Agenda item

6.1  Some members had not received a copy of the draft report until that morning and the sub-committee agreed to discuss any initial views and consider a revised draft more fully at its next meeting.

6.2  The sub-committee agreed that the following recommendations were in need of revision:

  Recommendation 5

6.3  Some members took the view that bars should not be available at any T&RA hall and other members felt that decisions about this should be made on individual merit.  Some members felt that it would be useful to have sight of the regulations in respect of the two bars currently in operation.  It was also suggested that there could be equality issues, for instance relating to religion.  In view of the difference of opinion amongst it was proposed that this recommendation be deleted.

  Recommendation 6

6.4  The chair explained that a tenancy at will agreement was not possible in respect of an organisation and that the recommendation needed to be amended to take account of this.

  Recommendation 7

6.5  Members of the sub-committee agreed to the principle of halls with greater revenue potential demanding higher rent but were of the view that the detail of this required further thought and officer advice.  Account should also be taken of the size of T&RAs and of whether T&RAs were newly formed.

  Recommendation 9

6.6  A member suggested an addition to the recommendation with a view to new residents automatically receiving information about their local T&RA.

  Recommendation 13

6.7  Members emphasised that the whistle blowing process needed to be very clear and to specify the role of officers and to include a role for councillors.

  Recommendation 14

6.8  It was agreed that this recommendation be amended to specify a maximum number of key-holders.

  Recommendation 15

6.9  Members suggested that a threshold for single signature be recommended, above which multiple signatures would be required.

  Possible Examples of Fraud

6.10  The chair reported that he was awaiting advice on the best way to reflect the examples of fraud that the sub-committee had considered in evidence.