Interactive webcast player

Cabinet
Wednesday, 29th July 2026 at 7:30pm

 
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

of this meeting.
We've got everyone in attendance,
so no apologies today, thank you.
Do we have any declarations of interest
relating to the items on the agenda tonight from colleagues?
None, great.
Councillor Hoag, Councillor Ireland, welcome.
I'll kind of set out my thoughts,
these are the first one we've done of these
in terms of how I think we ought to run it using the planning applications committee
as a model, if that's okay with you.
So each paper we'll take in turn, I would ask that you keep your remarks to the subject
on the paper rather than generic remarks.
Up to five minutes, how you want to divide that five minutes is between you.
I'll then ask one of the relevant calendar member or whoever to reply to you and then
we'll move through each paper in turn taking a vote in turn.
So ultimately if you want to speak on each item, that's five minutes per item, you may
wish not to and you might have very specific items you wish to speak to on the agenda,
just catch my eye and we'll take each one in turn.
that gives you a right to come and make your points as you see fit and then get a reply
from the relevant cabinet member.
Does that seem fair and I hope reasonable?
And that's how we'll do it going forward.
Yeah, that's very much appreciated, Councillor Hogg, Leader of the Opposition.
Yeah, don't intend to speak on every item and we'll certainly stay within five minutes,
but no, very much appreciate the opportunity to contribute.
In that case, let's get to the first item, which is Agenda Item Number 2, Housing Management
Annual Report.
I'm guessing, Councillors, Organile, and this probably isn't one you're looking to speak
on.
In that case, all those in favour?
Agreed.
Item 3, Private Rented Sector Offer Policy Allocation Scheme.
Councillor Hogan, island, is this one you'd like to speak on?
Okay, over to you, Councillor Hogan.
I mean, happy to hear the discussion between cabinet members first, but equally happy to
go first as well.
I'm sure we're aiming towards ever more concise papers with sort of clear actions.
I don't know if this one's quite got there, so I just had a couple, I'd read it through
but I wasn't entirely clear on what the policy was.
So just a couple of questions for the cabinet member.
Just checking, is the council keeping its consent policy on placements outside Greater
London?
And second, when a PRS, when a private sector placement
is made and the duty is discharged,
will our residents be able to keep their general needs
cue points that they already have?
Could I just, a clarification on the second question.
Could you repeat that last bit?
Is that related to the housing allocations?
Yeah, yeah, their allocation points for the,
queue that they're in. Okay, thank you chair. I will introduce the paper and
just say a few remarks and I'll address Councillor Hogg's questions directly
within those. Just wanted to set a bit of context for those observing this meeting.
The council has a huge temporary accommodation spend crisis and this
isn't just a financial cost management issue.
It's a very human issue as well.
And there's a lot of sad storeys about people
who have been let down through their experience
in temporary accommodation, which is of course
a statutory requirement for the council to provide
to those who need it as defined in the law.
This council is spending nearly £40 million per year and rising, and that is general fund expenditure.
So actually, as that keeps rising, it means the council can do less and less and fewer and fewer of the services and things that ordinary residents want the council to be focused on in a positive way, and provide the services that they cherish.
About three quarters of that spend is paid nightly accommodation, which is a huge proportion.
And it's really terrible that people are being kind of housed in bed and breakfast.
And whilst obviously there's good reason that that happens, it's not a position that I think
anyone on this council wants to see continue.
And this isn't just a Wandsworth issue either.
across London we're spending five million pound a day on temporary accommodation which is significant.
And these costs, speaking about Wandsworth specifically, represent a 700 % increase since
the start of the decade. We urgently need to get a grip on temporary accommodation expenditure.
And just thinking about the kind of human impact of this, and this goes to the housing allocations
that was raised.
People are spending about eight years on the TA books,
on average.
Temporary accommodation is not something that you're in
for a very short period of time before you can access
council housing or social housing.
It's a very long term predicament that people are in.
And for every 10 people who come into the system,
you know, we're only getting worn out at the moment,
or roughly speaking,
and it's about 4000 people on the books.
So it's for that reason as well that we have to get a grip on temporary accommodation, helping people into secure housing solutions as we do so and improving the financial resilience of the council.
So the administration is looking at a number of measures and levers that we can use to
tackle the temporary accommodation challenge and the private rental sector offer is just
one of those.
And what I would like colleagues, those contributing to the meeting to consider is this is just
one of the tools that the council can use in order to support people into secure housing,
which I know is a shared ambition across the council.
Wandsworth currently houses very few people in the private rented sector from temporary accommodation.
It only happens where people agree voluntarily to be housed in temporary accommodation.
And this is really because of a number of perverse incentives or maybe miscommunication
and mismanagement of expectations about how, frankly, how likely it is people are going to be able to secure
social housing. Wandsworth is very much an outlier in this and there are
councils across London that are already using the PRS offer that we're proposing
that we bring in as one of the first acts of this new administration. So I do
kind of commend this paper to the meeting I think it's a really important
one. Just on the first issue first question that was raised at the start of
item on placements outside of London that we want to take as flexible an approach as
possible to solving temporary accommodation. There are actually almost certainly examples
given the huge number of people in temporary accommodation who might value being placed
outside of London and you know for example you could have people who are currently housed
in very cramped conditions, overcrowded conditions who might value actually having a placement
which costs less money but results in more space for them outside of London.
So very much, very keen to take a maximally flexible policy in order to tackle this financial and human crisis.
On the housing allocations, we will bring forward proposals in due course relating to housing allocations and how the waiting list queue is managed.
We do what our intention is to avoid baking in the wrong incentives into the steam.
we don't want to do what there is evidence of at the moment,
which is where people are actually almost incentivized
to make themselves homeless,
because they feel that it might result in
a greater chance of securing social housing
in the near future.
We all know the reality is that isn't the case,
so we will be bringing forward proposals to address that,
but that isn't at the core of the PRS offer.
The core of the PRS offer, to summarise,
is that the council will seek to house people
in private rented sector placements,
where possible, where appropriate,
and where there's been a needs assessment.
And then people will, if all those cheques are passed,
they will have to accept that,
and then the council's legal obligations, at least,
will fall away, in respect to temporary comedy.
Thank you, Councillor Connor, your five minutes are up,
so that the same will apply for both sides.
Councillor Graham.
Yeah, very quickly.
Just to reiterate Councillor Corners' point,
is it working?
I don't know if, ah, it is working now.
Just to reiterate Councillor Corners' point
that costs in relation to temporary accommodation
on the general fund have been rising exponentially
over the last few years, gone past 30 million,
approaching 40 million.
It's not possible to continue on the current basis.
We have to look at what other boroughs, including labour boroughs,
have done around London and bring our policies into line with the London norms.
As Council Corner pointed out, each case is assessed individually.
So in relation to the point on paragraph 22 of the policy,
it makes it clear that it's not a blanket policy in that every case will be assessed individually.
But more broadly on Councillor Hogg's second point,
part of the issue is that temporary accommodation has been seen as a route to a secure council tenancy.
And actually, there shouldn't be that link.
It shouldn't be seen that if you get temporary accommodation, you're on some sort of guaranteed pathway towards having a council home.
That is one of the associations that we need to actually get away from.
Make sure that we meet our obligations and we get people into more appropriate accommodation than the temporary accommodation they're in now,
but not see this as a conveyor belt towards a social tenancy.
Thank you, Councillor Graham.
We're going to move this to a vote.
All those in favour?
Agreed.
Item number four, I'm guessing this might be one Councillor Ogg, you definitely want to speak about, you've got five minutes.
If it's okay if I could ask Councillor Ireland to kick off.
And I think Councillor Gasser wanted to join us as well this evening, but I guess she's
running late.
But if it's all right, if Councillor Ireland could have the first half and then I'll contribute
to the second half.
We're very happy with that.
Thank you.
It's just clarification points really.
Councillor Gasser, welcome.
I explained the rules at the beginning, but as I just said to your colleagues, we're going
to do this a bit like we do on the Planning and Applications Committee, item by item,
between the three of you, you have five minutes to speak.
I'll let you know when we're coming to the end of that five minutes how you divided it
is between you as an opposition.
We're on item four, the crisis allocation fund.
And I think Councillor Ireland is going to go first, but entirely up to you.
Yes, so it's just clarification point really.
So thinking about the food vouchers, you know, additional advice is really useful, but it
doesn't compensate for the food vouchers.
And you've stopped the food vouchers very quickly.
There hasn't been enough notice for people to get used to the idea.
and I'm just wondering why you think that that's appropriate and how you expect people to manage.
And I noticed that the crisis of resilience fund is designed to help with financial shocks.
Something goes wrong rather than an ongoing we don't have enough money.
And I'm just wondering whether you consider losing the food,
food, holiday food vouchers and uniform vouchers could be deemed as an unexpected financial
shock or crisis.
And I also have a question about the real living wage because if you look at the table
on page 74, and I beg your pardon, item 7 on page 74 talks about guaranteeing spend
for 26 -27, but that there will be a review of expenditure for 27 -28.
So then turning to the table on page 77, Appendix 1, it's got to be over 95 % of the spend is
about paying for the contractual, to maintain the Council's commitment to contractual real
living wage for outsourced workers, and some of these are the lowest paid, and they do
work for the Council.
So, I heard the previous leader say at council that he did support the real living wage.
I just would like to make sure that I don't understand why it isn't explicitly stated
in the report that you will commit to paying it from after March next year.
And I just want to make sure we're talking about the real living wage rather than the
lower national living wage.
And I'm not having a pop at anyone here.
The reason that I really would like this cleared up is because when we debated and voted on this in the Finance Committee in December 2022, the then minority party abstained on it.
So that's what I've got to say. Thank you.
Yes, thank you. I mean, you know my views. I'm very worried about this.
I think we are throwing off some of our most vulnerable families off a cliff, and it wasn't necessary.
The guidance could have allowed us to carry on with food support vouchers in the holidays, at least for a while.
But anyway, we are where we are. You're making this decision.
So I just need some reassurance about how you will work with the voluntary sector going forward, listening to their concerns.
I know they're telling us already that people are coming to them in crisis and that families are finding it really difficult to apply to the Crisis Resilience Fund, well, crisis funding.
Now, there's lots of forms to fill in, there's lots of hoops to go through, it's really hard
and these are families in crisis.
So just, I want it to be as easy as possible for families, please.
And also that you work with the voluntary sector.
Ask them how is it going, the food banks, the other organisations that support them.
So I just need that reassurance.
Thank you, Councillor Gasser.
Councillor Hogg, you've got three minutes left.
Thank you very much.
Sorry, there's just some air conditioning malfunctioning in here.
We'll just say the anti -poverty strategy is welcome and we look forward to working on
that over the coming year, but obviously the cuts to the cost of living work, you know,
is just to put extra money, couple of extra percent in reserves, is not in line with one's
worth of values.
you know, the cuts to domestic abuse services
are going down very badly with residents
scrapping refugee support and threatening the free
gym and swim under the access rule scheme,
also very unpopular.
Judy's covered, sorry, Councillor Gasser's covered
the cuts to the food vouchers,
which is already causing real hardship.
And you can see from the equality impact assessment on this
exactly who's been hit by this.
And it doesn't even pretend that that impact
is being mitigated, it's awful.
And it does send that signal that the most vulnerable
are first in line to pay the price for the budget challenges
we face, which is not acceptable because the cost of living
crisis is still there for too many families.
These do look like careless and vindictive cuts.
But also, they're a false economy.
As we saw earlier in the meeting,
when someone becomes homeless and we
have to provide temporary accommodation,
That can be 10 or 15 ,000 pounds per person.
So this is foolish and a false economy and I think it should be reviewed and reversed.
Thank you, Councillor Graham.
I'm guessing you'd like to respond.
You've got five minutes.
Thank you.
So first of all, just on the real living wage, the only reason there's a reduction in the
negotiated and brought into the new position all the time so that it this will taper away
This is a revenue that's being provided to top up existing contracts as contracts are renewed
So that real living wage comes into contract and therefore that that money falls away
So there's been no diminution of that commitment or change in policy on that and it's been
Just moved over as a budget variation to make sure it comes from base day -to -day budgets rather than being funded out of reserves
Which it should never have been in my view
In relation to free school meals holiday vouchers, so first of all, the government initially
removed both the ability to fund free school meal vouchers through the CRF and the budget.
It then, quietly but without telling anybody, added some temporary ability to fund those
vouchers, but strongly discouraged it within its guidance and still didn't provide any
budget to actually fund it.
So in particular, the guidance that the DWP has put out says that rather than going for
a blanket approach like free school meal vouchers, authorities instead focus on those most in
need.
And by doing that, authorities can provide more targeted, holistic support.
And if anyone does provide free school meal vouchers, trying to provide free school meal
vouchers using the CRF, they say that DWP may seek extra information on how this is
actually supporting the Fund's aims, to the point that our officers summarised that
DWP do not consider vouchers to all free school meal eligible families to be in line with
the aims of the CRF Fund.
Moreover, were we to try to introduce the policy as suggested, we would actually come
up against the position that DWP's expectation is that any blanket free
school meal vouchers provision should not continue beyond the end of the summer
holidays. In other words, even if we manage to rustle up 1 .3 million pounds
from somewhere and it's not been provided by the government, it would
be against the rules to continue that provision at any point after September.
And I'm not clear from listening to the opposition whether they think that it
It should just be this summer holiday at 1 .3 million, or 13 weeks of all holidays at 2 .8 million,
which would be 3 .1 million from September, and then funded presumably out of this council's revenue,
rather than the CRF because the government is removing that ability from September and in effect has already removed it.
So I simply don't understand their policy on that.
The reality is that we have a fund where we have to provide, under the DWP rules, crisis payments.
We have to provide resilient services and move towards resilience, and we have to provide community coordination.
We cannot do that, given what they've set out, if we start to use this money for vouchers as well.
The budget simply isn't there to do it, and they have not explained where it's coming from.
What we have done is set out an alternative package to help families,
including 77 ,000 on Magic Breakfast Holiday Packs, 90 ,000 on the food pantry offer,
and 200 ,000 pounds on additional holiday activity and food scheme places.
And that, over the course of a year, will produce an additional 7 ,400 places,
of which there will be 4 ,400 during the summer months.
So we are simply dealing with the position that we have been given by the government,
where household support funding has gone.
A much more limited and restrictive crisis and resilience fund has been introduced by the Labour government.
and we have to operate within that envelope.
There is no alternative to that unless somehow the magic money tree is going to provide it.
Thank you, Councillor Graham.
If there are no further comments from cabinet members.
Cabinet is asked to approve the return of the 6 .2 balance as at the end of 25 -26 financial
year from the cost of living reserve to the financial resilience reserve and formally
close the cost of living reserve as outlined in section three. We're asked
to approve the revenue budget variation of £2 ,084 ,500 in 2026 27 only to
deliver the projects previously outlined linked to the cost of living
reserve a set out in appendix one. Um, note that the spending for the seventh
and final transfer of the household support fund has summarised in section
Section 4, approve the allocations for the first year of the crisis and resilience fund
as outlined in Section 5.
And finally to note that the proposals for the development of a borough anti -poverty
strategy as outlined in Section 6, including consultations in the autumn of this year,
is that agreed?
All those in favour?
Agreed.
Thank you.
We move to item number 5.
I wonder if any of the opposition members present wish to speak on this.
I guess not, in which case we'll move swiftly to item six, which I guess you may well wish to do so.
Who would like to kick off first?
Sorry, yes, sorry, my fault.
On item five, all those in favour, agreed.
My apologies for that.
Item six then, in which case opposition members who would like to go first.
Councillor Hogg.
Thanks, Chair.
I'd like to make a few comments on the spending review, because it is a sort of slightly strange
misleading paper as we discussed at length, real length.
At full council the other night we faced challenges, but not a crisis.
This council is in a very strong position.
It has high reserves.
it has low debt and a lot of trust from the public.
It just isn't credible to pretend we need to dive
into an austerity approach.
It's not right to cut services, fire staff,
cancel investment in new housing,
and potentially high -cut council tax.
Because most residents are just bemused by the idea
that this is a sort of terrible place to live
with a council that has no money.
I mean, you have to take people with you on these journeys.
I saw today Tory Westminster had a scheme called Your Budget, Your Choices where they're
engaging with residents and I think they had more than 30 hours of public consultation.
They face serious reductions in government funding like we do. 30 hours of public consultation
over the summer on these sort of decisions. And I think the equivalent number for Wandsworth
is zero hours of consultation with the public and I think it has just been one person sweating
alone in a room trying to put this thing together.
I think we can include all councillors, and I think we can certainly include the public.
So I'd encourage the leader.
I'd ask him if he intends to keep the monthly public meetings that we found so useful.
We could get around every ward every year by doing that.
And yeah, let's involve the public and all councillors if we can, because I think we've
We've got to a point with some bizarre proposals
and bad publicity and frankly a lack of progress.
So if we can reset, I think we can work together
on some serious proposals.
I say bizarre.
You'll have noticed even before the AC malfunctioned,
it's 33 degrees in the town hall today.
And the council's decided to scrap sensible plans we had
to look at other office accommodation elsewhere.
That's gonna cost you a six figure amount.
And I think after another few days like this,
realising that trying to attract top quality talents
and making them work in this, is it Edwardian building?
I'm not quite sure.
But in those sorts of temperatures,
you know, that is a bizarre proposal.
You believe that a billion pound organisation
should have a comms team of four people.
You believe it's strange if the leader
wants to send out thank you cards.
So we have this on record, and obviously you'll
resign if there is renewed spending
on those unnecessary items.
We talked about the bad publicity
that this has attracted in terms of not just
our voluntary sector partners, but campaigners
on domestic abuse issues, refugee.
We've got fantastic refugee infrastructure in the borough,
but they're quite concerned.
Scrapping the youth bus just sends the wrong signal.
People don't feel they voted for this.
And there is a real lack of progress.
Sort of while we're sitting there having these discussions
over the cost of t -shirts or some merchandise,
no progress at all has actually been made
on the vast challenge we have with adults,
with children, with temporary accommodation.
You'll notice we didn't oppose the proposals earlier
that are a sensible first step,
but you'll know that that will help you
with less than one million pounds
of the tens of million pounds that you need to get to.
So please don't think you've been accelerating change.
Officers are actually slowing down from where they were.
So this attempt to recreate the council circa 1985
is childish, because that world doesn't exist.
We can't just turn back the clock.
We need a growth, openness, and fresh talent mindset,
not a closed and backward -looking mindset.
And someone sweating alone in a room,
trying to reverse every single decision that's
been made over the last five years.
Just to note, the plans outlined this evening still intend to use reserves while we move
to a more sustainable footing.
That's the plan we had.
But we need, you know, this plan is very similar to ours, but with less reform, more service
cuts, more bluster, and it looks like more council tax rises.
So as I say, I do feel there's a better way.
Let's engage every councillor.
Let's engage every resident.
Because to meet the scale of change we'll need will have to be done cross -party.
But to do that, you will have to change direction.
These cuts are just not working.
They appear vindictive because they are.
And I do think we need a reset.
But there is a big challenge ahead.
But I just finished where I started, which is we actually begin from a really strong
position.
We're a trusted council, significant reserves, very low debt.
that we have time to make the transition we need.
Let's not waste any more of it just trying to aggravate each other and going down this
one -way road.
Let's work together on the serious proposals for transformation that we need.
Thank you.
That's your remarkably bang on time.
You asked me a question first, and then I come to cancer gramme.
Yes, to the engagement, I'm very happy to engage
the public all of the time.
I think some of it is slightly disingenuous
when you know we're in PIRDA at the moment.
We couldn't do that.
We couldn't even tell people what we're going to do
in advance of that PIRDA stuff.
So I think you'll see some communications
after the 27th of August, which I think
would allay some of your points.
I am super keen to get out, meet people, meet residents.
I'm going to do a walkabout of some wards on Friday,
for example, so we're not shying away from that.
And I also don't think, going back to 1985,
is what we're after either.
I personally was four then, that's not where any of us,
and Councillor Brooks is laughing
because he wasn't even born.
So that is not where we're looking to go.
And I think it's a slightly strange attempt
to characterise as backward, which is not real.
But anyway, Councillor Graham, I'm sure you've got some specifics about the numbers.
Well, yes.
I mean, first of all, to Councillor Hogg's idea that we somehow have time because we have reserves.
If we do nothing, those reserves will have gone within two years.
There is no time to avoid having to get to grips with these decisions.
The reality is, and these are based on the labour budget passed in February, figures directly derived,
that if you exclude the council tax increases that they assumed, the budget gap next year is 96 million,
rising to 145 million, rising to 168 million, rising to 184 million by 2030 -31.
We inherited a transformation programme that was targeting a mere 45 million in
efficiencies and identified seven. So I'd like to ask Councillor Hogg, you talked
about your budget, your choices. These are your budget figures, so what would your
choices have been.
You can respond if you really wish.
I won't because I will, but only briefly because I know I'm a guest and I do appreciate the
format, but I think one of the transitions that can be difficult when you come into power
is realising you're responsible for the decisions.
You can't just turn it around and throw mud at the opposition and sort of shout down anyone
who disagrees with your assertion of the facts.
We'd set out how through growth, through greater efficiency,
through use of reserves and the sound financial management
which had seen us balance budgets and freeze
the main element of council tax for the previous four years,
we were gonna follow through on those plans.
As I say, the core of which you're now taking,
I don't think vindictively scrapping the youth bus
to save 0 .001 % on top of that is an edifying thing to do.
But you suggest this is vindictive and somehow efficiencies would cover it.
The figures are 184 million by 2030, 31, of which you were only trying to say 45 million.
You talked about having left plans.
You're the one accusing us of unnecessary actions, of being unnecessary alarmists, Stephen,
of making cuts that we don't need to make, of suggesting that there's an urgency that
isn't there.
What on earth is the basis for your assertions?
You say you left plans, there were no plans left behind
apart from a £45 million target and a £7 million saving figure.
What would you have actually done? Because it sounds to me like you have no clue.
Councillor Graham, you've made your point.
Councillor Crivedi, I think, wants to come in on a specific point about the Youth Bus.
I don't want to make a point about the Youth Bus.
The situation is that the service that the Youth Bus provides is not being taken away.
What's going to happen is it's going to be spread over the family hubs.
So the situation is right now, any of the facility that's provided by the bus is in
effect going to be repurposed within the Youth Club's Family Hub service, the HAF programmes,
and other parts of the youth service that we have.
So we're not in effect withdrawing the service.
All that's happening is it's being repurposed.
It's not a case that what's going to happen is that the youth services that were provided
by the bus are withdrawn, they're still going to be there over the three family
hub clusters. Briefly, Councillor Gasser, if you want to respond to that specific
point. Yeah, thank you Councillor Grelli. That's good to hear but it's not
enough because there's only three of those family hubs. They are wonderful but
if you don't live anywhere near you're not going to go there. If you're a young
kid it's not safe to travel at night and you won't feel like it anyway.
You know, there's one hub in Tooting. If you live in my patch in Fersden it's a
way to go. If you live the other end of Tooting, it's a long way to go. People won't go. The
whole joy of the youth bus, it went to where the children were, in the parks. That's what
was so good about it. It was outreach work, so then you could signpost people into the
family hubs and the other services.
Can I respond to that?
Yes, of course.
That's been recognised about the links between the outreach work, because it's not just the
family hubs, it's also the youth clubs as well. What we're trying to do is we're trying
integrate the youth bus into our cluster based model so that we can deploy it more flexibly.
It's not about taking the service away.
I think we've heard this point both now and also considerably as was already mentioned
at full council, right?
Cabinet is asked to note the activity already undertaken within existing delegations to
to reduce the spend across a number of areas as highlighted in this report.
To note the commitment to improving the cleanliness of streets across the borough through enhanced cleaning and
enforcement activity funded by refocusing existing resources where possible and
where they will have the greatest impact, to note the commitment to invest in police officers to be funded in the current year from
and so available for a review of the currently approved schemes which will
be released back into the end support to note that the action to disband the
leaders office team to reduce costs and removed duplication to note the intention
to bring forward proposals for the concert
all the nation of the office compa office accommodation into the town hall
campus to note the intention to undertake a full review of the capital
programme to reduce the level of borrowing currently being relied on and to present that to cabinet
in September where no doubt we will have an opportunity to discuss that.
To approve the ring fencing of the access for all cost of living and borrow sanctuary
funding ports with all remaining balances returned to reserves and noting the ongoing
review of those areas to ensure activity remains affordable and delivers on the council's priorities.
to approve the removal of the schemes listed in paragraphs 3 .28 and 3 .29 from
the council's new build programme and to approve the discontinuation of the youth
bus service approved that the Bradstow school land and buildings be decayed
surplus to requirement and that the authority be granted the council's
freehold interest for the best consideration reasonably attained is
Is that agreed?
All those in favour?
Agreed.
Thank you.
That concludes the business for the agenda as before us today.
I just make one point especially to the opposition members of future meetings.
You may well have some quite detailed questions you want us to pick up in the future.
we would welcome if you want to share them either with me or the relevant cabinet member in advance we will try
Wherever reasonable to answer those
It probably didn't apply a great deal to some of the matters
But I'm sure going forward that would both aid us in giving you an answer and get you the answers
You're seeking on behalf of your residents. So
Hopefully that is clear
In that case, colleagues, thank you and I formally close the meeting.