income is income rather than be netted off against extra borrowing costs, but that's only point I'd like to clarify, but happy to take any questions. Councillor McInnis, Councillor Ross. Apologies, by the way, I think my mic was still on from that last point. First of all, thank you very much for the report. As a ward Councillor for this area, I can tell you that I'm delighted at the prospect of another NHS facility there is much needed in the area. And we have very severe pressures on NHS facilities in that sheet. But I did just want to ask about the point you've just made Crawford about developers contributions and that would seem very logical and so on. But were there any other plans for developer contribution use before this came up? Because I'm concerned about the impact that it might have on other local developments that could have benefited from those developer contributions. The developer contributions specifically that I've been talking about here are those that are contribution to the Liberty High School project. So in effect, that means that it frees up the council capital to then be funded, fund other projects further down the line. And in this case, the element would be covered by the contributions that is actually one hundred and twenty thousand pounds worth of those contributions are for health centre facilities. And that in terms of the the LDP, I suppose the developers contribution guidance wasn't as sophisticated as we're trying to make it in the city plan now for for health contributions. So we want to be a lot more specific in the future about what would be education contributions and what would be other types of contributions. A fast follow up as well. And I know obviously the fact that NHS are suggesting for what for them is an affordable forty five thousand pounds per year lease cost. And I note also it's due to be reviewed every five years. But do we have a come do we have an understanding of how that compares to other facilities that NHS pays for through rent in either another local authorities or here? I just want to make sure that we're getting sort of value in this in terms of the income. I don't know if Peter might want to add what what we do, what we have checked is that if we were to lease the space to another use, it would likely be a use that would be a third sector organisation a bit along the lines of the team around the learning community work that's been done at Liberton. And we certainly wouldn't achieve any more rent than this for that space of approach. I've certainly not done the analysis with other local authorities where NHS are renting facilities, mainly because up until now there has been a direct capital contribution from the government. And we're in this situation because that wasn't available. Councillor Ross. Thank you for the report. To follow on a couple of questions, if I may, on that question from Councillor McInnis about the rent, it doesn't give an indication in the report for a full market rent might be. But if you can give me a clue as to broadly how close the 45,000 is in those terms, that would be helpful. And my other question, if you if I may also put this in the second person is in relation to the length of tie in that the NHS loading might have to the health centre. Do we know from information they may have provided that they are actually able to staff it for as soon as they get access. Answer the second part. First, they are absolutely they've guaranteed in writing that they will be able to provide the practice to the to the facility. They are in discussions of the local practice, which is very close to the site. They have said and committed that if it isn't that practice, it will be another practice because of the desperate need for GP facilities in the area. I'll hand over to Peter on the more difficult question. Myself and Graeme McGarland did have a lengthy debate about whether it would be put in what is full market value and the challenge you've got here is, as Crawford has alluded to, market value is a product of demand. And given where it's located and the use is located beside that demand would have to be restricted to something that is compatible with a school use. And therefore, we concluded that whilst the 45,000 is based on what the NHS can afford to pay, that it's not actually that much less than what we would get if we market it in the open market for the simple reason of location and demand. So you might, if you open something to competition, something might offer you 55,000, but the only way to prove that is to actually market it. So we were bordering on saying that in the report, but we kind of pitched it a different way and said that, you know, we wouldn't achieve much more or the chance of achieving much more in the open market would be would be limited. Thank you. There's no further questions. Oh, sorry, Councilman. Yeah, sorry. I mean, this is essentially a capital loss to the council because we were going to have this funded. So we would have had developer contributions, plus the capital contribution from the NHS to provide their services. So whilst everyone's agreed that it's good that we will get a service and NHS practice in a much in an area where there's great practice, we have lost 3.9 million pounds of capital expenditure by the non funding of this from the Scottish Government. So I just wondered, how are we dealing with this because that has an on cost to us, because even if it's covered by developer contributions, there's another part of that development that we're borrowing that isn't is now on our books. So, have we made any appeal to the Scottish Government? Are we keeping a note of this? Are we, I mean, you know, as we said, discussed in the previous items, things change, governments change. And I just really think we shouldn't let go of the fact that we've stepped in to fund a much needed service, because we are fortunate that we can do it. But I don't think we should ignore the fact that we are carrying now 3.9 million pounds more borrowing than we would have been if that capital contribution had come. So will we be keeping track of this? Should we hit better times ahead to say actually we'd like that compensated because that should have been an NHS payment? I'll give you my understanding and Richard might want to come in. That was kind of the point I was trying to make at the start, is that although that we are, because we're not borrowing to fund this extra 3.9 million, in essence, the 45,000 pounds a year, which will go up as it as the rent is reviewed, is actually income to the council, which is slowly but surely paying off the off the debt. Now, I appreciate that that would be over a long length of time, but we've got to hope and this is one of the reasons why we are recommending we do it because of the joined up public sector use that that service is going to be in there for a long time and that school building will be there for a long time. So that's kind of my understanding why this is there, along with the market evidence that Peter suggested, this is the best recommendation that we can put forward to you. But yeah, I do appreciate the point that you're making. We will keep in touch with the Scottish Government. We're doing more than the developers contributions front, etc. And hopefully there will be more of these types of facilities across across the city where we'll need to be more robust in terms of our commitments that we get right at the start of the design process for for the building, rather than, you know, pushing it as far as we did. Just to add to that a bit if I can convene it. So what we're trying to do through through Crawford's work is to make sure that when there are new developments happening that we do see this kind of multi agency approach I think everybody sees that as both good for public service and good for value for money. And we've had myself Peter Crawford or the colleagues have had lots of conversations with HSL and, you know, it's apparent that they have nowhere near the capital allocations that they were hoping for and expecting. And, and we honestly had a conversation we said, Well, does that mean that these some of these ideas just have to hit the buffers. Can we not find another way of doing it and and what Crawford set out to you today is, is a kind of another way of keeping these ideas in very difficult financial times but I think your suggestion Council as it were of keeping a tally of when we've had to do this because that that does need to be conversation between local government and national government about moving forward with the essential public infrastructure to keep both existing communities, supported in the way the council and the kidneys has described and particularly where there are new developments you'll know this council from your, you know, role on planning and development management sub to make sure that the essential public services can underpin new development now, you know, just saying okay right as a check has has not worked in this case because they haven't got it. So we've come up with a plan B but but kind of keeping hold of these were being asked by Scottish government civil servants for examples of how we're trying to make things happen, and I think as it were keeping a tally of that is it is a good idea. I think making things happen. We're all agreed with joined up public services were all agreed with that efficiency and not maintaining so much building a full space, but what we can't allow this to become is where other government agencies, just transfer all the risk costs onto local government because it's not as if we're awash with cash you know we've just done the multi budget, we're looking at our midterm financial plan. So we can't be seen because someone else is hard up so I think if we're going to do this and that's to enable these things to happen which is a good thing. We still need to say, actually, here's the check, and if the NHS hasn't got a central government's going to have it because we can't afford to constantly do this so I think it's really important that we do keep with very aware of those costs and have them to hand whenever we're engaged in those conversations that you're having with with civil service. Thank you. If there's anything further, I'm happy to move the report. Councillor Griffiths. Second, formerly. Committee agree. Thank you. Thank you, we'll move on now to item 7.9, which is the fire safety upgrades multi story blocks award of contract, which is a report by the Service Director for Housing and Homelessness, and Graham Reid and Michael Kelly will speak to this report. Just thank Graham and his team for, I think it was three or maybe even four briefings that you did on this in the run up to committee because it is an important report and want to reassure tenants that, you know, things are good, just now, but, you know, we want to improve them and make them even better. But I'll let you speak to your report, Graham, if you've got anything to add. Thank you. Thank you very much, convener. No, I don't have anything to add. One thing I would say is we, yes, we did, I think, four briefing sessions. There were a slide that did go along with those briefing sessions, so if it would be helpful for any members that didn't manage to come along, I'm more than happy to share those after committee, if that would be our help. But yeah, I've nothing else to add to the report and happy to take any questions. Are there any questions for Graham? Councillor Nicholson. Hi, thanks for the report and for the briefing. It was really helpful. My question is, how are we going to capture the potential community wealth building aspect of the direct awards and is there a way to build that into some kind of maybe business bulletin or something afterwards to update us on how beneficial it's been? Because I think the new direct award way of doing things sounds really optimistic for local communities. Yeah, there's a lot of detailed information that we've got that we are expecting the contractor to deliver through the contract. Initially officers will be making sure that we're meeting with the contractor on a regular basis through the monthly contract management meetings and all the KPIs, including the community benefits aspect of the contract, will be actively discussed through there to make sure that all those key commitments are being delivered through the contract. So that's a given and I would be more than happy to provide a business bulletin. I don't know, you could give me an idea when you'd like, maybe once a quarter or every other cycle, bring a business bulletin so that members are able to see those are actively being fulfilled as the contract progresses. If that would be helpful, I'm more than happy to do that. I think that sounds really helpful if everyone else does. Thank you. Yeah, I think that would be good too, Graham. We'll put it on the business bulletin, going forward, if there is something to update and then I think we maybe get an annual report about all the benefits that comes from contracts and it would go into that as well. So thank you. So with that, I will move the report and do you have a seconder? Yes, formally. Thank you, thank you. So move on now to item 7.10, which is the internal audit open and overdue internal audit actions performance dashboard as at the 29th of April, 2024. So a referral from the Governance Risk and Best Value Committee and Brendan O'Hara will speak to this report. So if it's okay, I'll come in first, members. Sorry, I'm getting a wee bit of feedback. So just to let members know, this is the referral from the 29th of April, so it is a bit of a historical position. For members for this committee, for the remit of this committee, in Appendix 2, it's actions 1 and 2, which is related to the housing revenue account audit that we did. And item 7, which is related to the Edinburgh Alcohol and Drugs Partnership actions that are overdue. All these actions have a proposed date of the 31st of July, 2024, and the most recent update, the internal audit has provided an appendix. So Brendan's here to answer questions on actions 1.2 related to HRA. Colleagues have any questions? And I believe we've got Moira here as well from the partnership to answer any questions on the EADP action. Thanks, Laura. Are there any questions on this report? Not seeing any, because it's a really clear report. So thank you very much. And so I will move the report and ask Councillor Griffith to second it. Formerly convene. Thank you. Committee happy to agree that? Thank you very much. So we now move on to the routine, which normally, but I believe that Hannah Ross has got a seminar that she needs to go to. And she's going to be available to answer questions on 8.5. And I'm wondering if committee would be happy for me to take that one. We usually take them by exception, but I go to this one first, just in case there's any questions for Hannah. Yeah. Thank you. I think that this the contract is recommending alpha BT civil engineering who recently constructed CCW. There's been significant amounts of complaints about the this when it was under construction, about how the project was managed and also about the finish of the construction. They are, as I discovered last night, the road is closed for five nights this week because they're having to redo a whole lot of work. So given the significance of this sum that we're approving today, how are we going to manage this so that we don't have the same sort of. I mean, the pavement undulates the whole way along West Coast, where it's been taken up and relayed. And the cycle later the same and got complaints about drainage and, you know, the whole project was just it. I've had more complaints about it than I think any other project that has been been happened. So how are we going to ensure that we don't have that level of delivery, given it's the same contractor? And so I think that on the contract has been selected through the procurement process for the framework, which has included quality and scoring in order to make sure that we don't have the same issues that you're describing. We will work with Balfour BC and we do have a period of kind of pre-construction at this stage where we'll be working with them on any value engineering opportunity. And also to make sure that we've got the right project management in place, both at the contractor and, of course, importantly, at the client. And I'm very happy to and to discuss that with you on the particular issues you're talking about on the other project so we can understand what that is and seek to avoid it. And Councillor McInnis. Thank you, Convenor. Just picking up on the points that Councillor Mout was making there. I've had some approaches from other councillors to talk about the issues attached to CC Well and Balfour BT about the lack of communication or effective communication with local community. And I just wondered whether or not that's something you're particularly aware of in this particular contract. And can you make specific provisions around it to ensure that we don't have the same kind of issues as occurred on that previous project? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor McInnis. And since this project, since the CC Well project has been on site, we've actually now got a new role in my team, which is head of stakeholder and communications. And that role, the person appointed to that role is Chris Wilson, who you know, and who performed that function on the transition to New Haven project. And I'll be speaking to Chris about making sure that we utilise his expertise to ensure that communications are good. And obviously, Chris is already known to some of the businesses and individuals who are along the route of the least connections project through his work on transition to New Haven. So there is a new role, which I hope will help to deal with some of the issues that you're talking about. I mean, I think when a contractor is doing a major project, having them have a community liaison person to work with, with somebody on our team is, you know, really valuable. And I would hope that Balfour Beattie are willing to, you know, make a commitment to doing that just as part of this. Yeah, I'll double check that Councillor Watt, it would like you be my expectation that they have a community liaison person. But I think what's also important is that between us as council and the contractor that we kind of have a single, a single face of the project. So people know when they've got concerns or complaints that they've got a single point of contact to deal with, rather than having a situation where contractors ask them to come to the council or councils asking them to go to the contractor. So that we've got a single route for issues. And that's obviously what Chris's expertise is in. Good. That's appreciated. Thank you. Are there any further questions for Hannah or can we get away to our seminar? OK, I'll move the report and Councillor Griffiths. Formerly. Thank you. Everybody agreed. Thank you. Thanks, Hannah. Thank you very much for taking me out. I appreciate it. Thank you. So we'll go to item 8.2 now, because there's a Green Group Addendum to this item. So it's item 8.2, the Procurement Delivery Plan for 2024-25 June Update. It's a report by the Executive Director of Corporate Services. As I say, Green Group Addendum has been circulated and Lynette Robertson will speak to this report. Hi again, Lynette. Is there anything you'd like to add? No, I mean, the 8.2 report is obviously the regular update on projects that we're working on that will be making their way to committee at some point over the next few months. And that's telling committee members time to ask any questions or pick up on any issues around those at an early stage. What I would say is that in September, we'll be bringing the annual procurement report and that will report on 23-24. Our strategy is in its final year of delivery and we will be starting work on our new strategy. We've penciled in a start of that consultation at the end of August-September. I know that members are keen to be involved in that and we are happy to engage earlier than the wider consultation hub type exercise we would normally carry out, but that's all to add. Thank you. Do we have questions for Lynette at all? Thank you. So I'll move the report and in doing so, I'll say that I'm happy to accept the green group addendum, which I think is helpful and forward looking. Councillor Gravis, I remembered this type. Formerly Kavina. And then Councillor Malford. Thank you. Yeah, thanks Lynette and thanks Kavina. Yeah, very brief. I had email conversations with Lynette about this and know that there are plans for the strategy and appreciate that the strategy is largely led by the legislative framework, but there are procurement has been raised many times in this committee, both in terms of how we can use procurement to further the aims of the council, but also how we can be scrutinizing and ensuring that the council is using it in the best way. So, yeah, just keen to make that a little bit more formal. And so we've got the paper coming anyway. So just suggest I'm very happy for these to be rolled in together. If that's best for officers, however works, just that we'll look. Yeah, as you say, a little bit forward looking at how that how that strategy will be and will be developed and what the spaces are for member engagement and that. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Staniford. Formerly. Thank you. Is committee happy to agree with the report with the agenda? Thank you. And then the rest of the reports in this section we usually take by exception. So let me know if there's any that you have a questions or proposals on. No. So can we take the rest of a section eight routine as agreed by committee? Yeah. Great. Thank you. Thank you. So in that case, there is nothing at Section 9 on the agenda. Section 10 is a resolution to consider in private rest of the items. So the committee is requested under Section 54 of the Local Government Scotland Act 1973 to exclude the public from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they would involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs eight, nine and 14 of part one of schedule 70 of that committee are in agreement. We're happy to take the following items in private. Thank you. So I will just ask the ask for the webcast to be stopped and anybody that's not.