Venue: Multi-Location Meeting - Council Chamber, Port Talbot & Microsoft Teams. View directions
Contact: Tom Rees Email: t.rees1@npt.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Chair's Announcements Decision: The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that the Members of the
Scrutiny Committee had agreed to scrutinise item 4a, from the Cabinet Forward
work Programme. Minutes: The
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that the Members of the
Scrutiny Committee had agreed to scrutinise item 4a, from the Cabinet Forward
work Programme. |
|
Declarations of Interest Decision: There
were none. Minutes: There
were none. |
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting For
the Committee to approve the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting held on 04/11/24. Decision: The
minutes of the meeting held on 04/11/24 were approved as an accurate record of
proceedings. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 04/11/24 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings. |
|
To Consider items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme Decision: Members
considered item 4a from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme. Minutes: Members
considered item 4a from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme. |
|
Economic Development CRM System - Contract Renewal Additional documents:
Decision: Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet. Minutes: Officers explained that In March 2023, they
procured the Evolutive system to support the Business Anchor project, funded by
the UK Government Shared Prosperity Fund. This decision was based on the
successful experience delivering high volume of grants during COVID and
feedback from economic development officers in Wales who found the system useful. Officers initially secured a two-year
contract with an optional one-year extension. However, this timeframe no longer
aligns with the council's needs for current and upcoming programs, such as the
Tata Transition Fund grants and the second round of the Shared Prosperity Fund
starting in April. Officers anticipate further funding from the
government's equivalent to the Shared Prosperity Fund starting in 2026. The
council has the opportunity to re-contract on a director board basis for three
years at a cost of £30,381 plus VAT. This cost can be covered by current SPF
projects, but it needs approval, invoicing, and payment by February. Members
were advised that as this falls outside the council's contract procedure rules,
officers are seeking members' approval to proceed. The chair reminded members why the committee
was scrutinising the report, explaining that the committee can choose what it
scrutinises under the current system. Since this report departs from the
contract procedure rules, he felt it was important for the committee to review
it to ensure the council isn't deviating unreasonably. He noted there are no
major concerns but a few questions. Members had some observations about the
format of the report in terms of how the report is written and it's
understanding. Members were confused by the financial
impact section stating, "not applicable." They felt it wasn't clear
how much the contract would cost or if the council could afford it until they
reached the financial information later in the report. Members suggested it
would have been more helpful if the report had clarified that the cost would be
covered by the programme, rather than stating "not applicable." The chair noted that there is a brief
scrutiny covering report that goes before the substantive cabinet report. He
felt that the scrutiny report was a little bit confusing as the impact sections
are blank, he asked that this feedback be looked at corporately. Members noted the graph in the report
showing grant funding allocations and expressed that they hadn't been informed
about the specific grants were for and felt it would be helpful if they could
have details on where the grants were awarded and to whom. While they hoped for
information on individual wards, they felt that all grant details should be
accessible to members to facilitate sharing best practices. Members suggested that it would be helpful
to see examples of successful initiatives from other wards to share best
practices. They felt that having access to this information, even if not
included in this report, would be beneficial. Members felt that a glossary of terms should
be included on reports. Officers noted the comments and advised that in terms of the grant fund, the SPF ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
To consider items from the Scrutiny Committee Work Programme Decision: There were no items selected from the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme. Minutes: There were no items selected from the Scrutiny Forward Work Programme. |
|
Performance Monitoring Decision: There
were no performance monitoring items. Minutes: There
were no performance monitoring items. |
|
Selections of items for future scrutiny · Cabinet Forward Work
Programme https://democracy.npt.gov.uk/documents/s104099/PublicCabinetFWP15thJanuary2025.docx.pdf
· Scrutiny Committee Forward Work
Programme Decision: Members
noted the Forward Work Programme. Minutes: Members
noted the Forward Work Programme. |
|
Urgent Items Any
urgent items at the discretion of the Chairperson pursuant to Section 100BA(6)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). Decision: There
were none. Minutes: There
was none. |