CFG
34/06 final
Foodaware: the Consumers’ Food Group
Minutes of the twenty-second meeting - held on 30 November 2006
At the Office of the European Commission, 8 Storey’s Gate,
London
Welcome and apologies
Overview of European Commission developments - Ms Sarah
Lambert
Minutes of the last meeting (CFG 27/06), matters
arising:
Update from Steering Group
Training session
Health claims
Pesticides
Meeting at FSA on GM foods
Fairtrade labelling
Updates:
UK Co-ordinator's report
FSA Consumer Engagement Model
Defra Consumer Engagement Project
European Community Animal Health Policy (CAHP) Strategy
(2007-13)
Food miles – revised paper (CFG 22/06) for discussion/agreement
2007 meeting dates
Present:
Mr Paul Allen – European Food Law Association UK
Ms Chris Andrew – European Research into Consumer Affairs
Ms Teresa Baldwinson – National Council of Women
Ms Erica Bargman – European Union of Women
Ms Alison Bayley – Scottish Women's Rural Institutes
Ms Fionnuala Cook – General Consumer Council for N.I.
Dr Nick Coulson – Head of International Animal Health, Defra
Ms Ann Davison – Consumer Engagement Project, Defra
Ms Margaret Field – European Centre of the International Council
of Women
Ms Margaret Foss – National Federation of Women's Institutes
Dr John Godfrey – European Research into Consumer Affairs
Ms Lucy Harris – Foodaware Co-ordinator
Mr Stewart Horne – FSA, Consumer Branch
Ms Susan Knox – Chair, Foodaware / Veterinary Residues Committee
Ms Sarah Lambert – European Commission
Ms Penny McNeill – Individual member
Ms Sue Payne – National Consumer Federation
Ms Christine Sanderson-Fagan – Soroptomists International
of GB and Ireland
Ms Barbara Saunders – Foodaware Consultant
Ms Alma Williams – Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food
(COT)
Apologies:
Mr Dozie Azubike – Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
Ms Gwyneth Beddoe – LACORS
Ms Judy Brander – National Council of Women
Ms Gilli Cliff – Livestock Register Governance Group
Ms Susan Cole – Girlguiding UK
Ms Dorothy Craig – Veterinary Residues Committee
Ms Fiona Hodgson – Individual member
Mike Jobson – Individual member / ex Trading Standards Institute
Dr Majid Katme – The Muslim Council of Britain
Ms Jeanette Longfield – Sustain
Ms Diane McCrea – SCAF, SEAC, ACP
Ms Helen Millar – Individual member
Ms Jill Moss – Bella Moss Foundation, MRSA subgroup, Defra
Mr David Pickering – Trading Standards Institute
Ms Jillian Pitt – National Consumer Council
Ms Dilwen Phillips – Women’s Food and Farming Union,
Sheep Scrapie Steering Group, Defra
Ms Pamela Pollock – Townswomen's Guild
Ms Melanie Ruffell – Joint Health Claims Initiative
Ms Jacquie Salfield – Institute of Consumer Sciences, Pesticides
Forum
Mr David Smith – Welsh Food Alliance
Mr John Verall – Veterinary Products Committee
Ms Stella Walsh – Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
Ms Grace Wedekind – European Centre of the International Council
of Women
1. Welcome
and apologies
The Chair welcomed members and also Stuart Horne from FSA Consumer
Branch and Nick Coulson from Defra who were attending for specific
agenda items.
It was noted that a number of apologies had been received and these
would be included in the minutes.
The Chair thanked the European Commission for kindly agreeing to
host the meeting and welcomed Sarah Lambert, European Commission,
Deputy Head of Representation in the UK. She invited Ms Lambert
to give a short overview of recent developments and future challenges
facing the Commission, particularly in the food and health fields.
2. Sarah Lambert,
Deputy Head of Representation in the UK, European
Commission - Overview
of European Commission developments
Ms Lambert said that Foodaware was very welcome to hold meetings at
the Commission’s office given Foodaware’s focus on EU
food policy. She explained that the Commission and Parliament were
planning to share joint premises in the future with more public space
available for meetings, debates and other public events.
Ms Lambert recognised that consumer and food policy issues were very
important and, while she was not an expert, the Commission was doing
much in these areas. The EU was running a Healthy Living programme
in 2007. It was important for EU citizens to see Europe delivering
for them in concrete terms. This included issues such as food production,
better land use, and improved food safety and information.
The Commission was placing greater emphasis on its work in the regions
within the UK and part of this was establishing 25 new ‘Europe
Direct’ information centres. All government departments would
be encouraged to disseminate information through these centres to
people on the ground.
In terms of future challenges, Ms Lambert said that the environment
and climate change were fast becoming top priorities and would impact
on numerous policy areas, for example, on food and agriculture and
issues around sustainable living. The Commission did not develop policy
in a vacuum and welcomed the involvement of public interest groups
in debates.
The Chair thanked Ms Lambert for her overview and invited questions
and comments from the floor.
A question was raised about the role of ‘social policy’
within the Commission. At present the emphasis was on economic policy
which affected the employed sector of the population but excluded
large sections of society such as the unemployed and people working
as unpaid carers. Ms Lambert acknowledged that the ‘Lisbon agenda’
had focussed largely on economic growth, employment and jobs whereas
social and environmental issues had been secondary. She said that
the 2007-2013 funding round would support capacity building projects
which would help economic growth but which would also deliver quality
of life, sustainable growth and take into account environmental and
social aspects.
The issue of food miles was mentioned and the need to move away from
air and road transport towards more sea and rail transport. Ms Lambert
said the Commission’s perspective was this involved broad questions
about transport policy and was also a public awareness issue. Climate
change was now having a measurable impact and policy would have to
respond to this. However, this would be steered by member states.
In response to a question on recognition for women’s social
and economic contribution through childcare and as carers for the
growing elderly population, Ms Lambert said that gender equality was
recognised at EU level and this meant there should be equal pay for
equal work. Women should be able to work when they wanted to but should
not be disadvantaged by choosing to stay at home.
On the issue of regional outreach work, it was pointed out that Foodaware
had a very large membership base and there might be possibilities
for synergies around specific issues. Ms Lambert said the Commission
was interested in building relations with groups like Foodaware and
there might be small funds available for specific events, particularly
those that pulled together multiple platforms, (the Commission, MEPs,
FSA, Defra, consumer groups and other interested parties).
The Chair thanked Ms Lambert for her time and willingness to have
such an open and wide-ranging discussion with Foodaware members. She
welcomed the invitation to build on the relationship with the possibility
of some joint events around specific issues in the future.
3. Approval of minutes of last
meeting (CFG 27/06)
Members were invited to comment on the draft minutes of the last meeting
(CFG 27/06) held in September.
Lucy read out a few amendments which she had received: David Smith
to be added to apologies; redrafting of the last but one paragraph
on page 5 in order to remove any reference to company names; and lastly,
some amendments to section 5. c) on page 8 for the purposes of clarity.
The minutes were approved subject to these amendments.
Action: Once amended, the final version
to be placed on the Foodaware website.
4. Matters arising
4.1 Update from Steering
Group
Paul Allen updated members on progress towards establishing Foodaware
as a Company Limited by Guarantee. He explained that, following various
discussions and advice from solicitors, the best option seemed to
be to do this but also continue the current relationship with ERICA
whereby Foodaware operated as an ERICA project. Paul added that ERICA
already held charitable status which obviated the need for Foodaware
to obtain this separately. ERICA itself was undergoing a period of
change and becoming more financially stable. At ERICA’s recent
AGM John Godfrey had been elected Chairman and Susan Knox, Paul Allen
and Alma Williams had been elected as Board members. Chris Andrew
continued as Deputy Director.
In response to a question, Paul confirmed that in the case of bankruptcy,
the elected Officers of Foodaware (Chair and two Vice-Chairs) would
be liable to pay £1 each. Foodaware was also covered by ERICA’s
constitution/articles of association but had its own membership rules
which set out the details of how it operated. These were on the Foodaware
website.
Action: It was agreed that Foodaware members
would be circulated details of the proposed structures before anything
was implemented.
4.2 Training session
Members were updated on the proposal for a training session for consumer
representatives on FSA scientific foods committees which has been
rescheduled for early 2007. Foodaware was awaiting confirmation from
FSA about new dates and the timescale for sending out invitations
etc which would be done through the secretariats of the committees.
Members expressed their disappointment that the organisation of this
event was not being prioritised by FSA. They felt it would be a very
worthwhile event but, unless committee representatives were invited
with plenty of notice, attendance was likely to be poor. It was thought
that invitations should be sent out widely in order to maximise the
benefit of the event.
Action: Foodaware to chase FSA again regarding
fixing a new date and getting invitations sent out.
4.3 Health claims
Further to Jacqui Salfield’s report circulated by email on the
state of play concerning Nutrition and Health Claims, Melanie Ruffell
of the Joint Health Claims Initiative had confirmed that the legislation
was adopted in October and the consolidated text was due to be published
in late December or early January. The Regulation would come into
force 6 months post-publication i.e. approx July 2007. There were
numerous transition periods to try to ensure a smooth changeover to
the new rules but these varied and were dependent on the type of claim.
Action: Consider inviting JHCI speaker to
meeting in first half of 2007.
4.4 Pesticides
Following Jacqui Salfield's reports on the Pesticide Forum meetings
she had attended, as circulated by email, it had been suggested that
Foodaware might follow up on some of the issues raised. For example,
the Commission proposals for an EU Thematic Strategy, on part of which
the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) was currently consulting.
Jacqui had pointed out that the EU proposal included references to
the implications for human health of pesticides whereas the UK Strategy
for Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products (published March
2006) did not.
It was agreed that although there was little time to draft and send
in a response to the PSD consultation (deadline 11 December), Foodaware
should try and do so if possible. Foodaware should also lobby for
inclusion of human health implications in the UK Strategy.
Action: If feasible, given other commitments,
prepare response to PSD consultation. Consider discussing pesticides
in more depth at a future meeting with speakers, for example from
the Commission and/or the PSD.
4.5 Meeting at FSA on GM
foods
The NCW representative said that on 21 November she had been invited
to a meeting at FSA on GM foods. There had been no other consumer
representatives present while there had been a heavy industry presence.
The focus of the meeting had been the use of GM rice, fortified by
Vitamin A, for use in SE Asia where Vitamin A deficiency was a problem.
She was concerned that she had been under pressure to give support
to this application. Members noted that it seemed unusual for other
groups not to have been invited and Lucy said she would try and find
out who had organised it.
4.6 Fairtrade labelling
Ann Davison raised the issue of sourcing ingredients for fairtrade
composite products and how it was sometimes difficult for producers
to obtain all these from fairtrade sources. Members thought that this
should be dealt with through labelling and derogations and that it
would be worthwhile comparing policies with those of the organic sector
where similar issues had been addressed by regulators and asssurance
schemes.
5. Updates:
5.1 Co-ordinator’s
report
Lucy ran through the co-ordinator’s report which summarised
Foodaware’s main activities during October and November. Five
responses to consultations had been finalised and submitted, while
two draft papers were on the agenda for discussion. Foodaware continued
to be represented at a wide range of stakeholder meetings.
The Chair encouraged members to distribute Foodaware papers and meeting
reports within their own organisation to ensure dissemination was
as wide a possible. Several representatives said that they did this
already. She added that Foodaware was in the process of trying to
ascertain how many individual members each member organisation represented
in order to reach a reasonably accurate total figure of how many people
Foodaware reached out to via the membership.
Lucy said that there were a number of important consultations coming
up and Foodaware would try to prepare responses where possible. On
the proactive side, it was agreed that looking into the potential
impact of climate change on food policy issues would be a natural
development of the work being done at present on the food miles' issue.
5.2 FSA Consumer Engagement
Model
The Chair noted that the Welsh Food Alliance member, David Smith,
had forwarded a copy of a letter he had sent to FSA regarding this
item. Copies were distributed to members.
Barbara then introduced this item saying that the FSA Board had agreed
the Consumer Engagement Model at its meeting on 12 October 2006. Members
had a copy of this paper together with a Foodaware cover sheet giving
some background and a summary of the main content. Following the disbandment
of the FSA Consumer Committee, the FSA Executive had been tasked to
come up with a new model for Consumer Engagement and this was the
result.
It contained three main elements:
- Direct engagement with individual consumers - via the establishment
of 12 consumer panels made up of 10 people each across the UK.
These would meet at least 3 times a year and be refreshed annually.
- Engagement with consumer stakeholders - a new Head of External
Affairs would be appointed to provide a strategic overview of
the Agency’s relationships with all stakeholders and form
a single point of contact.
- Engagement with hard to reach groups - more research was to
be carried out to determine who these were.
Two new committees would also be set up. An independent Advisory Committee
on Consumer Engagement and a new Social Sciences Research Committee
to advise the Agency on gaps in knowledge and provide independent
advice.
FSA had not consulted regular stakeholders on this model. However,
Barbara pointed out that Foodaware had contributed its ideas in discussions
with FSA Deputy Chairman, Julia Unwin, when she had attended a Foodaware
meeting in July 2005. This was followed up in a letter to Ms Unwin
in November 2005 (CFG 29/05) in which Foodaware outlined a number
of central points which should be taken into account, for example,
the need for staff in all parts of FSA to have an understanding of
the needs and interests of consumers.
The Chair invited Stewart Horne, FSA Consumer Branch, to give his
perspective on the situation, for example, the current status of the
proposal, next steps, and any implications for consumer groups such
as Foodaware.
Stewart explained that, since January 2006, FSA Consumer Branch had
been piloting new ways of reaching out to individual consumers. It
had also commissioned a background paper from the think tank ‘Demos’.
The Demos paper was an interesting and future-looking document looking
at how to engage with the public in the wider context of civil society.
It was available through a link on the FSA website. FSA staff had
then produced the current paper for the Board. The Board had agreed
to the three mechanisms for engagement outlined in the paper and the
establishment of two new advisory committees. However, they had stressed
that the new consumer panels should be ‘untidy’, i.e.
not become institutionalised, and that more thought needed to be given
to exactly how the views expressed at these panels were taken forward
and fed into the policy units. Stewart stressed that the aim of the
panels was to gather impressionistic information of consumer views
at the grassroots level through face-to-face direct engagement. Qualitative
information gained from these would be appropriately weighted vis-à-vis
information coming from other sources.
He said that it was important to be clear that the model did not imply
any dismantling of existing structures but the aim was to build on
and develop these by creating additional layers of engagement. Direct
engagement with civil society, including consumer groups, would continue.
The only difference was that the new Head of External Affairs (to
be appointed in the first quarter of 2007) would have overall responsibility
for this. This would be a key co-ordination post in relation to consumers
and civil society in general. This post would come under the Director
of Communications who would retain overall responsibility but would
work closely with the new post holder.
The third mechanism for engagement with ‘hard to reach/hard
to hear’ groups required further research. Firstly, to identify
who these groups really were, followed by the development of action
research studies to see how best to reach out to them.
The Board wanted to look more at more horizon scanning techniques
to understand the changing nature of the world we live in and how
this would affect consumers and their choices in relation to food.
It also stressed the need for a proper evaluation process. In terms
of next steps, a progress report would go to the Board in May 2007,
with a more formal review in two years' time.
The Chair thanked Stewart for his overview and invited comments from
the floor.
A question was raised about the role of the new Advisory Committees.
Stewart said that the role of the new Advisory Committee on Consumer
Engagement was to ensure that the work was being carried out effectively,
including making sure all the evidence was brought together, assessed
and given appropriate weight. It would report back to the Board annually,
and should highlight any gaps in consumer evidence or where improvements
in how information was collected and interpreted were needed. The
new Social Sciences Research Committee would be largely made up of
academics and its remit would be to provide external, independent
advice and challenges to the work FSA was doing in the social sciences
area. It would fall under the remit of the Agency’s Chief Scientist
and would also report to the Board.
Members expressed concern that there had been no formal consultation
on the model and, while consumer organisations had fed in ideas, this
had not been acknowledged.
It was agreed that Foodaware should keep abreast of developments and
ensure that FSA’s commitment to formal consultation (written
and through stakeholder meetings) on key policy issues continued.
Concern was expressed that the nature of stakeholder meetings might
change. These should not become a ‘communications’ exercise
but real engagement and a two-way flow of information should be encouraged.
Members thought there should be an opportunity for improvements to
be made.
Members asked how the new Consumer Panels would work in practice and
whether the information gathered this way would be considered nationally
representative. Stewart confirmed that three sets of pilots were taking
place. It was envisaged that not all the groups would do the same
thing and nor would they be expected to give nationally representative
results. The aim was for them to be part of a dialogue and give ‘toe
in the water’ results of grassroots consumer perceptions and
concerns. Members suggested that it would be interesting to follow
up at the local level.
The Chair thanked Stewart Horne for his time and very useful contribution.
5.3 EU/EFSA update
Members thanked Chris for this update noting that it provided a very
interesting and helpful overview. Time did not permit any detailed
discussion of individual items. However, members requested that developments
relating to GMOs should be watched closely.
5.4 Defra Consumer Engagement
Project
Ann Davison said that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate had decided
to be part of the Defra Consumer Engagement Project. Among other things,
a paper on international decision-making in the field of veterinary
medicines, to partner the one on animal health and welfare decision-making,
would be produced. Members welcomed this co-operation.
Ann was preparing a paper on the role of consumer representatives
which she thought would be of interest to Foodaware: for example,
in relation to the planned training event with FSA. She was collating
a list of consumer representatives currently on scientific advisory
committees and it would be helpful to liaise with Foodaware over this.
She felt that there were lots of opportunities for developing this
type of representation work further.
Ann also invited members to comment on how they thought Defra should
identify priorities in relation to non-zoonotic diseases. Members
agreed that a number of questions could be asked to help in this process:
- Would an outbreak of the disease affect price and supplies?
- If meat was affected, should it be removed from the market?
- Would access to the countryside be affected? What about open
farms?
- Was control of the disease dependent on the proper use of medicines?
- Did the disease have the potential to become a zoonotic disease
i.e. transferable to humans?
The Chair thanked Ann for this update. She hoped Foodaware’s
contributions via consultation responses and stakeholder meetings
etc. would continue to inform Defra’s policies in these matters.
6. European
Community Animal Health Policy (CAHP) Strategy (2007-13) – discussion
paper outlining Commission proposals and options under consideration
Barbara Saunders opened by saying that she had been invited by the
Chief Veterinary Officer to a recent conference in Brussels, the aim
of which was to evaluate the effectiveness of European animal health
initiatives to date in preparation for the next EU spending round.
Following this, she had prepared a draft Foodaware paper intended
to give members an overview of the situation and outline the issues
about which Foodaware might wish to contribute to future Commission
consultations on the strategy.
The Chair then invited Nick Coulson, Head of International Animal
Health, Defra, to make some introductory remarks on the Commission
proposals and options under consideration. Nick thanked the Chair
for the invitation to the meeting. He confirmed that the new Animal
Health Policy Strategy was being prepared in relation to the next
EU spending period (2007-13), and its aim was to improve and prevent
the control of animal disease in the EU by monitoring, prevention
and control measures. A financial evaluation had taken place to assess
how well money had been spent in the past and how to spend it effectively
in the future. Public health was a key driver. Reducing levels of
animal disease was also important for enabling trade in animals and
animal products within the Single Market. This was particularly important
because of the entry of new member states such as Bulgaria and Romania.
At the UK level, Defra was about to issue a consultation on Cost and
Responsibility Sharing in Animal Health and Welfare. This looked at
how, in the future, the costs of disease control and prevention might
be shifted away from government and more towards the farming industry,
together with greater shared responsibility for animal health. This
debate mirrored what was going on elsewhere in the EU.
In the discussion which followed and included members’ feedback
on the draft paper, a number of points and questions were raised by
members.
Producers had long been required to supply safe and wholesome food.
CAP had hugely supported the farming industry and the proposed changes
should be considered in the context of CAP reform. Nick responded
by saying that one central question was how much monitoring and surveillance
should take place and who should pay for it? Farming representatives
in Brussels argued in favour of resources from the CAP to pay for
disease control measures. Clearly farmers did have responsibility
for the health of their animals and biosecurity measures. However,
the Government expected to retain responsibility for the cost in some
cases, particularly where public health was at risk. Developing biosecurity
systems was vital. Farmers also needed incentives to report disease
outbreaks early.
A question was raised about the security of imports, particularly
at airports. Nick said that the risks associated with legal commercial
trade were small as compliance with regulations was high. Illegal
trade that came under the heading of ‘personal smuggling’
was a problem but did not present high risks to public health. The
main area for which there was a need to focus enforcement and prevention
resources was in organised illegal trade in meat which posed the highest
risk. In relation to airport security, different policies existed
in different countries e.g. New Zealand versus the UK; however, this
was mainly due to different risk pathways existing.
Concern was expressed that if farmers were required to pay more, then
this cost would be passed onto the consumer. Compensation for loss
of animals could therefore act as an important consumer protection
measure since farmers would have an incentive to report cases early
rather than delay. Nick confirmed that it was likely that compensation
would still be offered for animals culled in cases of a serious disease
outbreak. The consultation raised questions about the principles that
should be applied.
Members supported the view that measures to prevent animal disease
in the first place were vital, alongside disease control measures.
It was practical to allow some flexibility in implementation of the
rules at member state level with a range of enforcement and control
measures available for use, depending on the nature of the problem.
For example, the details of contingency planning might differ in different
Member States. However, members felt that there should be a baseline,
an agreed common approach to risk and how to deal with it, between
Member States. Salmonella was an example of where different approaches
had led to widely different
levels of control. Members thought that it was worth the EU investing
in tackling diseases at source, i.e. in their country of origin, as
it would be more cost effective. They felt it was reasonable for some
CAP resources and/or regional funds to be diverted in order to support
disease control and biosecurity improvements.
On a related issue, it was pointed out that human doctors had no incentive
to prescribe more antibiotics than necessary, whereas financial incentives
did exist for vets to do so. This situation needed to be changed given
the growing problem with antibiotic resistance. While overall antibiotic
use should be reduced in animal production, antibiotics clearly had
an important role.
The Chair thanked Nick Coulson for his time and useful contribution
to the discussions.
Action: it was agreed that the draft paper should be revised and re-circulated
on the email mailing list for members’ comments. A response
to the Defra consultation on Cost and Responsibility Sharing for Animal
Health and Welfare should also be prepared (deadline 13 March 2007).
7. Food miles
– revised paper (CFG 22/06) for discussion/agreement
The Chair invited Barbara to introduce the paper. Barbara said that
it was a revised version of the draft discussed at the last meeting
with members’ comments having been taken on board. The main
changes were in the last section, ‘Consumer policy aspirations
and implications’ (section 6), which had been redrafted to make
the policy implications clearer.
Members gave comments on the paper. Under section 5 ‘Trade-offs’,
there was concern that food miles could be used as a non-tariff barrier
to trade, particularly by governments wishing to promote local production.
No clear consensus was reached on the issue of cash crops in developing
countries. While there were considerable problems with cash cropping,
such as the negative environmental impact and profits not being ploughed
back in to local economies, members also recognised that there would
be huge problems in developing alternative income-generating schemes.
Supporting local production did not have to be the same as protecting
it. These issues could only be touched on in a paper such as this.
Members were concerned that, at present, there was no common method
for measuring the environmental impact of different means of food
transportation. A more standardised methodology was needed and research
into this should be recommended. This would be vital to enable consumers
to make informed purchasing decisions in relation to the environmental
cost of food production.
The government should take responsibility for developing alternative,
less polluting transport methods and also encouraging more local diversity.
The policy implications were wide reaching.
Finally, it was suggested that the paper should be retitled along
the lines of ‘Sustainability of Food Transportation and Production’.
Action: The paper should be amended in the light of these comments
and circulated to members for final comments. The final version would
be distributed to FSA, Defra and other interested groups.
8. Any other business
The Chair drew members’ attention to a paper forwarded by Foodaware
member, John Verrall, entitled ‘Environment Pollution and Human
Health’ which he had presented at a House of Commons meeting
on 21 November. Copies were distributed.
It was noted that NCW had been pressing for a ban on aspartame in
food and drink since a peer-reviewed scientific paper had said that
it might be carcinogenic as well as having other side effects. This
had been raised at an FSA meeting at which Foodaware Chair, Susan
Knox, had been present.
A question was raised about the outcome of the Ofcom consultation
on new rules governing television advertising of food to children.
It was confirmed that Ofcom had announced its decision and, while
it had not gone far enough, it had gone further than the original
proposals had suggested. Full details were on the Ofcom website.
The Chair gave particular thanks to Chris Andrew for her invaluable
help, not for just organising the meeting, but also for all her behind
the scenes work for Foodaware.
9. 2007 meeting
dates:
- Thursday 22 March 2007
- Thursday 21 June 2007
- Thursday 27 September 2007
- Thursday 29 November 2007
The meeting ended at 4.10 pm.
|
