Cost of Living Support Icon



Minutes of a meeting held on 16th November, 2017.


Present:  Councillor G.D.D. Carroll (Chairman); Councillor V.P. Driscoll (Vice-Chairman); Councillors O. Griffiths, S.J. Griffiths, Dr. I.J. Johnson, P.G. King, N. Moore, L.O. Rowlands and E. Williams.


Also present: Councillor L. Burnett and Dr. F. Kinghorn (Deputy Director Public Health).





These were received from Councillors R. Crowley and J.W. Thomas.



462         MINUTES –


RECOMMENDED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 19th October, 2017 be approved as a correct record.





No declarations were received.





The above matter had been considered by the Cabinet at its meeting held on 23rd October, 2017 (Minutes No. C112) refers and had been approved to enable the Council to put in place a Strategy to support the delivery of the Council’s priorities. 


Councillor L. Burnett had subsequently called-in the matter on the basis of the following:


Cabinet resolved T H A T the contents of the report be noted and T H A T the Income Generation & Commercial Opportunities Strategy 2017-2020 be approved.  The reasons for these being to consider the way in which income generation and commercial opportunities services would contribute to the delivery of the Council’s vision of “strong communities with a bright future” and to enable the Council to put in place an Income Generation & Commercial Opportunities Strategy to support the delivery of the Council’s priorities.


However, there is a lack of clarity in:


1.         Whether the Strategy aims for no more than “Full Cost Recover” or to achieve a surplus.


2.         Whether income generation strategies would differentiate between local residents and those from outside the Vale of Glamorgan.


3.         Whether income generation strategies would differentiate between existing services and new ones that have been solely designed for income generation purposes.


4.         How the Strategy could differentiate between services that support the achievement of the Corporate Plan and those that don’t particularly when they are delivered by the same service area as is the case with Adult and Community Learning.


5.         Why the Strategy includes Outsourcing as a potential delivery model for income generation.


The Chairman, in referring to the information contained within the agenda, invited Councillor Burnett to comment on the call-in that she had submitted.


Councillor Burnett commenced by citing the report that stated that it had two main ways that the Council could fund it activities.  The largest, a funding allocation from Welsh Government which was shrinking year on year, as its own funding also reduced, and Council Tax from local residents.  Increasingly, Councils were looking at ways to generate income if they were to avoid cuts in services or large increases in Council Tax.  In referring to the report, Councillor Burnett had no argument with the principle of maximising commercial opportunities.  She accepted that it made sense to remove some of the burden from hard pressed Council Tax payers.  However, she was concerned that the proposed Strategy could result in the burden on local residents and business actually increasing. 


She drew the Committee’s attention to the relevant Cabinet minute which indicated the development of a strategic approach to income generation.  She also referred to paragraph 11 of the Cabinet report which referred to “Providing a clear framework for developing and implementing activity” contrary to both of the above statements, she suggested that there was a lack of clarity in the Strategy which impacted on the Scrutiny Committee’s ability to scrutinise the proposals effectively and therefore, reiterated whether the Strategy aimed to do no more than “full cost recovery” or to achieve a surplus as it was not clear within the Strategy as both were discussed and how it would be decided whether a service would be subsidised, cost neutral or an opportunity for profit and referred to Objective 2 of the Strategy document.  She felt that there was an argument to be made to apply social enterprise principles where a surplus subsidises a loss within an essential service.  She considered there was a need to know how this would work in practice. 


Secondly, whether income generation strategies would differentiate between local residents and those from outside the Vale of Glamorgan.  Her view was that local residents already subsidised visitors to the county.  She felt that these proposals could be viewed as a Council Tax rise by stealth. 


Thirdly, whether income generation strategies would differentiate between existing services and new ones that had been solely designed for income generation purposes required to be clarified.  If it was a case of extracting the maximum possible from existing services, treating them as “cash cows” or about delivering new services that people could choose to pay for.  On this point, she sought clarification of the specified aim to avoid competition within the private sector which was one of the stated aims of the Strategy.  If it was the aim of the Council to use its venues for weddings and events, this would obviously compete with local businesses.  Further, she also asked for clarification relating to the Strategy’s aim to introduce a charge to change public behaviour.  She referred to the “nudge theory” such as the 5p plastic bag charge or punitive levels of charges. 


In referring to her fourth reason for the call-in, she enquired how the Strategy would differentiate between services that supported the achievement of the Corporate Plan and those that did not, particularly when they were delivered by the same service area as in the case with Adult and Community Learning and referred to an example of differentiating between basic skills, courses that promoted social or digital inclusion and lifestyle courses.  She also considered that this rationale could be extended to relevant sports courses or activities which took place within community centres. 


In referring to her fifth reason for the call-in, she considered that outsourcing of existing services was often seen as a means of alleged cost reduction, something that the previous Administration worked to avoid.  To her knowledge, it had not been used as a way of generating income.  She sought clarification and examples of such instances.  She referred to page 17 of the Strategy which already appeared to consider the very issue.  Separately, she referred to paragraph 15 of the original Cabinet report which stated that there were no direct employment implications as a result of the report, however, she considered it was obvious that there would be if the Council made a decision to outsource its services. 


She indicated that whilst the Strategy included a list of current activities, it gave no indication of any emerging strategy and referred to “low hanging fruit” such as advertising, opportunities in country parks, income from Council buildings, etc.  In referring to the beach huts at Barry Island, she wondered whether they were to create a surplus or break even provision to support tourism and whether they would be viewed differently to resort car parks. 


In conclusion, she indicated that the report stated that the Council aimed to generate approximately £1.1m in just over two years, however, there was no information on plans in place so far to achieve that.  It was her view that a list of current activities and exclusions did not amount to a strategy.  In referring to the related action plan at page 18 of the Strategy, it appeared to her in the main to reflect existing services.  Achieving £600,000 by April 2019, in her opinion could result in increases in fees and charges for local people, the equivalent to a 1% rise in Council Tax. 


Whilst she was not a Member of the Committee, she sought support in regard to recommending to the Cabinet the following: 

  • The draft Strategy is sent to all Scrutiny Committees for full consideration to develop a clear framework;
  • That stakeholders are consulted on, co-production;
  • That the framework should be explicit to allow scrutiny of proposals.

The Managing Director, in responding to the various points raised by Councillor Burnett, reminded the Committee that the purpose of the Strategy was not to identify specific proposals.  By way of example, he drew the Committee’s attention to a report regarding the Council’s Registration work which related to service specific charges and fees and had been an agenda item at the same Cabinet meeting which had been considered in the context of the above report.  He stressed that the Strategy document had been submitted to Cabinet for approval so that arrangements contained in the Strategy aligned itself to the Council’s existing Reshaping Services programme.  He also reiterated the requirement for a mixed approach for delivering the same. 


The matter of a business case for services charging at a cost neutral, full cost recovery or otherwise, would be dependent on current arrangements, statutory / discretionary provisions and cited the Council’s Catering Service trading model which allowed for any profits to be invested into that service, thereby allowing it to grow and develop.


In referring to the beach huts at Barry Island, he alluded to considerable deliberations at that time when the Council had taken the view that it needed to strike a balance to ensure that the fees charged maximised the use of the facilities. 


He also reminded the Committee that the Strategy was set within the context of reducing Revenue Support Grant settlements from the Welsh Government.  He also alluded to the Wales Audit Office criticism of Local Authorities across Wales due to failing to make sufficient inroads to supporting delivery of services by maximising income generation opportunities.  He also referred to the Council’s Public Opinion Survey which indicated general support from residents who were prepared to pay a fee to receive a service on a case by case basis.  The Strategy was not a means to make a profit but a mechanism to support discretionary services which, without such a Strategy, may not be sustainable going forward.


In referring to Powers of Competency, the Managing Director indicated that the Council was prevented from competing directly with other private service providers.  That said, it was his view that existing Council services where a fee was charged, should be reviewed as in the case of the Council’s Registrars Service. 


He reassured the Committee that as and when a specific proposal came forward for consideration, that would be the time when Scrutiny Committees would be consulted on the same. 


The Chairman, at this juncture, invited Members of the Committee to comment on the matter.


A Member, in referring to the Strategy, understood the principles behind the same.  However, he referred to the implications for staff when taking account of the implications in the event of the Council outsourcing any services and enquired if Trade Unions had been consulted.  In addition, he referred to the Council’s previous Administration and indeed historical arrangements in the past where the Council had in the main chosen to avoid outsourcing of its services.  He also referred to the disparate nature of services and the implications of the Strategy on those areas.  He also further referred to contradictory remarks made within the Strategy and cited elements of pages 6 and 9 of the document as examples of such.  In regard to the scope of the report regarding those areas of exclusion, some were not in the Council’s gift to agree so.  In summing up, he sought an assurance from the Managing Director that the Strategy would be sent to all of the Council’s Scrutiny Committees for consideration.


The Managing Director, in responding to the Member’s points, confirmed that the Strategy was indeed a framework, however it was vital to progress the same.  He acknowledged the issue regarding reducing funding from the Welsh Government.  The main consideration for the Council was how it could sustain services in an environment of reducing budgets and particularly those discretionary services where, without such a Strategy, the Council would be unlikely to provide in the future.  He reiterated his earlier point regarding legislative constraints to generate income.  Additionally, under the Strategy proposals there would be certain exclusions, for example schools, which would be encouraged to generate their own income for their own re-investment.


In regard to Trade Union consultation, this had been undertaken as Trade Unions had representatives on the Council’s various work streams linked to the Reshaping Services programme. 


He gave an assurance that Scrutiny Committees would be able to scrutinise service specific proposals and this was set out in the Strategy’s governance arrangements. 


Another Member acknowledged that this indeed was the start of a process and it was important that the Council established the various revenue opportunities.  However, he was concerned that the Strategy may allow for the introduction of car parking charges in town centres and referred to a more joined up approach between service areas.  He echoed the previous comments regarding the Scrutiny Committees’ ability to scrutinise specific service proposals.  He also considered it important that at the time when Scrutiny Committees considered specific proposals they had all relevant information on each project as it was developed, including an appropriate business case and related agreed targets.  In concluding, he indicated that he was not against the proposals but was in particular against outsourcing of Council services.


The Managing Director, in acknowledging the points made by the Member, referred to the Strategy document’s appendix.  He suggested that there were areas where the Council performed better, therefore, it was important that the Council reviewed its existing fee setting arrangements.  In terms of information being made available to Elected Members, he suggested that the next Reshaping Services update report include information outlining how the work of the Strategy would be phased over the coming months / years. 


The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning who was in attendance on behalf of the Leader who was unable to attend the meeting, indicated that the Strategy represented very early days and indeed was an extension of the Council’s existing Reshaping Services programme.  He also confirmed that each and every service area proposal would be reported to Scrutiny Committees for consideration and saw no purpose in referring the Strategy to the Council’s other Scrutiny Committees for consideration, as there was little purpose in doing so, as the Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee was the lead Scrutiny Committee on the matter.  He reminded the Committee that the whole purpose of the Strategy was to avoid further cuts to existing services.


Another Member, in supporting the proposals, considered that these were not sufficiently ambitious and enquired as to why the Council had not sought to borrow additional funding from the Public Loans Board to allow it to invest in property and to set up an energy company.  In response, the Cabinet Member reminded the Member that the legislative position in Wales was not the same as it was in England and therefore, Councils in Wales were not permitted to engage in such ventures.  In addition, the Managing Director reiterated the current legislative arrangements allowed Authorities to raise income through its fees as long as they were reinvested into the same service area and as a further example of this, referred to the Council’s Building Control Service. 


Another Member disagreed with the Cabinet Member’s view that the report and Strategy should not be shared with all of the Council’s Scrutiny Committees.  He further referred to the implications for “double taxation” accusations aimed at the Council from residents and visitors.  In referring to car parking within town centres,  he suggested that there should be more stringent parking enforcement to ensure there was adequate turnover of car parking spaces and made separate reference to parking enforcement around schools.  The Cabinet Member, in response, indicated that he was content to share the document with all Elected Members for their information but not as a formal agenda item for consideration by each Scrutiny Committee.


A Committee Member referred to the obvious necessity of the Strategy for front loading of fees which created some concern given the timetable and enquired of progress in regard to this particular matter.  In response, the Managing Director referred to his earlier comments made in regard to the Registration Service as an example of working towards those arrangements.  It was his view that it was important for the Council to charge an appropriate fee for providing a service commensurate to the work involved in delivering the same.  It was also important to review fees to ensure that the Council did not price itself out of the related market. 


The Chairman invited Councillor Burnett to sum up on her Call-in.


Councillor Burnett indicated that she was reassured by the Managing Director’s comments, but felt the factors to be agreed should be included in the assessment of a venture and be made explicit in the Strategy itself.  She also referred to the Managing Director’s comments regarding a recent Public Opinion Survey where it was stated that the public wanted the Council to offset Council Tax by developing new services.  She reminded the Committee that that Survey also stated that this was in preference to charging for existing services.  She had no objection to the Council making a profit, but it also depended on how that was made and how it was used.  She considered that it was obvious that the Council should be aiming to run ethical, legally compliant and socially responsible ventures and to use any surplus to the benefit of local residents and service delivery.  The process for developing such ventures needed to be clearer and therefore the framework should be more explicit so that they could be scrutinised effectively. 


Having given due consideration to the matter, it was




(1)       T H A T the Managing Director make an appropriate inclusion in the Reshaping Services programme update regarding the delivery of the Strategy. 


(2)       T H A T the Cabinet be requested to refer the Strategy document to all Members of the Council for information purposes.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       To ensure a periodic update on the development of the Strategy is made available to Elected Members.


(2)       To disseminate information on the Strategy.





At the meeting of the Healthy Living and Social Care Scrutiny Committee on 9th October, 2017, had considered the revenue and capital monitoring report for the period 1st April to 31st August, 2017.  This report encompassed the latest financial position of the Directorate including proposals to utilise up to £1m from the Social Services Legislative Changes fund to cover this shortfall.  In the light of the Corporate Performance and Resources comments on the matter, the Healthy Living and Social Care Scrutiny Committee had referred the matter to the Corporate Performance and Resources Committee for their consideration. 


Separately to the above, at the last meeting of the Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee during the consideration of the report relating to Reshaping Services Programme Update on Implementation, there had been concerns raised by Members regarding the Social Services Directorate’s ability to meet its efficiency savings targets.  The Committee’s concerns were within the context of a likely overspend of £1.1m in relation to Adult Services (Community Care Packages), with proposals to fund this over-spend from the above Reserve.  The Committee, following deliberation of the matter, requested that an appropriate officer from the Directorate attend a future meeting to address how the service proposed Reshaping Services projects, would be achieved.


In referring to the report and to the Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee’s request for an officer from the Directorate, the Director of Social Services reminded Members of the detailed report submitted to and considered by the Healthy Living and Social Care Scrutiny Committee previously.  In addition, he alluded to savings and the delivery of the same which were overseen by the Social Services Programme Board of which positive efforts were being made in working towards achieving these savings.  Savings targets for the current financial year had been achieved.


A Member referred to the Committee’s previous deliberations made at its meeting in October and enquired if the projected overspend in Community Care Packages was likely to be reduced by the financial year end, as in the case of previous financial years.  In addition, he sought clarification from the Director in regard to the take up of Community Care Packages and the anticipated savings to be made in the Advocacy Service.  In response, the Director confirmed that the projected overspend in the previous financial year had been offset by a significant underspend in the Integrated Care Fund.  However, it was becoming increasingly difficult to find savings because of increased demographic challenges, specifically cost pressures for example, costs associated with older adults who were receiving care at home who were generally frail, vulnerable and unwell.  In terms of the Welsh Government cap in respect of domiciliary care packages, this had been from its introduction set at £50 per month, but had since been adjusted to £70.  Since the introduction of the cap, the Council had seen a major uplift in requests seeking assistance, particularly from residents who were more well off and previously purchased their own care arrangements. 


His attention then turned to the Advocacy Service savings and he indicated as a result of the introduction of the Social Services and Well-being Act, it was no longer anticipated that the target for savings would be achieved in the current financial year.  He indicated that work would continue in this area as a contribution towards meeting the requirements of the above Act. 


In response, the Member sought further clarification in regard to the potential overspend in Community Care packages being funded from an allocation from the Social Services Legislative Change reserve and enquired further if it was appropriate given the purpose of the reserve.  He asked the Director to indicate what amount would be needed to fund the anticipated legislative changes.  In response, the Director alluded to recent case law relating to deprivation of liberties which had had a significant impact on the related budget.  The matter was under review by the Leader, the relevant Cabinet Member and the Council’s Section 151 Officer. 


Discussion ensued with a Member acknowledging the savings already made by the Directorate, those savings currently on track and “green” including a multitude of issues affecting the service.  In that context, he thanked officers for their efforts to date, but encouraged officers to ensure savings were achieved going forward. 


In summing up, the Chairman, in acknowledging the work of the service operated in a volatile environment, asked the Director’s view whether this would be a regular occurrence (an overspend).  In response, the Director indicated that funding for social care was, in his view, broken and the funding made available to the Council was insufficient and referred to issues that were impacting on the Council which it had no control of, for example the implementation of the National Living Wage.  He concluded that the outlook for Social Services was bleak.


Having regard to the above discussions and the reported information, it was


RECOMMENDED – T H A T the position be noted.


Reason for recommendation


In acknowledgement of progress made in delivering the Social Services Budget Programme.





The Head of Performance and Development presented the report, the purpose of which was to apprise the Committee of the Public Services Board’s (PSB) draft Well-being Plan and details of the 12 week consultation programme.  As well as referring to the report, the Officer also provided a presentation which demonstrated the reasons behind the Well-being Plan and its future aims, the statutory requirements of the Plan. 


The Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 formally established PSBs in each Local Authority area in Wales.  “Our Vale” was the Vale PSB and in accordance with the Act must contribute to the achievement of the national well-being goals as set out in the legislation.  The PSB must do this by: 

  • assessing the state of economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being in the local area;
  • setting local objectives that were designed to maximise the PSB's contribution within the area to achieving the national well-being goals;
  • taking all reasonable steps to meet these objectives i.e. through a Well-being Plan which must be informed by the Well-being Assessment.

In May 2017 the Vale PSB published its Well-being Assessment.  The Assessment brought together a wealth of information from a wide range of sources and provided a comprehensive picture of well-being in the Vale of Glamorgan.  As part of the consultation on the draft Well-being Assessment views were sought on the four areas of focus which the PSB had identified to provide a framework for the Well-being Plan.  The four areas of focus were engagement, the environment, early years and tackling poverty / inequalities.  All Town and Community Councils were consulted on the assessment of local well-being and would be consultees to the Well-being Plan. 


The PSB must publish its first Well-being Plan by 4th May, 2018. 


Following the consultation on the Assessment and subsequent publication, the PSB started work on the development of the Plan.  This had included the development and implementation of a self-assessment tool focusing on leadership, policy, activities, resources and impact in relation to the four areas of focus.  Two expert workshops had also been held and discussions with partners had been ongoing throughout the process.  The PSB had also taken account of feedback from the Future Generations Commissioner on the Well-being Assessment and the approach to developing the Plan.


As a result of this work the PSB had drafted a vision for 2050 and a Well-being Plan for 2018-2023 with four well-being objectives and a number of short term and long term actions.  The Plan represented the first steps in achieving the 2050 vision.


The PSB's four Well-being Objectives were: 

  • to enable people to get involved, participate in their local communities and shape local services;
  • to reduce poverty and tackle inequalities linked to deprivation;
  • to give children the best start in life;
  • to protect, enhance and value our environment.

The full draft Plan was attached as Appendix A to the report and detailed how the Well-being Objectives had been set, proposed actions, how the plan fitted with other partnership plans and strategies and the outcomes the Council wanted to achieve. An Executive Summary was attached as Appendix B to the report.


The actions in the draft Plan had been discussed at length across the PSB and reflected where partners thought their collective action could add the greatest value in contributing to the national well-being goals.  Many of the actions in the draft Plan cut across a number of objectives and demonstrated how partners were looking to integrate activities to deliver a range of outcomes.


Actions in the draft Plan included: 

  • research best practice in engagement and community participation to develop new approaches;
  • support and promote volunteering opportunities for staff and residents;
  • produce an engagement toolkit;
  • work with the local community to identify and develop a co-production project;
  • work together to promote healthy behaviour messages;
  • work with local residents to identify and deliver an environmental project;
  • develop a co-ordinated approach to tackling fuel poverty;
  • work together as local employers to develop new opportunities for work experience and apprenticeships;
  • improve parenting skills;
  • review multi-agency arrangements for the delivery of preventative and statutory services for children and young people;
  • promote active travel and more sustainable travel;
  • deliver on a joint commitment to 'green' Council estates .e.g. reduce energy use and minimise pollution.

Consultation on the draft Plan would run for 12 weeks and would end on 20th December.  During the consultation period there would be a range of activities and ways that would assist people and organisations to have their say.  These included: 

  • a link to the draft Plan and dates of the stakeholder workshops had been circulated to all statutory consultees, Town and Community Councils and a wide range of organisations including those that participated in the engagement to date on the Well-being Assessment and draft Plan;
  • PSB partners had already been out and about at different events to talk about the PSB and the draft Plan including the 50+ Forum event, Barry Jobs Fair, Big Volunteer event and the Equalities Consultative Forum.  Officers would also be out in the different communities and attending more events over the coming weeks;
  • an online survey and social media campaign ~30 days of wellbeing would be launched on 23rd October and promoted by all partners;
  • two stakeholder workshops would be held on 29th November and 6th December.

As part of the consultation the PSB was particularly seeking views on the Well-being objectives and proposed actions and suggestions from organisations which could help to deliver the objectives.


Following the consultation the feedback would be considered by the PSB and the draft Plan amended and agreed for publication at the beginning of May 2018.


In attendance to respond to questions was Dr. Fiona Kinghorn, Deputy Director, Public Health Wales, who referred to the following matters: 

  • multiple challenges facing Public Sector services;
  • many of the actions contained within the draft Plan were surrounding prevention and it was important to recognise and had been recognised by the NHS, including key actions required the involvement of partners including Local Authorities;
  • the draft Plan focused on strategic values which were well aligned to the Health Board’s 40 year strategy.  Many of those values resonated with those of the Council’s proposals;
  • the Health Sector had played a full part in the development of the Plan and had signed up to the content of the same.

A Member expressed some concern and specifically referred to the 4 objectives and how these would be measured and appropriately resourced to support the delivery.  He was also concerned that certain aspects of the draft Plan were difficult to assess as they were broad in nature and, in his view, could be merely a tick box exercise.  As a Member who represented a constituency ward which was designated a Communities First area, he enquired how the Population Needs Assessment required by the Social Services and Well-being Act had been evaluated and how this would interact with the requirements of the Well-being of Future Generations Act.  He further enquired as to why there was no source reference to the figure in regard to the “use of Welsh in the Vale” on page 3 of the document.  Overall, he considered there was generally a lack of reference to Welsh language in the draft Plan.  He also queried how performance management would be carried out in relation to the actions in the Plan.  In response, the Head of Policy and Development indicated that the Plan represented the early stages of the PSB’s evolution.  It was still in draft and he would welcome the Member’s written submission in response to the consultation exercise.  In regard to performance management issues, he referred to the stance taken in the development of the draft Plan to have a small number of actions.  How these would be actioned and measured was currently being considered to ensure that accountability rested at the right level and organisation.  Dr. Kinghorn also responded by indicating that for example in respect of equalities, work was already in hand to develop a suite of measures based on the various frameworks that already existed.  In regard to resources, this would depend on the realignment of what was currently being delivered in terms of the current method of service operation / delivery. 


The Member, in responding to the officers’ comments, indicated there was no reference to Welsh language organisations in the proposed consultation proposals.  He also, in conclusion, recommended the work being undertaken by PPIW as part of the “What Works” network and suggested that appropriate advice be sought from that organisation with the view to informing the draft Plan. 


RECOMMENDED – T H A T the contents of the Public Services Board Draft Well-being Plan and proposed 12 week consultation programme be noted.


Reason for recommendation


In acknowledgement of work undertaken to date in regard to the Well-being Assessment and the steps being taken to meet these objectives as laid out in the draft Plan.





The report sought to update Members on progress in relation to the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations and to confirm the updated work programme schedule for the remainder of the municipal year 2017/18.




(1)       T H A T the following recommendations, deemed completed as indicated in Appendix A, be agreed:


20 July 2017

Min. No. 177 – Revenue   Monitoring for the Period 1st April to 31st May   2017 (MD) – Recommended

(2)   That Cabinet be requested to give   consideration to creating a reserve for schools to draw down from for   additional funding in regard to the proposed virement of £520,000 from the   Achievement for All budget.

Cabinet, on 4th   September, 2017, noted the contents of the report and resolved

(2)   That the request to create a reserve of   £520,000 for schools to draw down from for additional funding is not   appropriate at this current stage in the financial year and the virement of   £71,000 to the Achievement for All budget, as originally proposed be agreed.   This situation is to be reconsidered as part of the 2018/19 budget setting   process.

(Min. No. C60 refers)


Min. No. 180 – Welfare Reform – Progress Report (MD)   – Recommended that the contents of   the report be noted and that a further update / progress report be provided   annually unless there were significant developments as a result of the   reforms which would necessitate the submission of an earlier report.

Added to work programme   schedule.


21 September 2017

Min. No. 301 – Call-In –   Councillor Dr. I.J. Johnson – Procurement of Refit Works for Council   Building Assets – Recommended that the procurement of ReFit works for Council building   assets be supported and that the Cabinet be asked to give consideration to   the inclusion of an appropriate clause in the invitation to tender for the   contract to require how the main contractors would utilise local contractors,   local employment and support apprenticeships to deliver the scheme.

Cabinet, on 9th   October, 2017, resolved that an appropriate provision be inserted in the   invitation to tender for the Procurement of Refit Works for the Council   Building Assets Contract to encourage the main contractors wherever possible   to utilise local subcontractors, local employment and support apprenticeships   to deliver the scheme.

(Min. No. C87 refers)


Min. No. 303 – Reshaping   Services Programme – Update on Implementation (REF) – Recommended

(3)   That   the Head of Performance and Development be requested to send an e-mail to   Members of the Committee clarifying the position with regard to providing   additional office space facilities for commercial lets at the BSC facility.

E-mail response forwarded   to Members.


Min. No. 304 – Corporate   Safeguarding Annual Report 2016/17 (REF) – Recommended

(2)   That the Head of   Human Resources be required to address the points made by the Committee as   detailed above.

[* Future reporting of   the information contained within the tables on page 3 of the Annual Report be   refined to allow closer scrutiny of the information

* Four of the 37   referrals in paragraph 8 of the Annual Report were still ongoing as at 31st March,   2017

* Clarification in   regard to paragraph 38, page 10 of the Annual Report, relating to progress in   the Board’s development of an Annual Report and a work plan

- Clarification in regard to paragraph 18, page 16   of the Annual Report, in terms of what support was being provided to Atal y   Fro]

E-mail response forwarded   to Members.


Min. No. 307 – Quarter 1 (2017-18) Performance   Report: Corporate Health (MD) –   Recommended

(3)   That the Head of Performance and   Development provide a further update to the Committee in regard to matters   relating to corporate complaints.

Added to work programme   schedule.


Min. No. 308 – 1st   Quarter Scrutiny Decision Tracking of Recommendations and Updated Work   Programme Schedule 2017/18 (MD) – Recommended

(2)   That the Scrutiny Committee’s work   programme set out in Appendix B be approved and published on the Council’s   website.

Work programme uploaded to   the Council’s website.



(2)       T H A T the Scrutiny Committee’s work programme set out at Appendix B be amended and uploaded to the Council’s website.


Reasons for recommendations


(1)       To maintain effective tracking of the Committee’s recommendations.


(2)       For information.