Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED That the decision made by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance on the procurement of a Hybrid Mail Solution for Bulk Printing and Mailing be upheld.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Steve Alderman, Bethan Price and David Howlett.
There were no declarations of interest made.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the decision made by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance on the procurement of a Hybrid Mail Solution for Bulk Printing and Mailing be upheld.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and extended an especially warm welcome to Councillors Maureen Bowen and Jordan Ryan who were serving on the Committee in the capacity as Reserve Members for the first time. The Chair then invited Councillor Aled Thomas to present the called-in decision of the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance to carry out the direct award of a two- year contract to Dsi Billing Services under the Crown Commercial Services Framework RM1557.13 on 12 January 2024. In doing so, Councillor Thomas requested a correction to the Committee report, referring to an entry for one of the call-in signatories be corrected to Councillor David Howlett instead of Councillor Delme Harries. Councillor Thomas stressed the need for serious discussion on the awarding of a contract to a company that was involved with the failure to deliver the Council’s rent increase letters last year. He sought clarification on the liability provisions of the contract in the event of a similar recurrence and whether, at £370,000, it offered the best value for money. Councillor Mark Carter stated he and Councillor Thomas were left with some unanswered questions by Officers before asking for the decision to be called-in. Councillor Carter raised several issues with the contract, such as the start date being in advance of the Council’s call-in period ending, its duration and not having sight of a copy. Speaking as a landlord, he also queried whether notices of when tenants paid rent could be sent by email instead of letter. Councillor Thomas, making reference to six of Wales’ 22 Local Authorities that had contracted the same company, queried what other Councils were doing, i.e. whether they were using in-house facilities or different companies, and whether the County Council had given any consideration to competitive tendering. In connection with Members not having sight of the contract, Councillor Michael Stoddart raised a point of order on the matter. He read from the Local Government Lawyer website that Members appointed to a particular committee or sub-committee had the right to inspect documents relating to the business of that committee or sub-committee. The Head of Law and Governance advised there was no statutory or constitutional right to the contract. Councillor Alec Cormack, the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance, informed the meeting that as the contract involved mail services with a value under £500,000 under the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules, there was no requirement for an Individual Cabinet Member (ICM) decision. However, due to Member interest, Councillor Cormack deemed that as the Cabinet Member he should publicly sign the contract. While presuming it had been incorrectly dated, Councillor Cormack made reference to the legal advice shared with Members that it was better to have a contract in place as there had been a period where the Council was without one and, in the event of something going wrong, the Council’s ability to enforce liability on the supplier would be better documented. Councillor Cormack then stated he fully supported the conclusions arrived at by Officers that Dsi had no liability in last year’s issue. He added that the Director of Resources and Head of Financial Services had met with Dsi’s Directors to reduce the risk of a similar incident from happening again. Other steps had been taken to improve procedures, such as the use of “seed letters”. On the question of whether a tender was considered, Councillor Cormack asserted he challenged the Chief Executive, as well as the Director of Resources and Head of Financial Services, robustly on the matter, to which they gave good reasons not to tender. Councillor Cormack admitted he neither looked at the contract nor was it his job to do so. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance then introduced the Head of Financial Services who highlighted the following points: • Awarding of the contract was made under a Government framework, with agreed terms and conditions and supplier due diligence carried out beforehand, saving the Council time and money. • The estimated contract value included the number of mail items sent by the Council as shown in brackets as follows: Council Tax Demand Notices Annual Billing (58,240), ad hoc Council Tax billing during the year (47,500), Business Rates (8233) and Housing rent letters (5500) as well as benefit letters and Council Tax and Business Rates reminder notices. • Dsi specialise in printing for Revenues and Benefit services for local authorities and consolidate mail to reduce costs and prevent multiple letters from being sent. • Loss of rental income to the Council for the financial year 2023-24 was mitigated as much as possible in-year and the decision taken on rent setting at the Full Council meeting in December 2023 meant that the Authority would recover the lost income in 2024-25. • Carmarthenshire County Council, along with four other Welsh Local Authorities, use Dsi and Pembrokeshire County Council had been working with the company ever since it closed its in-house print unit as a cost reduction measure around five years ago. • The introduction of risk mitigation measures since last year, for example, seed letters were sent to Senior Officers to monitor delivery and the Council had been piloting a new Dsi process of tracking mail when it was handed over to Royal Mail for posting and proof could be obtained of when that occurred. • Increased liability limits higher than the limits for a standard contract should the company fail to deliver to provide additional protection and assurance for the Council. • The Authority continues to work to reduce the amount of paper bills it sends out and communicate electronically with its customers. The Committee proceeded to debate the contents of the report and the following key points were made: • Councillor Jacob Williams, making reference to the issues raised by Councillor Carter that Members had not seen the contract and the Cabinet Member’s admission that he had not read it, asserted the situation appeared to suggest there was ‘a big governance problem’ at the Council. Furthermore, it ‘pointed to a wider issue of the Council’s continuing reluctance to share information with Members’. • In response, the Head of Law and Governance provided clarification on the different roles and responsibilities of Members and Officers, where the role of Members was oversight and authorisation and Officers’ was to read contracts to ensure terms were not overlooked. She emphasised the importance for Members and Officers to retain their respective roles and responsibilities in these circumstances, continuing it was a matter of mutual trust between Officers and Members. She recalled two recent reports, which criticised the Council’s culture and for a lack of respect regarding the respective roles of Officers and Members, and maintained that the Council was keen to ensure this was not the case going forward. Additionally, an Officer, who knew the contents of the contract, was present in the meeting and could answer Members’ questions so that they could robustly scrutinise and award the contract. • Councillor Michael Stoddart disagreed with the advice given by the Head of Law and Governance and explained that Councillors not only had the right to access information under common law ‘right/need to know’ principles, but statutorily under Section 100F of the Local Government Act 1972 as modified by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) Regulations 2012 as well. • The Chair reminded Members that the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been requested to scrutinise the awarding of the contract only, therefore, he put forward the topic of Members’ rights to access information for consideration at an ordinary Committee meeting. • Councillor Jonathan Grimes, referring to his work as a print designer, commented he was surprised that the Council had not put the contract out to tender as it involved a value of £300,000 at a time when it was being asked to save as much money as possible. He was astonished that a new contract had been awarded to a company that had failed to deliver. For the reasons he had already given, the Head of Financial Services confirmed frameworks were used across the Authority, however, as both he and the Director of Resources had worked with Dsi’s Directors, together with the risk mitigation measures put in place, they were confident as they could be with any company going forward. If the Committee wished to go out to tender next time, the Head of Financial Services assured Members of a commitment to such an exercise. Following further discussion, Councillor Aled Thomas Moved a Motion to the effect that the Committee recommends that Council considers the award of the contract, strongly recommending that Members of the Authority have sight of the proposed contract and that its length be no more than one year. Additionally, Members be asked to consider whether any such contract should be awarded and whether an immediate tender process be launched; Seconded by Councillor Grimes. Councillor Jordan Ryan then proposed an amendment to remove the wording of the recommendation and replace it with that the Committee reconvene in February and be provided with a copy of the contract to consider. The amendment was not seconded by another Member, therefore, the original motion was put to the vote. The Committee then proceeded to the vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Alan Dennison, Jonathan Grimes, Elwyn Morse, Mike Stoddart and Aled Thomas [5] Against the Motion: Councillors Maureen Bowen, Michael John, Jordan Ryan, Jacob Williams and Michael Williams [5] There were no abstentions. With the vote being tied, the Chair exercised his second/casting vote in favour of the Cabinet Member’s decision being implemented. RESOLVED That the decision made by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Finance on the procurement of a Hybrid Mail Solution for Bulk Printing and Mailing be upheld.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.