Transcript

Dr. Powell, welcome to this meeting of Cabinet being held today, Tuesday 19th of March 2024. This meeting has been webcast with the exception of any business at the Cabinet result to exclude the press and public because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by the local government of 1972. This meeting has been held as a hybrid meeting with Cabinet members attending in person at the Council of Chamber, County of All, Ruthin or remotely by a video conference. For transparency purposes, I will ask the monitoring officer to identify which Cabinet members are in attendance and whether they are attending in person or remotely. The Office of Edouina, and Priscena. Thank you, Mr. Leader. In the presence of the Chamber, you've got Cabinet members, Councillor Jason McLennan, Leader, Councillor Jill German, Deputy Leader, Councillor Guinevales, Councillor Heis, Thomas, Councillor Barrymella, Councillor Ellen Heaton, Councillor Julie Matthews, Councillor Emris Wayne. Online, we've got observers, members who are Councillor Bobbie Fealey and Councillor John Butterfield, also present in the Chamber as some officers, including the Chief Executive, Mr. Graham Bowles, and their officers who are supporting the committee meeting. Thank you. Those attending remotely are kindly asked to mute their microphones unless they are called upon to speak. Cabinet members are also asked to have their video switched on throughout the meeting unless I specifically request you to turn your video off to improve the quality of the audio link when you are speaking. You will be expected to restart your video once you have finished speaking. Please also refrain from using the chat facility as messages sent to all are visible on the webcast. It is present in the Chamber. I ask to make sure that they speak directly into the microphone to improve the quality of the sound for those attending remotely. To aid transparency, all of the meetings business should and must be conducted through the chair. So the declarations of interest, Gary. With the lot in them, we've got all of them. Members will be aware of the requirement of the Council called of conduct to declare any personal or prejudicial interest in respect of any business to be considered at today's meeting. Such interest should be declared now, or as soon as the Council is affected, it becomes aware that they have a personal or prejudicial interest in today's business. All members declaring an interest are required to stay clearly what the interest is and to advise whether it is a personal interest or a personal and prejudicial interest as defined in the code of conduct. Any member declaring a prejudicial interest is required to leave the meeting for the duration of the business being discussed and can take no part in the proceedings. Members with a personal interest only may take part in the debate and any vote. If a personal or personal or prejudicial interest is declared today that has not been previously disclosed and recorded, the Councillor concerned will be required to complete and sign a declaration of interest form which is either available from the committee support staff in attendance today or online. Does anyone need to declare a personal or prejudicial interest in anything on the agenda today? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Apologies. I've received apologies from Councillor WINMOLAND JAMES WIN has been ill overnight, isn't well at all. So she gives her apologies and I can see Alan on the screen so Alan, if you can pass on our best wishes to win for a speedy recovery, I spoke to her first thing this morning and she did sound very poorly so best wishes to win Alan, thank you. Declaration of Interests, we've dealt with urgent matters, I've not been notified of any urgent matters ahead of today's meeting, no, and that's a note from Molotong Officer Gary, thank you. So we'll now move on to the minutes of the meeting held on the 20th of February 2024. So we will go through those for the accuracy first, now on the electronic pack they appear at pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Any issues over accuracy of the minutes in the papers today? No, okay, so the same pages again, pages 5 to 9, are there any matters arising from those minutes? No, okay, could I have a proposal, there are two, an accurate reflection in the meeting, so proposed by Councillor Colleagues, residential and nursing care home fee settings and we're joined by Nicholas Stovins and Lloyd and I will hand over to the lead member Alan Heaton, thank you Alan. Diok Aderenev, Abaradar Palb, thank you Leeton, good morning everyone. So this area, as you can imagine, constitutes a significant part of our adult social care and homelessness budget with an expenditure of around £30 million allocated to approximately 364 placements for this area of care. Now the provision of care is a priority for us as a cabinet, as it is for us as a council and this is reflected in our approved budget allocations for 2024 and 25 which underscores our commitment to safeguard and social care and education to the greatest possible extent. Decisions like this are of course taken against the backdrop of an unprecedented local government financial crisis. The scale of the challenge is historic and it's extreme and it's under these circumstances in which we've approached the issue of care home fees with due diligence and with prudence. This year, perhaps more than ever before, it's extremely important that we strike a balance between affordability for local taxpayers, the sustainability of other essential services and ensuring fair compensation for our valued providers. In the report you'll see that I'm proposing that cabinet approves an average increase of 8.8% for our residential and nursing care home fees for 2024 and 25. As following a much careful consideration, this increase strives to strike that very delicate balance. The methodology that has been used to calculate these fees closely mirrors that used by the regional fees group. It accounts for inflation and the increase in the real living wage which is set to increase by 10% and it is informed by engagement with our providers. Now I am aware cabinet that this increase is substantially more than the 3.8% increase we've received in our settlement and as a result, if approved today, this decision would significantly impact our budget or expenditure on care home fees would increase by over a million pounds and unfortunately this comes at a time where savings targets are looming large across all of our council services. Therefore, in recognition of this financial risk, there are lower options presented in the report for cabinet's consideration, however I am confident that cabinet shares the view that although this decision does come with financial implications, it reflects our priorities as a council and upholds our commitments to prioritising care provision, even in the face of significant challenge may I add. I will ask Nippler if that's okay to provide a little bit more detail into how this fees setting process has differed from previous years but just before I do, I would like to make one final point if I may chair and that is that under no circumstances should any of our providers in Denvershire feel they are teetering on the financial brink due to unfair compensation for their services. We value our providers in Denvershire and we are committed to fostering an open, transparent and fair relationship with them. This is why we have always maintained the offer of an open book policy which allows our providers to engage with us in transparent and a fair discussion about the true cost of care and importantly this allows us to ensure the efficient use of tax pay and money and it's that final point that I just want to re-emphasise chair particularly as resources are becoming increasingly stretched. So, Nippler, if you could, thank you. Yes, as the lead member has just said, we have taken a different approach this year. As you will recall last year we had some discussion within part two and Cabinet and other members did ask that in future we've been much more transparent so in order for us to be able to do that we started the process as early as possible to be able to ensure that when we brought this forward as a recommendation to Cabinet that we were able to be open and transparent about the process that we've undertaken. We were also asked to ensure that we engaged as much as possible with providers and with our regional colleagues. Again, as the lead member has said, we have continued to have an open door policy for our providers and we welcome those discussions throughout the year, not just at the annual setting process time. Through the regional fees group we have re-established the group, we've now appointed an independent chair and we've re-engaged with providers who previously had disengaged from that process. We continue to work with the regional fees group moving forward and explore the options and really take on board the feedback from those providers. But as the lead member has said, the process which we've followed for the recommendation today does take into account the increase in the real living wage and in officer's opinion is a very, very considerable increase, the al-Kambal. Okay, thank you, Nicola. I'm sorry, Anna, you know, okay, everything's been said. Gwyneth, do you want to come in? Thank you, Leader. You mentioned that one of the elements that you considered when arriving at this fee was the real living wage. My ask, are you certain that all providers do pay the real living wage to their staff? Okay, so we obviously provide the fees, including the real living wage. Unfortunately, we've got no means in monitoring whether or not providers pay that to their, you know, we ask when we monitor their contracts and we monitor their provision, but we've got no jurisdiction ever whether or not they pay it, that's through HMRC when they need to monitor people's wages. So, you know, we can only provide the fees that we provide and encourage providers to do that, but we've got no actual jurisdiction ever whether or not they actually pass that on to their staff. I think if they weren't the staff, we probably leave because they'll get it in other providers. So, but we've got no jurisdiction over that to monitor it to the letter of the law, if you like. We do strongly encourage providers, though, and in the discussions with them, we make it clear that that is included within the fee rates that we're offering. And there is an expectation, but, as Anna has just explained, we can't legally enforce that. Thank you. Is there no way that you could enforce it via the contract or that you could offer a lower increase unless they can demonstrate that they are paying the real living wage, or could it not be a, you know, a condition of them being employed by them, I don't, you know, is, I understand that there's no legal jurisdiction, but is there a sort of contractual mechanism that we could enforce it? I don't think there is, you know, contractually, I don't think we can dictate what companies pay to their staff. I mean, obviously, part of it is at least national living wage, that is minimum standard, isn't it? And, you know, Welsh government are committed to paying the real living wage in social care, but I don't think, you know, contractually, we could, I mean, there is a new agreement getting developed at the moment, which is a regional document, but again, I don't think within the terms of that, we can actually, and we need to look at that for your legal perspective, I think, going to, Welsh government established the fair work for them a couple of years ago, and I was fortunate to be part of that group for its first year, and that approach is very much around collective bargaining with the sector, for that very point, because whilst pay is really important, and clearly it is, it's also around terms and conditions for the workforce as well. So certainly the work that the fair work for them is doing, is trying to work with providers to ensure that the workforce receives the pay and recognition that it deserves through collective bargaining. On that point, I think you answered my question, Nick, I said that care for and Wales negotiated a living wage for the staff in their homes, is that right, or is that part of the fair work for them that you refer to? The real living wage is a commitment from Welsh government, that's a policy commitment from the agreement. My understanding is the fair work for them had put that proposal forward and supported Welsh government in the rollout of that. I understand care for and Wales has also been a member of the fair work for them, so as a provider, they represent providers across Wales, but there are also providers who are not members of care for and Wales, who we know also pay the real living wage, so it would be for care for and Wales to have those conversations with its own membership, again it's not something we can dictate, that is a representative body. Okay, thank you, Nick. Okay, so I've got Jill next. Thank you, Lita. To ask a little bit more about the open book exercise, the fact that that remains open is obviously really good because we know that the economy is still as it is, we're in difficult economic times, not only in the council, but across the board with anybody running any kind of business and that's not looking like it will pick up any time soon. We've had to do a recession. We know that the picture isn't going to be improved imminently, so I do have some concerns that we might have providers who find themselves in a situation that they didn't foresee during the consultation period, and I suppose my question is how are we communicating that they really can come to as any time, I think that needs to be an ongoing conversation, I'm sure that these providers are extremely busy and they'll have times where they're more able to take up on looking at these things and others, so it's how we're communicating that with them really is my question. Thank you. Yeah, so we have regular dialogue with the providers, we do contract monitoring, so I've got a contract monitoring team that will go out and talk to the providers that go and visit the homes, we also have a team that pay all the bills, so we've got regular communication going on as well as quite often social workers, occupational therapists dropping in, so there's always council staff in and around these care homes, the message is clear, we also have a provider forum where we meet with the providers on an ongoing basis, not every provider engages in that, but we have regular dialogue with them that will allow that conversation to go on, and if we identify anything through their invoicing or through discussions about their financial situation, we can pick it up, so I'm confident that we have enough engagement with the providers throughout the year, and you know, if there is any that, you know, we've had people come to us at various times throughout the year to talk to us about an open book exercise, so that dialogue is ongoing. If I could just very quickly come into, it's a very important point you've picked up for their jail, and yes, we've obviously consulted with our providers following the calculation of this increase, and that framework of there, of course, invited to engage in open book exercise, but that offer is maintained throughout the year, no matter at what point or what circumstance, it's an open invitation throughout. Thanks, Eleanor. It's a good point, and it was your final point in your introduction as well, and it feeds into the basis of having a good relationship with our carriers and maintaining that good relationship. Thank you. Julie, I've got you down if you want to come in. Yeah, thank you, Jennifer. Deal. A couple of my questions have been answered, actually, as we're going forward, obviously, I thought the provider forum was an interesting, and it's good to know that we are continuing to have dialogue with providers on a regular basis, and obviously you've answered the question about the open book policy, because Jill asked that. So I just want to ask a little bit about the risks that are noted in the reports, and if you can give a little bit more detail, let me just jump back to there, and what risks are there, and is there anything we can do to reduce them? Can you give me a little bit more information on what we're doing to reduce these risks? Yeah, so I think, obviously, again, through that constant dialogue, we've got a really clear picture of what the sort of say, what it's like across the county and where some of the issues are, so we know where the bids available are. We know what the providers can provide for us, because they all offer different. So we've got a good handle, and again, through that regular dialogue, we understand, so where we're talking about the limited supply-affordable care homes, you know, we do know the care homes that are more expensive, we do know the care homes that are, obviously, a little bit cheaper or pay at the standard rate, so we've got that, and we have that dialogue with them ongoing, so again, it's just making sure we're abreast to what's happening across the sector to manage some of that. Some care placements are really difficult, because again, what we're finding is with the complexity you need, and trying to get people to a hospital, sometimes we can't get everybody where they want to go, so we can always provide people with their first choice. Some of the care homes are smaller, they're older buildings, so they can't necessarily get hoists and things in, so that, again, restricts us on where we need to put people. So it's about making sure we're trying to get people into the right care home. We have got providers interested in moving into Denvershire, so whilst we talk about the fact that, you know, we had a couple of years ago, we had a big company really interested in coming into Denvershire, and we're looking, and are still looking for print, they're identified somewhere, and then just through flood risk and things like that, they weren't going to get the plan in permission, but we know there are some providers who are keen to invest and develop in Denvershire, which is really encouraging, so the market is still there for new development, which again reduces some of that risk, and we will continue the dialogue with such providers. There is a risk that, you know, if our care fees aren't sufficient, providers will look at alternatives, they've got the right to do that, their businesses, so again, the 8.8 offer kind of makes you aware we're on a par with some of your other local authorities across North Wales and reduces some of that risk for us, and if you want to come in the car here. Just in terms of a longer-term view, obviously we work, we produce a market position statement, and through the regional collaboration, we have a longer-term commissioning strategy, which is also alongside the regional workforce strategy, so we're constantly thinking ahead around what the needs for service provision will be, and do we have the sufficient workforce for that in the future. So managing risks that are here now, but also trying to understand what risks may be on the horizon and mitigate those as best as possible. Okay, thank you, thank you Julie. Jill, do you want to come back in? Yes, if I could, I'd appreciate if I had a question already, but as you were talking, something else occurred to me. So you were saying about the smaller provision and just going back to the discussion with providers, I think it's important to make sure that these smaller care homes have a voice in the process as well, and I suppose my question is about how we engage with them. I should imagine if there's bigger players in the market, so you've mentioned that these are businesses, and of course we know with businesses that bigger players in the market perhaps have loud voices, so I'm just interested in the work that goes on to make sure that everybody has an equal voice, because of course they're all providers and so our small and medium enterprises in particular, I know that they're the kind of businesses that in Dambouchure as a whole, we're looking at developing and growing and protecting from those wider market forces. Thank you. Yeah, and we recognise that, and I think, you know, the majority of our care homes are probably smaller employers rather than some of the bigger businesses that you refer to. So again, through that regular engagement, and typically there's some of the organizations that will come to the provider forum because that is a good voice for them, and you know, we had real experience during COVID where they actually went on each other, we almost set up a forum that was like a peer forum for them, and quite often that was the smaller, the smaller one man, you know, one care home business that came forward, and they really developed a relationship, so we sort of facilitated that, so that's been really important, and that's something that we're, you know, we're trying to continue, appreciate how busy they are, and the county always comes, so it's trying to get the time and rights so that we don't overwhelm them, but we've got good relationships with a lot of them, you know, we're most of the local and smaller businesses as well as the big ones. And just going to the fee setting process, there was a conscious effort made to make sure there was a range of providers who were engaged with, from obviously the smaller ones, which are the majority of our market to the larger ones, and that range of engagement then helps to inform our calculations. Yeah, thanks, I have a good point, and that's part of the more transparent approach, isn't it? That transparency that's really important, thank you. If there's no further questions from cabinet members, I'll open it up along the screen, I can see, Bob, you have your hand up, do you want to? Hence, Leader, excuse my voice, I'm getting over a bit of a cold. Yeah, just a couple of questions, and a couple of points. Last year, the regional fees group agreed, three main objections are objectives, sorry, which are outlined on page 12 paragraph 4.2, which you can see. I see from the report, the two latter points, which are quite extensive, have not yet been agreed in advance of setting the new fees. Should you do you think have done this before calculating the fees in order that you could get a better picture of what's needed? That's one question. The other question is, I also note that only three providers have entered into discussions, although a further six made email contact. But despite discussions last year outlining your wish to have meaningful dialogue with providers, this does not seem to have happened, because I think you must agree three is not many out of 82. And I understand Careful and Wales are still not on board with the regional fees group. Could you have done more about getting them involved? As Julie has pointed out, cabinet member Julie, on page 15, the report outlines four serious risks caused by undefending the care sector, or that could happen. And also on page 17, there is an outline of the numerous problems that which have been encountered that you've discovered with your discussions with the few you have discussed it with. I'll leave it at that for now so you can just answer those questions. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Bobby, for those questions. Thanks. Who's going to take them? So in relation to the regional fees group objectives, it was always clear that we were never going to get up to a point this year where a new methodology was going to be introduced. It was more about starting to look at the priority issues and develop the evidence gathering process and make some recommendations. Unfortunately, the group didn't get started on this work until I think it was sort of almost in the third quarter of the year. So it was quite late, sort of getting that work going. So it was always clear that we were never going to get to a point this year, but we start the work and we would almost get to a point where moving into this year, we could start really, really early and clearly making sure we got a new methodology. And there's different local authorities trying out different methodologies as we speak to pilot to see what we can look at. In relation to care for and Wales on that, they are a significant part of the regional fees group. They're represented on the Standard Committee, and they're also got members now on the operational group. So they are very dominant in that regional fees process. So that's the regional fees group. In relation to provider engagement, there was a number of providers that we engaged with back in September, October that led us to sort of develop what the proposals should be this year. And obviously, we took the feedback that you alluded to in the appendix. We took that into consideration when we were making the, we were looking at what the proposals could be for the care fees. Obviously, it was agreed that we went on and consulted back in December. And, you know, every provider was written to. And again, as we've talked about the open book exercise was in that communication. There have only been nine providers come forward at this point, but we've also had variable feedback from some providers that they're actually quite happy with the offer we've made to them this year. So where else do we cannot assume everybody is happy? We now nine providers have come forward and want to engage in the open book exercise. Some of them, that's happened. Some of that discussion is ongoing. But we also know we've had variable feedback from other providers who are quite happy with the offer we've made. We can answer for everybody because not everybody is confirmed one way or another how they feel. So I think, you know, that's the position we were in as we were finishing the report. And yeah, in relation to the risks that, you know, I think I've already explained to, to Councillor Dewey, what we've done, what we're looking at to mitigate the end risks. So there are risks, but there are all of us has been, and there all of us will be when it comes to some of this care provision. Can I, could I just come back later? Is that okay? I still feel that, you know, in addition, in excess of 70 providers not engaging, you know, that is a problem. And we can see from the numerous problems that have been outlined. Can I just finish, if you wouldn't mind. It seems the care home sector is as fragile as the residents may care for. And you do say you've approached the issue of care fees with diligence and prudence. And maybe possibly it needs to be approached with a little bit more care, compassion and realism. I do fear, I really fear we are fiddling while Rome burns. And I know we have budget pressures, many of which are caused, as we are told relentlessly by social care pressures. And this, in turn, seriously affects our other senses, who are struggling because of the amount of money needed by social care. Yet, for all of that, we still pay the lowest care home fees in Wales. And I'll leave you with that. Okay, thank you. The Oct Leader, and Apologies Council, I just wanted before you carried on to correct you on one point there. I think you're understanding as we've only consulted and engaged with nine of our providers, that's not the case. We've offered to engage with every single one of our providers. We engaged with them, that informed the setting process. We proposed the 8.8% increase, which may I add is substantially more than the modest 3.8% increase that we've received in our settlements. And then we have consulted on that proposal with our providers. And of the 82 homes, nine of our providers have come back on that consultation. And yes, three of them have met with us. I don't know if there's anything you'd like to add. Just to reiterate, it's an ongoing process of engagement with our providers. We do engage with them on an annual basis around the fee setting process. But it's a continual dialogue with them both through our contract monitoring processes, but also through individual citizens who are placed in those places as well. So it's a constant dialogue throughout the entire year. And that book exercise is offered throughout the year. So I would support the lead member. I don't know what more we can do to offer to engage with our providers. Those that do something to say come and say say it to us. Well, well, I think the figures do speak for themselves, don't they? Can I just say one last thing, Leader? And then I'll be quiet. But the letter went out on the 15th of December, which is the busiest. Well, I'm awfully sorry I had to do that. I'm really, really sorry I had to press the mute button. I never want to do that. But I asked you a few times if you could see talking for now and let other members come in, cabinet members who, under the protocol, of course, do have do have a priority. More than inclined to let you in at the end. But you wouldn't you wouldn't accept that you kept on talking. Apologies. Apologies, Jason. That's fine. I don't hate doing that. I don't want to do it again. Well, like the point I was going to make was to simplify things. We've got an open door. Anyone can talk to us at any time. Now I'll have done that. That doesn't mean to say that the the other, what is it, 73, excuse my maths, we're not engaging with. All of them pick up the phone this afternoon and one by one we'd speak with them. So the fact that we spoke to a number doesn't mean to say we won't, can't speak to any of the others. That's common sense to me. Okay, I'm going to let you in now. I'm asking you to be brief. And then I'm going to bring in Julie, Chief Executive wants to speak and and trees, but I want you to be brief, Bobby. It's okay. I've made enough noise this morning, Julie. Yeah, I just, you know, Appendix one you've clearly noted there. There's a genuine appetite for more engagement with the local authority and all providers said they would welcome a relaunch of the provider for them. So you have talked about that a little bit already this morning. So is there any, I think in particular you're going to do in terms of the relaunch? Because if they've all said that they want to engage, then obviously, you know, we talk about figures, but you've said that people are engaging with you. So perhaps it's just that formal mechanism. Perhaps that's needed. I don't think this was feedback from October. So subsequent to that, obviously we have met and, you know, we have got that provider forum on the move. So this was for the original engagement we did when we, before we even did the KFV segments. Well, that's racial and, you know, that providers are coming to us and we've already said, you know, there's an opportunity to speak at any time. Don't have to wait for me. Okay. I'm sorry. If a part of that forum is wider than just, it's not just fees. It's around workforce development. It's around some of the issues that they're incurring. We've done a lot of work recently. We had some care homes that all had similar fires. We've done a lot of work with them around that. So it's wider than just fees. We don't typically talk about fees. That's very commercial in confidence. And obviously that's around our contractual relationships with people. But the provider forum is a much wider agenda. So it's around developments. It's around, you know, if there's new guidance come out through the health board or Welsh government. So Welsh language strategy, you know, emphasis involved in the more than just words. So it's wider than just, you know, what we pay. It's around the wider issue running a care home and all the guidance and the legislation and CIW. And, you know, it's all that stuff that we do with our and staff development training needs a lot. That's just very, I just want to make a comment there, Jason, because that's very important to know that. But sometimes we just get caught up in the commercial elements of this. But there's so much more support that the council is doing for providers and ensuring, you know, our most vulnerable residents are looked after. So thank you very much for that. Thank you. I'm going to bring Graham. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Only briefly. And I think it was around that comment around the still work going on with the fees group and therefore we could potentially delay setting the fees for this year. I think the issue there for me is obviously we've got to set by just by delaying it creates uncertainty for everybody. So by actually having this in front of us today to agree it while accepting the still work going on. And I guess there'll always be those discussions and across the reason nationally. And even once we've set the fees, we've already made it very clear we're open to this open book process with all the providers anyway, even once we set the fees. But I think it's important we set the fee because it gives some certainty to the providers. And it gives certainty to us because this is this X 8.8% average across the piece costs us an extra million pounds. So it's an extra million pound investment going into this provision. That's been taken to account as part of the budget setting process. So that's all in the report. So I know Liz is in the chamber. We also needed that degree of of some certainty as well because for the budget setting process, because these are not small amounts of money, it's an extra million pounds that we have committed to the budget setting process. And we know that's the some uncertainty around that because we negotiate separately, etc. But it gives this certainty. And I'm really glad to see this report today. It opened transparent discussion around this fee setting. I think it's really important that we've done that. It's a really good discussion. It's a really good debate. I'm following it and understanding it. And I know it's a complex area so that hopefully everybody else is as well. And our position, I think, is absolutely, we've got rationale and it's a reasonable position to be, isn't it? And in terms of whether we're the lowest fee paying in whales or not, first of all, everyone's still setting their fees. So we don't know what the fee setting structure will be. And certainly, it's about our own local circumstances, isn't it? And we're adapting to our own local circumstances in setting those fees. And that's exactly how it should be. So I'm really happy to see the report. And I'm glad that we're not delaying it. And we're getting on and actually starting to in order to put budget management. And of course, that's important in services that are robust spending has been mentioned. We know that. We know where the budget pressures are. So it's good that we've got this element of clarity today. Thank you, leader. Great. Thanks. Greece, I have you, you want to come in? Thank you, Chair. I came to this meeting this morning with three questions I intended to ask. All three questions have been answered here this morning. But I've thought about one additional question after listening to the discussion that we've just had. I realized that some of my long-winded questions from officers only listed the answer of yes or no, and I think that's my fault for the way that I answer that I give these long-winded questions. But having listened to the debate today and previous debates, that's scrutiny under the places. Sometimes I get the impression that members think that consultation with our providers seems to take, only take place on an annual basis, or when there is some sort of questionnaire or a question is being asked. And I just want reassurance from Ellen and from the officers that, in fact, we work very, very closely through the whole year with our providers because they are very, very important partners for us for 12 months of every year. And I'm sure I know that if it's going to be a yes or a no answer, I know what it's going to be. But I just want the reassurance that we obviously do work very closely with our care providers for every day of the year and not just when it comes to consulting or asking their views on a particular point. Am I right in that for you? To answer your very long-winded question, I'll give you a very short answer. Yes. On that, obviously, in a more practical way, what sort of discussions take place constantly through the year? Just very, very briefly. Thank you. So I think I've probably covered some of that, Rhys, just in the fact that, you know, we talk to them about the training needs. We do contract monitoring visits where we go into the home. So I have a team that do that, but I've also got social workers, occupational therapists, who are in the homes regularly talking about, you know, citizens that we've got accommodated there. We work closely with the health board who also go into the homes. So there's a whole partnership approach. You know, we've got a team that do all the payments for the care homes that are in regular dialogue with them. As managers, we get involved where we need to. So, you know, there is a whole house to people talking to these providers on a day-to-day basis. Is it specifically on care fees? No. It's on the wider support to the care sector. Care fees form a very small part of what we're discussing. But if managers or, you know, business owners want to talk to us about the care fees, you know, that invitation's there, but there's a lot of dialogue going on constantly with providers. Thank you, Anne. I did understand that, and you did say that. I did hear you say that, but having heard some of the questions being asked, I just wanted to reinforce that. And should any of these very, very valuable partners or providers have any dissatisfaction, it wouldn't have to wait until some annual questionnaire or fee setting, because that's something that you would pick up from day-to-day, from week-to-week, through the partnership working. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you, Laura. Thank you. We are pleased. Thank you. Okay. I mean, I'll just essentially pick up on what Crayam said to thank Ellen and Nicola and the team, but I can't work on this. It's an issue that's not without its controversies on occasion. And I'm pleased that this Council is conducting the process in a transparent way, in an open way, in a public meeting like this. There's a rationale to follow. So, yeah, thank you. Thank you for that, just to repeat what the Chief Executive said really. So, I'll hand back to Ellen for the recommendations at part three of the report. Thank you. Thanks everyone on the screen for the debate as well. Some good questions there. Thank you. The recommendation is that Cabinet approved the setting of baseline care home fees for financial year 2024-25, in accordance with table one at paragraph 4.5 of this report, representing an 8.8% uplift. Okay. Thank you, Ellen. So, can I have a proposal that we accept the recommendation that's proposed by Council, Julie Matthews, and seconded by Council at the Priest Thomas. So, all in favour of the recommendation? Okay, that's unanimous. Thank you very much. Thanks all. Thank you. Good debate. Okay, so we're on to agenda item six, finance report. We're joined by Liz and the lead member, Councillor Gwyneth, do you want to introduce that standing item? Thank you, Leader. As you know, these reports that we receive every month and it talks about the revenue budget and the savings of 2023-24 and also the capital plan, the housing revenue account and the housing capital plan. I suggest that we hand over straight to Liz for the details of the report. Thank you very much, Gwyneth. Good morning, everyone. So, yeah, this is the in-year 23-24 finance update report and this is at the end of February. So, appendix one, summarises the Council's revenue position for 23-24 with forecasting an overspend of 2.780 million at the end of this financial year and that compares with 2.840 that we were forecasting last month. So, there's a ever slight decrease in the overspend of 60,000. The areas of overspend continue to be education, children's services, highways and environmental services and adult social care and homelessness. The movements are explained in a little more detail in appendix two. There's minimal change to report this month from last month, as you'll see from that appendix two. Due to the closure of the Council's accounts, because we're approaching the end of the financial year in April, we don't bring a match report to Cabinet in April, but we bring the out-turn report for 23-24 to the May committee as we would normally do. So, the April cabinet monthly finance report will focus on the medium-term financial strategy and the medium-term financial plan and that will include a high-level strategy for a budget setting looking forward to the financial year 25-26. The usual information has been included to put the HRA reporting a slight reduction in their end of spend. So, the end of spend is down to 110,000 and that's down from 126,000 reported last month and that's due to a reduction in revenue rents and the forecast balance for the Housing Revenue Account at a year end is 812,000. The forecast use of reserves by schools in year has been updated compared to what it was last month. So, there's a slight change. Schools are reporting a use of just 7.026 million and they were previously reporting 7.054 month previous and also included is the usual capital information. So, the capital plan is summarised in Appendix 3 and the major capital project updates are included in Appendix 4 and reflects the updated position on some of our larger capital schemes that are ongoing. Thank you, Dehavao. Dehavao is okay. It's a standard item, standard item, important item that we would look at and review each month, although any issues or questions arising from the finance report. I'll be a stuck record to say that, you know, it reflects the very, very challenging times that we're at the difficult decisions that we face ahead. So, that before, but I won't make any apologies for saying it again. And, Priest, do you want to come in? Or Queen's Market redevelopment. I'd really appreciate having a look inside the Queen's Market, now that the building itself has been completed and I think all of our thanks go to the previous cabinet for their projects to rejuvenate, Phil. I think they deserve our thanks for that. But looking at the figures there, it says estimated spend in 2324, 140, future years estimate to spend

1. We're very close to the end of 2324. Is there reassurance that we won't have to carry out any more prudential borrowing in order to complete that building? Just wondering whether there's going to be any financial comeback on the council in the future here. Is that 403 enough to complete the building? Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Priest. Very happy to organise a visit to go and have a look at the Queen's Market. If other cabinet colleagues would be interested in joining then please do let us know. We can get that sorted out. Certainly no plans whatsoever to come back to ask cabinet for additional funding to complete the Queen's Market project. We believe that we have the budget required in order to get that facility up and running with the operator. So I hope that answers the question, please. Thank you, Tony. I don't have any questions to ask you. We've got the waste service remodeling. I'm happy with that one. The sustainable community is full learning. There's an expenditure to date and estimate remaining spend in 2324. If I could ask a question of Liz about this, there's something I don't quite understand. These projects are funded by Welsh government with the local authority making up 35% or 25% depending on what sort of school it is, the expenditure to date. Is that much funded by Welsh government or is the expenditure to date or is the expenditure to date something which we'll rest with with them, and there were finances. Thank you, Liz. Yes, so the expenditure to date will be split in accordance with the way that that works. If the expenditure has been incurred on certain schools attract the different percentage, as you said, so it would be a 75-25 split on schools with additional learning requirements. For other schools, it's a 65%, 35% split between Welsh government and ourselves. So, yeah, that would be split. Okay, Liz. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Liz, for your report. If you don't mind looking at Appendix 2, I just want to have confirmation that what's behind the two underspend due to vacancy management. Can you clarify that to me, please? Does that reflect the financial situation that then Bush County Council and other councils across the country are facing at the moment? Is that a reflection of this current situation that we're looking very carefully at all posts or is there a different explanation? Thank you very much, Emery. That reflects what we're doing with our budget. With regards to the controls we've put in place in order to bring the over expenditure down. So across the council, we've got an overspend of £2.7 million. We have purposely asked every department and we have a system in place where CT looks at and we've got recruitment records in place. So every post is considered by the CT before we fill that vacancy. So that's why you will see that phrase coming up in Appendix 2 in a number of places where the head of service makes a decision to not fill the vacancy so to carry the vacancy. And then that, of course, helps when we're trying to make savings in the future because vacancies have been there for such a... they can then decide whether there is a need or is that part of the way that they can make savings and reach the savings targets that have been set for their department. With regards to how we compare the local authorities, I am sure that this is a way that a number of other county councils are dealing with the current financial situation that they're finding themselves in and that they're holding back on filling posts if necessary. Thank you very much. Thank you, Leader. Just to reiterate what Liz has said and I would also add that we can interpret this as evidence that the senior leadership team and also managers across the whole council do realise the severity of the financial situation wherein they're doing something about it. I see this as a good indicator that the message is reaching everyone and that everybody is acting on the... with regards to the situation we've got us currently. Thank you, Gwyneth. Yes, what Gwyneth has just said is what I was going to respond. So obviously we are looking at all our facilities and our vacancies and our across the board that are just in specific areas. Thank you very much. I can see we've got Hugh on the screen. Hugh, do you want to come in? Good morning, Bonnadav. Just a quick one, on the Queen's market, I know that we are now the council's own team in control of it since it's been handed back in February. Couldn't you let me know what that's going to cost for them to run that in the meantime before we have to find a provider. Also, where are we with having a provider to run the Queen's market and when will it look to be open, please, and the costs? Thank you. Hey, thanks Hugh. I'm going to hand over to Tony on this as well, thank you. Okay, thank you, Hugh. Can't answer all those questions right now, I'm afraid. The property has been handed over to us from the contractor recently and it's been looked after by our property team. I can't tell you off the top of my head what costs there are in relation to that, but happy to get back to you. I can't tell you when we're going to be able to make an announcement about the operator, but I do hope that will be quite soon. But for obvious reasons, I can't go into any detail because we're still having those discussions and the date of opening with the facility will be very much an agreement between ourselves and the operator. So again, I can't confirm that at the moment, but again, I'm hoping that it won't be too long before these kinds of details will be put out there and we can let members know. So say, I'm afraid I haven't got all those answers at the moment, but I can get back to you in relation to the first question about cost after speaking to the property team. Yeah, briefly that. Thank you, Johnny. Thanks, Tony. If you don't mind turning it up a little bit, but a positive spin on that. Well, I said in full council that obviously there's commercial sensitivities around the second part of your question for you around the preferred operator, but again, I'll repeat what I said in full council just a couple of weeks ago. It's important that as soon as we have that information, it's out in the public domain and it's all members are made aware. And I suppose, sorry to put you on the spot, Tony, if any member wants to come up to real and have a tour, not just cabinet members. Absolutely. Well, welcome to. With the weather getting nicer, we can have a nice cream on the front as well. Thank you. Yeah, if members want to contact me directly about that, we can make those arrangements. I'll be very happy to show anybody around the facility. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay. So the, we would no problem with that, but we did go down the sideline of the Queen's market and rightly so it's in the papers. On the overall report to us, I can't see any more hands up. It's a standing item every month. And the recommendations are that we know the report. So I think we've done that and we've had some discussions around the specifics today. So I'll count for that. Okay, we'll now move on to the forward work program. Gary. Thank you, Leader. The forward work program is as set out in your papers. There is a change to the agenda for the meeting on the 23rd of April. There will be an additional item on the 23rd of April, which will be around the UK Government Leveling Up Funding Award Round 3 for the Veil Up Clue constituency. It will be to formally inform cabinet of the award and seek formal acceptance of the award. Thanks, Gary. And just to clarify because obviously the leveling up agenda has been busy at the moment. That's separate from the recent announcement, isn't it? Yes. That is the announcement that came in late last year following the earlier decision that was not successful to follow up to that. So just the members of clarifying the details of the most recent announcement they're coming through. And we'll bring members up to speed on that as well. But this is leveling up
2. It's coming in April. Any questions on the forward work program there? Nope. Okay. So that concludes the meeting. I'll repeat what I said last time we've dealt with an important issue today. And it hasn't been a particularly long meeting, but I think if you look at the forward work program, there is still a lot of work to do when I have a very busy agenda next month. The leveling up agenda is really important. We get that right. And as you can see, it's a pretty packed agenda next month. Okay. Thanks, everyone. I'll bring the meeting to a conclusion. Thanks to all on the screen. Thank you.