Transcript

Welcome to the hybrid meeting of corporate resources over in scrutiny, Thursday, the 7th of March. Yeah, I'd like to just like to welcome you all, officers, members, and any other viewers of this corporate resources meeting. I do hold a fairly informal meeting, which means that in general, I'll allow members, officers, and observers to speak, if there's a point to make. So if you wish to speak, raise your hand function online, or raise your hand here, and I will get to you. So item one, apologies. If we haven't received any apologies, check. Item two, declarations of interest, including whipping declarations, any deparations. I don't see any. So item three minutes, the meeting held on the 8th of February, 2024, page five. So page five, page six, page seven, page eight, page nine. I have a comment on just a very small comment on page nine, which would explain, just explain, there's at the bottom, though it says, table one, and underneath that chair, shared his concerns about the future consequences of the Census trainees. What Sharon said was actually quite important for the reason that we included it within the budget. So, I don't know whether you remember, but she did say that if they took on those Census trainees, they would probably be under resource. I don't think I'm wrong in that. She was, what she was saying was that they could, they could easily not do that for 12 months, because otherwise they would be under resource. And as the portfolios may go through change in the next 12 months, it would be unfair to put them in those departments or in the portfolios. And that was why that was taken. I don't know whether we want to make a comment or not, will you want to get a debate and comment on that. So it's page nine, page 10. So, can I have a move on a seconder for those minutes with the comments that have been made?

• Thank you.
• Thanks, Bernie. And a seconder, please. Okay, thanks, please, and thank you for that. So, I'm gonna move on a seconder. Show of hands, please, to accept those minutes as a true record. Okay, thanks.
• Chair, Chair, can I just take some advice on Mr. O, the monitoring officer, please. (mumbles) agenda item seven. I do have several FOIs in, do I need to just declare a personal interest?
• I don't know if it's online, is he? Is he online? He is online, okay.
• I am, Chair, just listening and thinking. So, tend to save the code where a matter would affect members' well-being to a greater extent than other members of the majority of his ward. Then he has a personal, he or she has a personal interest.
• Obviously, not despite the high numbers of FOIs and if requests under the Data Protection Act we receive not, you know, the majority of council ratchets ward certainly don't have an FOI request in front of us. So, there is definitely a personal interest to be declared. My initial gut feeling, Chair, and clearly we don't have long to spend on this, is that as a person with live FOI requests and indeed the protection requests in front of the council, it's probably more than a personal interest for councilor atridge. I'm afraid, you know, that's my initial reaction without more time to really think about it.
• Okay, Councillor, did you satisfy with the advice? So, when it comes to item you, you're going to consider yourself a person on vegetation.
• Okay, thank you. - Bye.
• Sorry much.
• That's come as a shock, to be very honest. I thought at the least it just would have been a personal interest. So, I've heard the advice from the managing officer and I offer up an original interest only.
• That's Councillor Heritage's choice, Chair.
• Yeah, okay, such a personal interest. Thanks, Councillor, that's it. Thanks, Chair. So, item four, action tracking, that's page 11. Any comments on item four? Steve, I think you might want to introduce this to you.
• Yes, thank you, Chair.
• I apologize for not being in the room with you there, but I've got a heavy cold. So, I didn't want to, I think it was cold, I wish just a cold, I didn't want to spread that around. So, hence I'm remote today, so I do apologize. You know, just to say, this is the standard report we bring every month to committee, just to keep a track of any actions from previous meetings. And Councillor Wilner, there's one open item from last month, which we will look to close as soon as possible, but happy second questions, Chair.
• Okay, members, any questions on item four? I see none in the room, not online. Okay, can I have a mover and a second of them, please, to accept the action tracking report? Thanks, Chair Wil, thank you. A seconder? Councillor Wille, thank you. Okay, so I've got a mover and a seconder. Show of hands, please, members. Okay, thanks. Okay, item five, the Forward Working Program, page 15. Let's start some page 15 to 24. Again, Steve, yours, noting that the next corporate resources is on January. That's how you tune, wish you was January.
• June, yes.
• Yes, Chair.
• Thank you, Chair. Again, this is the standard report we make every month to committee, just to keep a track of any items and look for items from the committee for future items on the work program. And that's included appendix one. Members, we'll note in 104, I have mentioned about the fact that we will populate the dates of next calendar meetings once we get the AAGM through in May and agree the dates. And also that, like you said, Chair, the next meeting of the committee will be in June due to the police and crime commissioner elections. So I've put in 104 that that time will be taken to make sure that the items that have been in 104 for a while now get populated into the relevant work streams in the future program. So we're happy to take any questions, Chair.
• Yeah, thanks, Steve. I think also on this one, because it's June, that's after the AAGM. So between now and June, things could change in relation to, I suppose, even what is included in terms of reference to this committee. So things could change. So, I suppose for now, it's probably the best we can do, isn't it? So thanks, Steve. Thanks to any members of any questions or comments on item five. Yeah, go ahead, Gary, thank you.
• Yes, thanks, Chair. Just looking at the list, I think we probably need to put something on for 2025, 26, don't we? For all the summer recess and update on the overall medium-term financial strategy.
• Okay, Steve, can you include that?
• Yes, of course we'll be, thank you.
• Members, any other comments? I don't see any, so if I can have a move or a seconder with the comment made, the addition from Gary. Councillor Afridge, Councillor Kreese, and a show of hands, please, to accept those. Okay, thanks, members, that's unanimous. Thank you. (mouse clicking)
• To do now, is I'd like to move item eight. Just, well, for the next item. Chief Austin Ealylin wants to be available for this item, but will not be available later in the meeting. So if we can, with your agreements, we can move the social value update, item eight. Can I have a move or a seconder just to do that? Thank you, Councillor Kreese. Can I actually say show of hands to move that item? That's great, thank you. So, item eight, social value update, and this is, I think we've got three people helping with this, so it's Kelly Oldham-Jones, Ealylin, clearly, and social value development officer, Diane Hunt, so Neil, do you want to go ahead?
• I'll just introduce the chair. Thank you very much for bringing it forward. I do appreciate it. Yes, as the chief officer with the leader and social value, I wanted to be here for this discussion and to introduce the report. The report deals with a very positive approach around social value over the last year. It is clear that we have a key change in personnel with the previous lead officer moving on, and Diane Hunt has come into post and done a fantastic job in terms of really ensuring social value remains high profile in our priorities and remains the performance and the activity statistics, which Kelly will talk about shortly, clearly demonstrate that. So, just wanted to hit me here to support to thank Diane and Kelly for the significant input and expertise they've brought to this area and pass on to Kelly to go through the detail of the report, if I may, Chair.
• Okay, go ahead, Kelly.
• Thank you both. As the chief officer points out, it is a positive performance that we're reporting today for social value, which remains a priority for the council. We're also outlining the next steps for the social value program that are contained within the report and making a recommendation to better align reporting in future to that of the financial year. The report covers the performance data in relation to our commission and procurement activity and the social value that we can generate from that. The report covers 12 month period, so it's the last six months of the financial year 2022-23, it's quarters three and four, and the first six months of 2023-24, that's quarters one and two. During these reporting periods, social value achievements have remained high. So, quarters three and four of 2022-23, 1.7 million in social value was generated. We can find that with the returns for quarters one and two. We see a total of 4.8 million of social value generated in 2022-23. For quarters one and two of 2023 and 24, over 2.6 million of social value was generated. The social value outcomes have been achieved during those periods of outlined in the report at 0.108 and 109. And include things like local spend and outcomes in relation to volunteering and employment. Areas for focus coming forward into 2024-25 are outlined in the report at section 110. And that includes the need to respond to legislative change resulting from the Social Partnership and Procurement Wales Act, which is coming into force. As is outlined at the beginning, the report also makes a recommendation to remove and reporting of social value in June to each year. And that's so that we can better align and we can report on a full financial year's worth of data rather than in six monthly. That provides a summary overall. It's put positive performance in terms of the social value that's been generated through the commission and procurement activity. If there's any questions, we'll do our best to answer those. Thank you.
• Okay, thanks Kelly. Any questions from members in relation to the item? Obviously a positive report. Any comments to made? Go ahead Councillor Swash.
• It's probably more a question for the cabinet member really which is obviously this is all really positive stuff. But I'm interested in how you think that this work might be undermined by the Northeast Wales investment zone given that a lot of the businesses that are likely to position themselves that are extractive in nature and they're sort of lured into friendship by tax incentives. So yeah, I'd be interested to know your view on whether you think that this work is going to be undermined by the investment zone.
• That's a very good question. I think that there will be an impact how it will be. And I think one of the things about scrutiny is kind of brilliant questions out like that. And so I will take that up for Twitter. I think it's a very important place, the direction to go into. I suppose the question is going to be to what extent will some of the companies that are working within that investment area be contracted to the Councillor and that's the key thing. So as an investment zone, if they contract them as you want to go and find out how that goes and works further, it's far more where the survey sketch about that's will turn the reference for the investment zone. But it's a very good question and I will take it forward. Which are the question back to the committee or personally? It's committee, that'd be okay. Sorry, appreciate the question coming forward. Thanks.
• Okay, Gareth, I think you had a comment to make first.
• Just.
• Thank you, Chair. As Councillor Johnson's correctly identified, the answer to that question depends upon whether those businesses are in contracts with the Council. The social value that we raise is through our procurement function and it is on the back of contracts between the Council and the suppliers. The tax incentives for the investment zone have no relationship to whether or not those businesses are in contract with us. If they are in contract with us, the status of the investment zone would not in any way impinge upon our ability to request and require social value be delivered under the contract. So, no, nothing to do with it.
• Thank you for clearing out, Gareth. Alice, do you want to go ahead?
• Thank you, Chair.
• Thank you, Chair. I had my hand up to speak before Chief Officer Governance made his contribution. My question would slightly contradict or conflict with what Chief Officer Governance has said. And so, perhaps it might help the committee if I explain my rationale behind it. I share Councillor Swash's concerns about the investment zone impacting on social value delivery within the Council locally, within the County locally. Part of the reason for this is that there is a limited amount of capacity within Lynch's local economy. We are close to full employment within Plencher. And once you hit that level, there is a limited amount of additional economic growth that can be sustained without a labor force to deliver it. So, if we prioritise extractive companies who employ people locally on whatever wages are given, but then any surplus value of labour is extracted to shareholders either in other parts of the UK in Southeast England and London, or indeed around the rest of the world, including in tax havens. If those companies are attracted to Flyncher and instead of contributing to the local economy through paying taxes, they are attracted by a low tax regime, or is effectively a free port locally, then that does reduce the capacity in the economy by freezing out local businesses who have higher cost, a higher cost base because they do pay their taxes. Industries in the investment zone will be able to essentially out-compete them by simple force of the economic heft that they're able to leverage as a result of the frankly insane tax regime that's being proposed. So, that is the basis for why I'm asking this question. The question is that subject to the response that the Cabinet Member has kindly agreed to provide. If the view is that the investment zone will undermine the delivery of social value within Flyncher and the impact of the Council's social value efforts, will the Cabinet Member commit to looking again at the funding which Flyncher provides to encourage companies to relocate to it and to support companies in obtaining the tax advantages from the investment zone, which impact negatively on other local businesses who do pay their taxes?
• I think as the chief officer said in terms of the, in terms of the social value, this is money which we take from our contracts. I think there is a lot of big questions in there. I've committed to responding to that. And I think the one, some of my position will still be that I'm probably best to go and speak to the officers and come back to the committee. I think that just the first thing I can do. Okay, Gareth, you wanted to add something I think as well.
• Chair, what are the tax regime applying to the companies? If a company does business with Flyncher County Council, then it will build a certain value. We ask for social value to be included within the contract. Whatever level of tax they might be paying or not paying elsewhere doesn't alter the fact that if they want to contract with Flyncher Council, they will be requested to provide social value. We will take that into account in deciding to whom we award the contract. If they don't offer social value, their ability to win that contract will be greatly reduced. So the tax regime and the contractual relationship between Flyncher County Council and its suppliers are two entirely different things.
• Okay, thanks, Gareth. I think Paul is committed to making a formal response to the committee and I think that's fair enough. So if that,
• Chair, it may reiterate some points that it may be as such, but I think I'll add a consultation.
• Yeah, it's a fair comment. So if you, yeah.
• Thank you, Chair.
• This has to be included on that document. And that's quite interesting. So if I can be included on that, I'd appreciate that.
• Thanks, Chair.
• Yeah, all committee members and all attendees at this meeting can receive that comments that will be fine. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments in relation to the social value updates?
• Probably me.
• Thank you, Councillor. Actually, do you have a seconder, please? I'm assuming Councillor Ioannon might want to do that.
• Councillor Ioannon.
• Okay, thank you. Councillor Schacross. (laughing) Okay, then a show of hands, please. Okay, members, that's unanimous. Thank you. Okay, if there are officers that wish to leave after that item, that's fine. So we'll move back on to the schedule. So back on to item six on your report. So the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales Annual Letter 2223 Complaints Made Against Flinch County Council. You're in the first half of 2324. And I believe Becky Jones is online. Is that right? Yeah, Becky Jones is online. I think she's supported by Matthew Harris from the Ombudsman's Office. Becky, go ahead.
• Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everybody. I'm going to provide an overview of the Ombudsman's Annual Letter. And I'll also provide an update on the local complaints that we've received during the first half of this financial year. As Councillor Jones mentioned, Matt Harris, who is the head of the Complaints Standards Authority at the Ombudsman's Office is here today. And we'll both be happy to answer any questions after this briefing. I should say that this report was due to come to committee earlier, but understandably, budget items took priority. So we're a bit later than normal coming to this committee. So in terms of the Ombudsman's Annual Letter, the report that we've presented today is overall positive. Michelle Morris, who is the Public Services Ombudsman, has reported a reduction in the number of complaints made against local authorities. They're down by 11% compared to the previous year. This is also true in Flintshire. We've seen a reduction in the number of complaints compared to the previous year. So the previous year, we had 99, and that's reduced to 65 in the latest report. We've also seen a lower intervention rate. So that's down from 13% to seven. And this is also lower than the Welsh average, which is really positive steps in terms of the work that we're doing locally to improve our complaints handling. Only five of the complaints that were referred to the Ombudsman required any intervention. And members will note that no investigations were undertaken during the year. As in previous years, high percentage of Flintshire's complaints are premature. So 92% of the complaints that go to the Ombudsman were rejected while they were withdrawn. A high proportion are premature. So 37% of the complaints are premature. And these relate to step one complaints. Essentially, these are people that have gone directly to the Ombudsman without coming to Flintshire first to allow us to resolve their complaints. Whilst we have updated our website information and made it much more simple to follow the complaints process, it's really difficult to control people that choose to go to the Ombudsman directly. Almost 11% of the complaints were rejected due to properly made decisions. And this is an indication of the work that we're doing locally to improve complaints handling, linked to the training programme that Flintshire offers to its officers. Planning is a really good example. The quality of responses has improved. And we know from the figures through on the Ombudsman's report that no action was taken in relation to any planning complaint referred to the Ombudsman. To also highlight to members that we have a number of complainants that repeatedly go to the Ombudsman's office. So these are included in the figures. So we might have one complainant that's known to us locally. They may be included in the Ombudsman's figures three or four times because they repeatedly return to that office. Finally, before I move on to the local data, this committee should note that the Ombudsman is undertaking an own initiative investigation. And that's in social services. Flintshire is one of four local authorities in Wales, selected to look at care and needs assessment. That investigation started last year and we're coming close to the point where a draft report will be issued for comment. So I'll be able to report on that later this year. In terms of the data local to Flintshire, so the first half of this financial year, we've seen a slight increase in the number of complaints, but our performance around complaints handling is improving. Performance is actively managed monthly. It's shared with senior management across the organisation and we can see that complaint response times are much more timely than they have been in the past. We've seen positive shifts in the number of complaints not upheld. And we've also seen, if I look at housing repairs as an example, we've seen a shift that in the number of upheld complaints being reduced. So the previous year, around 12 and a half per cent of their complaints were upheld, whereas the game returned into sort of improvements in complaints handling and responses, only just over 3 per cent of their complaints have been upheld so far this year. Whilst I've referred to complaints, performance improving in terms of the timeliness of complaints, we're also looking to develop our work around trends, looking at the patterns around complaints, because not only do we want to get better in terms of the time we take to respond to complaints, we want to really learn lessons from complaints. We have a complaints group that's active now in collecting data around what procedures may have changed as a result of complaints. We want to be able to improve services as results of complaints. So story telling, you told us this and we did that as a result of complaints. We're also working on developing our IT system so it's more user friendly for our staff and also to improve the quality performance data. I mentioned training earlier and that continues to be rolled out with colleagues in learning and development to raise awareness of complaints, handling and the policy that we should all be following. Customer services is also available for any bespoke training. So if teams need targeted support, then we are able to go into services and help them with that too. And complaints handling and the performance remains a standing item on DMT so that as a senior managers, we can continue to monitor the complaints and lessons learned. Finally, for members, you may recall that the organisation has done a lot of work around customer behaviour, especially around social media. And this work is progressing so that we can support schools and members and the managing customer contact policy will be developed during this year to provide additional support to members and schools. So that brings me to the end of my update. Matt, I was just going to welcome Matt for any comments he'd like to make in addition to what I've said.
• Chair, point of order, can I just take some advice, please? In 101, it says at the bottom of the paragraph, complete your date. The annual ideas were completed into management, so if they have completed the garden, relating to alleged breaches of the goal of the members and actually been saying, I thought this report was just regarding services and the issue with members was dealt another forum, so I need to take advice. Do I need to declare a personal interest in this, people are kind of shaking his head, so I don't, thanks.
• Chair, this is about service complaints. The code of conduct aspects of the annual letter are reported to the Standards Committee.
• Yeah, thanks, Chair. It's just that, just that head in there, just it reads the, you know, it's the complaints relating to alleged breaches of the goal of conduct of the members. Should I be in there then?
• Councillor Acher's, it might be helpful. Paragraph 1.15 refers to section e of the Ambersmann's report being referred to the Standards Committee. So sorry, it's mentioned a bit further on in the report. All right, thanks Councillor Acher's for mentioning that. Members, have you any comments in relation to the, unless, sorry, Matt was going to come in, I was going to ask Matt how this, sorry, Matt, I'm going to.
• Thank you, Chair. Just to say that, you know, I really support everything that Becky said so far as the complaints standard authority for words, we've been working with local authorities across the country since 2019 to try and implement standardised complaint handling across local authorities. I'm really grateful for Becky's leadership on the All Wheels Group as well. Flinch has shared in that forum now and it's become a really useful set in to discuss topics that, you know, impact Councils all over the country. So really grateful for Flinch's leadership on that. I'm always really cautious when it comes to describing complaints performance. And I think what Becky's picked out there are some really important metrics about how we think good complaints performance might look. So the absence of complaints is not necessarily just, just a positive. I think when we look at the proportion of complainants who are coming to the ombudsman and flinchers routinely underneath the Welsh average for that, when we look at intervention rate by the ombudsman, again, flincher routinely under the average for that. And the council logging an appropriate amount of complaints. And when we look at flinchers performance like that over the last couple of years as well, and I think there can be some real confidence taken from it. So really just to support everything that Becky said and to praise the progress has been made over the last couple of years. Okay, thanks for that much. Appreciate it. Members, any comments or questions in relation to this item? Yeah, Councilor Anderson, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to start by querying an issue in 1.05 of the report. It says that 65 complaints were received this year, 99 the year before, and this is a reduction of 65%. I think it might be a reduction to 65% rather than a reduction of 65%. So perhaps our figures aren't quite as dramatic as reported, but significant nonetheless. On table, sorry, chart 4 in 1.21, I'd be interested in how this table is being constructed and how the data for it has been obtained. In particular, the bottom line of that table, number of complaints open and overdue, and the number of complaints closed after 10 working days. Obviously, there's a significant degree of variance between a complaint which is closed after 11 working days and one that's closed after 60, 70 more. So is there any detail available to members on the time that those that are open and overdue are overdue by? And those in excess of the service standard of 10 working days, is there an indication of what the median figure of those is, what the more extreme figures are, how many are in excess of... What the standard deviation of those complaints is around the mean for those in excess of 10 working days so that we can better understand in the worst cases of failure to respond to complaints, how bad or not things are. Also, obviously, this is reporting within a period, where we're talking about the number of complaints open and overdue and the number of complaints closed after 10 working days. Are we talking about complaints which were opened within this period or closed within this period? Thank you very much, Councillor BIDson. Firstly, the data comes from the complaint system that we hold locally, so that's linked to CRM. All complaints should be logged by services, so that's the source data. I've made a note of the observations that you've made here, and certainly some of that is information that's shared internally across departments with senior managers to actively monitor performance. So I'll take that away as an action and I'll be able to provide that sort of further analysis for members, that's no problem at all. It's readily available. I should also say that we also report to the Ombudsman on a quarterly basis. I think it's Matt himself that's responsible for publishing data on the Ombudsman's website around Council's performance. Matt, I don't know if you want to say anything about that particular piece of work because it's an extension of what we do locally. Absolutely, thanks, Becky. So, as Becky says, data is reported to the Ombudsman on a quarterly basis, not just by local authorities, but by health boards and by some housing associations now as well. We publish that data every six months. In that data we look at complaints that are closed within 20 working days, between 20 working days and three months, between three months and six months. I can see from our data that in 22, 23, just 6% of flinchers complaints were closed in the 20-day to three-month category. All the others were closed in less than 20 working days. So, again, that's something that we'll report on on a six-monthly basis. Yeah, actually, I think that's part of the detail that Council has been subject to, wasn't it, to try and understand. And there was only nine, I think overall, only nine items anyway. So, 6%, 20 days to three months old within 20 days, which is part of what you were saying. Council, you want to go ahead? Yes, I could come back. There was one point there which wasn't addressed, which is for the period where this report relates to these figures based on complaints opened or complaints closed within that period. Yes, it's everything within the first six months of this financial year. So, all complaints end and then the breakdown of those that have been dealt with within target, those that were open at the point of reporting and those that are late. So, it's between the first of April and the 30th of September, everything that's come into flincher during that time. I'm assuming it's the ones that are opened, isn't it? That's what you're saying, isn't it? Yes, if I may rephrase it so I can be a bit more clear. On the last column at the table, those that are still open and unresolved, are those ones that were opened within this period and are unresolved either on the last day of the period or unresolved as of now, or are these ones that were open prior to the period starting that were unresolved by the end of the period? So, they were open and unresolved at the point of reporting. As I mentioned earlier, we use much more detailed performance data to share across the organisation and I'm happy to look at that, to provide that further breakdown and analysis for you. If that would be helpful. If you could provide that Becky for the committee to see as well as Councillors, I think it would be more than happy with that. Thank you. Thanks for the offer. Any other questions, members or comments? I can't see anything. Councillor Maddison, go ahead, Councillor Maddison, go ahead. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Chair. Just a question, Becky, about, you mentioning the, some of the claims are dismissed because they go to the onwards one before they actually go through the Council complaints process. How clear is the guidance for the public on this? Are they aware that they need to go through the full Council complaints process first? And when a complaint is submitted to the onwards man, do they ask the complainants, have you actually been through the Council? Have you been through your local Council complaints first? It just seems that people might be wasting time if they don't know that a very simple thing. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, our website is, you know, makes it very clear what the process is. And we completed some work on this around 12 to 18 months ago to improve and make it much clearer. I know that was a piece of work I share with Matt at the time for his input. So we're very open on our website or when anybody contacts customer services. We're very clear on what the process is. And we make it clear to complainants that look, the onwards man expects people to have complained to local authority and given us the opportunity to put things right first. But there'll be a percentage of people that will choose to go direct to the onwards man and that's really difficult to control. The ombudsman has a complaints form and I think is part of the conversation with offices in Matt's area. They will ask a complaint and if they've contacted us first. And I would say in the majority of cases, they're rejected because the ombudsman will say they're premature and they need to allow the local authority the opportunity to put things right first. I'm not aware that the ombudsman has ever intervened at a stage one complaint really. I'm looking at Matt around the virtual table. I think that's right Becky. I think there would have to be some very extreme circumstances for the ombudsman to take a complaint because we do have discretion. We can we can if we choose to, but they would have to be a really compelling reason as to why the council or the public service wouldn't be able to deal with that complaint first. It is something that happens across all parts of the Welsh public sector. So people who complain to health boards as well as local authorities come to the ombudsman first without going through local complaints processes. Some of the time people approach the ombudsman whilst they're in a complaints process still hasn't reached its resolution. And that could be indicative to us of poor communication within the process where people don't understand what's going on or when it will end, for example, so come to us prematurely. What's really pleasing from my point of view of working with local authorities and working with health boards over the last couple of years is the proportion of complainants who come to us prematurely is going down. So me again, that suggests better complaint handling better management of complaints at a local stage. And I suppose better awareness of local procedures as well. Premature is something which is a problem for our office as well because it's demand that we can't really do anything with. So it's really in our interest to make sure that people understand the local provisions as well. Thanks very much. I thought it probably will stand to use their education. So that's answer the question. Thanks very much. Kate, any other members questions or comments? I don't see any recommendations on page 25. So the recommendation of the recruiting notes the report and it takes notes a half year performance. And we support the priorities on 124. If you're happy to do that, I'll move on a second of these. Councillor Bully is a member. Council actually does a second and a show of hands from members, please. Kate, thank you members. Chair, after further consideration and thought, I'd be glad to have heard all the additional interest. Thanks, Councillor. We will tell you when it's finished. Okay. So it's page 41. So information, rights, compliance. Galloth, I think you're leading on this, are you? Yes, Chair, I am. This is the first such report that we have brought to the committee. Certainly for a very long time. And definitely within, I think probably the last two different, the two council terms. So it's been seven or so years before this. The performance in these areas have been scrutinized. I'm going to start at the beginning therefore and build up so that everybody is on a shared platform of understanding. So there are two different pieces of legislation or principal pieces of legislation that we sort of label together as information governance. The Data Protection Act, which deals with how we handle data in relation to living individuals and the Freedom of Information Act. Now, the two pieces of legislation work together very well. If you are asking for a piece of something under the Freedom of Information Act that reends up relating to a living individual, then it says it's exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, broadly speaking, and you deal with disclosing that data under the Data Protection Act. The rights under the two acts are to know information. There are other rights as well, but principally we're talking about requests for information from the council. And those rights reflect that difference. The Data Protection Act has rights to ask about data in relation to yourself. And the Freedom of Information Act is generally data about the council, typically not relating to individuals. And they are all. Overseems regulated by the Information Commissioners Office. And there are, but there because of the differences between the two bits of legislation, there are different expectations of performance. Upon us as an organization by the Information Commissioners Office. Freedom of Information requests, otherwise, the Information Commissioners Office expects us as an organization to respond to 80% of those within the 20 working day timeline. And broadly speaking, we do that. I think it's fair to say, as you can see from the tables, we achieve that level of performance in large part because of the good performance of a couple of portfolios. And there's a very mixed picture of performance in relation to FOIs. The expectation in relation to Data Protection requests, requests for one's own data, or data held about one by the council, is that everyone will be dealt with expeditiously and within the 42 working days that are allowed to answer subject access requests. The performance pattern is very different in relation to that and indeed, because data protection requests can in many respects be a lot more complex, the performance of the council as a whole is slightly lower in relation to answering those requests on time. The thing to bear in mind, and I've talked about it implicitly so far, is I've talked about performance by portfolios. There is a central information governance team that reports to myself that sets policy, provides advice and gathers the statistics and the data. The operational responsibility for actually answering requests rests with the individual portfolios, because of course they hold the data, and it sits on their systems, and so they are best placed to answer those requests. Across the organization, only one portfolio has posts that are dedicated to handling FOI and data protection requests, and that's the social services portfolio, and that's very visible in terms of the performance of that service, both in answering FOIs and data protection requests. And indeed, you can see why that might be the case, given the very much larger number of both types of requests that go to that service. You can see that they clearly need that resource in other portfolios, answering these requests is handled by people who have other responsibilities as well. And so their time isn't solely dedicated to this. So that's the general background. I'll go through the two parts of the report then in relation to FOIs first and then data protection requests. As an organization, we receive a lot of requests. You can see from the table in 1.03, we receive, I think it is, it's always, historically, it's always been the second highest number of requests in Wales. Second only to Cardiff. Whilst councils are required or are supposed to publish their FOI performance data, I know the data protection officer, Deborah Sainsbury, has encountered difficulties in finding that information to prepare this report. So she's published what she's been able to find within the report previously when we were looking and when we were able to find that data. Certainly only Cardiff had higher numbers than us. There is within the Freedom of Information Act a carrot and stick approach. The stick is the fact that if you don't publish your data, while the carrot is the fact that if you publish your data voluntarily, then if somebody requests it, you say to them, it's available to you by all the means, go and look it up. It's an exemption under the act and that's what you do. You just send them a response saying the information's published, it's out there, go and look for it yourself. Don't ask us to do the donkey work. That's the carrot. The stick is that if you don't publish data, you have to provide information within 20 days subject to some ability to extend that date in certain circumstances. As I've said, we are expected to hit 80% overall as an organization. We do that just and we do that thanks to the performance of the planning service and the social services team in other parts of the organization. Performance levels are mixed. Some are nearly 80% and some are quite a bit lower than that. If you look at the top of page 44, you'll see trend data. We had a bit of a dip in performance around FOIs, but recently we've kind of brought that back up and we are currently on an upwards trend and that's a trend that we hope to be able to continue. In relation to data protection requests, there are lots of what are called individual right requests under the act. People are able to ask for data to be deleted, amended for you to stop processing their data. Effectively take me off a cold calling or a junk mail list or whatever. But typically when people think about data protection requests, you're talking principally about subject access requests, i.e. What data does the council hold about me as an individual? Those are the requests that were reported in paragraph 1.07. Again, you will see a range and in 1.08 you will see a range of performance levels and you will see a marked difference in the number of requests that go to particular portfolios with social services being far and away from the leader in terms of the number of requests. And so the performance of particularly the social services portfolio has a big impact on the performance of the council as a whole in terms of its average levels of performance. As I said, the information commissioner expects each request to be dealt with on time rather than as to achieve a sort of corporate level, although it's clearly useful to try and monitor that. You'll see that in relation to individual rights subjects requests, there was a real dip during the COVID period. That is to be expected if you think that social services gets the most requests and therefore the overall performance and the average performance is very much driven by how that portfolio performs. And you think about what that portfolio went through during the COVID period. You will understand why organizationally performance dipped at that point. You will see that post COVID, there was a period of recovery. And again, we are still on an upwards trend in relation to that. And we are doing what we can essentially to try and drive that performance in the portfolios. There is what we call an information management group where the information governance team in my portfolio bring together representatives from all the service portfolios in order to try and to promote ways of working to push the need for performance and so on to deliver training. And that is the group that we use to try and influence this. You will see at paragraph 1.09, I've put some commentary in relation to data access, subject access requests under the Data Protection Act. The majority of the requests are handled very quickly and very efficiently in the social services portfolio. There are a number of individual requests that significantly affect performance because they can be very broad and we can't and we don't have the same ability under the legislation to require requesters to narrow down their area of search. It's a bit all or nothing with data protection requests, I'm afraid. We have, though, a number of individuals who have made repeated FOI requests and you'll see, I mentioned one of them. This is a person who would be known to Mr Harris if he was still on the line. It's a complainant who complains about us to the ombudsman six times on each occasion unsuccessfully, but has sent. I think she sends about 30 emails a month to the organization and has done so for the last two to three years and then makes repeated subject access requests. You can see we have had 10 subject access requests from a person that has sent us, you know, in the region of, you know, 1200, maybe more emails across the organization to multiple recipients. You can imagine the paper chase that that becomes, and that in a small service really eats into the capacity of that portfolio or that service to deal with that response. Simply speaking, you services or portfolios can become overwhelmed if they receive that sort of request, and that can have a really big negative impact then on performance. And we've seen examples of that in the people and resources portfolio, where despite receiving a relatively small, you know, 24 requests. Their performance is very low, because some of those requests are enormously incredibly complex, and you have involved the disclosure of tens of thousands of pages of documentation. Each of those pages might need to be redacted. And so the task in responding to data protection requests can be considerably more complex than responding to FOIs. And that's why we see that variability in performance around that. And that's what I wanted to say, Chair. I realize there's a lot in there. There's a lot of scope in that report for questions to be asked as well. So I'm happy to take any questions, Chair. Thanks, guys, for that very comprehensive explanation. Councillor Ibudsen first and then Councillor Shargros. Thank you, Chair. First of all, let me thank Chief Officer Governance for bringing this report, a number of queries, if I may. The Chief Officer Governance has highlighted two of the regimes governing disclosure of data, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Data Protection Act for the SARS. There is, of course, a third category of regulation requiring the Council to disclose information to members of the public, the environmental information regulations, the EIRs, which there's not statistics provided for on a standalone basis in this report. Is the Chief Officer Governance able to illuminate as to whether those are contained within the FOI figures, whether they are separate, whether the Council compiles central information on its performance on EIR requests, and if this isn't contained within the FOI figures, whether the EIR figures might be disclosed separately to this committee in a future report. On the point about the SARS being more complicated, and indeed it's referenced in the report, that some of them concern cross-counsel requests for all information held by all portfolios. Were requests like that are made to a given service? What is the process for handling them? So if somebody goes to an officer in the governance portfolio and says I want everything that every department holds to me, are those dealt with centrally by the information compliance team, or is that up to whoever receives the request to reach out to each portfolio, collate and go back? Is it passed to each portfolio to respond directly and separately to the data subject? How are requests like that handled? Because obviously those, as is correctly being highlighted, are more complex and a significant drag on our response times by the sounds of it. So it would be interesting to know the way in which those are currently handled and whether any assessment has been made of alternative options for how that could be structured. Thirdly, in relation to DSARs again, obviously the legislation is very clear. DSAR requests made in any format written verbally to any member of an organization must be acted upon, and the clock starts ticking as soon as that request is made, and an organization cannot require that DSARs are made in a certain format. For example, by email or post to a central unit. So if, for example, somebody comes out of their house, and I appreciate this is an extreme example, and asks the bin man when picking up their bins for information about their social services record, we are obliged to act on it. Do we feel like we have a broad identification of all valid DSARs made, because in an organization of this size, it is almost a certainty that some of them will be made through the, will fall through the cracks because officers and staff don't realize that they have been, that the DSAR has been, has been made to them, or don't realize that they have a duty to act on it and to report it through the council's reporting procedures to wherever it needs to go. Are we confident we are capturing most of the figures, all of the figures? Do we feel like we're capturing a very small number in this report? Do we feel like there are others out there which aren't being acted on? Or do we have absolutely no idea? Are we into Donald Rumsvelt's unknown unknowns at this point? But if there is a sort of feeling from Chief Officer Governance about where we might be on that, I'd be very interested to hear his views. And fourthly, it would be very interesting as well. Obviously in the previous report from the PSOW relating to complaints, there is of course first step procedure going through the council and then members of the public have the right to take it further to the PSOW if they are dissatisfied. The same applies with FOI, EIR and DSARs, and people can go to the Information Commissioner. That includes occasions where either, as it's been acted in the report, the council doesn't meet the time scales. Also where the council refuses to disclose, citing an exemption, or only partially discloses information requested. If somebody making a request is dissatisfied, they can of course go to the ICO who can determine that the council has acted in error and been non-compliant with the legislation and has a duty to disclose when it hasn't. If a complainant is then dissatisfied with the ICO's findings in that regard, they can take the ICO or the council to an information tribunal. It would be very interesting to know the figures, as with the PSOW report, for where the steps have been taken to regulators and tribunals beyond the council, what the success rates are on those, and how those break down by different portfolios and different information regulatory regimes. So, four questions there. I've seen Chief Officer Governance smiling at some of them, so I can also see that this steam coming off his pen, so I've looked very much look forward to the answers to those questions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I'll take them in the order in which they're asked environmental information regulations, very, very similar. The answer is correct, under different legislation, but very, very similar to FOI requests, typically get asked together. And typically get asked of the planning service, they're bundled up in our performance around FOIs. We don't differentiate between them because the legislation, whilst there are some technical differences, is broadly the same. So, EIRs and FOIs to use our three letter act and the names are all bundled up together. Subject access requests, where there's a central subject access request, how is it handled? It is coordinated through the information governance team that reported to me. They send out a message through that team of information officers that I referred to in my presentation. And they then collect that information and will collate as well and deal with the difficult tasks of reduction, which, and those are the ones that really do throw up the reduction difficulties. Are there better ways of dealing with it? Interestingly, I think if we get AI set up, that's a perfect task for something like AI. Because data manipulation and data management on that scale is something that computers can simply do so much better than people or so much more. Well, they're not better. They can do it more quickly and more cheaply than people. They still need human oversight, but I think we could get the donkey work to be done by AI if we get that set up properly. But that really depends on how you set up access to all of the data that's held in the different legacy systems and the different databases across the council. As to whether or not we're capturing all the subject access requests that we receive, I feel like the civil servant who's been asked, you know, how many of these things don't you know about? Well, Chair, I don't know. What I would say in all seriousness is that as part of a subject access request, you need to identify a verify the identity of the requester, because people making subject access requests are not always the data subjects. So people will sometimes request personal data on behalf of somebody else when they're not entitled to it. And so we do try to verify the data that typically then involves communication in writing more than it would just somebody popping out and asking their refuse collector for their social services files, which I appreciate was reductio obsidian for the purposes of illustration. I would assume that we've got a reasonable number or a reasonable proportion of them, where requests are made verbally to somebody who is an administrative officer. So, you know, somebody sat at a desk with the means to record requests or somebody such as a social worker, then I would expect those are documented and processed in the normal way. So, I would hope that we get the majority, but, you know, as I said, I don't know about the requests that I don't know about, and we have little or no way of capturing those. So what I can say is that we have yet to see a complaint to the ICO in relation to a verbal request that wasn't actioned. So I think that probably gives us confirmation from another source. And in relation to ICO and enforcement decisions, I am able to say that we've never been taken to tribunal, which is good. We do have occasional compliance notices from the ICO. We, they are typically in relation to, and I think probably completely in totality in relation to slow responses. I don't think I in the years that I have been the Siro, that I have seen any example where we have redacted data, and the onwards and the ICO has told us to disclose data that we've reacted, redacted. However, I will check that chair with the data protection officer who holds those records just to be certain. But, you know, that's, I do see all, I do see all ICO decisions. They are referred to me when they come in. And so we're basing, I'm basing that response on having seen that, but on my imperfect memory. So I will check. Thank you, Galaxy. She's like a home free and human hacker conversation, isn't it? Okay. Any other questions for members? If that's only Councillor SRI, let's go ahead. That's it. Yeah. Thanks for the report. On chart one of three, will the percentage of population raising FOI requests show a more proportional comparison? I would expect the more, more request in the more highly populated urban areas, and like, Dembe's got a similar figure to flinch it. And if it's true, you know, their percentage will be massively higher than our own. So I quite happy with the figure, but I think we had a percentage next to it. I think it would show flinch it in more of a favourite light. Thank you. Request per capita. Perfectly possible to do that, chair. Okay, that's great guys. I think that'd be super. Thanks Councillors. So I don't see any, I should do now. Council swash, go ahead. Yeah, it's just to ask you, Chair, that I think it would be useful, given that Chief Officer mentioned that this report hasn't been to a committee for, I think, seven years, if this could come back periodically to this committee. I think that's the intention, isn't it? Gareth, you will bring this back occasionally. Twice a year, chair, we thought would be. I, Councillor Swash was, of course, the person who asked for the report in the first place. And as I said at the time, yeah, of course, perfectly valid request, a very good request. And I think something that deserves to be seen, and you deserve, you know, deserves airing and viewing on a regular basis. We do say that we would look, we would bring it back six months, and that would certainly be the intention, Chair. Okay, Steve, so you, you'll add that to the list of regular items, I guess. Yes, thanks. Thanks. Thanks, Gareth. Thanks, Steve. Chair, if I might, can I remind you of the Clive Carver amendment to the rules around declaring personal and prejudicial interests? You will recall that some years ago, he's submitted the notice of motion that said, when a person has declared a personal and prejudicial interest, and they leave the room when they return, the chair has to summarise the debate for them. Sorry, Chair. Yes, thank you, Gareth. I'll do it later. Chair, what I will do is I had dropped Councillor Aperger's email while we were talking. I think he's probably declared his interest as a result of that email. I'll pick up with him offline to see whether they were issues that he wanted to raise, that he wasn't able to raise, because he does have a number of requests in, and it's possible that he wants to chase progress or something like that. So, I'll pick that up with him, Chair, offline. Okay, that's very kind of you, Gareth. Thank you. Okay, so, let's just have a look at what the recommendation was. Page 41. Page 41. So, recommendation are two, the committee notes the improvements made to date since 2021, and the committee notes are steps proposed to improve performance in relation to the response times that are below 8% average. So, can I have a mover for that? Thank you, Councillor. If it's in to second. Okay, just a check. Councillor crease. Okay, thank you. Show of hands, please members. Good library debate. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Item 9. Chair, is somebody going to fetch Councillor Ratchridge? Yes, don't worry. You can't see what it's all going on around you. Thank you, Chair. Sorry. That's okay. Item 9, revenue budget monitoring, 2024, month 10, page 5722, Dave Fledshoe. Dave, go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and good morning members. The report starts on page 57, and that gives the detailed overview of the budget monitoring position for month 10. For Council Fund, we're reporting an operating deficit of 2.445 million, which is excluding the impact of pay award. So, with that added to it of 2.7 million, this equates to a total in year overspend of 5.147 million, which was previously 5.204 at month 9. The contingency reserve balance has been amended this month to take account of those items approved as part of the 2425 budget. So, that currently is reduced down to 1.993 million. So, the main items that have been taken from that are the risk reserve of 3 million, and also the one-offs, and they totaled a figure of a hundred and 72,000. So, that has reduced down to 1.993 million. As we've said previously, we're reducing the in-year position with the moratorium currently. That stands at 1.714 million, which is up by 166,000 since month 9, and obviously the robust challenge of budget lines and commitments continues to bring that down further before year end. Table 1 sets out the variances at month 10, and just below that table, it details what environments have taken place month on month, and they're covered there within the report. Just to pick up on some of the major movements between month 9 and 10, within street scene, that moved favorably by 144,000. That was some additional income within the service delivery service for increased in-house commercial project income, and also some additional savings in transportation due to the moratorium. Within people and resources, that didn't move adversely by 57,000, but that is on the basis of the carry forward request that is within the report being approved. Within governance, that also moved adversely, and again, that relates to the actual carry forward request that was put in at month 9. I know at the previous meeting, when that was debated, there was clarification sought on whether or not that was included within the figures, but it was only determined afterwards that, unfortunately, that wasn't included at month 9. With that being approved by Cabinet now, that has moved that adversely. So I think an additional note went out to committee members just to clarify that a couple of weeks ago. Housing and communities that has moved favorably by 86,000, that's to do with a mix of the revised bad debt provision, and also a reduction in the bed and breakfast provision. And another favorable movement on the central loans and investment account of 125,000, that continues to improve as far as investment income and reduce borrowing costs are concerned. So we've been fortunate there this year that that's moved in that direction. Picking up the carry forward request, there are two this month. People and resources, the 58,000, that's across employment services and business partners. And in governance, a further request there for 125,000 to do with two members of staff that were previously employed as flincher apprentices. And this is to fund those on a one off basis going forward to the 31st of August 2024. But also to point out now within the report, just for clarity going forward, that all carry forward requests are included within the out term report figures that are reported. So if they are approved, the figures will stay the same, but if they're refused, then that will obviously benefit the position that we're currently reporting. Just picking up on some in-year risks and emerging issues, the council tax income, that is year on year exactly the same at 93.3%. On the waste recycling and fraction charge, I understand that service colleagues from street scene are meeting with Welsh Government officers next week for further discussions on this. So we'll await some further news on that. On the storm costs some good news from Welsh Government in that they've now confirmed that the scheme has been activated by the minister and that our claim will be met in line with the terms and conditions of that scheme. We're just finalizing the projected costs through to getting all the work completed. We're currently estimating within this report it's 1.5 million, but potentially that could edge up closer to 1.65 million. But we're currently in discussion with the service colleagues and we're getting verification on that certainly by the end of this week in order to let Welsh Government know. And they will base then their award letter on those projected costs. Other track risks are covered between 119 and 123. And just on only a marked reserves, just to pick up there, that the COVID hardship reserve was at the 3.212 million and that was covered as part of the budget discussions for next year. So that will be transferred over into contingency reserve. And the picking up on what I'd said previously that the contingency reserve balance is now reduced to 1.993 million. And then just finally on housing revenue accounts. The net in-year expenditure forecast is 458,000 higher than budget, which is an adverse movement of 408,000 since month nine. Two main factors of that income to do with the affordable housing grant has reduced by 147,000. And also there's a reduction under the repairs and maintenance section of reduction in transitional accommodation capital program, the TACP funding, which is obviously then increasing the net cost of the subcontractor costs within that area. And the more detailed breakdown of that is found in Appendix 5. So thank you, Chair. I'm happy to take any questions. Jay, thanks, Jay, for that explanation comes to the team. Thank you, Chair. If I might draw your attention to page 76 of the document pack. This is on Appendix A. And in particular, the under streets in transportation, the first under that, which is service delivery. And moving along that line to the comments on the course of major variants. The first line of service delivery have implemented tight, quick controls to the allocation of PPE through the in-house stores. Now, that obviously doesn't give us a huge amount of context and indeed operational issues with in-street scene or outside the terms of reference of this committee, but it has been flagged up to us and it probably hasn't been flagged up to the environment committee. From the wording there, I would have some initial concerns around the impact of that, given the importance of ensuring that our workers are supplied with proper PPE. I would be interested to know the extent to which consultation has been made with trade unions and health and safety representatives on that point. Given that this sits within the terms of reference of the environment committee, I wonder whether you might be willing as chair to commit to the chair of the environment committee, flagging this up to him for him to take any action he deems necessary through his committee. Absolutely, yeah, it does belong to the environment and I'll certainly do that. Thanks, Councillor. Yeah, thanks, Chair. Two questions for me, near enough on the same vein as on the housing sort of HRA, the housing revenue account, I don't seem to remember sort of the issues that are getting made here. Being discussed in the housing scrutiny committee so is it a possibility, you could do the same. Again, make the housing scrutiny committee aware because I think there's, you know, there's lots of, you know, there's big issues within housing, especially on voids where they're getting sort of monthly updates. And, you know, the concerns on the projected overspend of 502 in the repairs and maintenance budget as well. I know it sort of broke down and sort of netted off for, you know, although we're highlighting it here as sort of the fine and side of it, I think a more detailed explanation and report, or need to flag it up with housing for them to take a view on it. At my second point, I know it was raised at the last meeting I had, because I have had several sort of service issues to raise and it was said, you know, to try and get them to I haven't been able to do that but just a general sort of question without me sort of collecting sort of the last 10 lots of monitoring from the first one up to this 10. How can we, as I met, because it seems to be, you know, it's not that I've got an issue for social services but for there's issues there on sort of overspend and then netted off and then if you go through sort of 10 months, there just seems to be different. I'll use a word excuse or a different sort of reasons, you know, on localities and residential placements and things like that, we seem to be, we set a budget within months were sort of got massive overspend so I'm sort of asking the question, you know, when we're setting a budget, why are we getting any close to it. So how can we as a committee sort of link that sort of 10 months worth of, especially all the big variances because, you know, and I'm using social services because it seems to be a service that just, you know, from from localities what one month. We're saying, oh, we're netting off, because we haven't spent $150,000 and then next month with £300,000 and it's just all the way to, we get to now to month 10. How, I don't know it's been posing a question. Is it something that sort of finance officers keep an eye on, but for those, the members, how can we say sort of a shot. So how what departments over the 12 months of the budget set from setting the budget to the last one from setting the budget again. I'm all accumulated sort of together because surely then at a budget time, when you set the budget, surely they should be the ones are given the most attention by portfolios, I know we've just sort of set a budget for me. It's just, I seem to repeat myself getting the same sort of answers and nothing, and then nothing sort of happens, it's just how can we, as a scrutiny committee, you know, sort of asking press upon sort of social services and others. But when they are setting budgets to be more realistic and they're, you know, we're not going to see it now in month 10, but I bet my bottom dollar in month when we get the first one or two will be shooting or insignificant after just setting a budget will be, will be, if it's anything like that Okay, so I hope I've explained myself chair chairman of just sort of more, just the information for us to just keep it on the ball really. Yeah. You've made it before and I think I think things change by things change within year which do affect these items, you know, you said the localities and they do change violence change approved budget so you'd be approved budget changes. In this month, we've got the three changes, whereas social services is going up by 70,000 on a approved budget, then you've got people resources and assets which are coming down by the same total in in effect to assets, taking 70 and then giving on that on to people and people and resource so it does happen. And then there's things that happen in year between portfolios that money is made and the common one is when you get central corporate, they will retain money in central corporate and then they'll pass it off back to back to those other departments. Things like staff pay things like that. So it does happen. I'm going to probably provide a better explanation. But yeah, go ahead. Thanks. Obviously, we do provide an awful lot of detail for members that compared with other councils. We've made that point before we report projected out to plus month on month movement, the important appendix for members. I think is appendix two, because that shows right up to this moment in time what the projected spend is compared to the approved budget last February. So on the explanation for that variance will be in appendix two. And on top of that, of course, when things change month on month, we show every variance is a 25 over 25,000 pounds, Dave, in appendix one. So we've got the position, as of now to the end of the year, and anything that changes month on month that changes that position. So obviously members are quite within their rights to scrutinize, ask questions on the reasons for that movement month on month, which I know Council Attridge has done in the past. But as far as the scrutiny is around the explanations, whether you think it's a reasonable explanation compared with when we set the budget earlier in the year. So, you know, appendix two will be the, will be the place. So if you look in there that the cause of major variances of greater than 50,000, isn't it? They are explained. They're added to on a regular month by month basis for us to understand exactly the reasons why so we're getting the explanation. But you're saying, but it isn't always the case that it's an inaccurate estimate. It's just that things happen within year, I suppose that's the, and this why it's difficult. It's why it's difficult for us to sometimes understand it by month. But if you deal with it once by month and accept the reasons why those variances occur, then we're almost duty bound to accept appendix two because that's the accumulation of those explanations. Yeah, can I just come back. I think I'm talking about sort of specific sort of advice. I understand what you're saying different things happen, the need changing, but you know I'm talking about in house. But I don't care as reduced to. Oh, sorry. Where are we? Well, cause increase in demand for residential cares resulted in an increase of 324 million. Oh, okay costs are reduced by 71 million. Yeah, I, I understand that we're going to get some movements. So, it's every, nearly every single month on the same sort of budget lines, we're having these massive changes all I'm saying if other budgets was getting saved by other budgets within sort of social services because we're not sort of spending on that line due to vacancy. And really what I'm saying is if it was an actual budget, there wouldn't be any room or legal room for, you know, I think it with a great respect to officers they, I think they really, when I've raised this before regarding social services, budget, they've said to me, we need to get better. You know, it's not that I'm having sort of seeing the body just what I'm saying, month after month after month. It's the same ones. I'm not going to go through each individual line because there's a 25,000 band movement and talk about huge, big, huge movement, especially when we've just, we've just set a budget. But the proof will be in the podium when, you know, in two three months when we're seeing the new financial year just made proving point a bit better. Yeah. I mean, for the committee, if you, so if you pick out a couple of the ones that you think are particularly large, I think it would be quite acceptable for an explanation to be provided why that is and why what differences we've made to the budget is going on for the next year, so that we can see that we actually made a difference and it's not going to occur. The same thing is not going to occur next year. That's probably what you're after, isn't it, to make sure that the money, the approved budget is in the right portfolio. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. I think that's something we could do. I don't think that's an issue. Yeah. All right, no problem. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for allowing me to come back in. Council actually, if I've understood him correctly, makes two broad points. First of all, about the importance of accurate projections of cost pressures at budget time. And secondly, in relation to the importance of cost control within portfolios, I think makes the further point that some portfolios are better at applying rigorous cost control within individual budget lines than others are. And obviously, there are some reasons. For example, in statutory services, where we have a statutory duty to provide things and we don't. There is limited opportunities for cost control there. But as you know, Councillor Swash and myself have raised in relation to a different portfolio from that which Council average is referenced. There does seem to be a culture within some parts of the Council of viewing underspends within one allocated budget as an excuse to overspend within another and transfer across. I'm sure that's a fair comment. I mean, one doesn't, I think that's a pretty unfair comment. I think, I mean, I always say that there are underspends within any portfolio, you just allow me to speak. So there are underspends, but I don't think that necessarily leads on to anything else. It's an underspend and there will be an overspend in other parts of the portfolio or in other portfolios. And just to make the point here, if you look at what we've ended up with here, this improvement of 55 or 57,000, it's actually made up of an awful lot of under and overspend. So you've got 435,000 of. If like improvements to the finances, 380,000, which are not improvements to this. So that, and that nets out to 57,000. I don't think one requires the other. And I don't think you need to make a comment whereby an underspending one is an acceptable overspend in another. I don't think it's a fair comment, Councillor, you should take that back to be honest. Well, thank you for your. Thank you for your, I'm not willing to withdraw the comment because I'm basing it on explicit in writing advice to this committee from officers within a portfolio which I haven't named. Where it's been made clear that a budget which has been significantly underspend has been used to support other budgets. I am going off for officers have advised this committee. One can view that as a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If we had to look at cost control on a whole portfolio approach. And if one does take that approach and it is perfectly reasonable for that to be done and nobody could possibly raise any concerns. On the other hand, if one wants to look at cost control on an individual budget line approach, then that obviously would be a cause for concern that's a philosophical difference between members. But the points that I think Councillor Actridge has raised that I highlighted at the start. I think deserve careful consideration. I do think as Councillor Actridge points out that there is a learning opportunity here for officers and members. I will move into the budget process for the next financial year after this one. Yeah, perhaps just a point to make on that is that with our financial procedure rules chief officers do have delegated authority to via between budget heads up to a value of 100,000. And I think over 100,000 cabinet approval. So they have got that flexibility to manage under and over exceptions year on year which needs to be taken into consideration as well. Okay, Councillor JOHNSTON. Thank you. Thank you for the speak chair. It is made an observation here. I think Councillor I should bring it up. I think we sit on lots of these committees. So you realize how central the budget monitoring report is to this committee. Yes. I think you can take it from the points forward. Yeah, for example, just going to be Councillor Actridge's example on the housing that although the budget revenue monitoring did come to this committee, it wasn't a housing committee. So, and I think that's the case in the part of the OSEs. So I'm just wondering, so my thought is really that the event is coming here and we're looking at the chair of social services, just the chair of whatever committee we're going to do. Whether as we're working through this in the budget process that parts of the budget monitoring report which are appropriate to different OSEs could be shared with them as a matter of course, so that they're not something. So, although we get it all in one package, perhaps sometimes some of the questions that have been raised here as Councillor Richardson raised on our own service delivery and street scene should actually be on their agenda, but to find a way of doing that. Yeah, I don't, to be perfectly honest, this is the terms of reference to this committee is to do exactly what you've described. If we've got an issue, any issue, then we do exactly what Councillor Lattage and Councillor Anderson suggested we can refer things back to those other scrutiny's I don't think there's a need. This is that this is the committee which should consider the finances, each of the other scrutiny should consider the actual practicalities of getting there. I think if you start moody in the waters on that you're going to, I think it would be a, I think it would be a difficulty to be honest. Any of the members wishing to speak. Okay, I've got a couple of things. So, and some of I already mentioned so I was just going to mention the fact that 57,000 was made up of several ups and downs improvements and not improvements if you like, and that's worth worthy of notes. So yeah, it kind of, it kind of it depends what you're both saying that 435,000 improvements. We've got 380,000. This is not within the same portfolio. 380,000 if you like a negative movement, which results in a net enough of 57,000. So that's where that comes from. And it does, it does, it sometimes seems tortuitous, doesn't it, that we actually get that. Otherwise, if you just, because we just had the improvement, we were quite happy with that but then we've got the negative that goes with it. There's a note on the bottom of page 63, which says service delivery due to increased in house commercial projects income. I'd like to know what that is actually. What those in house commercial projects are. And then, just to make a note on the infection charge, just so he's still aware that it is 1.133 million and that infection charge is still alive, isn't it? And that's for the years 21, 22 and 22, 23. And to remember that point, my other point on page 57, and then detailed on page 78. So if you look at the homelessness issue now I know this is quite topical at the moment. But if you look at page 78, the top of page is in appendix two, so on housing solutions, you'll note that part of that is mainly used to projected over spend a 3.55 million on temporary accommodation within hotels and bed and breakfast provision, which is quite a large store money, not anticipated, not accounted for. So, if you think about the comments and the top page 57 on that second paragraph, where it says, one of the most significant influences of the many is the sparsity of affordable accommodation in the private rented sector. Now, whereas I don't, this isn't, this is about money, this is about the effect of this house, so there's two issues here which for me, I think we need to, we need to think about. One is that there is a reduction in the sparsity of private sector rental can be affected by some of the companies that are representing home office. So when companies represent home office to take on certain properties, that becomes that actually exacerbates the sparsity of private rental sector properties, which may not have been the intent, but that's the effect of that. So we lose, we lose the benefit, if you like, of having those properties available for people who are homeless. I think that there's also an eligibility issue with Welsh Government at a different eligibility criteria to England, which also exacerbates the problem. So those two things together actually have resulted, or not wholly, but probably the majority of the 3.55 million. So when a company is able to enter into a local authority, it doesn't matter whether it's our local authority or any other local authority, and set a premium to which they can contractually make contracts with companies or with people to take away local private sector rental. That has an effect, it has an inflationary effect as well. So there's an inflationary effect on the private sector rental, which then results in potentially more homelessness. And if you think of all that together, it's not helping us. Now, I don't know what we can do, and I'm not suggesting there's a simple response to this, but what I would say is we should describe what I've just said and what we feel about this in terms of money, because the issue is not about people personalities races. This is about the money, the effect of finances for the local authority. So what I'm going to suggest is that we write a letter from this committee to the Home Office, and perhaps to the Senate, explaining the situation that occurs here, showing the reasons why that 3.5 million potentially has occurred, so that they understand the effect of what is happening for that money being made available. So I think it's worthy of note because they probably don't realize that effect. So I'm going to suggest that a letter has written to the Home Office and the Senate outlining that comment. Councillor crease. Thank you chair. Your point for me is very well made. Currently, I'm working with a 17 year old female who's pregnant, sleeping on a cousin sofa, who cannot access. And she is capable, she has funding support from relatives, whereby she could rent a new open market if the open market was at a reasonable level. But she's unable to do so because of the sparsity of provision, which is being impacted by private sector involvement in the acquisition of progressively larger numbers of accommodation types in the county. The offer, which has been made from housing, the only offer available to her is a hotel room in real. Apart from the costs associated with that hotel room in real, the separation from a family in a support network. It would seem to me that the issues facing housing and issues facing residents in need of housing within Fletcher is being adversely affected by what you've talked about. And I would wholeheartedly support some sort of communication, explaining the huge budget difficulties. And, as a consequence, the housing shortages that result from the kind of action you're talking about. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, please. Can I ask you? Yeah. Take it. That's a council that could be second in your proposal, if it wasn't I'd like to second it. And, and I think, you know, as a local authority, we've made it quite clear where a county of sanctuary. But that needs to be tough with the issues that you raise. And I think by asking the questions, it is, it is a major issue that seems to be a sort of a fight between sort of our housing service and other private providers. So you've got a lot more money than our homeless service to offer a magnificent, you know, an over a seven year period in some instances, which, you know, anyone that's out there just to make money. That's sort of stuff, sort of the hands off so chair yes, you know, it's, it's going to get worse. The hardest story, the counselor, crease has just spoke about, you know, that's one, that's quite regular to myself, you know, the amount of local people that you've got in hotels in Chester in Nashville, further a field in caravans, etc, etc, because they cannot, you know, access social housing, not even, you know, because don't forget as a, as a council, we have, we have the funds where we top up where we can top up if the how local housing allowance doesn't allow so there's funds and it's still still available and that's available to private tenants as well, you know, across the piece, you know, so that's heavily relied on at the minute. So we can literally go to these very, very expensive properties and to be pretty honest, I've noticed, I don't know if it's a class world, but I've seen the last six months, sort of in the D side, sort of strip area of the house prices have sort of increased costs, the piece, you know, and people are offering, buying houses offering a lot more than the asking price to secure these properties so chair I fully support your proposal, you know, we need answers because at the end of the day, if I was flinching out of the house of concern, our issue with homelessness is going to get worse before it gets better and without any substantial help from national government or, or Welsh government, you know, we don't want to see this cows will be made due to homelessness. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate the spirit in which you've posed your amendment, but I will speak against it. Let's be clear, the issues that you have raised that Council priestess raised that Council are actually raised are all valid. We have essentially a landlord's economy where rents are skyrocketing out of control, where ordinary people being priced out and where there is inadequate supply of housing. The solutions to this in the medium term is a mass social house building program which has been promised by governments in the UK and Wales and we're yet to see the fruits up. In the immediate term, the solution to skyrocketing rents out of whack with inflation with landlords costs and essentially going on increased profit and rent for landlords is rent controls, which again is something that this Council has discussed before. I feel that it's important that we're absolutely clear about what we're essentially asking for here. We're proposing in this letter to make the case to the UK government to the home office that placing asylum seekers and refugees in plencher is an inflation risks and inflation of our cost pressures and freezes out local people. I think that creating that narrative and proposing the solutions that this activity within plencher be restricted. The placements be restricted in order to avoid the inflationary increase which you correctly identify is a consequence is to pit one group of ordinary people against another group. When the problem is the ownership structure of land and property within this country. Our solution has to involve rent controls with private sector. It has to involve mass social house building and it has to avoid the pitting of one group against another. So I'll be voting against the amendment. As I say, I appreciate the spirit in which it's been tabled. But as a proud believer in plenchers place as a county of sanctuary as a believer in the rights of everybody to decent housing, wherever they're from, whoever they are. I cannot support the amendment. Thank you chair. Yeah, certainly we are the letter will not be pity one group against another. It won't be perceived as that at all. This is about the finances. This is about the finances of the county and the effect of some of the decisions made by national governments, both in the Senate and in Westminster, the effect it has on our local authority. That's a fair comment to make. She's nothing to do with one group of people to another. It's the decisions made by governments that affect local authorities and that's what we're going to draw to their attention. That's my intent. This past he's mentioned here. Yes, can you go ahead. So, just to clarify what is a very complex landscape here. There are a number of policy issues and legislative changes that have impacted on our housing, demand and supply. We started off the journey with bedroom tax that has had a detrimental impact where people can be placed and the affordability of that accommodation. And then we move through into legislative changes about the everyone in strategy from Welsh government, which I don't think anyone can argue against in terms of the where it seeks to get everybody and that is to get people off the streets and sleep it. Of course, within all that mix, there's a profile of demand, which seeks to and Council Ratridge will be well versed on this conversation because we have it more or less every time in the housing committee around single bed accommodation. So, the proportion of the capacity of that accommodation, which if you run through the numbers, the demand profile is significant in terms of single bed accommodation. So, the route out of it is, as Council has said, is more social housing of the right quality and the right scale and built at pace. It's been leading that charge and led that charge a long time ago in terms of building its own Council housing. It hasn't stopped doing that. But of course, there's a scale around land availability and how we get that demand and feed into that model. The market, and I was in a national meeting yesterday and the conversations with the home office was, well, we pay LHA rates and that's it. It is fundamentally more than that. The fundamental issue is you find paying that, but the landlords are, there's a different dynamic for landlords. And there is an issue and it come back to the point you're raising is, is that influencing negatively in the sense of artificially creating pressure within the housing market and overheating the rented sector. And I don't, it's not, to be quite honest, just flinch it. I think it's happening across Wales and across the UK. I think there's an evidence base that's needed if you want to, if you're going to make a substantive point on that because we all know house prices are moving anyway. But how much of that is influenced by some of the home office strategy. And I think some of it will be, but to what degree and extent. I don't think there's anything wrong in asking the question. It's the question I asked just today. I'm putting that more formally would be appropriate. Thanks. Sorry, bosses and members will write this together. I mean, that's what I'm, I'm just making up broad assumption that we will make this. It's nothing, this is to do with finances. The finances of the authority. It's nothing to do with race and money. It doesn't matter to me. It's, it's houses availability for the people in our local authority and the cost of the local authority. Thank you. I think I would just like to, to make the point, certainly to cancel a little bit. That if there was once until I've doubt in my mind that this response related to racism. Or a reluctance to accept and accommodate any human who is in need of support and help, I would take offense at that. This simply is a statement of economic fact. We have a disruptor in the market who has, and I can speak, I won't name the properties. I'm aware of a property, a two bed and flat in a complex and con is key, which was on the open market for £750 per calendar month for a two bed and flat. Which had nine, at least nine potential applicants refused because he didn't meet the rental criteria of the letting agent. And that room has now been taken off the market along with a number of others. And the rental price of in excess of £900 a month has been paid by a disruptor in the market. That is the issue, Councillor Libison. It's not racism. It's not a reluctance to house and show humanity to other human beings. It is simply the fact that there is an economic disruptor in the market and we need to make that plain. We have a £3.5 million deficit in one budget because of economic disruption in the market. That is it. It's nothing, absolutely nothing to do with racism. Okay. Okay, members, I think we've had a pretty robust point of order. You want to do. I'm just saying just to complete this item would it be worth me just confirming the outcome of the final settlement. It's obviously members who have a 2425 budget based on the provisional settlement. Very briefly, our cash increase we received the final settlement last week is 972,000. So our uplift does increase to 2.5% from 2.2%. Our whales increased to 3.3% from 3.1%. However, part of the reason for that increase is that three specific grants transferred into the settlement. So instead of getting a specific grant, we'll have to fund those elements from core budget. And then the difference of 676,000 is in effect the consequential. We estimated 675,000 and then we in the actual budget report. So it's only 1,000 different. So the budget is as set is no significant difference. So I will send a brief note out to all members. Just that everyone's got the same information. It's always worth mentioning while we're here. Thanks, Gary. Can't you actually tell it? Any news on the Capitol because they've announced an enough £2 million has been welcomed by theater clerk will help us as a cat. Talk because it was never in the mix. Any money was coming from national governments. It's come 2 million. It was an enough 2 million. I hope that or 1.6. I hope that's coming off. The revenue or the capital of the French was putting in. This surely can't be, surely can't be extra. Anyone have a comment on that, officers? Possibly. Surely we need to better that. Surely we need a better situation. If, if, if, if Westminster government has announced on the floor in the Commons, the 1.6 million is going to be. Sorry. It's going to theater. I was involved as deputy leader for the council when it was all being discussed. There was never, ever any money, capital money included. For theater clearly from national governments, we have put in French account accounts substantial amounts. All amassing surely that the 1.6 million is never ever been spoke about is additional money. The surely can come off our capital and revenue so we can spend it on something else. Okay. That's your understanding. I mean, we're not guaranteed. I don't know whether if that information is absolute. So what we need to do is allow officers the time to be able to come up with an explanation of why it's different than you think. So it's not on the agenda, but we will, we will. Yeah. The chief executive have said a job won't make any difference. So. Point of order. To order Council, what is it? Thank you, Chair. I wonder if you might be able to give me some procedural clarity on how you propose to take the votes here because we seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a quandary in terms of proposing and seconding. Obviously, you proposed an amendment that's been seconded by Councillor crease, but the substantive motion itself, if I recall correctly, is not actually being moved and seconded. Obviously that amendment was tabled towards the end of a debate and Council procedurals are clear that there can't be a debate until the motion has been moved and seconded. I wonder if you might be willing to take a vote on the amendment, and then if the amendment carries, take that as a substantive, if the amendment falls, take the substantive on amended, might that be the way to do it, or. Taking an amendment to remove the part that you've added in. How would you like to do this, Chair? You're going to give some advice. Let's go ahead. If I can help, Chair. I'm afraid I didn't spot whether the recommendation in the report was moved and seconded. If it wasn't moved and seconded, then what you have proposed is actually not an amendment, because officers don't move motions. We give recommendations, members move motions. So you have put forward a substantive motion. I would suggest, Chair, that in order to assist with clarity, if you are also comfortable with the recommendations in the report, that you take a vote on the recommendations in the report as a motion. And you also then, as part of the motion, and you also then separately take a vote on the part where there might be some contention, i.e. the letter to go to, I think it was both Welsh government and the home office. Yeah, that was my intention was to make two recommendations. Okay, so recommendation one would be that the committee considers and comments on revenue budget, which we've done. That's recommendation one, and recommendation two, which we'll take now. So I'll accept a mover and a seconder for that. Okay, and a show of hands from members. Okay. And then second recommendation, which would be as described a letter sent to the home office and to the centers describing the issues we have with sparsity of private sector rental and the effect it has on on our authority. So, I'm going to move that. Seconded by Councillor crease and then a vote on that, please. So, I think everybody online is it, am I right? Yep, everybody online. So the only two people haven't voted for that. Sorry, the only person hasn't voted for that is Councillor Nivets. Okay, it's limited. Okay, thank you members. Right, so we're going to move on to a part two. Thank you, Council actually, just a second to please. So, shall across and then show fans for moving into part two.