Agenda and draft minutes

Ann Webb, Maureen Powell as substitute.

None.

Cabinet Member Ben Callard and Jonathan Davies introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Cabinet Member Ian Chandler, Nikki Wellington and Cabinet Member Martyn Groucott.

• A member asked about the steps being taken by the administration to prevent further financial deterioration and ensure a sustainable recovery, addressing structural issues such as schools' growing deficits and underfunded services. The Cabinet Member responded that the deficit is about 2% of the revenue budget. They are working with schools through recovery plans to manage the situation gradually. The administration is also looking to other areas of the authority to support increased demand in health and social care. They highlighted that the Council is working on a range of measures, including implementing a programme of change to address service delivery over the medium to long term; working with schools on recovery plans to manage deficits gradually without causing a shock to the system; focusing on cost mitigation rather than immediate savings, with efforts to control the front door of services and manage care packages effectively; enhancing financial scrutiny measures and maintaining financial discipline across all services.
• The Committee asked for clarification on the financial risk and the measures being taken to address the budget deficit. The Cabinet Member for Social Care explained that the financial risk is secondary to the risk of harm and that the Council is spending the money required to provide care, which is why there is an overspend in social care. They explained that they are implementing measures to manage the situation, including controlling the front door and ensuring people are looked after in a way that manages their conditions.
• The Chair asked about the consistency between Risks 7 and 8 in the Risk Register specifying risk of harm to children and adults, and the council’s approach to reducing overspend. The Cabinet Member clarified that the risk is not about the money being spent, as it is being spent, hence the £4m overspend in social care. The Cabinet Member for Social Care highlighted the efforts to manage care at the initial stages to prevent higher cost packages. The financial risk is considered secondary to the risk of harm, with the main focus being on preventing unnecessary harm to children and adults.
• A member asked about the number of schools close to deficit and why Pembroke Primary has a higher deficit than others. Officers advised that the deficits of all schools are outlined in Appendix 3 of the report and that Pembroke Primary's higher deficit is due to recent changes in staffing and additional learning needs income that has been allocated to support pupils.
• A member enquired about being creative with resources, specifically mentioning the example of Castle Park School and the use of resources on projects that may not be necessary at this time. The Cabinet Member responded that while the Council works hard to maximise the use of available resources, some funding is specifically allocated for certain projects, such as active travel, and cannot be redirected.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Cabinet Member Ben Callard introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Richard Jones,Matthew Gatehouse and Cabinet Member Ian Chandler.

·         Members asked about the high number of risks (14 out of 16) being rated as high and whether the mitigations are effective or if they are being overly cautious. They also enquired about unforeseen risks and how they are managed in departmental risk registers. The officer explained that the risk levels are assessed pre-mitigation and that the post-mitigation scores reflect the anticipated impact of the mitigation actions. It was acknowledged that while some risks remain high, the Council is cautious and bases its assessments on evidence and referred to the introduction of Directorate Risk Registers to manage risks at a more detailed level.

·         Members asked if unforeseen and unpredicted risks would now be added to each directorate's risk register and were advised that as much as they can foresee and have evidence for risks, they will be included in the Directorate Risk Registers. Officers emphasised that risk is an ever-changing field, and the Council aims to keep up to date with it.

·         The committee asked about the financial sustainability and service delivery given the persistent financial pressures, overspending in social care, and educational deficits. They enquired about key areas where further action or alternative approaches might be required to close the gap. Officers, in responding, referred to the development of a medium-term financial strategy and a new budget monitoring process as key mitigating actions and also a programme of change looking at how the Council operates in the future.

·         Questions were asked about workforce challenges and retention, particularly in social care and education, and whether there are contingency plans for high-risk roles or sectors if initiatives take longer to yield results. Officers explained the development of a new people strategy focused on recruitment and retention, including a new recruitment portal and website to attract talent and referred to proactive approaches being taken in social care to recruit qualified social workers.

·         Members raised the rising demand and complexity of cases in social care for children and adults, and how the Council is ensuring measures to address potential workforce and provider problems in the medium term. The Cabinet Member for Social Care detailed several initiatives, including a new strategy for children's placements, investment in recruiting foster carers, and a new commissioning strategy for domiciliary care. The challenges of a rising aging demographic and the need for long-term projects to extend healthy life expectancy was discussed.

·         A member asked if children involved in care are always managed to stay in their own area and school, or if they ever have to be moved away and the Cabinet Member for Social Care responded that while the aspiration is to keep children local, it is not always possible due to a lack of placements and foster carers. Each case is assessed independently to determine what is in the best interest of the child, and sometimes it is necessary to move them out of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Cabinet Member Martyn Groucott and Nicola Wellington introduced the report and answered the members’ questions.

• A member asked how the King Henry VIII primary phase budget relates to other primaries in Monmouthshire.The officer explained that the funding for the King Henry VIII primary phase is equivalent to that of other primary schools of similar size in Monmouthshire. The head teacher and governing body are responsible for structuring the leadership team. While the funding is the same, potential savings could come from not needing two head teachers, as the school can look at its structure to identify any possible savings.
• A member asked about the measures being put in place to ensure that reductions in leadership resources at Chepstow School do not disproportionately impact vulnerable groups, including pupils with disabilities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. It was explained that transitional funding has been put in place to ensure a staged process into the reduced funding. Chepstow School is looking at ways to support their learners more cost-effectively. The school currently has the largest leadership group among the four secondary schools, and they are working on restructuring to manage the funding changes.
• A question was asked about how the long-term effect of these changes on outcomes is monitored, especially in Chepstow where funding is significantly reduced. The officer stated that the financial aspects of the funding changes will be closely monitored, and the educational outcomes will be overseen by the school improvement team within the Directorate. They will work together to understand the impact of the funding changes and ensure that standards are maintained.
• It was further asked about plans to address the potential risk of leadership burnout, particularly in the light of schools’ reduced funding. It was mentioned that leadership burnout is a concern that is frequently discussed with employee services. The impact of the funding changes on leadership burnout is not expected to be direct, but it will be monitored through regular discussions and sickness statistics. A member noted that burnout isn’t confined to leadership but applies to classroom teachers as well.

Chair’s Summary:

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and officers. The report was moved.

11th February 2025.