Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn dogfennau , 13 Gorffennaf 2006

The meeting was opened with a prayer by Councillor John Williams.

Councillor C. L. Everett declared an interest in respect of any item of business on the Agenda which might relate to  the employment of his daughter and sister within the Housing and Social Services Department and in relation to his employment as Clerk of the Holyhead Town Council.  

Councillor Robert Lloyd Hughes declared an interest in respect of any item of business on the Agenda which might relate to the employment of his son in the Highways Section.

Councillor W. J. Chorlton declared an interest with regard to any item of business which might relate to the employment of his daughter in the Environmental & Technical Services Department.

Councillor G. W. Roberts, OBE declared an interest with regard to any item of business which might relate to the employment of his daughter in the Environmental & Technical Services Department.

Congratulations were extended to Kieran Jones, 6 years of age, a pupil at the Llanfawr School, Holyhead and the nephew of Councillor O. Glyn Jones. He won First Prize in a 'Gardners  World' competition, for Primary Schools by growing the best 'Busy Lizzie' out of 900 competitiors.

He then went on and won out of 32,000 competitors throughout Britain. His prize was a £100 voucher and £1,000 for his school. The programme would be televised on 18th July.

On behalf of the Chair, Councillor E. Schofield congratulated Councillor P. M. Fowlie  upon the honour of winning the supreme pig championship with his two-year-old Welsh sow, Braemor Nina 4th at this year's Royal Show at Stonleigh.  

3.1

Reported - That the Executive on 5th June, 2006 had resolved as follows:-

(a) "To recommend to the County Council that the figure of £25,000 in Contract Procedure             Rules should be amended to £30,000."

(b) "To request the Corporate Director (Finance) to vary the £1,000 threshold in Contract                Procedure Rules figure to £3,000."

Submitted - A joint report by the Corporate Director (Finance) and the Director of Legal Services / Monitoring Officer.

Reported - That the Contract Procedure Rules were part of the Council's Constitution and may be amended by the full Council having considered advice offered by the Director of Legal Services and / or the Corporate Director of Finance.

Although there were a number of exceptions and different procedures available in different circumstances, there were essentially two limits. The figure of £25,000 was the figure above which a full tendering procedure was required, involving an advertisement and a formal tender to the Director of Legal Services.

Below the higher limit a watered-down procedure - the quotations procedure - was to be used. This allowed more discretion in the type of procedure to be followed but there was a general expectation that competition was required.

Below the lower limit (currently £1,000) there was no requirement to seek competition. Contract Procedure Rules allowed the Corporate Director (Finance) to change this figure in response to applications from Departments, and envisaged that different lower limits might be set for different types of procurement.

The Executive wished to raise the upper limit from £25,000 to £30,000 and the lower limit from £1,000 to £3,000. In discussions at the Executive reference was made to neighbouring authorities' limits and details were provided within the report in this respect. However, each authority's procedure was different so these limits were not directly comparable. If anything, Anglesey's quotations procedure was less onerous than at other authorities.

During deliberations leading to the new Constitution, the Political Structures Modernisation Panel on 20 March 2002 increased the figure from £500 to £1,000. The revised Contract Procedure Rules also included a new provision for the Corporate Director of Finance to be allowed to vary the sum in response to specific applications.

The upper limit had not changed since 1996 and an increase form £25-£30k was in the opinion of the Corporate Director a reasonable updating for inflation in the meantime. The lower limit was possibly more sensitive given that the rules required no competition at all below it and should not simply be decided by following other authorities or by inflation rates.

The Corporate Director had considered the Executive's request and concluded that what they were seeking was a change to the general rule, not an exception in special cases so this was best done by a political decision at the Council to amend the figure in Clause 4.9.3.4 of the Constitution. Consideration should be given to the administrative cost and inconvenience of arranging quotations and to the usual benefits secured by competition. It was feasible that the appropriate threshold would differ depending on the type of procurement. Exceptions sometimes allowed dispensing with competition above the lower limit and equally value for money considerations in some circumstances may well lead to an expectation to obtain quotations below the limit.

Councillor P. S. Rogers stated that he had reservations in this respect and urged the Council to err on the side of caution. He referred Members to the later report by the Head of Service (Property) to the Executive on 26th June and drew particular attention to the fact that the Department were still evaluating a pilot trial of the Constructionline system for the selection of Contractors to tender for works.

For contracts below the proposed new value of £30,000, officers would be required to evaluate the competency of potential contractors. He also referred to the fact that the report mentioned that an audit of the use of Constructionline and selection of tenderers was carried out last year and the final report was in the process of agreement with relevant departments. The result of the above work should be available to inform future decisions with regard to Constructionline. Property Services were also in the process of reviewing policies for the Control of Contractors under Health and Safety Requirements.    

Councillor P. S. Rogers agreed that the Executive decision of 2001 was that the Council accepted the use of Constructionline as a pre-qualification system for determining the select list for Civil Engineering and Construction Contractors and for consultants to be employed during the prior period. The pilot project subsequently became part of the North Wales Constructionline Pathfinder Project. Property Services were still considering the nature of information which would need to be reviewed prior to determining whether a contractor was deemed suitable to be invited to provide a quotation.

Councillor P. S. Rogers urged members to defer consideration until all of the above findings became known.

Councillor E. Schofield expressed concern that no firm recommendations were put forward by officers within the report and requested a response in this respect.

The Corporate Director (Finance) in reply stated that he was unable to provide members with a clear answer. The Executive's decision on the lower threshold was clearly a matter of judgement ie. raising from £1,000 to £3,000. He found it difficult to answer whether this sum was best, since other Authorities had a limit of £5,000 or even £10,000. He would not be making a recommendation today, neither did he make a recommendation to the Executive, but felt that it was a judgement that Members were entitled to exercise.

RESOLVED

Ÿ

To amend the figure of £25,000 in clauses 4.9.3.3, 4.9.7.3, 4.9.7.4, 4.9.7.6, 4.9.7.7 to £30,000 in the Council's Contract Procedure Rules.

Ÿ

To amend the figure of £1,000 in Clause 4.9.3.4 to £3,000.

3.2

QUESTION RECEIVED PURSUANT TO RULE 4.1.12.4

The following question was put by Councillor P. S. Rogers to the Leader of the Council:-

"Do you accept that your decision to amend the Council Contract Procedure Rule to enable more companies to compete for minor contracts could result in more shoddy work and complaints on housing renovation schemes?"

The Leader, in reply, answered "no".

In his supplementary question, Councillor P. S. Rogers asked the Leader whether he was aware of the standard of workmanship carried out by Councillors as contractors. He cited a case of contract for £29,000 who had had draughty and leaking windows installed two years ago.

When asked by the Leader to clarify the contractors, Councillor P. S. Rogers publicly named 3 Contractors and asked whether the Council should look at value for money and a better standard of work?

The Leader replied that contracts on housing grants were given by the householder to the contractor.

Councillor John Arthur Jones indicated he would not take advice from Councillor Rogers where matters of contract were concerned.

Reported by the Corporate Director (Finance) - That it had recently become evident that some of the figures in the Council Tax resolution adopted by the County Council on 2 March 2006 were wrongly stated. The error affected parts 8 and 9 of the resolution only. In each case the Band D figures(the 'headline' Council Tax) were correct throughout but the figures for other bands were patently wrong, not having the right arithmetical relationship to the Band D figure.

The error was a simple administrative mistake which appeared to have arisen when copying figures from one document to another.  These tables were thoroughly checked and there was evidence that the error was in fact detected at the time.  It would appear that either the intended correction was not made or that it was made but the earlier version accidentally re-introduced.

The Corporate Director stressed that the correct version of the Council Tax figures was used in the public advertisement of Council Tax rates, for billing and for all other purposes. The Council resolution cannot be valid.  It was necessary for the public record to correct the Council resolution to ensure that it correctly recorded what was intended in relation to Council Tax.

Councillor G. O. Parry, MBE enquired as to what the implications would be for the Council had the incorrect figures been published and adopted?

The Corporate Director (Finance) in reply stated that the implications would have been serious and certainly the Council could have had difficulty in proving the debt. He emphasised the bills were correct, the notice in the press was correct and only the internal paperwork was incorrect.

RESOLVED to adopt the Appendix attached to this report in substitution for the relevant parts of the minute of 2 March 2006 by way of correction.

5.1

Submitted - The report of the Head of Service (Planning) as was submitted and endorsed by the Executive at its meeting on 26th June, 2006.

Reported - That the Council was required to prepare a new style of land use plan - the Local Development Plan (LDP) which would replace the Structure Plan, Local Plan and the UDP.  The first stage in the LDP process was to submit a delivery agreement for approval by the Welsh Assembly Government.

Following discussion by the LDP Panel consultation had been held with stakeholders, the Overview Committee, all Members and internal services.

There had not been much response to the informal period of consultation on the draft timetable and consultation arrangements. Some Town/Community Councils had expressed concern at the lack of time for consultation. The Planning Service was committed to making early progress with the plan but felt the timetable set out was realistic.

Following arrangements with the Assembly, further publicity would be given to the timetable for preparing the plan and the associated key stages for consultation.

The Portfolio Holder drew the Committee's attention to the delay being experienced by the Welsh Assembly in not issuing an official order for this Council to commence work on the Local Development Plan.

Members had also been provided with supplementary papers by the Head of Service (Planning) suggesting amendments to the draft delivery agreement following preliminary discussions with officials of the Welsh Assembly Government.

The Portfolio Holder informed Members that the Department had today received from the Welsh Assembly the official order to commence work on the LDP.

Councillor Aled Morris Jones enquired as to whether it would be possible for the opposition Groups to have separate meetings with officers as opposed to attending meetings of the LDP Panel?

The Portfolio Holder in reply stated that the decision to set up the LDP Panel was one taken by the full Council and that an invitation was still extended to all political groups to attend. It would not be practical for Groups to discuss matters with officers on an individual basis.

RESOLVED

Ÿ

To approve the delivery agreement for submission to the Welsh Assembly Government.

Ÿ

That further steps are taken to publicise the delivery agreement after it is agreed by the Welsh Assembly Government.

5.2

QUESTION RECEIVED PURSUANT TO RULE 4.1.12.4

The following question was put by Councillor P. S. Rogers to the Leader of the Council:-

"At the meeting of the Executive on Monday 26th June under Item 9 Local Development Plan - Delivery Agreement you criticised the Welsh Assembly, in fact A.M's past and present for failing to respond to correspondence in an acceptable time scale to this Council, what do you think is an acceptable time scale?"

The Leader in reply stated:- "I'm quite happy with the Assembly standing orders or constitution time."

By way of supplementary question, Councillor Rogers indicated that he'd waited 40 days to receive a reply to a letter he'd written to the Leader on 30th May regarding disciplinary action and that today Councillors had received a letter from a member of the public containing very serious information and when would the Leader respond to that?

The Leader indicated that he answered his correspondence in order of priority for the Council.

The meeting concluded at 2:45pm

COUNCILLOR JOHN ROWLANDS

CHAIRPERSON