Loading
The Committee scrutinised two Cabinet reports before decisions were made: the replacement frameworks for council property maintenance and disabled adaptations, and the annual report on Adult Services. The minutes record no decisions on the proposals themselves. The Committee agreed that the Chair would write to the Cabinet Member with its observations and recommendations on both items.
Some sentences of this summary are missing in English, because an older automatic check removed them from the English only. The Welsh version has them.
Apologies were received from Cllr Melbourne. The Chair welcomed Cllr Siân-Elin Melbourne to the Committee and Cllr Lee Bridgeman as the Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities, and welcomed back Cllr Peter Littlechild as a returning Member. She extended thanks to their former colleague Cllr Saleh Ahmed for his diligent work. She also welcomed Tegan Griffiths as the Committee’s representative of Cardiff Youth Council.
Cllr Lent declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in item 5 as a family member was a service user. Cllr Littlechild declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in item 5 as he was working with a housing association providing supported living.
The minutes of the 23rd September meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Lent: Personal interest on Local Authority Social Services Annual Report - Adult Services
A family member was a service user. The interest was recorded as personal and non-prejudicial.
Littlechild: Personal interest on Local Authority Social Services Annual Report - Adult Services
He was working with a housing association providing supported living. The interest was recorded as personal and non-prejudicial.
Members were advised that this report sought to provide Members with background information to enable their pre-decision scrutiny of the proposals in the draft Cabinet report. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Lynda Thorne Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities Cllr Lee Bridgeman Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities Jane Thomas Director of Adults, Housing & Communities Helen Evans Assistant Director of Housing & Communities The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, before officers gave a presentation providing further detail. The Committee heard that the report set out the proposed commissioning strategy for the replacement of a number of framework arrangements for building maintenance and disabled adaptations, which were due to end between December 2025 and October 2027. Officers outlined the performance of the current frameworks and emphasised that they were generally working well. A review of the current arrangements had led to actions taken to ensure the stability of contracts, with bidders able to be disqualified if they had previously withdrawn from contracts due to inability to deliver the contracted rates. A ‘compensation on termination’ clause had also been introduced, while there were clearer pricing arrangements and guide rates verified by an independent consultant. Regarding opportunities for further improvements, officers noted that the performance deductions of £75 per late order were not as effective when it came to higher value works, and so it was proposed to move to liquidated damages as a penalty for late completion of larger planned works. These could be applied per day and allowed for a higher value of damages relative to the value of the project. Officers were satisfied that the current KPIs were working well, with a focus on delivering a high quality service while also encouraging local providers and contractors to bid. They outlined the different frameworks for vacant repairs, responsive repairs and planned works, and the proposed models to improve delivery further, as well as additional frameworks for Safety at Home, general building and accelerated adaptations. All framework periods would last for two years with the option to extend for up to a further two, in line with CPI increases. Both the service specification and pre-qualification and tender evaluations would place significant emphasis on the quality of service delivery, and the number of contractors would be balanced to provide robust and sustainable provision. Social value would be 10% of the evaluation, with bidders required to submit a Community Benefit Plan and monthly updates using the Welsh government’s Benefits Measurement Tool. The Committee noted the backlog for responsive repairs and the importance of alleviating this issue. Officers acknowledged the need to increase provision and to balance complicated work revolving around case management. Members noted that the KPI for adaptations reported a 150 day deadline that was up to 198 in practice, and asked how this would be managed. Officers explained that many of these were significant and complex works such as extensions, and last year’s performance had been impacted by a lack of contractors relative to demand, but the budget had been increased in the current year. Members explored the criteria for a late response and heard that the timeline differed depending on whether the repairs were routine, urgent or emergencies. The council tended to deal with emergencies itself, while urgent repairs had a 5 day deadline and routine 25. Contractors were currently allowed to deviate from this to clear the backlog, which officers hoped would be clear by the end of the financial year. On their normal contracts, providers were tied to the deadlines. It was possible to give an extension where appropriate, since there was always the possibility of unforeseen events. If contractors felt that a penalty was disproportionate then they had both formal and informal avenues to challenge it. The Committee explored how data on KPIs would be gathered and assessed, and heard that contractors submitted monthly performance information, in addition to data the council received directly, such as complaints. Slippage could be dealt with straight away and performance deductions applied accordingly. In the current arrangements, the £75 per day deduction was calculated when the job was finished, but the new arrangement would allow them to be charged while the job was open. Members queried the specifics behind liquidated damages and how they were awarded, and were assured that it was a better process which allowed them to claim a more appropriate figure from contractors. Officers were happy to provide more detail in writing. The Committee queried how the framework’s management structure for contractors would affect sub-contractors, and heard that the extra step of distance from the council made it more difficult to communicate with them. Contractors were obligated to inform the council of who their sub-contractors were, to allow proper assessment, and the same time and quality standards were applied as if they were doing the work themselves. The Committee explored running costs and workforce costs and heard that up-to-date prices were factored in, allowing for CPI increases. The estimated value of works was higher than previously thought, with the size of the post-pandemic backlog being initially underestimated. Going forward, officers sought a better balance that cost less. Members noted that neither a Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment nor Health Impact Assessment had been carried out for these proposals, and suggested that this might have been appropriate. Members queried how tenant consultation and feedback would take place, with officers explaining that the usual tenant groups would be met through Tenants Together. Leaseholders had to be consulted by law, but a more informal approach was taken with tenants. Members advocated continuous consultation with tenants throughout the lifetime of the contract, and heard that officers received regular feedback, while the tenants’ survey asked specifically about repairs and future areas of investment. The percentage of tenants who had responded to the survey so far was relatively low, so officers sent out paper copies and spoke to tenants in hubs to get the fullest possible picture. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were advised that this report sought to provide Members with background information to enable their pre-decision scrutiny of the draft Cabinet report. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Leonora Thomson Cabinet Member for Adult Services and Public Health & Equality Jane Thomas Director of Adults, Housing & Communities Sarah McGill Corporate Director, People & Communities The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she noted that this report was a statutory requirement for all local authorities, and was a huge document containing delivery plans for all areas. Officers gave a presentation, adding that the structure of the report was prescribed as well. The council was part of a national working group which was yet to report so the structure still remained the same as previous years. The report demonstrated how interconnected different aspects of social services were and the importance of aligning service goals. It outlined the challenges faced and identified areas for improvement but also celebrated good practice. Officers outlined the headline data and highlighted a 29% increase in number of care plan reviews completed, although they noted that carers’ wellbeing assessments completed were down 24%. The figures generally spoke to an increase in demand and complexity across all services, and illustrated a challenging year with progress in lots of key areas. Other local authorities were learning from Cardiff’s profile as an age-friendly and dementia-friendly city, with person-centred activities and social engagement through the Hubs for all project key to this. Moving onto Adult Services in particular, officers recapped the implementation of new service structures to in order to align services. Progress had been made to deliver the new Independent Living and Community Social Care service and Reablement Service, embedding the use of technology enabled care. The hospital discharge process had also made huge strides forward, with 44 discharges with care achieved each week. Cardiff and the Vale’s performance on this was the best in Wales, and integration of services was key to that. Officers added that they remained committed to the delivery of appropriate older persons housing in the city, and the first new Community Living Scheme for older people had opened at Addison House, with ten more schemes in the pipeline. These sites were specially designed to help people remain independent for longer, and allowed people to downsize from existing council or Housing Association homes and free up desperately needed family accommodation. Officers noted the key twin challenge of recruitment and retention when it came to qualified social workers and occupational therapy staff. Progress was being made on this, with a dedicated workforce team in place to support recruitment and the development of a ‘Grow Our Own’ action plan. The new role of Social Work Resource Assistant had also been developed to support administrative processes, allowing social workers to spend more time focusing on their complex work. Further challenges included increasing complexity in the needs of service users and the availability of residential care provision. Officers acknowledged the importance of hearing from service users, as well as engaging with care providers through the Provider Forums. The Social Work Assessment Survey had increased engagement and feedback opportunities and seen positive responses. Members queried whether the increase in safeguarding reports was indicative of an increase in incidents or simply greater awareness of reporting mechanisms. Officers were confident that the increased visibility of reporting routes had made a difference to how services reported, along with briefing sessions with care providers and staff, and were happy with the speed of responses to referrals. The Committee noted that the three-yearly staff refresh training rates were only 8%, and asked what was being done to ensure this was flagged up at the right time. Officers responded that this was now an automatic process when council staff were three years into their cycle, while regional arrangements with partners included a training network. As for providers, the council laid out their expectations but had no role in regular reporting, although regulated providers were required to have safeguarding training and qualifications and were overseen by the Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW). Members queried how carers’ self-assessments were safeguarded and measured according to the principles of care. Officers clarified that care providers, rather than individual carers, would undertake this assessment. Self-assessments were registered with and inspected by the CIW, and the council’s contract management visits represented an additional layer of monitoring. The Committee welcomed an increase in compliments received by the Independent Living Service and heard that while there were some specific areas like disability living standards where complaints had increased due to delays, overall they were down. Members noted that 33% of complaints related to service or delays in the service, and heard that this was a relatively wide category which could benefit from being broken down into more specific areas. All complaints were seen by the service’s operational manager, and the complaints manager fed back to senior management about any recurring issues or trends. Members noted that only 53% of individuals felt that their personal preferences were considered in their peer and support plan. Officers explained that they had carried out the satisfaction survey for the first time last year, phoning people to ensure in-depth responses and identify individual issues. They were rolling out strength-based training to staff and social workers across the service, based on the individual user’s needs and putting in place a plan reflecting what was most important to them. It was not always possible to give everyone what they wanted, but they sought to meet individual preferences where possible. The Committee discussed the template of the report and noted that there had been no change to the framework to allow for more detail on the challenges faced, service integration and partnership working. Nonetheless, they thanked the officers for the extra detail they had provided in the presentation. Officers agreed that it would be useful if they could change the way they reported to show different populations and multidisciplinary teams. A lot of work went into producing the document but it was hard to provide sufficient detail on key issues and successes in this format. Members highlighted the transition between children’s services and adult services as a key issue. Officers agreed that it was important to plan and prepare for young people coming through the system, in particular working with the supported accommodation pathway and alongside homelessness services, which had a high success in getting people into social housing and sustaining tenancies. There was a specific route for young people with a learning disability or complex health needs, as well as a specialist service for neurodivergent young people. The latter was a small team but had already seen huge demand, with officers noting a greater level of need and support required in this area than ever before. The Committee explored residential care for those with high-level needs and heard that this consisted of two strands: older people coming through with dementia, who could generally be placed in Cardiff, and those with physical disabilities, who were more likely to be placed outside Cardiff as they currently lacked the facilities. The development of more supported living would enable them to bring people back to the city. Members welcomed a number of key successes, including 99% of initial adult safeguarding assessments being completed within seven days, and 44 hospital discharges per week, which represented a significant improvement for that service. Officers advocated a nuanced approach to hospital discharges, since not everyone was ready to leave after 48 hours. This improvement had stemmed from understanding the issues people had in granular detail and focusing on problem solving rather than a blame culture, while good relationships with hospital discharge managers helped. Members asked what proportion of the total number of cases the 44 discharges represented, and heard that there were usually around a hundred people with the social team at any one time. The situation was much improved, with delays in bed days down 50%. It remained a complicated situation, and it was key had to work with patients to find out their needs, preferences and family situation. The Committee noted that 22% of respondents to the care and support plan survey had reported that they did not know how to engage with services, while 57% did not feel connected to their community. Officers explained that social workers were key to engagement, and they would receive some of the same training as independent living workers. Officers also went out to see people who had recently been ill or bereaved to help them come back into the community and to fight social isolation. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
There were none.
Monday 18th November 2024 at 4:30pm.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.