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 report be noted.
RESOLVED a) That Public Submission A (relating to the Budget consultation) be shared with the other Overview and Scrutiny Committees for their information. b) That Public Submission A be included in the Agenda pack at February’s Full Council meeting. Public Submission B was taken as part of Agenda Item 11 – Pay Policy Statement 2025-2026.
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved.
RESOLVED That the Council Budget for 2025-26 and the MTFP for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be noted.
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
RESOLVED That a Member Seminar be held for all Members, prior to the report being received by Cabinet.
RESOLVED a) That the Pay Policy Statement be presented to Full Council by March 2025. b) That the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee do not provide a view. That the Committee encourage that negotiations on the Pay Policy Statement continue with the Trade Unions until it is presented to Full Council.
There were no non-committee members wishing to speak.
[The Declarations of Interests were made during Agenda Item No. 9 - Review of Private Sector Housing Financial Assistance and Adaptions Policy 2025-2030] The following declarations of interest were made in respect of Agenda Item No. 9 - Review of Private Sector Housing Financial Assistance and Adaptions Policy 2025-2030: Councillor Michael Williams declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of the fact that he had a close relative who recently applied for housing financial assistance. Councillor Mike James declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that he was a Trustee at Ceredigion Citizen’s Advice, representing North Pembrokeshire residents, which commonly advised on housing and paying for housing. He also had a brother in Cardigan in supported housing and who received benefits. Councillor Maureen Bowen declared a personal interest by virtue of the fact that she had adaptations done to her home and received equipment to use through the scheme, before she became a councillor.
Councillor Aled Thomas Moved that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 November 2024 be approved as a correct record; Seconded by Councillor Mike James. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 November 2024 be approved as a correct record.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
The Chair introduced the report and stated that the purpose was to note actions arising from the last meeting. It was noted that the action for the Waste and Recycling Centres Review was still outstanding, and it was agreed that the relevant Cabinet Member will be contacted regarding an update to this. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas; Seconded by Councillor Claire George. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED a) That Public Submission A (relating to the Budget consultation) be shared with the other Overview and Scrutiny Committees for their information. b) That Public Submission A be included in the Agenda pack at February’s Full Council meeting. Public Submission B was taken as part of Agenda Item 11 – Pay Policy Statement 2025-2026.
The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Officer read a submission regarding the Council’s Budget Consultation for 2025-26 and the disparity between the English and Welsh language versions of the consultation which could affect the reliability of the consultation. Regarding the submission, the Chair noted that Welsh and English could not always be a straightforward translation due to mutations which could change the meaning of some sentences. Councillor Joshua Beynon, the relevant Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Efficiencies, stated that he would be happy to discuss this issue with the public submitter. Regarding the consultation itself, he noted that there were 1080 responses this year compared to 362 last year, so they felt they could understand the consultation. Councillor Beynon noted that he had met with community groups to discuss issues that mattered to them. Wit regards to the final budget report itself, Councillor Beynon noted that he had not received this yet from officers, but Members had received a spreadsheet detailing all the proposed savings in detail. Regarding the notion of meeting with the public submitter, the Chair said that he was also happy to meet with them and present their views forward on at the Budget Council meeting. It was confirmed that Public Submission A would only be presented to Policy & Pre-Decision OSC but the Committee could vote for it to be presented to the other OSCs if they desired. A Motion was Moved by Councillor Mike James to the effect: a) That Public Submission A (relating to the Budget consultation) be shared with the other Overview and Scrutiny Committees for their information. b) That Public Submission A be included in the Agenda pack at February’s Full Council meeting. Seconded by Councillor Huw Murphy. As the relevant Cabinet Member said he would meet with the public submitter, Councillor Maureen Bowen stated that she felt that it would be a waste of time to send the public submission to the other OSCs and Full Council. In response, Councillor James said that if it was shared then it would show respect to the Welsh language. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Councillors Mike James, Michael Williams, Bethan Price Michele Wiggins, Viv Stoddart, Aled Thomas, Huw Murphy [7] Against the Motion – Councillor Maureen Bowen, Claire George, Nicola Gwynn [3] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED a) That Public Submission A (relating to the Budget consultation) be shared with the other Overview and Scrutiny Committees for their information. b) That Public Submission A be included in the Agenda pack at February’s Full Council meeting. Public Submission B was taken as part of Agenda Item 11 – Pay Policy Statement 2025-2026.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved.
The Committee considered the Forward Work Programme. Councillor Claire George queried why a ‘Property Services Update’ was planned for a future meeting when this would be appropriate for Services OSC to discuss. In response, the Director of Resources concurred that this would be Services OSC unless there was a new policy planned that they needed to present, or if it was looking at asset management rather than property services in general. It was agreed that this would be raised with the relevant officers to check whether this item should be removed from the work programme. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Claire George; Seconded by Councillor Maureen Bowen. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, were carried. RESOLVED That the Forward Work Programme be approved.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the Council Budget for 2025-26 and the MTFP for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be noted.
The Committee considered a report by the Director of Resources on the Outline draft MTFP 25-26 to 28-29 and Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2025-26. Councillor Joshua Beynon outlined the key points of the report, and highlighted the financial difficulties the Council was facing, for example, there was a £34.1 million funding gap, that Council Tax needed to be increased and what was in each appendix. He clarified that the ‘green’ savings with the RAG system meant that they were easy to deliver, not that they would not have a minimal impact. He welcomed questions from Members. Councillor Michael Williams noted that the WLGA released a statement saying that the Council needed increase their income percentage to keep their services as they were. All Welsh local authorities should have received a 4.2% income increase from Welsh Government, but they only received 3.6%. He queried how much of a funding gap there would be if Council Tax was raised to the amount that officers wanted. In response, the Director of Resources said that they did not want to propose a percentage increase, but different options were in the report. To add to this, the Chair said that Cabinet was looking for suggestions from the Committee before a formal proposal was made. Regarding the funding gap, Councillor Beynon said that for all Welsh local authorities there was a £560 million and the average budget pressure was 7%. Councillor George said that it was not clear what was a policy and what was a service discretion, and it looked like some of the budget saving were discretions and not policy. She queried what was being done around different levels of service delivery and whether investing should be looked at for enablers. In response, Councillor Beynon said that each service area had been asked to mark up 10% in savings and then Members could decide what savings they wanted to action. Regarding investing, he noted that there was an Initiative Fund that the Council had too which was used to improve efficiency, especially in social services. Regarding outsourcing, Councillor Beynon noted that this was difficult for the Council as there were not many local businesses in the market that could provide the services that the Council needed. This included discretionary services like leisure centres and pools. To add to this, the Director of Resources said that some things needed to be done to obtain a cost neutral MTFP. For example, the neutralisation of the Vanguard policy which would identify where services could improve their efficiency and effectiveness to deliver future savings and service improvements. Regarding the organisation restructure, there was a temporary recruitment freeze in place, voluntary redundancy and voluntary early retirement schemes. There was also a ‘switch scheme’ which retrained redundant staff and placed them into a vacancy within the Council. The Director of Resources continued that there were specific projects working on reducing service demand in the future. This ‘prevention agenda’ would require a lot of funding and this would include utilising the NDR from Celtic Freeport and getting internal and external support for schools to assist them with ensuring their financial sustainability over the medium term. He continued that there had been an increase in out of county placements too for children as it increased from 18 to over 40 within two years. The Director of Resources concluded that there were £8 million of education transformation bids but only £5 million was available. Regarding the social services bid, Councillor James questioned if the Council needed to put money towards them. He also queried which areas of the county the money from Celtic Freeport would benefit and whether there would be too much pressure on Highways if more cuts were done as several people had left or were leaving the department. In response to the questions raised by Councillor James, Councillor Beynon confirmed that the Council needed to pay into all bids due to all the different elements involved in them. With regards to the education transformation bids, he stated that bids that required more money than the money available, then they would investigate filling the funding gap with the reserves. Providers of out of county placements would monopolise on the placements they provided; this was a nationwide problem. To add to this, the Director of Resources clarified that as part of the Celtic Freeport, there could be bids for the development of projects which could then result in NDRs (non-domestic rates), and under the Freeport, NDRs can be then retained and utilised by the authority. Money from the Initiative Fund would be used to benefit schools. With regards to outsourcing, Councillor George said that the Council should think differently and utilise several smaller businesses for different areas instead of trying to find a large business to cover Pembrokeshire as a whole. The Chair queried if Council Tax was increased this year, then what would the expected increase be for the following years to achieve future sustainability. In response, Councillor Beynon highlighted that he had raised this with Welsh Government as they could only plan their budget from December when the statement was received. In the MTFP, if Council Tax was increased by 11.14% this year, it should only be increased by 7.5% or less in the future; this would be more difficult to action when local elections will occur. However, this would still leave a £16.87 million funding gap so all the ‘green’ and most the ‘amber’ savings would need to be enacted. Adding to this, the Director of Resources said that the current MTFP planned for an £180 million funding gap and projections before the provisional settlement to the AEF was 4% for 2026-29. However, it may not be realistic going forward with Wales’ fiscal analysis and it would more likely be 2.5% for 2026-29 and this would increase the funding gap to over £70 million. To ensure financial sustainability, the Director of Resources said that they would get a fully costed MTFP. With regards to long-term borrowing costs, the Chair queried how much this had increased by in case borrowing could help fund big projects i.e. Milford Haven School. In response, the Finance Manager said that the capital financing cap would allow the Council to borrow money, as well as obtain funding from Welsh Government for big projects, like Milford Haven School. The ability to borrow money was factored into part of the MTFP. To add to this, the Director of Resources said that the original costs of a new school building for Milford Haven had been considered but costs had increased since then. A 5.3% cap was introduced last year which showed the ‘available headroom’ if the Council was minded to borrow money over a 10 year period, Therefore, if the Council borrowed money, it would cost 5.3% per annum on the revenue budget, i.e. if £10 million was borrowed in 2027-28, it would cost £1 million on the revenue budget. He continued that the borrowing data itself was based on the Treasury Advisors predictions for interest rates. Borrowing costs should reduce overtime but these would not be quick. The Chair that a Council Tax increase could lead to some people falling in financial deficit and it was the county council, town and community councils and Dyfed Powys Police putting the pressure on taxpayers too. He queried if the Revenues and Budget Team felt that they would be able to collect tax arrears. In response, Councillor Beynon said that they were down 0.3 million in tax arrears, and it was difficult to project how it would go. The team was getting the money, but they were having to summon and take people to court over it. Adding to this, the Director of Resources said that the collection rate was set at a higher level then what they would achieve. There was a shortfall with collections but the ‘in year’ collection was £1 million higher than last year. Arrears collection was not considered in the Council’s budget as it was included in the Council tax base collection. This meant that the ‘in year’ collection plugged the gap for the shortfall in tax collection. He noted that there had been a staff reduction in the Revenues and Budget Team, and this made tax collection more difficult. When tax premiums were introduced, they spend a lot of time answering queries annually. He concluded that they were £7 million in Council tax arrears. There was no update regarding the employer National Insurance costs. Regarding Milford Haven School, Councillor Williams noted that it was mentioned that the new school build could be funded by PWLBs (Public Works Loan Board) and he queried if these rates would increase. In response, the Finance Manager said that PWLB rates were 4.83% for the Council and short-term rates up to five years would be high. If money was borrowed over a 20 or 30 year period then the rates should be better. With regards to a new school in Milford Haven, the Chair clarified that borrowing and a MIM (mutual investment model) were both looked at to fund it. The Director of Resources added that Welsh Government were against the MIM and were in favour of funding the new building with capital grants. A discussion was had regarding the MIM. Regarding the report, Councillor Williams said that it was difficult for non-economic minded Members to understand. Councillor James concurred with this. In response, the Chair said that officers would look at the points raised in this meeting and address them. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas; Seconded by Councillor Claire George. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Council Budget for 2025-26 and the MTFP for 2025-26 to 2028-29 be noted.
The Meeting adjourned at 12:40 and reconvened at 12:47.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That the report be noted.
Councillor Michelle Bateman, the Cabinet Member for Housing, and the Head of Housing & Public Protection, presented a report to the Committee on the Review of Private Sector Housing Financial Assistance and Adaptions Policy 2025-2030. They outlined the key points of the report, including the increased demand for financial assistance, the type of adaptions available through grants and the grants available to the Council to carry out the adaptions. [Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest; Councillor Michael Williams left the meeting at this juncture at 12:03] Councillor George questioned how the budget for this was spent across the different priorities. In response, the Head of Housing & Public Protection said that as it was a new priority list, a cost list was not available, but prioritisation happened when enquiries for it were received through Social Services and Occupational Health when the assessments were carried out. Applicants have a holistic assessment of need, not just for adaptations, which includes other support needs i.e. bathing. She noted that only complex need applications were dealt with by therapists, the rest were dealt by assistants. She concluded that urgent cases made up about 10% of the applications. Regarding anticipatory need, Councillor George said that residents who were due to lose a limb could not get their house adapted until after they lost it. Therefore, she queried if there was a better way to manage this need. For these kinds of request, the Head of Housing & Public Protection stated that they would often come from hospitals. Any short-term need requests were not offered under the adaptions policy. She concluded that the occupational therapists in the scheme needed to focus on the future needs of an applicant. With regards to elderly residents, Councillor James queried if they needed adaptions but could not afford it, would they be eligible to receive the adaptions through the policy. In response, the Head of Housing & Public Protection said that if the adaption requested exceeded £7000, the Occupational Therapy would assess the house and means test it. Adaptions less than £7000 would be visited to see what would be needed in the house to make it safe. Applications costing £7000 or more would come from the disabled facilities grant and the resident would need to provide statements of savings. The disabled facilities grant could cover up to £36,000 so the resident would need to contribute to the housing adaption too. She continued that top-up loans were available if works costed over £36,000. The Chair noted that the amount of money for the policy was being reduced. He queried if the interest from the HRA (housing revenue account) could be used to maintain these services. Regarding the HRA, the Finance Manager said that the interest stayed within the HRA and the services for this scheme were part of the general capital programme. With regards to the adaptions, Councillor Bateman highlighted that they applied to increase their capital pot for this. This was to try and balance demand since Welsh Government had expressed their desire to scrap means testing. This has led to an increase in demand, so they had to stop some money going out. She added that they wanted to keep residents in their own homes. [Councillor Michael Williams rejoined the meeting at this juncture at 12:22] The Chair questioned if the Council carried out the housing assessments or did the applicants need to hire an external company. In response, Councillor Bateman said that if the adaption was to do with building maintenance, then the Council would assess it. Anything else it was outsourced to a private sector company. To add to this, the Head of Housing & Public Protection clarified that building maintenance would go out for council houses but there was limited staff to deal with private housing and there had been a 67% in housing adaption requests. In terms of the delivery of works, there is a contract between the householder or the grant applicant and the contractor. She said that council staff provide a list of suitable contractors to the applicant. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas; Seconded by Councillor Claire George. The vote, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. Councillor Michael Williams abstained from voting. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED That a Member Seminar be held for all Members, prior to the report being received by Cabinet.
Councillor Bateman presented a report on the new Pembrokeshire Affordable Housing Scheme - HomeBuy Pembrokeshire. She highlighted the key points in the report, including that the purpose of the scheme was to increase housing stock, help people buy their first home, and reduce the housing waiting list. The Affordable Housing Officer presented a PowerPoint on HomeBuy Pembrokeshire and highlighted the following points: · In Pembrokeshire, house prices had increased by 35% since Covid-19 · A lot of homes were second homes and people would move to the area to retire · There were not many first-time buyers in Pembrokeshire as they could not afford the homes · This scheme was based on Welsh Government’s HomeBuy Wales scheme for first time buyers · HomeBuy Pembrokeshire will focus on newbuilds and selling them at a discounted rate · LTEPs were also a focus point of the scheme as bigger loans would be available for those willing to purchase them · A tiered funding system will be introduced due to the house price disparity between inland and coastal areas. This will be done by a matrix-based system considering house size and location · Scheme applicants would need to prove that they did not own any land or property and would need to show that they were local to Pembrokeshire. They would also need to show their own secure funding for the scheme · An applicant wanting to buy and LTEP would need to LTEP to by empty for at least six months · Repayments of the loan could be done all at once, over an agreed amount of time or upon the house being resold · The loan value from the scheme would be based on the market value and the valuation had to be carried out by the property owner · The loan interest rate would be 5% · The scheme will be funded by the second-home premiums and start with £1 million to buy 12 to 15 houses · If successful, the scheme will run for a further two years with £1 million each year Councillor Bateman clarified that the scheme would just be approved by Cabinet which was why she wanted scrutiny of it before its presentation to the executive. She added that she was happy for the item to be presented to the Committee again after a year. In response to this, the Chair said that he was in favour of a Member Seminar on this in order to avoid any possible call-ins. Regarding the repayment options, Councillor George questioned what the benefit of having these different options were. In response, the Affordable Housing Officer said that they were to make repayment as easy as possible to the borrowers. With other schemes, most borrowers opted for the staggered repayment towards full ownership. Councillor George suggested that the staggered repayments be the most promoted option as this would maintain the funding pot, otherwise it would not be known what the default of repayments would be. She queried who would sign off the loans. [Councillor Bethan Price left the meeting at this juncture at 12:58] Regarding the repayments, the Affordable Housing Officer said that for 24-year loans, the borrowers would be contacted every five years regarding repayments for the first 20 years and then annually every year after. All repayment plans would be monitored. He continued that the approval process was being finalised; applicants would need to show a criteria eligible property they wish to purchase and have a decision in principle mortgage. When this is done, they could formally register to the scheme but would need to prove that they were local and show their income. The Affordable Housing Officer concluded that final approval would be taken by legal, finance and the Head of Housing & Public Protection. To add to this, the Head of Housing & Public Protection emphasised that any risk needed to be managed. A robust legal contract was in place for the scheme. With regards to possible losses, the Chair queried if a plan was in place if a property decreased in value. He also queried if money would need to be administered by an external body which could incur additional costs as the scheme was interest free. After the initial piolet scheme, the Affordable Housing Officer said that they would know which areas had to be ‘ironed; out. The planned tiered system would be reviewed periodically, and a registration fee was being considered. If a property value dropped, the loan repayment would stay the same. Councillor Bateman highlighted that the scheme would not work for some places like central St David’s or central Tenby, but the scheme was also formed to create choices with housing purchases. She concluded that repayment dialogue would be kept open so there were no surprises with repayments. With regards to rural residents, Councillor James noted that some of them would not be able to have full-time jobs. He queried how the scheme would benefit them. In response, the Affordable Housing Officer confirmed that these residents would be considered as part of the scheme but they would still need to provide income statements, including receival of benefits. In adding to this, Councillor Bateman clarified that there was an upper income limit for the scheme. However, for part-time workers, the social housing scheme may be more appropriate if there was not a chance that they would be able to pay the HomeBuy loan back. She emphasised that everyone would be listened to and considered. Regarding the policy, the Head of Housing & Public Protection stated that HomeBuy Pembrokeshire would be an element of the affordable housing scheme. This scheme was formed to enable to Council to provide housing that was not just social. In response to a question from the Chair regarding lenders, the Affordable Housing Officer confirmed that mortgage lenders had already been spoken to and were onboard with this scheme and said they would be happy to promote it. A Motion was Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas to the effect – That a Member Seminar be held for all Members, prior to the report being received by Cabinet. Seconded by Councillor Mike James. Regarding a member seminar, Councillor Bateman said that any points raised in it will be reference in the report. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Councillors Mike James, Claire George, Michele Wiggins, Nicola Gwynn, Viv Stoddart, Michael Williams, Aled Thomas and Huw Murphy [8] Against the Motion – Councillor Maureen Bowen [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED That a Member Seminar be held for all Members, prior to the report being received by Cabinet.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED a) That the Pay Policy Statement be presented to Full Council by March 2025. b) That the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee do not provide a view. That the Committee encourage that negotiations on the Pay Policy Statement continue with the Trade Unions until it is presented to Full Council.
It was confirmed that the proposals in the paper did not affect members who contributed to the pension scheme so no declarations relating to this needed to be made. Councillor Neil Prior, the relevant Cabinet Member for Communities, Corporate Improvement and the Well-being of Future Generations and the Head of HR presented the Head of HR’s report on the Pay Policy Statement 2025 – 2026. They highlighted the key points from the report, including that it legally needed to be approved by the 31st March 2025, the changed discretionary redundancy scheme, exit packages in line with legislation and how chief officers exited the Council. Mr Tommy Bowler read out a statement on behalf of the Joint Trade Unions highlighting that the Unions opposed the amended redundancy multiplier, and that redundancy was made cheaper. He noted that the Unions were happy to continue negotiations if they were progressive. The staff relocation scheme was successful, and they desired for this to be available in schools too. He concluded that the multiplier scheme should be increased again out of respect to long-standing employees. In response to a question from Councillor George regarding benchmarking at other local authorities, the Head of HR said that this varied as some were carrying out the same actions as Pembrokeshire, but the redundancy multiplier varied. She continued that they also looked at other public bodies with this too. Regarding benchmarking, Mr Bowler said that this was not valid because different authorities paid different amounts. With regards to Mr Bowler’s statement, the Chair queried whether all discussions that needed to occur legally had happened. In response, the Head of HR highlighted that this had been discussed as the Negotiating Forum and Social Partnership Forum. Officers felt that negotiations had been meaningful, but the Unions did not. She said that it should not be felt that a ‘meaningful’ negotiation did not happen unless it was moved to a legislative space. Councillor James requested that Mr Bowler’s statement be shared with the Committee. Councillor Bowen questioned why Mr Bowler felt that the negotiations were not meaningful. In response, Mr Bowler stated that they were asked to provide a written response to the pay statements provided and then negotiate it and that managers did not listen to their views. Regarding this, the Head of HR said that the initial proposal shared with the Unions was worse than the one presented in the report. Due to this amendment, she disagreed with the argument that negotiations were not meaningful. It was confirmed that the report was planned to be presented to Full Council on the 6th March 2025. Under social partnership legislation, Mr Bowler said that if two parties failed to agree a solution, then there was a path for resolution contained within this legislation. In response to this, the Chief HR Officer said that the legislation did not apply to the pay statement. A Motion was Moved by Councillor Maureen Bowen to the effect – a) That negotiations with the Trade Unions continue as soon as possible b) That the Pay Policy Statement 2025-26 does not progress. Seconded by Councillor Nicola Gwynn. If this item was delayed, the Chair queried how this would affect the budget setting for the year. In response, the Head of HR said that any officer negotiating their redundancies would not be impacted by the changes to the statement and they would be protected under the old one. Regarding the Social Partnership, Mr Bowler informed the Committee that a meeting could be called within seven days if there was a specific agenda item they wanted to discuss. Councillor Prior suggested that officers produce an appendix alongside the Pay Policy Statement when it is presented to Full Council in March that highlighted the negotiations had with the Trade Unions. He also suggested that negotiations should continue between managers and the Unions. With regards to the redundancy multiplier, the Chief HR Officer highlighted that negotiations for this had been ongoing for two years and it was referenced in the report received last year. Negotiations were not included in the report as this was not in the Committee’s remit. It was confirmed that if Councillor Bowen’s Motion was passed, it would go straight to Full Council unless the Committee wanted to hold an extraordinary meeting. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Councillors Nicola Gwynn and Maureen Bowen [2] Against the Motion – Councillors Mike James, Claire George, Michele Wiggins, Viv Stoddart, Michael Williams, Huw Murphy and Aled Thomas [7] There were no abstentions. The Motion was lost. A Motion was Moved by Councillor Aled Thomas to the effect – a) That the Pay Policy Statement be presented to Full Council by March 2025. b) That the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee do not provide a view. c) That the Committee encourage that negotiations on the Pay Policy Statement continue with the Trade Unions until it is presented to Full Council. Seconded by Councillor Mike James. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion – Councillors Mike James, Claire George, Michele Wiggins, Nicola Gwynn, Viv Stoddart, Michael Williams, Aled Thomas and Huw Murphy [8] Against the Motion – Councillor Maureen Bowen [1] There were no abstentions. RESOLVED a) That the Pay Policy Statement be presented to Full Council by March 2025. b) That the Policy and Pre-Decision Overview and Scrutiny Committee do not provide a view. That the Committee encourage that negotiations on the Pay Policy Statement continue with the Trade Unions until it is presented to Full Council.
Due to the length of the meeting, it was agreed that this item would be pushed back to a future meeting.
Due to the length of the meeting, it was agreed that this item would be pushed back to a future meeting.
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.