Loading
The Committee received background briefings on Adult Services functions and budgets, the care workforce, and the council's anti-social behaviour (ASB) service. For each, it agreed that the Chairperson would send the Committee's observations to the Cabinet Member. It also agreed its 2025/26 work programme. Members heard that changes to Home Office sponsorship rules could reduce the number of migrant care workers in Cardiff.
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 Cllrs Boes and Littlechild, as well as from Jane Thomas (Director of Adults, Housing & Communities).
Cllr Lent declared a personal interest as her son received disability services. Cllr Molik declared a personal interest as the CEO of Sight Cymru, which held a commissioned contract with the council.
The minutes of the 7th July 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 of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information on functions and budgets within Adult Services. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Leonora Thomson Cabinet Member for Adult Services and Public Health & Equality Louise Bassett Assistant Director, Adult Services Angela Bourge OM Strategy, Performance & Resources The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she noted that the report gave an overview of the service’s management structure, functions and budget, which she hoped provided greater understanding. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members asked about the placement of neurodiversity within the service and heard that it sat within a specialist team under the umbrella of mental health. It was a relatively new team with only two full-time social worker posts at the moment. In all, there were 841 full-time posts in Adult Services, of whom 136 were social workers. Members asked for a more detailed breakdown of how these posts were broken down, how many were agency workers and how many were vacant, which officers agreed to provide outside of the meeting. Members explored recruitment and retention and heard that the overall vacancy rate among qualified social workers was 12%, a decrease since the officers last came to the committee. Their grow-your-own approach had been successful in giving employees the chance to train as social workers, as had placement programs. There was a national shortage of qualified social workers, but less so with social work assistants and care workers. To improve recruitment, they were seeking to not only sell the social work role but also Cardiff as a city, while their focus on employee wellbeing helped improve retention. Members suggested advertising in faith centres and mosques to attract more diverse applicants, and noted a potential role for local councillors in this as well. Members explored the balance between in-house staff and external contractors and heard that it was a mixed economy with a relatively small internal workforce. The service sought to constantly assess what it could reasonably deliver in-house and where the best expertise was found. Overall, in-house provision such as domiciliary care was tiny compared to what was commissioned in the external sector. Members noted that 82% of the budget allocation went into commissioned services, and asked whether the commissioning team was sufficient to support that budget. Officers explained that this was split between commissioning and contract management, and five contract officers were in place, a small team for the size of the sector. They managed 74 domiciliary care providers and more than 50 care homes, meaning they were unable to do as much preventative monitoring as they would like, and a lot of time could be taken up when intensive monitoring is needed due to issues with quality of provision. Going forward, they were looking at their approach to provision and hoping to move towards a smaller number of providers with a larger workforce. Members asked whether the current budget allocation reflected the service’s priorities, and heard that it was more balanced now than it had been previously. There was a clear focus on preventative work, for example in the reablement service and in adaptations, to reduce pressure on the care service and keep people as independent as possible. Members emphasised the need to avoid duplication of work between areas like reablement and community social work, and heard that hospital discharge in particular was a busy multi-agency area. Officers noted that the budget was reflective of their costs and needs, but they were investing in futureproofing in order to understand demographic changes and what was coming next. They suggested that data regarding transition between services was something that could be improved. Members queried how the £33.8m income figure was generated, and heard that this was mostly from Community Health Care packages that were either joint or 100% funded. Service users were also charged the standard capped rate for care, in line with the fees and charges agreed at Cabinet each February. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations 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
Her son receives disability services.
Molik: Personal interest
Chief Executive of Sight Cymru, which holds a commissioned contract with the council.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information to aid their understanding of the Care Workforce. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Leonora Thomson Cabinet Member for Adult Services and Public Health & Equality Louise Bassett Assistant Director, Adult Services Angela Bourge OM Strategy, Performance & Resources The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she emphasised that it was very timely to be looking at this sector, which was facing a number of significant challenges. In particular, changes to immigration rules could lead to a shortage of workers, and she highlighted the importance of supporting both providers and workers in order to prevent exploitation and ensure good working conditions. Officers gave a presentation, highlighting the substantial migrant care worker workforce in Cardiff and the risks attached to that. In the 2025/26 budget, £4.1m was allocated to the Community Resource Team (CRT) and £3.3m for Cardiff Supported Living (CSL). The CRT employed around 90 care workers who provided about 8,000 hours of work per week, while CSL had about 30 support workers. Externally, in contrast, the spend on domiciliary care was £40.5m, with £32m spent on supported living and nursing homes. The external workforce numbered about 4,000 in total, with around 34,000 hours of domiciliary care commissioned per week for 1,060 people in care homes (591 residential, 469 in nursing care). Officers outlined the trend in use of Home Office Sponsorship across care in Cardiff, and the possible impact of changes to sponsorship arrangements. 43% of the overall workforce was made up of migrant workers on sponsorship, and 15 care providers in Cardiff had more than 50% of their workforce on sponsorship. Cardiff’s care homes had historically sponsored, and it was well-embedded in care homes but was newer for domiciliary care. 27% of the care home workforce was sponsored, but no providers had more than 50%. Officers noted that some migrant care workers were subject to unfair work practices, such as discrimination in shifts, unfair expectations placed upon them and threats regarding loss of sponsorship. Zero hour contracts were considered to be a key issue, as sponsored workers needed to work a certain number of hours in order to meet the terms of their certificate of sponsorship (CoS) agreement. They were clearly a vulnerable cohort of workers who needed support, and these issues were discreetly investigated through council monitoring arrangements, the Care Inspectorate Wales and trade unions. In order to strengthen oversight and compliance, and taking into account that many providers worked across South Wales, a regional action plan was necessary. Real Living Wage compliance was key, and an app had been developed for migrant care workers which provided information about living and working in Wales and their legal protections. A Migrant Workers Charter was being developed alongside Unison, codifying commitments to fair employment practices which can be written into new contracts. Officers explained that as of April 2025, the Home Office had set a new minimum salary requirement for sponsored workers of £12.82 per hour. This was 22p higher than the Real Living Wage, and although this uplift had been factored into the council’s fee uplift for 2025/26, providers were reporting that they couldn’t pay sponsored workers more than those who weren’t sponsored for the same work, so they paid everyone the higher rate. Smaller providers might not be able to afford this, and they could lose experienced workers after three years if the sponsorship wasn’t renewed. Officers did not feel that this had happened substantially yet, but there was an ongoing national shortage of care workers and failure to meet salary requirements could result in loss of licences. Officers added that as of July 2025, new overseas recruitment was no longer permitted, and there would be no new care worker sponsorships from July 2028. The Home Office justified this as being due to non-compliance and abuse within the sector, in particular modern slavery, unethical recruitment and worker displacement. Officers emphasised that the majority of this was England-focused, and that out of 500 sponsorship license revocations across the UK, fewer than 5 were in Wales. The transition period was until July 2028, and existing care workers could extend their sponsorship or switch to a different visa. At the end of this period, existing care workers needed to apply for indefinite leave to remain or switch visa categories, i.e. move out of the care sector. There were caveats around their entitlement to apply for this, including their salary. Once someone had Indefinite Leave to Remain they could leave the care sector and work somewhere else, which could well happen if their experience had been poor. Officers believed that these changes would affect at least 1,300 sponsored care workers in Cardiff, in addition to those who might be in Cardiff because their spouses were, or who might be working on student visas. The Temporary Shortage Occupation List had been launched July 2025 but care workers were not included on it as they weren’t classed as skilled workers. The risks of the policy change included workforce shortages, migrant worker displacement without structured support, and increased pressure on domestic violence, and there was a limited transition period and a lack of funding to manage it. A co-ordinated approach was required in Wales to support displaced workers and development national redeployment and funding strategies, and they needed to train more UK workers. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members thanked officers for their detailed presentation and asked how short Cardiff was of care workers at the moment. Officers explained that while there was a shortage of UK national care workers, the issue at the moment was that due to the increased capacity in the domiciliary care sector thanks to the focus on independence and reablement, some providers were reporting that they didn’t have enough work to sustain their current workforce. If providers failed to meet the requirements of sponsorships (i.e. how much their employees were earning) then they risked losing their licences. They were actively seeking to recruit people from the UK who didn’t need to be sponsored, but with little success. Cardiff was not short on care workers at the moment, but this was due to a reliance on migrant workers, which exposed them to risk as legislation changed. Members asked what sort of discussions had taken place with the Welsh government, and heard that they had not yet seen the plans being developed nationally but had made strong representations regarding how it should look, with additional funding and a nationally co-ordinated strategy. Officers also highlighted a move towards care workers needing to be qualified and registered, which was a good thing overall but could be a barrier in the short term, as people who worked as carers for family members and could care for others wouldn’t be permitted to. Members noted the relatively short transition period and echoed the need to see the Welsh government’s plans as soon as possible. The Cabinet Member added that she would send a letter to the Minister in the next few days covering these issues, which the Committee requested to see when it was sent. Officers emphasised that their key concern was that they wouldn’t be able to replace a large number of experienced workers if they were forced to leave the workforce, and the transition period would not be long enough. The letter would make the risks and budget implications very clear. Members explored the implications of the Migrant Workers Charter and heard that this related to contracts the council held with providers rather than individual workers’ contracts. There were fair work expectations on providers at the moment, for instance paying for travel expenses to do training, that were not codified. Members noted the statistic that 15 providers out of 75 had more than 50% of their workforce being sponsored, and asked how many people this meant in total. Officers clarified that this was around 1,300 workers in all, though this was based on the providers that responded to their survey and did not account for everyone. A couple of providers accounted for more than 10% of the market, and some providers might have more than 50% of their workforce on sponsorships. Members asked why domiciliary care was so reliant on the migrant workforce in comparison to care homes, and heard that care homes had been working with sponsorships for a lot longer and had a more balanced workforce. A lot of domiciliary care workers had left the sector during Covid as there wasn’t enough work (due to people not wanting them coming into their homes), and then the sector had to recruit as quickly as possible due to the huge post-Covid backlog, and struggled to find UK nationals to fill the gaps. That reliance had only grown since then, and pay and working conditions also contributed to the shortage. Members explored the issue of recruitment and heard that young people would be key, so inspirational care workers went into schools to tell them about it. Recruitment was a UK-wide issue, but it was particularly important in Cardiff as it had the largest care sector in Wales. Social Care Wales were seeking to boost recruitment and retention through the We Care Wales campaign. Members noted the projected £1.4m cost of increased wages and asked how this fit into the financial plan. Officers explained that the financial plan had been completed and budgeted for before this announcement, and they were now embarking on the fee uplift consultation for next year now and trying to understand cost pressures. It was important to pre-empt it as much as possible as it would be a significant extra cost. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations 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 of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Members were provided with background information to aid their understanding of Cardiff’s Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Services. For this item, the Chair welcomed: Cllr Lynda Thorne Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities Helen Evans Assistant Director, Housing & Communities Sandra Canham OM Tenant Services Neal Benyon Anti-Social Behaviour Manager The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she emphasised that the dedicated ASB team was a vital resource for investigating and resolving complaints where one or more parties involved were council tenants. A full review of the team was being undertaken to ensure effective service delivery, in particular improved awareness of reporting processes. Officers gave a presentation, explaining that the team was made up of 12 ASB officers and one Victim Support Officer. There were dedicated officers for different areas of the city, enabling officers to build a rapport with tenants in a particular area. They handled a wide range of antisocial behaviour, from assaults to noise complaints. Most referrals came directly from tenants, but they could also come from the police, social services, support agencies and tenancy management teams, and they had regular meetings with neighbourhood policing and multi-agency triage groups. Officers noted that demand had increased: in 2023/24 they dealt with 1,791 police-related emails and phone calls, and 2,110 in 2024/25. Support-related emails and phone calls had also risen from 1,140 to 1,266 in that time. ASB reports were sorted into various different categories, most commonly harassment, vandalism, noise and drug complaints, and they worked on assessing different themes to break this down further. The two-way resolution process sought to understand both the complainant and the alleged perpetrator, in order to shed light on the circumstances behind the incident. Officers added that once resolved, the perpetrator made an agreement and an action plan with the ASB officer. The service sought to primarily use ‘soft’ intervention, which referred to non-legal, early-stage actions to involve tenants, address complaints and deter further issues, and only use ‘hard’ formal enforcement if necessary. There had been 150 meetings with victims and perpetrators in 2024/25, resulting in 69 acceptable behaviour agreements. If the ‘soft’ route failed to have a meaningful impact, they could consider legal intervention, and 10 civil injunctions had been granted last year, two interim and eight full. One closure order and one eviction had been confirmed out of 57 court hearings in all. Officers highlighted the role of the Victim Support Officer, who provided victims with emotional, practical and advocacy support, and participated in multi-agency triage meetings alongside the ASB Manager. Despite the work being done, surveys carried out in 2024/25 showed that only 53.9% of respondents felt it was easy to report ASB, and only 49.5% were satisfied with how ASB was handled, compared to an average of 56% among the 11 Welsh stock-holding local authorities. This consultation also found that only 72.5% of tenants expressed satisfaction with where they lived. While some of the reasons for this were outside of the council’s control (for example lengthy legal processes), a full review of the service had been initiated in response. The Housing Steering Group was established in March 2025 and met fortnightly, and an action plan had been developed outlining key areas for review, in particular advertising, digital solutions, training and communication. They sought to collaborate closely with the Tenants Together team and deliver joint community events, with increased ASB surgeries at local Hubs to maintain a presence and improved area-based initiatives to identify hotspots and mitigating measures. Officers added that they were working on an ASB app which was intended to be a far more convenient digital solution than the existing paper-based system, allowing tenants to report incidents and upload photos and noise recordings. They were also providing staff with new specialist training, including case management qualifications for all team members, and ensuring all front-facing Housing & Communities staff were trained to offer information about ASB and victim support services. Communication with tenants would be improved by providing leaflets at the beginning of cases to outline support and manage expectations, and improved internal processes to ensure regular communication was maintained and monitored to help minimise dissatisfaction. They sought to ensure that initial contact was made within a day for urgent cases and seven days for non-urgent cases, and regular case reviews were held with managers for more complex situations. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below. Members queried whether the team covered housing association tenants, and heard that HAs had their own teams for housing association-specific issues, but the ASB team would be involved if one party was a council tenant. Members asked how youth annoyance was handled, and heard that it was managed the same way as other behaviours depending on how the tenant reported it, with the only difference for young people being that their parents were involved in the process. Members noted the possibility of the category being stigmatising, as there was no corresponding category for adult annoyance. Officers responded that they were reviewing how incidents were categorised and could look at this going forward. Members explored the scope of communications with tenants and heard that the leaflets regarding ASB were available in Hubs and were handed out by officers on visits. The information was also available online, and the ASB team’s details were printed on any relevant letters and communications. The cost of sending leaflets to everyone in the city would be prohibitive, but they handed them out when they did proactive targeted work in an area. Members asked when the app was due to be finished and heard that it was out for procurement and should be ready in the winter. Digital support would be provided in Hubs to support use of the app, and it would really help with rapid responses and communication. Officers emphasised that the current paper-based system wasn’t just laborious for tenants, but also made it harder for the team to keep precise records. Members noted that 57 court appearances had only led to one eviction, and suggested that this indicated that the team’s evidence base needed strengthening. Officers stressed that their main goal was the resolution of complaints rather than eviction, and reminded Members that even if someone were evicted the council would still have a duty to house them. The Committee explored the Pinpoint ASB pilot launched in Butetown, where South Wales Police used community reports to identify hotspots and respond in a targeted way. The ward member for Butetown welcomed this and reported positive feedback from residents to the increased responsiveness, but noted the time taken to get complaints resolved and solutions such as CCTV implemented. Members also added that confidentiality was key, as it could put people off reporting if they were concerned about repercussions. Members queried why there was only one Victim Support Officer, and heard that they would love to have more, but resources only allowed one at the moment, who was able to manage their workload. Capacity was key to the review being undertaken, and additional resource might be needed. The 12 ASB officers worked closely alongside the tenancy team, who managed a lot of issues. Members asked whether ASB needed to sit within the council or if it could be a police matter. Officers emphasised that a lot of complaints related to low-level issues which the council could manage, and it wouldn’t necessarily benefit anyone to offload them to the police who were already involved in managing ASB issues in private accommodation and housing associations as well. Members queried the meaning of ‘communal area’ ASB and heard that this could be a combination of different issues, for example noise or drug activity in a communal area, or a neighbour taking over a communal area for themselves. Complaints were always designated as one particular category, although things like noise were often part of other complaints. Members advocated ensuring clarity of categories in the review. Members asked about the trends that had emerged in recent years, and heard that cuckooing was a particular concern, and was closely linked to other issues like drugs and the use of electric bikes. Hate crimes had not specifically increased in the last year or so, but were prevalent. AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: That the Work Programme for 2025/26 be approved.
Members were asked to agree an approved Work Programme for 2025/26. The Scrutiny Officer explained that the items prioritised at the Work Programming Forum in July had been organised in the calendar attached Appendix 1. She noted that two or three items on each agenda was plenty, and they would try and stay flexible. She also added that the council’s recent Performance Panel Assessment had encouraged scrutiny arrangements not to rely so heavily on pre-decision items. The task group on social care was nearing completion, and Members had identified a number of key areas (including deprived area services, current housing situation demographics and adults with physical disabilities) which had been captured in the draft programme. Members looked forward to scrutinising the mental health service as well as domestic violence services and the Age Friendly Action Plan, and noted the increasing significance of physical disabilities as the population aged. Members suggested looking into the topics of loneliness and social isolation, in particular youth engagement and prevention in the 18-25 age group. The Scrutiny Officer agreed to look into whether this would sit under this committee’s remit or the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee. Care home commissioning was also raised as a possible topic, and the Scrutiny Officer clarified that the annual Community Safety item had been delayed earlier this year, so the date for 2025/26 remained to be confirmed. AGREED: That the Work Programme for 2025/26 be approved.
There were none.
Monday 13th October at 4:30pm.