RECENT Council contracts worth at least £32m have not been through the required scrutiny processes, it has been revealed.

Senior councillors have expressed alarm at the news, but Council bosses say training will be improved to deal with the issue.

Under the authority’s internal rules, known as standing orders, any deals worth more than £2m struck with outside providers must go under the microscope at one of its five cross-party overview and scrutiny committees.

But it has emerged that this has not happened with nearly half (46 per cent) of the contracts put out to tender in the past three years.

A question asked by a Liberal Democrat councillor at this month’s meeting of the Full Council has revealed that over this period, only 19 of the 35 large contracts put out to tender have been sent to a scrutiny committee as required.

A further eight, worth at least £16m, have been considered in public by the Council’s Executive and Full Council, the Labour leader of the Council, Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, said.

She said: “This does leave a gap between the number of contracts put out to tender compared to overview and scrutiny reports and the requirement will be reinforced in training through 2017.”

Councillor Dominic Fear (Lib Dem, Idle and Thackley) said he had been prompted to ask the question after noticing a number of big Council projects were either being referred to scrutiny committees too late for the process to be effective, or not at all.

He gave the example of the £5.4m restoration plan for St George’s Hall, which only went before the regeneration scrutiny committee in September.

He said: “It’s a huge amount of public money that is not going through the right process.”

Cllr Fear said when projects did go to scrutiny committees, they were often picked apart and could “get absolutely battered” as members debated their value-for-money – but said the process was essential to make sure public cash was being spent wisely.

Councillor Jeanette Sunderland, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said she had been “shocked” to hear that so few of the contracts were being properly examined.

She said: “This is what happens in organisations that have something to hide. The first thing they do is they don’t play by the rules.”

In response, Cllr Hinchcliffe said: “These are not the only rules governing the oversight of Council procurement, however, the Council’s scrutiny procedures are clear and Council officers should follow them.

“There are no two ways about it.”

Her Labour colleague, deputy Council leader Councillor Val Slater, added that lessons had been learnt, but stressed the authority had nothing to hide.

She said: “I don’t agree with Cllr Sunderland’s theory of conspiracy.

“It does seem to me that on both sides – that’s members and officers, because this is a joint responsibility – the awareness of this particular rule hasn’t been as detailed as it should be and, as the leader promised, that’s one thing we will be dealing with in the New Year by offering members and officers training on the rule.

“If needs be, we will certainly put on some training to make sure the rules are followed but for Cllr Sunderland to say it is disgraceful, or it’s a sign of secrecy, etc, is rather over-the-top.

“It looks as if mistakes have been made, we have admitted those mistakes and we are going to make sure it doesn’t happen in future.

“There is nothing to hide. We believe in being open and transparent and we try and ensure that is so, but sometimes these things happen.”

The Telegraph & Argus asked for the full details of the contracts which had not gone through the scrutiny process, but a spokesman for the authority said this could not be provided until after the New Year break.

Councillor Dale Smith (Con, Wharfedale), the chairman of the children’s services overview and scrutiny committee, also said he had been surprised to hear about the number of contracts which hadn’t been scrutinised.

He said: “There seems to have been a slip-up in understanding the process – on this occasion, I’m sorry to say, by officers, because to some extent the scrutiny committees don’t know what contracts are being procured.”

But Cllr Smith said that even when contracts did go before committees, it was often at the point where “it’s a done deal, almost”.

He said it would be better if they were scrutinised earlier in the procurement process.