Venue: Committee Room 1 - Virtual Meeting
Contact: Neil Barnett Scrutiny Adviser
Declarations of Interest
The minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 October 2022 were accepted and approved as an accurate record of the meeting.
- Sally Jenkins – Strategic Director – Social Services
- Roxanne Green - Regional Partnership Board – Assistant Director Partnership &
The Strategic Director introduced the report to the Committee, explaining that the Regional Partnership Board are looking at the Health and Social Care Regional Integration Fund (the RIF) which is a 5 year fund to deliver a programme of change from April 2022-March 2027. The Strategic Director gave background to the RIF which is a joint venture across the 5 local authorities and the health board. The RIF has brought about projects that have become a part of the core funding. If the social services wish to bring about transformation, the area is in a position where the financial future looks uncertain.
Members were asked to consider the financial implications and proposed tapered funding model and welcomed any comments they would like the partners to take back to the Regional Partnership Board.
The Committee asked the following:
- The Chair asked what the benefit is of having all of the five authorities, GAVO and TVA working together and if there is a financial saving. The Chair then queried if they operate as a Social Services the same as other authorities.
The Strategic Director advised that it is in statute that the Partners have to have a RPB with the third sectors. It was clarified that the board is in line with the Well-being of the Future Generations Act, which stipulates that every area has an RPB that comes together to join areas in work where possible. It was highlighted that the authorities still have their own separate work but look at areas of work where they have commonalities and share ideas, also where the health services and social services intersect.
The Assistant Director PMO added that they have specific population groups also for example such as children, dementia, adults, all with complex needs. These specific population groups support would benefit from a joint response.
The Strategic Director asserted that there is a high degree of operational independence within each local authority, some of these areas of work are delivered locally or regionally. There are differences on those depending on which group and which money for those projects. But the RPB is laid out for them in the constitution.
- A Member queried that they are lacking resources individually and as a group, if it is a Welsh Government Policy, there are a lot of ideas shared as its cross cutting on the board; so the Member asked if the Officer could confirm the best way to do it financially and if there is anything that the partners would like to change.
The Strategic Director recognised that if a comment on possible change was made, that could have a political dimension to the answer. Financially, as the Welsh Government has chosen this way to funnel the grant money to them; whether the officers agree with that is not for discussion. They have chosen this route for funding to ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
a) Forward Work Programme Update (Appendix 1)
b) Actions Plan (Appendix 2)
- The Scrutiny Adviser advised the Members that all actions apart from one action are up to date on the action sheet as actioned.
- The Community Safety Update has been considered as an action. The Members were informed that the Scrutiny Adviser is working with Janice Dent on bringing that report to the committee which would likely to be in March/April. The Adviser agreed to let the Committee know when a date has been set.
- A Member asked for clarity on the work programme order as the report mentions that the cabinet has also put together a work programme.
The Scrutiny Adviser explained that when the advisers plan the Forward Work Programme, they also initially work out Cabinet’s Forward Work Programme and then work with the Heads of Service to look back at what comes in annually such as the EAS Value for Money Report, the Well-being Plan.
The Adviser informed Members if there is anything that the Members would like the scrutiny team to bring to the partnership committee then that could be suggested with the chair of the committee to include in the draft forward work programme. The Committee were reminded that it is entirely up to them to add or take away items as they please.
- The Member then queried if the committee are mirroring what the Cabinet are working through.
The Scrutiny Adviser raised the Market Stability Report which most recently came to Committee, which was requested by Phil Diamond to go to Partnerships before going to the Cabinet, which then would go to council. It varies amongst reports, as sometimes officers and partners ask for scrutiny input before sending the report to Cabinet and Council.
- A Member asked to clarify if items on the agenda can only be reports.
The Scrutiny Adviser explained that some things come to scrutiny which have not before such as community safety as the Members have specifically asked; as it is a chance to speak with Janice Dent on that.
- The Member wondered if it can be an area of working and not a specific report for discussion.
The Scrutiny Adviser confirmed as long as they fall within the terms of reference.
- The Member asked if there is a list of partnerships that the council has.
The Scrutiny Adviser advised that this was sent to the chair when the committee was formed in May but offered to re-send that list. Members were referred to the list which is in the terms of reference.
Discussion ensued about the upcoming reports and a Member wished to ascertain what the scrutiny committee would be looking at in the meeting with Norse.
The Scrutiny Adviser agreed to circulate last ... view the full minutes text for item 4.