Agenda item

Cabinet Member Ben Callard and Richard Jones introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Matt Gatehouse, Nick Keyse, Peter Davies and James Vale:

 

How robust is the Council's measurement and scoring system, and how does it compare with other local authorities?

 

The scoring framework is the same approach used within the Council's self-assessment process and is intended to provide an overall indication of progress against each enabling strategy. It draws on a range of evidence, including performance measures, targets, actions, customer feedback, staff surveys, resident surveys and audit findings. The ratings are based on progress against agreed objectives rather than simply completion of actions.

 

There is no standard assessment framework used by local authorities across Wales or the UK for evaluating enabling strategies, so direct comparison with other councils is difficult. Benchmarking tends to take place within individual service areas rather than through an overarching scoring system. The framework is designed to be transparent and is subject to challenge through the Council's governance arrangements, including scrutiny by the Governance and Audit Committee and oversight by external regulators. The assessment process also includes evidence review, challenge and moderation through performance management processes, with the intention of ensuring that judgements are supported by evidence and are not simply self-generated scores.

 

The report is intended both as an accountability mechanism and as a way of demonstrating progress against published strategies. While some enabling strategies directly affect residents, others support the systems, workforce and infrastructure that enable frontline services to operate effectively. Work is continuing to strengthen the measurement of outcomes and impact, particularly in demonstrating benefits to residents.

 

The scoring process is moderated and challenged through the Council's performance management arrangements. The Performance Team reviews the supporting evidence and data before reaching an initial assessment, rather than relying solely on the judgement of the service responsible for delivering the strategy. Scores are then discussed with relevant officers and the Strategic Leadership Team to ensure that ratings are supported by the available evidence and applied consistently across the organisation.

 

How should residents view the assessment when the Council is effectively evaluating its own performance?

 

The assessment measures performance against objectives, actions, timescales and targets that have already been agreed and published. It uses evidence from multiple sources, including residents, staff, service users and audit activity. Publishing both the judgements and supporting evidence allows elected members, audit bodies and the public to scrutinise and challenge the conclusions reached. The process is intended to demonstrate accountability and ensure the Council measures its progress against its own commitments rather than allowing strategies to proceed without evaluation. The process also includes internal challenge and moderation. The Performance Team assesses the evidence and proposes ratings before discussions take place with responsible officers and the Strategic Leadership Team. Judgements are therefore tested and reviewed rather than being determined solely by the service being assessed.

 

If a strategy is rated "Very Good", does that mean there is no further room for improvement?

 

No. A rating of "Very Good" recognises strong performance and progress, but it is not the highest point on the scoring scale. The assessment acknowledges that further improvement is still possible and identifies areas where development can continue.

 

Why do the sickness absence figures appear inconsistent, and how does the Council compare nationally?

 

The sickness absence figures relate to different reporting periods and measures within the report. The forecast level of sickness absence is approximately 10.8 days per full-time equivalent employee. Historical local government averages have typically been around 8 to 10 days per employee, meaning the Council remains slightly above the sector average. However, sickness absence across local government and other sectors has increased significantly since the pandemic.

 

Different organisations use different methodologies. National figures quoted by the Office for National Statistics differ from those published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), making direct comparisons difficult. Regardless of the source used, sickness absence levels have generally increased since the pandemic. The average figure reported publicly is only a headline measure. Much more detailed analysis is undertaken internally at service, directorate and management level, including examination of absence patterns, causes and targeted interventions.

 

What is being done to reduce sickness absence?

 

The Council has reviewed its approach to absence management and is moving away from a model based primarily on formal trigger points. Greater emphasis is being placed on early intervention, proactive management conversations, wellbeing support and preventative measures designed to address issues before they result in absence. Detailed monitoring is undertaken across services to understand the causes of absence and identify appropriate interventions to support employees and improve attendance.

 

Is an average sickness absence figure meaningful on its own?

 

The average figure is only one measure and can be heavily influenced by a relatively small number of employees experiencing long-term sickness absence. To provide a different perspective, the median sickness absence figure is around 1.9 days per employee per year, indicating that most employees experience relatively low levels of absence. More detailed management information is used internally to identify trends, causes and areas requiring intervention.

 

What does the Thinqi measure show, and how is training monitored?

 

The figure reported relates to employee uptake and use of the Thinqi e-learning platform rather than course completion. The initial priority has been ensuring staff are registered on the system and actively using it. Training is divided into mandatory and optional learning. Around 2,500 employees have access to the platform, and approximately 1,600 are fully up to date with their training requirements. For employees who have limited access to IT systems, alternative approaches are used, including face-to-face training sessions and toolbox talks delivered in operational workplaces.

 

How will councillors be supported to complete mandatory training?

 

Work is underway to improve the Thinqi portal and reporting arrangements so that councillors can more easily identify mandatory training requirements and monitor their completion status. These improvements are intended to be implemented before the next local elections.

 

What action is being taken to improve the appraisal completion rate, which is currently reported as 6.86%?

 

The appraisal system is new and is still being rolled out across the organisation. The 6.86% figure does not mean that the remaining staff are receiving no supervision or performance management. Instead, many employees have not yet moved onto the new appraisal process. Training is being provided and the new approach is being introduced as annual reviews become due. The expectation is that completion rates will increase significantly over the next six to nine months as the new system becomes embedded.

 

Why has Asset Management been assessed as ‘Very Good’ when a number of performance measures appear to be below target?

 

The performance measures listed at the end of the section relate only to one aspect of the Asset Management Strategy, including the commercial and investment portfolio. The overall assessment considers performance against all of the strategy's objectives, including maintaining a fit-for-purpose estate, improving buildings, investing in infrastructure and greening the estate. Significant progress was made across these broader areas during the year, and the overall judgement reflects all five areas of the strategy rather than a single set of commercial performance measures.

 

Why are some income-related targets not being achieved while the overall assessment remains highly positive?

 

Some individual targets, such as income generation measures, have not achieved their forecast levels, but they represent only one part of the overall strategy. The assessment takes account of a much wider range of achievements and outcomes, including improvements to council assets and estate management, many of which cannot be measured solely through financial targets.

 

Would it be clearer if the report explicitly explained why each strategy received its overall score?

 

The response acknowledged that this was a fair challenge. The rationale for the scoring is contained within the evidence presented throughout each section of the report, but setting out a clear summary of the reasons for each overall judgement at the beginning of each section could make the assessment easier for councillors and residents to understand and scrutinise. This was recognised as a potentially helpful way of improving transparency and readability.

 

Does the report place too much emphasis on activity and planned measures rather than measurable outcomes?

 

Some of the reported actions focus on establishing processes, procedures, business cases and investments because these are necessary foundations for achieving longer-term outcomes. Reporting therefore needs to demonstrate whether these actions have been completed or progressed. However, the intention of the self-assessment process is not simply to measure activity. It is designed to assess both the delivery of actions and the outcomes they achieve. The challenge is ensuring that assessments increasingly focus on impact rather than implementation. Progress has been made in identifying evidence of outcomes in some areas, but there is still further work to do to improve the way impact is measured, evidenced and reported. As strategies mature, there should be a stronger emphasis on demonstrating what difference they have made rather than simply what activities have taken place.

 

What evidence is there that these activities are delivering tangible outcomes for residents, rather than just simply demonstrating progress in process and governance?

 

Evidence of outcomes is emerging, but it is at different stages across different strategies. Some areas have only recently completed the foundational work necessary to deliver longer-term benefits, so the full impact is not yet visible. For example, in procurement, substantial effort has been devoted to responding to legislative changes, rewriting procedures and embedding new compliance requirements. These activities are intended to create the conditions for improved outcomes, but many of the benefits have yet to be realised. Similarly, investment in digital, data and artificial intelligence capabilities has only recently been made, with projects now moving into delivery phases where benefits should start to become more apparent.

 

The expectation is that clearer evidence of outcomes will emerge over the next 12 to 24 months as these strategies develop. In the meantime, existing evidence includes the Council's ability to manage significant financial pressures through its Financial Strategy. The value of that strategy is demonstrated through maintaining financial stability and navigating ongoing funding challenges in a structured and sustainable way. Overall, the evidence base for resident outcomes is still developing. While governance improvements, compliance measures and new systems provide the foundations for future success, the challenge remains to demonstrate more clearly how these activities translate into measurable improvements for residents and communities.

 

How can the Council make better use of Geographic Information System (GIS) data following the Monmouth flooding incident?

 

GIS data played an important role during the response to the flooding events in Monmouth and helped support the recovery effort. The information gathered is continuing to be used to understand the impact of the flooding, identify lessons learned and improve preparedness for future incidents. GIS is also viewed as a key foundation for wider ambitions within the Digital and Data Strategy, with significant potential for broader use across council services.

 

What value is being gained from the GIS work undertaken during the flooding response?

 

The GIS information provided a detailed understanding of properties, addresses and locations affected by the flooding, which supported decision-making during the emergency response. The experience demonstrated the value of the Council's mapping and location-based data and highlighted opportunities to apply this information more widely in future.

 

How can the Council make better use of Cardiff Capital Region (CCR) opportunities, particularly given Monmouthshire's position on the edge of the region?

 

The Council continues to maintain close links with Cardiff Capital Region and is actively exploring opportunities through those relationships. Particular opportunities are being considered in connection with Castlegate and the potential to attract new occupiers and investment. Discussions are ongoing, although details could not be provided because they relate to live commercial conversations.

 

Is Cardiff Capital Region helping to create opportunities for Castlegate?

 

Active discussions are taking place with Cardiff Capital Region regarding opportunities that could benefit Castlegate. There is optimism that some of those opportunities can be converted into tangible benefits, particularly in relation to attracting businesses and making use of vacant space within the development.

 

Can officers identify two or three examples where the enabling strategies have already delivered measurable improvements for residents, service users or taxpayers, rather than simply improving internal processes?

 

The enabling strategies are intended to support the wider delivery of council services, so many of their benefits are realised through frontline services rather than being visible in isolation. One example is the investment in GIS and data systems, which improved the Council's response to the Monmouth flooding event by providing detailed location-based information to help target resources and coordinate the emergency response. A second example is the Asset Management Strategy, which has supported the use of county farms to create opportunities for new entrants into agriculture through the letting of agricultural holdings. A third example is the work undertaken through the Procurement Strategy, including "Meet the Buyer" events, which have been well received by local businesses and have helped strengthen engagement with the local business community. Additional examples include reduced staff turnover, reduced agency staffing and improvements to highways systems through digital transformation work that is due to be reported separately.

 

Have any measurable productivity gains been identified from the Council's use of AI tools such as Copilot?

 

Early evidence suggests there are significant time savings from AI-enabled tools, particularly in Children's Services. A transcription tool has been introduced which allows social workers to record meetings and automatically generate transcripts and templated notes, reducing administrative work. The next stage is to translate these time savings into measurable organisational benefits, such as improved staff wellbeing, reduced sickness absence, increased productivity or reduced staffing pressures. The Digital and Data Strategy acknowledges that more work is required to evidence and quantify these benefits, which is one reason why the strategy is currently assessed as 'Adequate' rather than a higher rating.

 

Why has the Digital and Data Strategy not been assessed more highly if AI and digital projects are already producing benefits?

 

A significant amount of development work has been completed, including investment in data, AI and digital systems, but the focus is now on demonstrating tangible outcomes and measurable benefits. Governance arrangements and frameworks are in place, but more evidence is needed to show the full impact of these initiatives on services, residents and organisational performance.

 

Why did the initial research into the gender pay gap not result in clear actionable insights?

 

The gender pay gap is a complex issue influenced by a range of social, economic and workforce factors. The public sector generally experiences a smaller gender pay gap than the private sector because of established approaches to job evaluation and equal pay, but the issue remains challenging to address. Work is continuing with other local authorities, alongside engagement with academic and international networks, to better understand the causes of the gender pay gap and identify practical interventions that could make a difference.

 

Will a different approach be taken to addressing the gender pay gap?

 

Research and collaborative work are ongoing to identify more effective actions. Some measures are already in place, but the discussion did not explore these in detail because of time constraints. Further information on potential actions and future approaches could be given separately to the committee.

 

Chair’s Summary:

 

The Chair recognised the significant work that had gone into producing the report and thanked those involved in presenting and responding to members' questions. The Chair emphasised that members were highly supportive of the work being carried out across the Council. The purpose of scrutiny was to explore whether the work could be made more effective and whether the Council could be improved further.