Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Exclusion of public was proposed by Cllr GE Jones and Seconded by Cllr J Ewing with all Committee Members in agreement.
Apologies for absence had been received from Committee Member County Councillor Carol Robinson and from Cabinet Members County Councillors Jake Berriman and Matthew Dorrance.
The Committee received the following Declarations of Interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda. • Cllr Karl Lewis – ongoing declaration. • As soon as it became apparent, Cllr Gareth E Jones declared an interest in item 10, Day Opportunities Update. Due to being a trustee of Builth Wells Community Support.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member had been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
Committee agreed to approve the minutes as a true reflection of the previous meeting on the condition that Cllr C Masefield be added to the attendance.
Background given for Adults Services Savings Delivered in 2024-25 The Portfolio Holder for a Caring Powys noted that this was the first time the Committee received this report and feedback was welcomed on what additional information should be included in future reports. While this report focused on budget savings, further reports would be brought throughout the year to assess the impact of emerging proposals. The officer also clarified that in Appendix A, the impact was categorized as either “positive” or “none,” rather than “positive” or “negative.” The Head of Adult Services added: • Adult Services delivered £2.6m in savings; £0.5m remained undelivered and was carried forward. • Key areas of positive impact included: • Void management in supported living: improved occupancy through better matching and oversight. • Locality workforce redesign: enhanced management access and decision-making. • Strengths-based domiciliary care: right-sized packages, increased independence, and use of technology. • Shift from residential to supported living: improved outcomes and financial benefits for individuals. • Funding body review: ensured appropriate cost allocation with the Health Board. • Undelivered savings related to: • Day opportunities provision (delayed due to complexity). • Extra care scheme (registration delays). • Older people’s accommodation (strategy revised due to changing demand). • Mitigation achieved via over-delivery in other areas, notably domiciliary care. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Members questioned whether the timing of the report was optimal and suggested it might be more beneficial if presented earlier in the financial year to better inform budget scrutiny. Clarification was sought on whether the existing day opportunities service remained unchanged throughout 2024–25 and into October 2025 as suggested in the report. Officers clarified that the existing service remained in place. A typo in the report had incorrectly suggested otherwise. Assurance was requested regarding the achievability of the £450k undelivered savings in 2024–25, and whether these would be realised in 2025–26. Officers confirmed that savings related to day opportunities and extra care were achievable and on track for delivery in 2025–26. The transforming older people’s accommodation saving was less certain and might require mitigation again this year. Would that effect cost efficiencies for the 2025-26 budget? Yes and if that efficiency would be ruled out, the service would explain what would be done instead. Members asked how the absence of adverse impact had been determined—whether through user feedback, complaints data, staff monitoring, or other methods. Most savings in the reporting year stemmed from operational changes, with services largely maintained at existing levels. In the case of strengths-based reductions, impact was monitored through reviews and anecdotal feedback, including whether care packages had to be increased following reductions. Follow-up reviews assessed individual outcomes and any required adjustments. Case studies were also used to track progress and inform practice, although not all individuals had the opportunity to share their experiences directly. Concerns were raised about whether increased independence from strengths-based assessments had led to any unmet needs. It was queried whether the impact assessments included qualitative feedback from service users, particularly regarding anxiety or uncertainty caused by anticipated changes. Appendix A noted a backdated one-off pressure reversal of minus £1 million requiring reinstatement the following year, alongside a separate £1 million saving marked as delivered. Concern was raised about potential hidden risks for families, particularly disabled residents, if funding responsibilities shifted. Clarification was requested on the growth, reversal, and net effect between 2004 and 2005, including whether any elements were one-off or recurrent, and what would reset in 2005 and 2006. Officers explained that the Funding Body review was shown once as it was a one-off saving. What was the original target for strength-based assessments and how was the 306.2% achieved? Members asked whether the 306.02% achievement in strengths-based assessments reflected genuine independence gains or a shift to direct payments, potentially transferring risk to families and unpaid carers. Clarification was requested on how much of the savings came from measurable independence gains, shifts of direct payments and seized or reduced packages and how this impacted outcomes for disabled adults over the same period, covering unmet needs, re-referrals, hospital readmissions, and safeguarding alerts. Officers clarified that the overachievement was due to dedicated resources for reviewing packages. Most savings came from right-sizing unused direct payments rather than shifting responsibility to families. Officers confirmed that savings were achieved through: • Reducing unused direct payments. • Right-sizing care packages. • Promoting independence via enablement and technology. They emphasised that no support was withdrawn where still needed. Members asked whether the overachievement in savings was a result of demographic forecasting having failed to predict the level of savings achieved, and whether forecasting methods needed revisiting. The overachievement was due to dedicating specific resources to reviewing care packages, rather than relying solely on direct payment work. A methodology had been developed that delivered positive outcomes for individuals and proved efficient for teams conducting the reviews. It was questioned why the remaining 30% of the shared lives carers savings target was not shown as carried forward. The shortfall in shared lives savings was mitigated by over-delivery in strengths-based assessments. Officers confirmed that the unmet portion was not carried forward but offset. It was suggested that future reports should include clearer definitions and explanations of terms such as “funding body review” and “positive impact”. Committee proposed a recommendation to request that Officers consider bringing future reports earlier in the year, while balancing the need for complete and accurate data. The Portfolio Holder for a Caring Powys expressed concern about whether there would be sufficient time between the end of the financial year and the June/July meetings to properly assess the medium-term impact of certain changes. Background given for Children’s Services Savings Delivered in 2024-25 • The purpose of the report was to provide an overview of savings delivered in Children’s Services during 2024–25 and assess any impact on residents, communities, or strategic objectives. • The report aligned with Powys County Council’s corporate and strategic equality plan, which promotes a vision of a stronger, fairer, and greener future. • It was also informed by the Audit Wales Financial Sustainability Review (November 2024). • The report included assurance from the Head of Service that savings had been delivered without adverse impact on service users. • Appendix A listed the savings achieved. • Nine of the savings delivered resulted in no impact to the service, predicted with a letter ‘P’ • Some savings, including those related to 16+ accommodation and Special Guardianship Orders, were not fully delivered and had been rolled forward to 2025–26. The service users remained in appropriate placements and experienced no disruption. • The report also highlighted the importance of staff transformation and retention in delivering services effectively. • Budget pressures were mitigated by a Welsh Government grant, which enabled the service to achieve a balanced budget. • Officers emphasised that every opportunity to access external funding was maximised to support service sustainability. • The overarching aim of the integrated business plan for children's services was to keep children at the centre of all activity. Key strands included providing the right help at the right time, closer to home, and developing a supportive, sustainable workforce. The importance of aligning savings with the service’s core objectives was highlighted and the plan was underpinned by relevant legislation, including the Social Services and Well-being Act and the Future Generations Act. Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Despite service users remaining in placements and no direct impact being recorded, had there been any effect on individuals who might have anticipated changes that ultimately did not occur. The officer clarified that there was no direct impact on individual children but highlighted ongoing pressures due to rising placement costs over the past two years. These increases were attributed to a national shortage of placements and market conditions. They explained that children continued to be placed safely within their families, foster care, or residential settings as needed, and that changes were driven by demand rather than individual circumstances. How was a balanced budget in this area going to be ensured and what could be done to ensure grants were not relied upon too heavily? The integrated business plan focused on three key strands: right help, right time, closer to home. Significant investment had been made in the fostering framework to support foster carers and reduce reliance on costly residential placements, with the aim of safely returning children to their families where possible. A review of Powys’ residential homes had been paused during the previous financial year but was being revisited, with plans to reopen or remodel homes to keep children safely connected to their communities. The overarching goal remained to reduce the need for high-cost placements outside Powys. Were young people being consulted on the suitability of their accommodation, particularly regarding 16 plus semi-independent living. Feedback from children was gathered through various mechanisms as part of the participation strategy. The Junior Start Well Board provided a proactive platform for engaging children of all ages, supported by a dedicated participation officer who held regular sessions, particularly with children looked after. This feedback helped assess whether placements met children's needs, such as identifying a lack of provision in Brecon. In response, new 16+ accommodation options were developed in collaboration with housing, demonstrating the value of the feedback loop. Could enough savings be made this year to reduce the reliance upon Welsh Government funding in 2025-26? What was the projected funding gap? Demand and need for children’s services could change rapidly, making budget planning challenging. The duty to safeguard looked-after children was emphasised and it was explained that the budget remained fluid throughout the year. Efforts were made to expand the fostering framework to keep children safely connected to home. A new project, Step Up, Step Down, funded by Welsh Government, had been launched to explore innovative approaches to fostering. How much of the £1.5million unachieved savings will be achieved in 2025-26? The quarter two position for the financial year showed significant progress in achieving historical savings. A formal report would be presented to the committee. While there remained a level of assurance ongoing risks were acknowledged due to fluctuating needs and placement costs. Efforts continued to strengthen the areas outlined in the integrated business plan. What percentage of the £1.5million had already been achieved? Roughly 70%. Committee reiterated the recommendation made in January 2025 for a traffic light system to be reinstated for anticipated deliverability of cost efficiencies. Members queried the separation of cost savings listed in the report, noting £74k saved by employing permanent social workers instead of agency staff, and a further £200k saved over 12 months through the 'Grow Our Own' initiative. A fixed budget for agency staff had been established several years ago, with £74k representing part of a £500k allocation. This amount remained in place annually until reduced to zero. Additional agency costs were recorded separately. Officers noted the success of the "grow our own" initiative, which had reduced the number of agency workers from 57 to 10. It was suggested that future budgets consolidate agency costs into a single line for clarity. Members questioned the lack of explanation regarding savings linked to reduced hours under VAWDSW. Clarification was requested on what VAWDSW referred to and its impact. The officer explained that responsibility for work relating to violence against women and domestic abuse had been transferred to another part of the corporate service, with no reduction in service delivery. This shift was part of a broader corporate objective and did not affect training, conferences, or events linked to the issue. Regarding edge-of-care support, they clarified that this referred to children at risk of becoming looked after. Welsh Government grants were used to deliver services differently, allowing the base budget to be redirected. These changes did not affect direct services to children but aimed to improve financial efficiency and value for money. Committee put forward a recommendation for this report to be presented earlier in the year going forward.
Points raised by the Committee: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Members expressed strong interest in participating in the Working Group and noted that several councillors wished to be involved. Scrutiny officers clarified that while three members had typically been the standard for previous Working Groups, there was no formal limit imposed. A question was asked about the deadline for submitting member names for the Working Group. Officers confirmed there was no fixed deadline but emphasised the importance of setting up the group as soon as possible. Once membership was finalised, a clear purpose and terms of reference would be established for the Working Group
· It was agreed that the item would be parked temporarily to allow for a review. · Officers were asked to consider the possibility of an additional meeting in November to accommodate one forthcoming paper. A follow-up conversation between the Chair, officers, and scrutiny support was proposed to finalise adjustments to the programme offline.
· The Committee reviewed the response to its previous recommendations. · Members welcomed the positive engagement from officers and noted that most recommendations had been accepted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Exclusion of public was proposed by Cllr GE Jones and Seconded by Cllr J Ewing with all Committee Members in agreement.
The Portfolio Holder for a Caring Powys provided reasoning for going into a confidential meeting and noted that future papers would be split into Public and Confidential so that as much as possible could be discussed in public setting. RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Exclusion of public was proposed by Cllr GE Jones and Seconded by Cllr J Ewing with all Committee Members in agreement.
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.