Skip to main content

Meetings

Meeting Details

Council
10 Oct 2017 - 19:00 to 22:00
  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Declarations of Interests
  • Visitors

Documents

Agenda

Standard Items
1 Apologies for Absence
1
Apologies were received from Councillors Anand, Byrne, Cogan, Khan, G. Stafford and Walker.
2 Urgent Matters
Any urgent matters arising since the despatch of the agenda that the Mayor has agreed should be considered at the meeting.
2

Councillor Gordon moved a procedural motion to change the order of business. Councillor Shaw seconded the motion and after a vote it was agreed.

Note that the subsequent minutes will reflect the order in which items were taken at the meeting though the item numbering of the agenda will remain.

3 Matters to be Considered in Private
3
There were none.
4 Declarations of Interest
To note any declarations of interest made by members
4

Councillor Dheer declared an interest in public question b as he had two relatives who work at Villiers School. 

- Minutes
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18th July 2017.
5
The minutes of the meeting were agreed.
6 Mayor's Announcements
6

The Mayor announced that he was pleased that Ealing had received the British Hallmarking Council Touchstone Award- which is for the quality of  Ealing's Trading Standards Team in relation to checking Assay marks so that people can have confidence at buying genuine gold and silver in the Borough.

Noel Hunter, Chairman, British Hallmarking Council presented the award and said a few words. He was accompanied by Robert Grice, British Hallmarking Council Member.

 

The Mayor  also reminded Council of his charity quiz at the Plough Inn on 31st October and this his Christmas event would be a prestigious event in Perivale.

7 Petitions from Members of the Public
Submitted under Council and Committee Procedure Rule 9.
7
There were none.
7A Public Petition for Debate

A debate under Rule 9.3 for a petition with greater than 1,500 signatures.

The debate concerns community safety issues around the Marie Stopes Clinic in Mattock Lane W5.
7A

Anna Veglio-White presented the petition which stated

 

“This petition calls for Ealing Council to end the persistent presence of the anti-abortion vigil outside the Marie Stopes Reproductive Centre on Mattock Lane, Ealing.”

The debate on the petition was merged with the debate on motion 11.2. At the conclusion of the debate on the petition Councillor Dheer replied

 

 Mr Mayor I raise to formally note the petition brought to us by Sister Supporter - ably and convincingly put by Anna this evening.Sister Supporter will have seen the debate tonight and will, I hope, have been heartened by the level of support in coming to a resolution to the untenable situation in Mattock Lane.I look forward to the vote shortly, but first wish to thank Sister Supporter for the work they have done to put this issue on the map, not just in Ealing but nationwide.Garnering nearly 4,000 signatures on any local issue is an incredible feat and they should be congratulated for tapping into a sense and feeling amongst the community that has clearly been long held and is firmly represented here this evening.

 As the Cabinet member responsible for community safety let me reassure her that I, and this Labour Council, will do everything it can to push for a viable and proper end to the intolerable presence of protesters we see outside the Marie Stopes clinic on Mattock Lane.

 They have called for a PSPO - and this is one of several options I and ward Councillors will insist are properly and thoroughly explored before we make a decision.

 But a decision will be made.

 I will keep this Council and Sister Supporter fully appraised of our intentions going forward.

 The residents of Ealing have my word – we will do everything we can to end this blight on our Borough.”

 

8 Petitions from Members of the Council
Submitted under Council and Committee Procedure Rule 9.
8
Councillor Busuttil presented a petition concerning parking problems on the Beaconsfield Estate.
9 Questions from Members of the Public
Submitted under Council and Committee Procedure Rule 9. To consider any questions from members of the public, due notice having been received.
9

 a)    Ms Maya Mailer of Newland Gardens, W13 (on behalf of the parent committee, Friends of Fielding) asked the Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People:

 

“Can the portfolio holder explain the council’s policy on academisation and its views on how a school should consult with the parent body and local community when it plans to convert to an academy?

Would the council reassure us that it would do all it can to ensure Fielding Primary School consults appropriately, both in terms of the quality and length of consultation, with parents and the local community over its plans to become an academy/multi academy trust?” 

 

Councillor Rai replied

In principal the council is opposed to academisation, however we appreciate that we work in a very complex education landscape, where failing schools are forced into academisation by the current government. 

We therefore do oppose in principle, good and outstanding schools converting to academy status as this can weaken the community of schools in the area.

Ealing’s family of schools have seen significant improvement in the number of good and outstanding schools in the borough which is supported by strong local services and networks between schools and the LA. 

Compared with national comparisons, a much higher proportion of schools are maintained schools rather than academies in this borough which reflects well on the services and support provided in Ealing.

We would welcome more good and outstanding schools, such as Fielding, playing a role in supporting schools in the local area. 

 

She answered a supplementary question.

 

b) Ms Keran Gill a business owner of Greenford Road UB6 on Language Learning at Villiers High School to the Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People

 

“During the last academic year approximately 55 students of Villiers High School chose to study Punjabi. On the contrary, this academic year it has been reported that only 13 students chose the option to study Punjabi. This sharp decline is quite alarming considering Southall has a large settlement of Punjabi speakers. Can you please explain why this sharp decline has not been investigated?”

 

Councillor Rai replied

We have a very diverse student population at Villiers High School.  More than 16 languages are spoken at home.  

I and my fellow councillors have taken an interest in exploring the school’s change in policy on the provision of modern foreign languages in Year 7. 

But in July 2017 the GB decided for the first time, to consult directly with parents on the model of language provision in Year 7 – being mindful of both budget pressures and parental choice. 

 The full GB agreed that the curriculum offer in Year 7 would be based on parental choice from 2017 onwards. 

Up until 2017, there had been no direct consultation with parents and so the historical provision of Punjabi and Urdu in Year 7 had not been reviewed. This explains the difference in numbers.  

170 parents submitted a return on their choice of language for their child in Year 7 2017 – 2018 in early September 2017.

This was a higher return than expected.  The choices were:

55 French

60 Spanish

13 Punjabi 

12 Urdu

30 Additional English 

It was therefore agreed, in line with GB decision, that Punjabi would not be provided within the curriculum model for Year 7.  

The school will consult with parents every year and re-instate Punjabi and Urdu if there is sufficient demand.  

These two languages continue to be offered at GCSE where there is sufficient demand.  

There are currently Year 11 classes studying Punjabi and Urdu and a Year 10 class studying Punjabi at this level.

Mr Gill, thank you for raising the question.  I hope my answer addresses your concerns and agree with me that parental choice is an important factor in this decision

 

She answered a supplementary question

 

c) Bela Cunha on behalf of Ms Giuseppina Ortu-Bonasera of Ash Grove W5 on the Terms of Reference of Gunnersbury Park (2016) Community Interest Company to the Leader.

 

“Will the Council modify the Terms of Reference of the Community Interest Company  to allow representatives of formally constituted community associations to  join the Board of Directors as permanent (volunteer) members of this Board and able to vote in the decision making process, and ensure that agendas and minutes of Board meetings are made regularly publically available?”

 

Councillor Bell replied

“Thank you for your question and for showing an interest in what’s happening at Gunnersbury.

It’s a large and long overdue project and needs to be achieved in a way which is sustainable.

£60m will be invested over the project by 2026. We are currently in phase one which includes restoration of the family mansion which houses the museum and will completed in 2018 and the £14m sport centre.

In terms of future management of the park we are looking to design a new approach so future generations can discover and enjoy it whilst it becomes financially self-sufficient.

In 2014 we began exploring different ways of management and both Councils agreed to create a Community Interest Company (CIC). In addition we established a charity to support the restoration to provide independence from the Councils involved.

However, the two Councils will continue to have responsibility for leading the restoration project.

It is not proposed to change what the CIC is supposed to do, but I have listened to your plea to have local residents more involved and I know the new Chief Executive is open to this idea and we do want to recognise the contribution of residents and the work of the Friends of Gunnersbury Park.

The new CIC Chief Exec is having formal meetings with residents and local people interested in supporting the park and that will continue and in future as things evolve around the project I am sure there will be way to involve residents and make sure that we have that key voice of local residents present.

Councillor Bell answered a supplementary question.

10 Questions from Members of the Council
To deal with questions of which notice has been given in accordance with Rule 10 of the Council and Committee Procedure Rules.
10

1. Councillor Malcolm asked the portfolio holder for Transport and Environment

Could the portfolio holder please detail the current number of electric charging points in Ealing? And how many does he predict there will be by May 2018?

Councillor Mahfouz replied

As at October 2017, there is currently a total of 36 EV charging points located within Ealing at 8 locations. 

The Council has, however, secured significant funding from London Council’s Go Ultra Low City Scheme (GULCS) to implement a minimum of 30 additional locations equipped with EV charging points powered off lamp columns.

Councillors Malcolm and Millican asked supplementary questions

 

 2. Councillor Kelly asked the portfolio holder for Children and Young People

Can the portfolio holder tell us how many Ealing Schools have defibrillators on site?

Councillor Rai replied

There are currently 31, but under a ground-breaking scheme between Labour wards and the Leader’s office we have found funding to place an AED in every school in the Borough – free of charge and they will be delivered shortly.

Councillors Kelly and Seema Kumar asked supplementary questions

Councillor Conti asked the portfolio holder for Community Services and Safety

What is the council doing to help protect the Northfields and Ealing Common SNT base following plans by the Mayor of London to close it?

Councillor Dheer replied

The current MOPAC proposal to close a number of front desks across Ealing (and London as a whole) is one part of a wide ranging review of services as seeking to deliver a £400 million pound savings programme in coming years.  

As part of this process Ealing Council has contributed its views as a partner consultee, which has included concerns in relation to travel times and access for vulnerable residents wishing to personally report crime.  The Council is also concerned that older and less IT enabled residents will find it more difficult to access Police services and therefore it is concerned about the potential negative effects this may have on the current successful partnership working that a move to a single 24 hour station in the borough may create.

We do have sympathy with the challenges faced by the Mayor and the Police, and share the priority to keep Londoners safe.  Recent tragic events have illustrated the need for mobile and agile policing across the capital, and therefore we recognise the ambition to move to a more flexible and visible approach to Policing, creating a more mobile local policing arrangement.

The Safer Ealing Partnership (and the Council) will continue to seek opportunities with local policing teams to share premises or locally based spaces to deliver more joined up local solutions for residents across Ealing.

We are lucky that Ealing is a Safe place to live and work, and we have a mature relationship with our police colleagues sharing intelligence, co-located teams and share priorities and we will ensure whatever happens we protect what is exemplary practice in the interest of all residents, ensuring we continue to reduce crime and the fear of crime for everyone.

Councillor Conti asked a supplementary question.

At this point the guillotine fell.

Motions with Notice
To deal with motions where notice has been given in accordance with Rule 11 of the Council and Committee Procedure Rules
.
11.1 Shadow Cabinet Motion

“Tackling Air Quality - A More Effective Way”

Proposed by: Cllr Greg Stafford

This Council wholeheartedly supports measures to improve air quality and removing from the roads, those vehicles that contribute disproportionately to air pollution.

This Council was therefore pleased to note that on 26 March 2015, Mayor Boris Johnson confirmed the introduction of the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) from 2020 and an increased fund of £65 million to help support London taxi drivers’ transition to zero emission capable taxis.

This Council however regrets that Mayor Khan now intends to bring:

a)          extend the Ultra-Low Emission Zone to the North and South Circulars; which will cut Ealing into two and means residents non-compliant cars will either have to purchase new cars or will have to pay £12.50 each day they cross into the zone.

b)       bring in the Central London ULEZ a year earlier in 2019 rather than 2020; and

c)        impose a new T-Charge on the poorest motorists this year.

This Council does believe tackling poor air quality should be a priority for the Mayor. Unfortunately, the policy changes Sadiq Khan plans to make will overburden London’s residents, businesses and emergency services who per information received through freedom of information, have responded to the current public consultation as follows:

The Metropolitan Police:

•    They need to replace 82 per cent of their entire fleet in order to meet emissions standards;

•    That despite a replacement programme, financial restraints mean that by 2020 they will still have 800 non-compliant vehicles facing daily charges;

•    Tight budgets mean they are unlikely to be able to replace the vehicles early.

The London Fire Brigade:

•    If the ULEZ is brought forward to 2019, they will have 52 non-compliant vehicles on the road facing daily charges of £100 (due to its large fire appliances size) – potentially costing half million pounds per year; this is the equivalent cost of hiring 23 trainee firefighters.

The London Ambulance Service:

•    They need to replace 828 diesel vehicles and 27 petrol vehicles before the fleet is ULEZ compliant;

•    They will have to modify their replacement programme if the deadline is brought forward as it will not be anywhere near compliance in 2019.

The Federation of Smaller businesses have indicated that their members also face the prospect of their suppliers refusing to serve London with damaging consequences for jobs, business viability and the economy as a whole.

This Council therefore recommends that the Chief Executive write to the Mayor and make the following points:

1.           The Mayor should not go ahead with the implementation of the T-Charge in October. TfL have admitted that it would have a “negligible” impact on air quality, but it will cost the Capital’s poorest motorists £23m per year in additional road ‘taxes.’

2.            The Mayor should revert to the initial 2020 Central London ULEZ start date rather 2019.  Not only would early implementation be costly to small businesses, it would also affect our emergency services, who will now be have to pay Sadiq Khan up to £100 each time their emergency vehicles enter Central London.

3.            Instead of the expanding the ULEZ, the Mayor should spend £30m out of the £780m saved on 1,363 new rapid charging points for electric vehicle, which would allow vehicles to be charged in minutes rather than hours. The Mayor is currently only funding 150 such points, which is not nearly enough to match the Capital’s growing demand.

4.            The Mayor should also use £680million of the money saved from scrapping the ULEZ expansion to purchase 2,200 hybrid buses, which would reduce emissions by an equal amount to his plans, but would not impose additional charges on motorist.

5.            The final £70 million of the monies saved should be used to purchase at least 140 zero-emission, hydrogen buses to use on London’s most polluting roads. Buses are the most polluting type of vehicle on our roads. The Mayor should replace his fleet as a priority.

 

11.1

Councillor Young moved the motion

Councillor Sumner seconded the motion

Councillor Blacker responded

Councillor Tailor responded

Councillor Ball responded

Councillor Sumner responded

Councillor R. Mann responded

Councillor Mason responded

Councillor Proud responded

Councillor Bell responded

Councillor Roz Reece responded

Councillor Gulaid responded

Councillor Young summed up.

 

After a vote the motion was lost.

11.2 Other Motions for Debate

Councillor Rai to propose

 Ealing Council notes the 3,593 residents who signed the Sister Supporter petition and the dozens of letters from residents on and around Mattock Lane who report a “detrimental effect on my quality of life” as a result of disruption and distress caused by the protesters.

This motion is explicitly not one for or against abortion, which is available in Great Britain in the circumstances laid out in the Abortion Act 1967. It is a motion that seeks to protect the rights of individuals from harassment and intimidation when accessing legally existing health services and of local residents not to be exposed to related disruption and distress on a daily basis.  

Many protesters use deliberately disturbing and graphic images and models, including those purporting to be of dismembered foetuses. They also distribute leaflets containing misleading information about abortion, and often follow, record and question women as they enter or leave the centres. Significant numbers of women report feeling intimidated and distressed by this activity as they try to access a lawful healthcare service in confidence.

The right to protest needs to be balanced with the right of pregnant women to choose and to obtain advice and treatment in confidence and free from intimidation. Those who wish to campaign to restrict women’s reproductive choices have plenty of opportunities and locations in which to do so. The area outside a clinic need not and should not be one of them.

Equally, local residents who live on Mattock Lane and surrounding streets should not have to be exposed to constant nuisance, disruption and anxiety caused by such protests on a daily basis.

This Council commits to fully explore every possible option and will take all necessary actions within its powers, utilising all necessary resources, to prevent anti-abortion protestors from intimidating and harassing women outside the Marie Stopes Clinic on Mattock Lane.

The Council will do this to provide the necessary reassurance and security that all women need and deserve as they make their own personal decision about their pregnancy and to defend the quality of life of those residents living nearby who pass the clinic on a regular basis.

11.2

Councillor Rai moved the motion in her name and an amendment to the motion.

Councillor Shaw seconded the motion and the amendment

 

Councillor Conti responded

Councillor Jones responded

Councillor Bell responded

Councillor Millican responded

Councillor Steed responded

Councillor Murray responded

Councillor Raza responded

Councillor Young responded

Councillor Mason responded

Councillor Shaw responded

Councillor Johnson responded

Councillor Theresa Mullins responded

Councillor Dheer responded to the petition (see response above)

Councillor Rai summed up.

Members rose to call for a recorded vote.

 

After a recorded vote the motion was agreed

For

Councillors Ahmed, Ahmed-Shaikh, Aslam, Bagha, Ball, Bell, Blacker, Busuttil, Camadoo, Conlan, D. Crawford, K. Crawford, Conti, Dhami, Dheer, Gavan, Gordon, Gulaid, Hynes, Johnson, Jones, Kang, Kaur – Dheer, Kelly, Seema Kumar, Mahfouz, Mahmoud, Malcolm, G. Mann, R. Mann, Manro, Martin, Mason, McCartan, Midha, Millican, Mohan, Joy Morrissey, Theresa Mullins, Murray, Murtagh, Nagpal, Padda, Proud, Rai, Raza, Roz Reece, Rodgers, Sabiers, Sharma, Shaw, Steed, Summers, Sumner, L. Wall, R. Wall, and Young.

 

Abstained

Councillors Dabrowska and A. Stafford.

 

No Vote

The Mayor

The motion, as amended read

 

Ealing Council notes the 3,593 residents who signed the Sister Supporter petition and the dozens of letters from residents on and around Mattock Lane who report a “detrimental effect on my quality of life” as a result of disruption and distress caused by the protesters.

This motion is explicitly not one for or against abortion, which is available in Great Britain in the circumstances laid out in the Abortion Act 1967. It is a motion that seeks to protect the rights of individuals from harassment and intimidation when accessing legally existing health services and of local residents not to be exposed to related disruption and distress on a daily basis.  

Many protesters use deliberately disturbing and graphic images and models, including those purporting to be of dismembered foetuses. They also distribute leaflets containing misleading information about abortion, and often follow, record and question women as they enter or leave the centres. Significant numbers of women report feeling intimidated and distressed by this activity as they try to access a lawful healthcare service in confidence.

The right to protest needs to be balanced with the right of pregnant women to choose and to obtain advice and treatment in confidence and free from intimidation. Those who wish to campaign to restrict women’s reproductive choices have plenty of opportunities and locations in which to do so. The area outside a clinic need not and should not be one of them.

Equally, local residents who live on Mattock Lane and surrounding streets should not have to be exposed to constant nuisance, disruption and anxiety caused by such protests on a daily basis. Further, staff at Marie Stopes and all women’s health clinics should be protected from bullying and intimidation at their place of work.

 This Council commits to fully explore every possible option and will take all necessary actions within its powers, utilising all necessary resources, to prevent anti-abortion protestors from intimidating and harassing women outside the Marie Stopes Clinic on Mattock Lane.

The Council will do this to provide the necessary reassurance and security that all women need and deserve as they make their own personal decision about their pregnancy and to defend the quality of life of those residents living nearby who pass the clinic on a regular basis.

11.3 Motions not for Debate

Fair Tax Mark

Councillor Johnson to propose

This Council notes that tax evasion and avoidance are having a damaging impact on the world’s poorest countries, to such a level that it is costing them far more than they receive in aid. It is also costing the UK as much as £30 billion a year and this practice also has a negative effect on small and medium-sized companies who pay more tax proportionately.

This Council further notes:

  • the UK Government has taken steps to tackle the issue of tax avoidance and evasion by issuing Procurement Policy Note 03/14, which applies to all central government contracts worth more than £5m
  • the availability of independent means of verifying tax compliance, such as the Fair Tax Mark
  • in early 2015 new regulations required public bodies, including councils, to ask procurement qualification questions of all companies for tenders over £175,000 for service contracts and £4m for works contracts. However, these questions are not as detailed as the PPN 03/14.

This Council recognises:

  • Under the Council's current procurement policy, all suppliers bidding for contracts above £175,000 with the London Borough of Ealing are required to self-certify their tax compliance status in line with central government practice, using the standards in PPN 03/14.
  • That any supplier that has any occasion of non-compliance with last 5 years is excluded from the Council's procurement procedure, unless it has since fulfilled its obligation.

The Council resolves, from 1st January 2018, to:

  • Work to incorporate co-operative values and principles when planning services and in its engagement with local residents.
  • Publicise existing co-operative good practice within the council and across the London Borough of Ealing
  • Audit our contractors and suppliers on how many meet the Fair Tax Mark standards, pay the Living Wage.

This Council therefore resolves to promote its current procurement policy and encourage partner organisations to undertake similar approach. This Council asks the Cabinet to report on the promotion of its policy and on progress to obtain the Fair Tax Mark to Full Council annually.

 

11.3

Councillor Johnson moved the motion

Councillor Shaw seconded the motion

Councillor Malcolm moved an amendment to the motion

Councillor Ball seconded the amendment

After a vote the amendment was lost

After a vote the motion was agreed.

The motion read

 

This Council notes that tax evasion and avoidance are having a damaging impact on the world’s poorest countries, to such a level that it is costing them far more than they receive in aid. It is also costing the UK as much as £30 billion a year and this practice also has a negative effect on small and medium-sized companies who pay more tax proportionately.

 This Council further notes:

the UK Government has taken steps to tackle the issue of tax avoidance and evasion by issuing Procurement Policy Note 03/14, which applies to all central government contracts worth more than £5m

the availability of independent means of verifying tax compliance, such as the Fair Tax Mark in early 2015 new regulations required public bodies, including councils, to ask procurement qualification questions of all companies for tenders over £175,000 for service contracts and £4m for works contracts. However, these questions are not as detailed as the PPN 03/14.

This Council recognises:

Under the Council's current procurement policy, all suppliers bidding for contracts above £175,000 with the London Borough of Ealing are required to self-certify their tax compliance status in line with central government practice, using the standards in PPN 03/14.

That any supplier that has any occasion of non-compliance with last 5 years is excluded from the Council's procurement procedure, unless it has since fulfilled its obligation.

The Council resolves, from 1st January 2018, to:

Work to incorporate co-operative values and principles when planning services and in its engagement with local residents.

Publicise existing co-operative good practice within the council and across the London Borough of Ealing.

 

12 Reports from Officers
12A pdf Southall Green SPD (88Kb)
12A

Councillor Bell moved the report

Councillor Shaw seconded the report

After a vote members agreed unanimously 

 

 1.1       That the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) ‘Southall Green’ be formally adopted as part of the Local Plan for Ealing.

1.2       To note that as published guidance the SPD will be a material consideration and therefore will be a relevant factor that should be taken into account when planning applications are considered and determined.

12B
Councillor Gordon moved the report

Councillor Shaw seconded the report

 

After a vote members agreed unanimously to

 

Appoint Ms Oumou Sall and Ms Wendy Jones to be standards independent people, as required by section 28(7) of the Localism Act 2011, the appointments to run until 10 October 2023 or earlier if terminated by resolution of this council or by resignation.

12C

Councillor Johnson moved the report

Councillor Shaw seconded the report

 

 After a vote members agreed unanimously to note the information contained in the report regarding the council’s performance

13 Urgent key decisions exempted from call-in

The following key decision was  exempted from call-in since the last meeting of council:

Local Discretionary Business Rate Relief Scheme for the 2017/18 Financial Year

Cabinet 12th September 2017

http://ealing.cmis.uk.com/ealing/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/4973/Committee/3/SelectedTab/Documents/Default.aspx

Reasons for urgency :

  1. The reason for this is that the discretionary business rate relief scheme is a statutory scheme entirely funded by the government. If the full Forward Plan publication and call-in procedures had been followed then there would have been insufficient time for the scheme to be fully implemented and for businesses to take the benefit of it within the guidelines laid down by the government.  The council has statutory duties in relation to the administration of the business rates scheme and the report recommendations enabled the council to meet those statutory duties.

    The report was not put on the Forward Plan for decision at Cabinet due to officer oversight.

     
13
Members noted the item on the agenda.
14 Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies
14

Councillor Gordon moved and Councillor Roz  Reece seconded the appointment of John Delaney to Acton Middlesex Charities.

15 Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on 19th December 2017.
15

The meeting ended at 21.31.

The next meeting will be on 19th December 

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
Councillor Ranjit Dheer8bCouncillor Dheer declared an interest in public question b as he had two relatives who work at Villiers School. PersonalThis was noted

Visitors

Visitor Information is not yet available for this meeting