Agenda and minutes

None.

None

(Note: this item was swapped with Item 6) 

Council Leader Mary-Ann Brocklesby and Gemma Ellis introduced the report and answered the members’ questions withJohn Paxton andScott James. 

Key points from Members: 

·                  A member asked about the benefits of the collaborative partnership. The officer responded that the collaboration allows for the transfer of knowledge and expertise, which helps address inconsistencies and standardize processes across the partnership. The Leader added that the collaboration with Ardell provides economies of scale, access to expertise, and helps to address recruitment and retention challenges in the public sector. 

·                  Members asked about value for money from the Procurement partnership. It was explained that collaboration and working together are essential to address budget pressures, leading to more efficient services and better community well-being outcomes. 

·                  It was asked how it is ensured that local contractors are bidding and getting work in the area. It was highlighted that the new Procurement Act allows for below-threshold tenders to be advertised to local suppliers, maintaining competition to ensure value for money. 

·                  Members asked how being socially responsible can be linked with ensuring good value. The officer explained that tenders are evaluated based on value for money, quality, and well-being criteria, ensuring a balanced approach. The Leader emphasised the importance of socially responsible procurement, which includes ethical considerations, local supply chains, and community benefits. 

·                  A member asked for clarity about how the employees are funded. It was explained that the funding model for Ardell includes contributions from each of the four local authorities and levy income from three collaborative frameworks.It was confirmed that the 6 full-time employees are on secure contracts. 

·                  Members sought clarity as to whetherthe 40 employedare in addition to those who would have been employed anyway. Officers explained that the 40 employees form part of the whole team, funded through a combination of local authority contributions and collaborative frameworks, maintaining expertise within the team. 

·                  A member asked for clarity about theapparent difference in consultancy costs between this report and the budget– ACTION: officers to provide details of consultancy spend 

·                  It was asked how officers ensure value for money and manage demand.The officers explained that theProcurement team uses Power BI to track and manage spend, ensuring compliance and identifying contract leakage. They also have a contract forward plan to prepare for upcoming procurements. 

·                  Explanationwas sought about theContract Forward Plan and its progress.The Contract Forward Plan is being developed to provide a forward pipeline of work, helping to prepare the market and resource the procurement team effectively. 

·                  WithPowerBI, it was asked ifmembers will be able to see the information by the end of the year. The officer explained that the information is provided on a quarterly basis to senior managers who candisseminate it through their teams. 

·                  A member asked which key  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Cabinet Member Paul Griffiths introduced the report. Louise Wilce delivered a presentation and answered the members’ questions with Hannah Jones and Councillor Griffiths: 

Key points from Members: 

·                  Regarding the use of the word ‘aspiration’, it was asked if the services are doing well. The officer responded that they are doing well overall, but the area needing improvement is identifying and supporting young people who have not been flagged as at risk of becoming NEET. 

·                  A member asked if there is an opportunity to look at the risk markers before age 7, and if any mental health or trauma support is available. The officer acknowledged the importance of early intervention and mentioned that previously, under ESF funding, there was a year 6-7 transition program. However, due to reduced funding under the UK SPF, the focus shifted to support just ahead of the post-16 transition. She emphasized the reliance on partnerships and stakeholders to provide mental health and well-being support. 

·                  Clarity was sought about the initial source of funding that has been lost. It was clarified that the initial funding came from European Structural Funds (ESF), which supported the programme until 2022. 

·                  Officers were asked to elaborate on the link between being NEET and homelessness. The officer explained that the Welsh Government merged the identification tools for NEET and youth homelessness due to overlapping risk markers such as attendance, exclusions, and looked-after status. This merger helps to ensure collaboration and avoid duplication in support services. 

·                  It was asked if there are NEETs in the county that we don't know about, possibly due to information gaps from schools or because they moved into the county after age 16. The officer noted that the annual destination data tracks young people educated in Monmouthshire, while tier data tracks residents. There can be differences, and efforts are made to identify and track all young people, including those who move into the county. 

·                  For those pupils aged 16 and 18 who decide to go into work directly, it was asked what we know about the job market for them. The officer responded that young people going directly into employment often find low-skilled and low-paid roles in sectors like construction and retail. There is a need to develop more apprenticeship opportunities and upskilling programs to improve their career prospects. 

·                  A member asked what the main factors are to flag up in those who are in danger of becoming NEET, to identify a young person at risk. The officer mentioned that the early identification tool uses indicators such as poor attendance, exclusions, looked-after status, free school meals, school moves, and academic levels. These indicators help to benchmark the risk, but ongoing conversations with stakeholders are crucial to identify and support at-risk young people. 

·                  A member asked if measures are in place for the work to continue once the funding runs out in March ’25. The officer responded that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Cabinet Member Martyn Groucottand Sharon Randall-Smith introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Will McLean. 

Key points from Members: 

·                  A member asked whether the low number of students progressing to AS or A level Welsh is a concern and how the small classes are funded. The officer acknowledged the small number of students progressing to AS and A-level, attributing it partly to difficulties in recruiting Welsh language specialists, but promoting the benefits of bilingual education in the workforce is now more emphasised. Schools use their post-16 funding to support these classes, and the Escal project helps to maintain curriculum breadth by offering remote tutoring. 

·                  More details were sought about how the E-sgol programme works. It was explained that the project involves remote tutoring for most of the time, but students also have regular face-to-face interactions with their peers and teachers. This project helps to maintain A-level provisions that would otherwise be under threat due to small class sizes. 

·                  The Chair asked about the prospect of the number of students progressing to A-level to improve now. The officer emphasised the strong imperative from the government’s aspiration to have a million Welsh speakers by 2050 and the number of posts, particularly government ones, for which Welsh is essential or desirable. 

·                  It was asked further if it is expected that the support within the workforce for Welsh speaking will boost the number of A-level students. It was explained that it is challenging to determine whether support within the workforce for Welsh speaking or the number of A-level students comes first. Individual choices and aspirations were emphasised, along with the benefits of learning a second language to cognitive functions and future language acquisition, and it was noted that achieving the goal of a million Welsh speakers will rely on the overall levels of Welsh proficiency within the community and local authority. 

·                  A member asked how the council is assessing and promoting the demand for Welsh medium education across the whole county. The officer explained that the council promotes Welsh medium education through various channels, including information in school booklets, social media, and community events. The Welsh Education Forum (WEF) has a promotion subgroup that meets regularly to strategise and implement promotional activities. 

·                  It was asked how WESP aligns with the government’s goal of 1 million speakers by 2050, what the annual targets are for Monmouthshire, and whether we are meeting them. The officer stated that Monmouthshire's target is 105 reception pupils by 2031, and they are currently at 65% of this target. The initial years are challenging, but progress is being made through various promotional efforts and the establishment of new schools and immersion provisions. 

·                  A member asked ifthere could be a Welsh language comprehensive school in Monmouthshire in the future and, if so, what could be learned from existing comprehensives elsewhere that are achieving  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Officers will email members aboutRisk Register ideas. 

16^th July 2024 

The minutes were agreed.