Agenda item

Alwen Williams (Portfoli Director) and Hedd Vaughan-Evans (Head of Operations) to present the report.

1.    That the Board support the action plan developed by the Portfolio Director and timescales for Implementation in response to the 2023 Gateway Review (PAR) recommendations.

2.    That the Board note that there may be a requirement to amend the action plan following the follow up Assurance of Action Plan (AAP) review in December and that in such an instance the Portfolio Director would consult the Chair and Vice-Chair on those amendments.

The report was presented by Alwen Williams (Portfolio Director) and Hedd Vaughan-Evans (Head of Operations).

RESOLVED

1.      That the Board supports the action plan developed by the Portfolio Director and timescales for implementation in response to the 2023 Gateway Review (PAR) recommendations.

2.      That the Board notes that there may be a requirement to amend the action plan in light of the follow-up Assurance of Action Plan (AAP) review in December and that in such an instance the Portfolio Director would consult the Chair and Vice-Chair on those amendments.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The North Wales Growth Deal was required to respond to the recommendations set out in the Gateway Review report.

DISCUSSION

A member expressed fierce objection to the comment in the Gateway Review that the Business Delivery Board did not challenge the projects, and emphasised that the recommendations should not be blindly accepted as the way forward.

It was questioned who would pay for the Non-Executive Director for the Ambition Board, and what kind of person would be sought for the role, bearing in mind that the expertise already existed within the partnership. 

It was suggested that all this bureaucracy held things back, and that we should have greater autonomy so that we could proceed more quickly.

Members welcomed the fact that additional extraordinary meetings of the Board could be convened if urgent decisions were required.

It was noted that although the action of implementing the recommendation to appoint a Non-Executive Director to the Board had been designated to the Chair of the Board, it would be beneficial if the six Leaders were involved in the discussion regarding this, as it was not clear from the report what the options would be etc.

In terms of the recommendation regarding training around social procurement in the public sector, a member noted that it was not clear what was lacking here since everyone around the table was very well versed in those matters, and questioned whether there was anything we could have done differently or better.  It was noted further that the bar had been set high in terms of social value requirements, and there were also requirements in terms of net zero.  It would not be an easy matter to find tenderers that reached all those thresholds, and it was enquired whether this had been considered as part of the discussions.

In response to some of the observations and questions, the following was noted:-

·         Although the action of implementing the recommendation to appoint a Non-Executive Director to the Board had been designated to the Chair of the Board, the document highlighted that the appointment was a matter for the whole Board.

·         That the Board and Portfolio Management Office had access to procurement expertise as required and that our processes were scrutinised at a professional level before reaching the Board to ensure that those processes were followed properly.

·         That we were not just accepting the recommendations and were taking our time to consider how best we as a Board, and as a Team, wished to address the concerns behind some of those recommendations.

·         It must be remembered that any external review such as this was a snapshot in time. At the time of conducting this review in early October, the Board had approved only one outline business case in 9 months, but by today the Board had approved three outline business cases and one full business case in 3 months.

·         A follow-up review would be held the following week, which was an opportunity for the officers to challenge some of the recommendations.

·         In terms of the observation regarding procurement, they believed the Review Team were referring specifically to our method of engaging with our private sector sponsors and improving their understanding of some of our needs, rather than our partners in the public sector who were very knowledgeable in this field.

·         That guidance and advice had been sought from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association in Wales regarding what more we could do to assist companies and organisations that tendered for work.

·         Some of these requirements should make it easier for local companies and local contractors to tender successfully, as they were in the best position to offer social value and community benefits, and they also had the advantage of having a low carbon footprint if they employed local staff and used local materials.

The Chair noted that the Board had a very robust process in place.