Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Cllr S.Reynolds Item 3(a) – Revised Neath Port Talbot Third Sector Grant Scheme Personal, Non-Prejudical - Trustee of a third sector organisation who are likely to be an applicant. Cllr S.Thomas Item 3(a) – Revised Neath Port Talbot Third Sector Grant Scheme Personal, Non-Prejudical - Trustee of a third sector organisation who are likely to be an applicant.
Members considered the items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.
Members considered the report as circulated within the supplement pack. Officers advised that the revised third sector grant scheme had been developed following two reviews. The initial review had been undertaken in the previous year, and a follow-up review had been undertaken in the current year. The proposed model would now go out to a formal public consultation for four weeks starting on Monday 27th July 2026. Members referred to page 13 of the supplement pack and asked what the previous overall cap had been, whether the new £50,000 cap was linked to the integrated impact assessment. Members queried whether the lower cap had been discussed at the consultation events and what the response from the third sector had been. It was confirmed that there had previously been no cap and that the cap was a new proposal under the revised scheme. In the workshop consultation events, there had been broad agreement that the grant should have some form of cap, although views had differed on the level. A specific question will be included on the consultation survey in relation to the level of the proposed cap. Five organisations currently received more than £50,000. Three of those received just over £50,000 and two received significantly more than £50,000. Officers had spoken to both organisations receiving significantly more than £50,000 and both would be responding via the consultation process on the proposed £50,000 cap. Members asked whether third sector organisations had to set out outcomes they expected to achieve from the grant and whether those outcomes would be assessed if the organisation did not achieve what it had said it would do. Officers confirmed that this would be put on a much stronger footing going forward. The evaluation and monitoring model that would accompany the new scheme was currently being developed. The sector had also asked for stronger arrangements in this area. Under the current scheme, all organisations receiving funding complete an annual monitoring form. Members referred to page 15 and risk management and asked what monitoring and performance review arrangements would look like in practice, and what would happen if a grant was not performing as expected where the authority had committed to three years of funding. Officers advised grant agreements would refer to non-performance and the monitoring arrangements would be developed over the summer. The outcome of the consultation was intended to be brought back to the scrutiny committee in September, and further detail could then be shared on both the monitoring arrangements and the content to be included in grant agreements in relation to non-performance. The Chairperson then referred to page 16 under financial impacts and asked whether the new model would commit the authority to three years plus another two years of funding arrangements and if so whether the full funding pot would therefore be committed for three years, and whether the Council would be budgeting for the full amount for up to five years. Members also asked whether this could affect council services if the authority had to make further savings over the next three to five years. An officer confirmed that entering into longer funding agreements would commit the Council to budget that amount of funding over the relevant period. Although the Council’s budget determinations were an annual process, this funding pot would need to be treated as a first call because legal commitments would already have been entered into with the organisations. A member asked for clarification that one of the purposes of the review and it the fund was to commit money long term to third sector activity that would benefit the Council going forward and meet the Council’s strategic plan, and that this should therefore operate almost as a cost saving through efficient provision of services in areas where they were not currently available. Officers confirmed that this was correct. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. A member asked for clarification on appendix 1 in relation to the table showing inherent risk scores, residual risk scores and the note of no changes. Reference was made in particular to additional learning needs showing an inherent risk score of 15 and digital showing 12, with no changes, and the member asked what those figures meant. Officers clarified that the inherent risk score was the score without any mitigating actions in place. The residual risk score was the score after mitigating actions had been applied. The note of no changes meant that there had been no change to the residual risk score since the last update. A member then asked whether the climate change risk, which referred to coastal flooding and foul water, now also took account of heatwaves given the increasing risk to communities and vulnerable people. Officers confirmed that climate change had been incorporated into the risk score shown in the papers. The residual risk score was slightly lower than the inherent risk score because of the control measures proposed or already in place. The response did not rely only on interventions by the Council in relation to infrastructure under its control, but also on private landowners and public utility organisations such as Welsh Water, which owned a significant proportion of drainage infrastructure in Wales and in Neath Port Talbot. The Council worked closely with Welsh Water to align programmes and was actively applying for Welsh Government grant aid to increase the resilience of infrastructure to respond to climate change. A member asked again whether heatwave impacts would also be included alongside storm and flooding risks.Officers confirmed that the Decarbonisation and Renewable Energy Strategy addressed all impacts associated with climate change. Past focus had often been on extreme rainfall events and the inability of drainage infrastructure to cope with large volumes of rain in a compressed period. More extreme heat was also now being experienced, and the Council was already responding through measures such as planting trees to create shade where appropriate and through other interventions in public spaces. This work would continue. A member referred to the format of the report and said that there were repeated references to mitigating actions for each area of risk, but members did not have sight of those mitigating actions. Members considered that for proper scrutiny on an ongoing basis, the mitigating actions should be included either as an appendix or within the report itself so that members could assess whether they were appropriate and sufficient. Officers confirmed that there were numerous mitigating actions sitting under each risk, with commentary against them. Officers accepted the request for that information to enable scrutiny and suggested that the committee might wish to select any particular risks they wanted to see in detail, which would make the report shorter. That could be brought forward in September 2026. Members were asked to submit their requests The Chairperson suggested that members could look at the mitigating actions and, if they considered any to be necessary for further examination, requests could be made through the Chair. Officers added that the committee might also wish to consider whether specific risks that related to other scrutiny committees should be referred to them. Members advised that the matter had already been discussed with officers because it was difficult to monitor a risk register without the mitigating actions being visible. The member said the report became confusing and, without the mitigating actions, fairly meaningless. The member supported including at least the mitigating actions for the risks that remained red after mitigation and welcomed the idea of referring relevant risks to other scrutiny committees that had greater subject knowledge. A member asked how often partner agencies such as Welsh Water updated the Council on their work progress, particularly where there was a hierarchy of works and changing priorities. Officers advised that the frequency of formal updates from partner agencies would need to be confirmed. Operational contact with bodies such as Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales could be as frequent as weekly between engineers. Strategic meetings also take place. Formal meetings are held quarterly at head of service level and every six months at senior officer level. Agencies also come together in response to incidents. Work was currently under way with Welsh Water and Network Rail on a recent issue in the Briton Ferry area where several bodies owned infrastructure in the same locality. The officer offered to come back with the frequency of formal meetings with Welsh Water. Members said that formal updates were of particular interest because councillors were not party to day-to-day operational discussions. The member said projects might move up or down in priority and formal updates would show what was being put into plans. Officers advised that Welsh Water operated five-year investment plans on a rolling basis, and they were currently implementing their present investment plan and would soon have another one for the following five years. The officer undertook to provide more information and circulate it to the whole scrutiny committee following the meeting. A member then asked whether investment plans were followed rigidly or whether projects could be reprioritised if something more urgent arose. Officers confirmed that priorities could change according to the risk associated with a particular incident. Infrastructure identified three or four years earlier as needing investment later in the programme could move up the priority list if circumstances changed, such as had recently happened in the Margam area. Internal funding would then need to be found by the organisation to implement any measures required. These changes did not happen frequently, but they did occur where circumstances justified them. The Cabinet Member said the strategic risk overview quarter 4 report was presented in line with the Council’s corporate risk management policy so that members could continue to review and monitor the Council’s most significant strategic risks, which sat within a key governance document. Since the strategic risks had last been presented to Cabinet in November 2025, they had been reviewed by officers and the covering report set out the amendments made. It was added that the comments made during the meeting would be taken on board so that the authority could stay ahead of what was needed in the risk overview. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the items from the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Officers advised that there is already significant uncertainty in the system because of a new Welsh Government in the Senedd, and that uncertainty had increased further with recent events in Westminster. The report set out a best attempt to map the timetable between the present point and the latest possible date for setting the budget for the following year, which is 11 March 2027. It was added that further updated versions could be brought back as required. A member acknowledged the uncertainty and asked when more clarity might be expected, noting that the budget process happened every year. Officers advised that there was no further information at that point. The sequencing depended on the local government settlement, which depended on the Welsh Government draft budget, which in turn depended on the UK Government budget. Until the position in Westminster settled and it was known when the UK Government intended to issue a budget, Welsh Government could not make decisions and neither could the Council. Officers expect the authority to remain in the same position similar to recent years, with a very late settlement just before Christmas, although this is only speculation. Any further information received from the WLGA or other sources would be fed back. Members said that part of the reason for requesting the report had been to clear up uncertainty around process and communication points. Reference was made to frustration during the previous budget-setting round over the timing of publication of papers and a press release in relation to the seminar. Members observed that the indicative timetable showed a member seminar with Cabinet papers published immediately beforehand, which was reassuring because that had been the previous convention. Clarity was requested on whether any press or communications activity would now happen at the same point as publication of the papers. The member also raised the issue of scrutiny, saying there had been uncertainty the previous year over which scrutiny committees considered the budget and why, and asked for clarity so that all members would understand the position before the next budget round. Officers advised that the timetable could be updated to include planned press releases. The working assumption was that the authority would return to the previous convention, with the seminar taking place when the papers were published and a press release following later that afternoon. With regards to scrutiny, officers advised that the latest constitution placed responsibility with the Performance and Resources Scrutiny committee for scrutinising all budget proposals, with members of other scrutiny committees able to ask to attend. That had been agreed by full Council and was the intention going forward unless advised otherwise. Officers offered to ask for clarification to be provided to members of the committee on what had been agreed and in what document. Member asked that, wherever possible, pre-scrutiny should take place before papers went to Cabinet. However, it was accepted that this might not always be possible. An officer said that point would be taken on board, but it was observed that the normal process was for Cabinet to agree a set of proposals and for scrutiny to take place as part of consultation on those proposals. Officers would confirm this position and convey it to all members. Members expressed concerns about the lack of clarity in the current process of scrutiny around budgets. Officers proposed preparing a note to clarify what sat within the purview of this committee, and the process by which other committees could consider budget items. It was also suggested that the discussion should also be taken to the Chairs and Vice Chairs Forum so that the scrutiny chairs could discuss it collectively. Members indicated that, in the previous year’s budget, there had been relatively few proposals to scrutinise because it had largely been a simple budget involving rolling forward existing multi-year proposals and the council tax proposal. The member’s understanding had been that this was why the item had only come to this committee. Clarification on the budget scrutiny process was welcome. A Cabinet members advised that all leaders through the WLGA, on a cross-party basis, were continuing to press both the previous Welsh Government and the new Welsh Government for settlement information as early as possible. Draft budgets and final budgets were consistently late. It was said that the authority could not go out on presumption with information that it did not have, because that would create false information for the public during consultation. The previous year, council tax had been the main issue on which the authority had been able to consult. A commitment was given that the Council would work across all 60 members to provide information as and when it became available, so that everyone could scrutinise what was needed at every level of the Council’s funding. Following scrutiny, the report was noted..
Members considered the Performance Monitoring items.
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack. Members referred to the action plan and the provisions for a disabled workforce and support. Members advised that there was now a much greater level of neurodiversity diagnosis among young people, which could create additional issues for recruitment processes. Members asked whether the Council had workforce support in place for the recruitment and retention of people with neurodiverse issues. Officers advised that the disability employee network had been established a couple of years earlier as part of the Council’s wider approach to employee voice and was one of three networks created. The network has grown in confidence over the last two years and had been discussing this area. The Council is receiving useful feedback and is working with the network on actions that would support both applicants and employees during their time with the Council. Work is under way both on recruitment and on reasonable adjustments that will help employees thrive in employment. Some of the work was specific to neurodiversity and some related more generally to disability. An information leaflet has already been produced for applicants with neurodiverse needs, setting out clearly what to expect at interview, including photographs of council buildings, internal layouts and what would happen on entering the building. This had been well received by the disability employee network. Feedback had also shown that the invite to interview letter referred to special needs but did not give examples of reasonable adjustments that could be requested, so work was under way to add examples for both applicants and recruiting managers. A copilot agent on reasonable adjustments has been been launched to enable employees to access information, guidance and advice on reasonable adjustments and related funding streams. This has been developed by a member of the training team who was also active in the disability employee network. The network has also produced its own action plan and wants to work with the Council to establish it as the Council’s disability action plan. Recruitment training for managers will be launched in the autumn and will cover reasonable adjustments for all applicants, including those with neurodiversity needs. Members referred to appendix 2 on page 73 under effective communication and asked what was being done to ensure that all members of the workforce had access to a digital platform so that they could keep up to date with policies and procedures, including staff working at operational level. Officers advised that communication across a workforce as large, varied and geographically dispersed as the Council’s was a difficult area and was identified within the strategic workforce plan as a key concern. The issue has been raised with HR directors across Wales and 20 councils had responded to say that they faced the same challenge and wanted to know if a solution could be found. The Council has purchased two licences for PageTiger. The platform allows the creation of engaging, interactive and trackable content, and the tracking function was particularly important because it would help provide assurance that staff had received, read and engaged with content. It would operate across the whole employment lifecycle from recruitment onwards. Importantly, employees would be able to access the information on their own handheld smartphones and would not need to rely on access to a laptop or fixed workstation at a depot or other site. At present the Council relies heavily on line managers to communicate key policy information, updates and employment policies to staff. A regular newsletter is issued to line managers setting out changes to employment policy, and many managers diligently disseminated that information, but there was no reliable way of measuring or tracking dissemination across the whole workforce. PageTiger is planned to be launched in the autumn and the licences sit with the communications team and the HR team, which would work closely together on implementation. Officers advised that a progress report could be brought back on the use of PageTiger. Members agreed that this would be beneficial. Members asked whether the Council recognised burnout as a separate form of illness. Members also asked whether line managers understood what burnout was and how it could manifest, particularly as highly productive members of the workforce might be especially vulnerable. Members were informed that the Council did not have a specific sickness absence category for burnout. Mental health categories tended to be reported as stress work-related, stress non-work-related, bereavement and other mental health, and these categories represented some of the highest reasons for sickness absence. The Council has invested significantly in mental health support, though not specifically under a burnout heading. Line managers can access mental health first aid training, which covers signs to look out for in relation to employee mental health. Mental health champions are in place across the Council to help signpost and support staff in relation to their own mental health or that of colleagues and family members. The employee assistance programme is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for every employee and can be accessed by telephone, email, text and online, with counselling and wider support available. Officers were advised that the question was prompted by the amount of online training and by the tendency of some employees to respond to emails while on annual leave rather than taking a full break from work. Members queried whether the Council was considering telling middle-ranking and senior officers that they should not always be available and deserved proper time away from work. Officers said this was an issue of culture and behaviour, and that culture and behaviour were set at the top of the organisation. It was therefore a matter for the Strategic Leadership Team and the leadership of the Council. Senior staff modelled behaviours that others then copied. If employees saw very senior people working in a particular way, they could assume that this was the expected culture of the organisation. The point was acknowledged and it was said that leadership was needed from all involved. Members added that burnout could creep up on individuals and may not be recognised until the person experienced a complete collapse. The issue needed to be kept in mind as the Council continued trying to do more with less. Members referred to page 85 and page 86 in the action plan and asked about the proposal for AI and Copilot-assisted understanding of employment policies. Members expressed concern that this had felt like a red flag in view of the earlier discussion about policy awareness and understanding. Even with disclaimers, people often treated AI answers as fully accurate. Members asked how the risks of introducing AI in an area as critical as policy compliance had been assessed. Officers agreed that this was a pertinent question. Officers advised that the Council was developing a Copilot agent to support this work, and it would be introduced carefully and cautiously. The authority was still learning about Copilot agents and had only just launched one in relation to disability and reasonable adjustments, which would be monitored and tracked. That agent had taken a long time to build. It was explained that Copilot agents differed from general conversational AI because they were designed to automate specific tasks, streamline business processes, retrieve information from the Council’s own systems, retain context, follow defined rules and act on behalf of the organisation. The employment policies agent would be rigorously tested before launch and continuously monitored to ensure quality and reliability. A disclaimer would also remain in place. HR agents were becoming increasingly common across organisations and would support the Council’s aim to improve internal communications and awareness of council policies and processes. Members referred to page 82 and point 12 in relation to the leadership development programme for aspiring heads of service, which referred to a need to identify funding to secure the programme’s future. Members sought more detail on the current position. Members were informed that one cohort of the programme had already been run and had been very successful. There had been 16 participants, and feedback had shown that the cohort had gained a great deal of confidence and had become much more visible across the Council through cross-council working. The programme was previously funded from the organisational development reserve. Officers confirmed that work is currently taking place to determine what a 2026 to 2027 programme might look like. Feedback from the previous cohort is being used to improve the programme, and additional content is being considered. Once the scoping exercise is complete the Council would have a clearer understanding of cost. The Strategic Leadership Team has already shown strong commitment to supporting it as an ongoing initiative. Members referred to page 79 and asked about apprenticeships and graduate schemes. Members noted that some parts of the organisation had a long-established apprenticeship culture and that the Council had sought to grow this in other areas. Members asked whether the action plan was aimed at increasing the number of apprenticeships and graduate schemes across the organisation or whether the Council was content with the current level. An officer said that in 2025 to 2026 the Council had supported 263 apprenticeships across the organisation. These included upskilling opportunities for existing employees as well as career start apprenticeships and modern apprentices. Apprenticeship performance was reported through performance monitoring linked to the People and Organisational Development business plan and would therefore continue to come forward on a quarterly basis. The current focus was on sustaining delivery at that level. A couple of years earlier the Council had been able to expand its activity through SPF funding, which enabled 13 additional career start apprenticeships across the organisation. That funding covered the apprentices themselves and support within the training team. All 13 had gone on to secure permanent jobs within the Council. The SPF funding has now ended, so the present aim was to sustain activity at current levels. A member said this was an area that merited further investment and discussion because it provided a strong route into the Council and helped develop internal talent. The Cabinet Member responded that agreement was held with those comments and that young people needed pathways into well-paid jobs. It was said that the Council needed to listen to young people and facilitate appropriate routes. It was added that, beyond the report itself, the Tata Steel Transition Board, rail industry opportunities, employability schemes and partnership working were also contributing to this work, supported by officers of the Council. The workforce is under immense pressure, but support remained for increasing apprenticeships if the right funding could be found, as part of the wider effort to reduce deprivation in Neath Port Talbot and create well-paid employment. Members queried whether, during the recent period of extreme heat, any amendments had been made to support refuse and recycling crews while carrying out their duties, including changes to working arrangements and provision of water, sun cream or other assistance. Officers confirmed that during the recent heatwaves the health and safety team had issued advice and guidance across the Council to ensure that work situations were risk assessed and mitigating actions put in place. Refuse workers had been supplied with water, hats and sun tan lotion. Working hours had also been amended on some occasions so that crews started earlier in cooler conditions and finished earlier. The Council’s severe weather policy had been applied so that where a full day’s work was not possible because of severe weather, staff could finish earlier without detriment to pay. Members thanked the refuse and recycling crews for continuing to carry out their duties in difficult weather conditions. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
The Forward Work Programme was noted.
There were no urgent items.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.