Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff crynodebau eu hysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion, sef ei gofnod swyddogol o'r hyn a benderfynodd cyfarfod. Maen nhw fel arfer yn ymddangos ychydig wythnosau ar ôl y cyfarfod.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Cllr. S. Harris (Item 5A) – Personal, Cllr. Harris is a carer for a family member.
The minutes of the meeting held on 22nd January 2026 were approved as an accurate record of proceedings.
There were no items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme for consideration.
Members considered items from the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme.
The Head of Adult Services presented the report as set out in the agenda pack. The Chair praised the detailed report. Members referred to comparative data within the report and sought clarification on Neath Port Talbot’s performance regarding adult carers’ assessments that resulted in a support plan. Officers advised that, while a precise figure was not available at the meeting, Neath Port Talbot had the highest number of unpaid carers in Wales and, following the 2024 service redesign and the introduction of dedicated carers’ assessment officers, all unpaid carers who undertook an assessment now received a plan. This could include a prevention plan or information and advice. The estimated conversion rate from assessment to plan was now approximately 90–100 per cent, aligned with wider process mapping work through ADASS Cymru. The Chair reflected on previous concerns about carers not identifying themselves as carers and asked whether increased assessment numbers indicated improved engagement. The Head of Adult Services confirmed that the revised model had strengthened relationships with carers and supported them in articulating their needs, although further improvement remained possible. Members queried whether family members who were also paid Personal Assistants were recognised for unpaid care provided outside of paid hours, and whether this was reflected in carers’ assessments and statistics. Officers acknowledged the complexity of these arrangements but confirmed that anyone providing unpaid care was entitled to an assessment, with each case considered individually. The Chair asked about support for carers whose caring role had ended, including Personal Assistants whose employment ceased, but who might continue to have emotional or social support needs. Officers advised that work was underway through the direct payments service and wider service improvement programme to strengthen information and pathways for former carers, although this remained an area for further development. Members highlighted the vital contribution made by unpaid carers and asked whether the council collected carers’ satisfaction feedback on the support received. Officers confirmed that engagement sessions and surveys had been undertaken and had provided helpful insights, though a more continuous feedback model was required. The Head of Adult Services added that regular regional meetings with carer representatives continued to inform the service. Members welcomed this information. Members queried the absence of reference to violence against women in the report, given potential safeguarding risks within caring relationships. Officers explained that the report had been structured around the Ombudsman’s findings on assessment processes, while confirming that safeguarding arrangements remained in place and the broader issue was recognised. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
The Head of Adult Services provided an overview of the report contained in the agenda pack. The Chair expressed strong support for the progress made. Members acknowledged that the development of Shared Lives had reduced the number of people coming into higher‑intensity support or residential care and had contributed to a reported £618k cost avoidance. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
The Chair raised concerns about the Welsh Government policy direction to eliminate profit from the care of children, commenting that privately run homes often delivered high quality care. It was suggested that the key issue was not the legal structure of providers but their ethical approach and values, it was noted that not for profit or third sector models could still generate income in less transparent ways. Members sought clarification on how the policy would be implemented in practice, how the new arrangements would be scrutinised by the Council and Welsh Government, and whether controls such as caps on executive pay or placement costs would be introduced. The Head of Children and Young People’s Services outlined the position using Hillside Secure Children’s Home as an example of a local authority owned, not for profit model. Hillside was funded through placement fees, with income reinvested directly into staffing, facilities and the care environment rather than distributed as profit. This reflected the model Welsh Government was seeking to promote. Welsh Government was working closely with independent providers to increase transparency around financial arrangements, with some providers exploring transitions to not for profit or charitable status, while others had indicated they would be unable to continue operating without a profit model and may withdraw from the market. The Strategic Director for Social Services, Health and Housing advised that, while the initial policy intention appeared straightforward, it was proving complex in practice. Difficulties were highlighted in defining “profit,” noting that not for profit organisations could still generate substantial surpluses to support high executive salaries, while private providers could redirect profits through associated services such as training or consultancy. These issues are under consideration by Welsh Government advisers, but the overall framework and requirements remained unclear and continued to evolve. The Chair commented that if the aim were to achieve savings or increase capacity at lower cost, expansion of in house provision was the most viable option. Concern was expressed that the policy focused more on providers’ legal status than on ethics and the quality of care. Members broadly supported the principle of the policy but expressed concern about its potential impact on children currently placed in profit making homes. Clarification was sought on whether existing providers would be allowed to continue caring for children already placed with them once the policy was implemented. Members emphasised that it would be unfair and potentially harmful to move children who were settled and thriving purely due to policy compliance. In response, the Head of Children and Young People’s Services advised that these matters were still under discussion between Welsh Government and local authorities. It was noted that Neath Port Talbot had comparatively low numbers of children in residential care and placements with independent fostering agencies, with significant reductions achieved in recent years. While this placed the authority in a relatively strong position, close oversight was being maintained for the small number of children who could be affected, with the overriding priority being their safety, stability and wellbeing. The Strategic Director reported that Welsh Government was considering an exemptions process that would allow, in exceptional circumstances, the use of private‑sector placements where no suitable not‑for‑profit provision was available. Such placements would most likely be in England, as for‑profit children’s care would no longer be permitted in Wales. Members queried whether exemptions could apply to children thriving in existing Welsh private homes but were advised that the detail of the exemptions process had not yet been confirmed. The Chair also highlighted concerns that English placements would be out of county and more costly, questioning how this aligned with the policy’s objective of removing profit from children’s care when cross border placements could still involve significant payments to for profit providers. Members sought further clarification on the development of new residential provision within Neath Port Talbot, the risk of insufficient capacity should for profit providers withdraw, and whether a further stage of impact assessment would be undertaken as proposals developed. It was noted that Welsh Government had sought Neath Port Talbot’s support and advice on several of the issues, reflecting the authority’s approach to children’s services. Officers advised that consultation had taken place with children currently in residential care and that grant funding had been used to commission consultants to develop detailed property specifications for potential future homes. A multi departmental project group had been established to explore options across the borough, although no specific sites had been identified. Nationally, Welsh Government, ADSS and the 4Cs commissioning body were providing guidance and support to local authorities in preparation for the April 2030 deadline, with further guidance expected as implementation progressed. Risks and concerns raised by local authorities were being fed back to Welsh Government, which had been receptive to ongoing dialogue. It was confirmed that central commissioning bodies were engaging with independent providers to understand future intentions, while work continued through Foster Wales to increase local authority fostering capacity. Local authorities across Wales were also reviewing their residential provision as part of a coordinated national, regional and local approach. As specific projects emerged, appropriate integrated impact assessments would be undertaken. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
The Strategic Director of Social Services, Health and Housing introduced the report and commented the outcome was one the authority should be proud of and celebrate. The Head of Children and Young People’s Services advised that although the inspection reflected a specific point in time, it recognised sustained improvement over several years. CIW’s positive commentary on leadership was particularly welcomed, with inspectors highlighting senior officers as approachable and accessible, contributing to a positive service culture and high standards of practice. Strong partnership working was also acknowledged. CIW’s assurance that the service was safe and effective was significant for both officers and members. Reference was made to the action plan, and it was confirmed that areas identified for further strengthening had been carefully considered and were already being addressed. The Chair expressed members’ pride in the service and inspection outcome, emphasising the importance of acknowledging staff contributions. The Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services commended officers for their professionalism, commitment and child-centred approach, and referred to recent external recognition through awards received by Hillside Children’s Home, a youth justice volunteer and Adult Services, reflecting the strength of caring practice across the authority. Members described the report as overwhelmingly positive and asked whether the scrutiny committee could formally recognise the report’s findings. It was confirmed that the report had been published, that CIW had highlighted Neath Port Talbot Children’s Services nationally as a good practice service, and that work would be undertaken with Corporate Communications to further publicise the outcome. Members agreed that a formal letter of congratulations should be sent to the Director and Head of Children’s Services. Members queried whether the areas for improvement identified in paragraphs 4.22, 4.23, 4.34 and 4.35 would be subject to a separate action plan. Officers confirmed that these recommendations had been fully incorporated into existing quality and performance governance arrangements. Each action had a named lead officer, agreed timescales and defined measures of success, and progress would be monitored through established audit, dip sampling and thematic review processes. The action plan was described as dynamic, allowing for learning to be embedded and practice to develop. Progress would be reported through internal scrutiny forums to ensure oversight, support consistency of practice, strengthen the child’s voice and sustain improvement over time. Following Scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the Performance Monitoring items.
The Strategic Director for Social Services, Health and Housing introduced the report, as contained within the agenda pack. Members asked for clarification on how compliments were collated, noting that some examples provided in the report may be seen as good manners rather than a formal compliment. The Head of Children and Young Peoples Services responded that many compliments from children were received as handwritten notes, drawings and cards. Families compliment staff verbally and ask to pass on positive feedback, but the written feedback was often less detailed than was provided verbally but the context and intent behind such messages were clear. The Strategic Director advised that the authority did not capture all compliments received across services. Many positive comments made directly to social workers and teams were not forwarded to the central complaints and compliments team, meaning that figures were likely underreported. Recorded compliments tended to be those that clearly and specifically acknowledged support, particularly following significant interventions. Members enquired whether the report related solely to formal complaints under the statutory process or included informal concerns resolved by frontline staff. It was confirmed that the report focused exclusively on formal complaints made under the Social Services statutory procedure, with an emphasis on learning and service improvement. The Cabinet member for Children and Family Services, highlighted that one of the brief compliments in the report was directed towards the Welfare Rights Team and noted that although this was not a statutory service, the team had been nationally recognised for its success. In this context, a brief compliment could reflect a substantial positive impact on an individual’s financial circumstances. Members commented on the strength of feeling expressed in some compliments, including one from a parent who praised the service despite her children having been removed from their care. In response to a question about how relationships were maintained in such difficult circumstances, the Head of Children and Young People’s Services explained that the ethos and approach of staff meant that families who had experienced distressing interventions often returned to Children’s Services when further support was needed. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
The committee considered the quarterly performance monitoring report as contained in the agenda pack. The Chair commended the accompanying commentary, noting that it was clear and helpful in supporting members’ understanding of performance issues. Members noted the general upward trend in the prevention of people from becoming homeless and enquired whether performance had continued to improve into quarter four. The Head of Housing and Communities advised that full quarter four figures would be available in April, but that current provisional performance stood at 84 per cent. The Chair enquired whether there were any specific changes in the reasons for homelessness over the Christmas and post‑Christmas period. Officers responded that there was usually a pattern of reduced homelessness presentations in early December followed by an increase in early January, and this trend appeared to be continuing. Members asked what arrangements were in place for looked after children when they reached the age of eighteen. The Head of Service outlined the transition into the leaving care service, which begins at age fifteen with the allocation of a Young Person’s Adviser. This adviser supports young people with education, employment and accommodation planning. The authority’s responsibilities to care experienced young people continue up to the age of twenty-five. It was also noted that some young people, particularly those previously supported by the children with disabilities service, may transfer to Adult Services if they meet the relevant eligibility criteria, and may receive support from both Adult Services and a Young Person’s Adviser. The Chair asked what the current waiting time was for a Disabled Facilities Grant. Officers confirmed that there was currently no waiting list and no backlog. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
There were no urgent items.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.