Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Pavia declared a non-prejudicial interest in Item 5 as he works for Practice Solutions Ltd. that holds the business delivery contract for the Association of Directors of Social Services in Wales.

Councillor Neill declared a non-prejudicial interest in Item 4 as Chair of the ARIC committee of EAS.

Our Scrutiny Committee meetings are live streamed and a link to the live stream will be available on the meeting page of the Monmouthshire County Council website 

If you would like to speak under the Public Open Forum at an upcoming meeting you will need to give three working days’ notice in advance of the meeting by contacting Scrutiny@monmouthshire.gov.uk 

The amount of time afforded to each member of the public to speak is at the Chair’s discretion, but to enable us to accommodate multiple speakers we ask that contributions be no longer than 3 minutes. 

Alternatively, if you would like to submit a written, audio or video representation, please contact the team via the same email address to arrange this. The deadline for submitting representations to the Council is 5pm three clear working days in advance of the meeting. If combined representations received exceed 30 minutes, a selection of these based on theme will be shared at the meeting. All representations received will be made available to councillors prior to the meeting. 

 
If you would like to suggest future topics for scrutiny by one of our Scrutiny Committees, please do so by emailing Scrutiny@monmouthshire.gov.uk  

None.

To scrutinise the latest Key Stage 4 Results.

Ed Pryce (Assistant Director, EAS) delivered a presentation, introduced the report, and answered the members’ questions with Will McLean.

Members’ Questions:

·        What does it mean for pupils to have base qualifications and how does it affect their life outcomes?

Base qualifications help pupils access the next level of education, such as FE and HE, and are increasingly required for many jobs. Achieving qualifications can improve attendance and engagement, leading to better life outcomes.

·        Are we limiting schools by grouping them in families, and how does this affect the support for pupils attaining the lowest third results?

Grouping schools in families allows for comparison and support, but schools also look at other families and focus on individual learners. The aim is to hold leaders accountable and ensure school improvement processes are in place.

·        How do we know that the Welsh Government's expectations are good enough for pupils in Wales and Monmouthshire, and how can we change the lower attainment in Wales compared to the UK?

Welsh Government uses international tests like Pisa to compare performance. There are challenges in comparing with other UK countries due to different assessment systems, but qualifications are recognized by UK universities.

·        What measures are being done for the lowest third attainment?

Measures for the lowest third attainment include improving attendance, addressing deficits, and ensuring the curriculum is appropriate. Schools focus on individual needs and support through pupil deprivation grants.

·        Does relying solely on PISA for international comparisons of young people's performance, and only providing data specific to Wales, limits the ability to confidently ensure that young learners are receiving the best opportunities globally, not just within Wales?

There are challenges in comparing educational performance across borders, particularly between England and Wales, due to differences in grading systems. We need to get to a position of confidence by the end of statutory education, where students' success in vocational or academic paths is determined by employers or standardised exams like A-levels, which are comparable across the UK. Tools like the Alps system help to model prior attainment and A-level performance to add value to specific subject areas. The border counties are in a unique position and there is a need to consider various educational opportunities, such as those in nearby regions like Bristol. Despite the lack of direct comparability, the focus remains on supporting students in making informed choices and maximising their potential.

·        Are there any obvious reasons for the slight difference in Caldicot's performance, and are recent difficulties improving?

The answers for Caldicot's performance are for the governing body of Caldicot to address, and it is not appropriate to delve into individual school diagnostics in this report.

·        Is there any difference expected in the comparisons as a result of the new curriculum coming through the schools?

Differences are expected due to the new curriculum, which will increase the variety and differentiation of provision available to learners. The frameworks for accountability are still being developed.

·        Are deficits linked to behaviour, and are we working towards emotionally healthy schools  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To update the committee at the 6-monthly stage.

Jane Rodgers introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Scott Hereford and Cabinet Member Ian Chandler.

Members’ Questions:

The Committee undertook thorough scrutiny of the report, highlighting the following important issues for the Cabinet Member’s consideration:

·        The report at section 3.5 mentions significant changes to the for-profit provider market introduced about 18 months to two years ago. How have these changes destabilised the market and increased placement costs? What do the increased costs look like, and how are they related to the committee's concerns flagged two years ago about excluding for-profit providers?

The market for residential children's homes and placements is complex, making it difficult to determine cause and effect. Even before the Welsh government's policy changes, there were already indications of placement shortages and high competitiveness, with both Welsh and English children in Welsh placements. The market has become more competitive and destabilised further, coinciding with the policy changes and local authority developments. Despite this, there remains a high demand for for-profit private placements. The costs have risen significantly, with average weekly costs increasing from around £5,000 per child a couple of years ago to around £9,000-£10,000 per child now.

·        Given the increase in costs from £5,000 to £9,000 per week over two years, which is a significant rise in a short period, how have you managed your budgets to cope with these unanticipated changes?

The strategy involves safely reducing the number of children requiring placements, recruiting and retaining sufficient in-house foster placements, and developing their own placements. Despite these efforts, managing high-cost placements remains difficult. The challenges are shared by all local authority children's services in Wales. The strategy emphasises increasing in-house foster placements, noting that residential placements involve a small number of children compared to fostering.

·        Do we have any further sense of which providers will stay, convert, or exit the market following the new legislation?

It is too early to predict which providers will stay, convert, or exit the market, as many are keeping their business plans confidential. Efforts are being made to engage with providers to understand the situation better.

·        What alternative strategies are being considered for sourcing suitable properties in the north of the county, including potential cross-border provision?

Developing and sharing placements with other regions and local authorities is being considered, though it is complicated. Mechanisms for exchanging placements and ensuring no voids are being discussed at regional levels.

·        What are the contingencies if we cannot secure further grant money for placements?

The business cases for placements have been made considering scenarios with and without capital grants. Even without grants, there is a strong business case for accessing borrowing through the Council.

·        Are there any lessons learned from the success of Caldicot that can inform the development in Monmouth?

The success of Caldicot is noted, and lessons learned include the importance of engaging with local residents and ensuring smooth transitions for young people. Specific operational details and staffing structures are being reviewed to inform future developments.

·        Regarding the delays in Monmouth  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To update the committee at the 6-monthly stage.

Cabinet Member Ben Callard introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Nick Keyse.

Members’ Questions:

·        At what stage does MCC look at investments like Castlegate Business Park and decide they are no longer working and take action?

The decision to review investments like Castlegate Business Park is based on the asset investment policy, which sets a 2% return on investment target. The ongoing management involves assessing risks and attractiveness of the space. If tenants vacate, the space is considered for re-letting based on demand. The decision to take further action would depend on the continued assessment of these factors.

·        Regarding the farms, is the policy still for the Council to hold on to Council farms?

The policy is to hold on to Council farms as they are considered valuable assets for delivering various policy objectives, such as locally grown food and regenerative agriculture.

·        How do we feel about the stability of Cineworld as a tenant for Newport?

The stability of Cineworld as a tenant for Newport Leisure Park is being monitored, and the report reflects adjustments in projections based on their current situation. Specific details about their stability are commercially sensitive.

·        Do you feel there is more potential for risk from arrears for rental, either farm or commercial from Castlegate or Newport?

Rent arrears are being managed, with ongoing negotiations and actions to recover payments. The report indicates that arrears are within a manageable range, and steps are being taken to address non-payment issues.

·        Where would the EV charging be in Newport Retail Park?

The EV charging bays are expected to be located between Cineworld and Harvester, as this area has the best frontage and visibility.

·        Has there been any progress in moving MCC business to the site adjacent to the Solar Farm?

The land surrounding the Solar Farm is being promoted as part of the replacement LDP. Any future development for MCC business will depend on the planning process.

Chair’s Conclusion:

The Chair thanked the officers and Cabinet Member for the report and their responses to the committee’s questions.

Councillor Bond requested that more information be included on items in the Planner; in particular, how reports and decisions listed will affect residents. She also reminded officers of the intention to scrutinise grant funding following the call-in to People committee of the decision regarding the Shared Prosperity Fund – ACTIONS

A reminder of the Special meeting on 3^rd June and Members’ workshop on 16^th June.

The minutes were agreed.