Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
AGREED: - That subject to the above changes, the Work Programme at Appendix 1 be agreed.
AGREED:- · That Issues such as ordinary residence, care costs, regional comparisons and placement growth to be covered in the forthcoming elimination from profit with care report. · That a comparative version of Appendix 4 be included in the next report, as it was useful for understanding trends. · That the Committee thanks officers for their work and acknowledges shared concerns about rising costs. · That the risk that cuts to preventative spending could increase the number of children entering care particularly in deprived areas be clearly reflected in future discussions.
Apologies were received from Councillor Marc Jones. Councillor Krista Childs was absent.
AGREED:- that the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2026 be signed as a correct record.
Members were reminded of their obligations under Paragraph 11 of the Members’ Code of Conduct to declare any personal interests relating to the business to be considered at the meeting. The following declarations were made: Item 5 – Contract Monitoring • Councillor Derek Wright – Declared a personal interest as his brother resides in a home referenced within the report. • Councillor Annette Davies – Declared a personal interest as she serves on the Management Team of an EMI Residential Care Home in Wrexham. Both Members withdrew from the meeting for this item and took no part in the discussion or vote on Contract Monitoring.
Decision as recorded
AGREED: - That subject to the above changes, the Work Programme at Appendix 1 be agreed.
The Chief Officer for Governance and Customer presented report (COGC/20/26), inviting members to consider the draft Work Programme for the Safeguarding, Communities and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, as set out in Appendix 1. The Scrutiny Facilitator introduced the report and confirmed that: • The Market Stability Report had been withdrawn and would be rescheduled. • There were ongoing discussions with the Finance Team to align budget reporting cycles for the Lifelong Learning and Safeguarding Scrutiny Committees, with the intention of receiving reports at quarters two, three and four, subject to confirmation from the Chief Officer and relevant officers. • That a joint session with Betsi Cadwaladr had been arranged, enabling all 56 members to meet local managers to discuss key issues, particularly those relating to Accident and Emergency. AGREED: - That subject to the above changes, the Work Programme at Appendix 1 be agreed.
Decision as recorded
AGREED:- · That Issues such as ordinary residence, care costs, regional comparisons and placement growth to be covered in the forthcoming elimination from profit with care report. · That a comparative version of Appendix 4 be included in the next report, as it was useful for understanding trends. · That the Committee thanks officers for their work and acknowledges shared concerns about rising costs. · That the risk that cuts to preventative spending could increase the number of children entering care particularly in deprived areas be clearly reflected in future discussions.
The Chief Officer for Social Care submitted a report (COSC/22/26) that provided Members with information on the range and volume of contracted statutory care and support services provision. The Lead Member for Adult Social Care introduced the report, noting that around 2,000 adults and children in Wrexham were receiving statutory care and support, with all providers inspected by Care Inspectorate Wales and monitored annually by the Council’s Commissioning and Contracts Team. The Senior Head of Social Care added that the annual contract monitoring report outlined quality assurance activity, highlighted pressures such as care fees and challenges in the domiciliary care market and provided a full overview of services monitored by the Contracts Team. The report also summarised joint work with providers to address financial pressures and emphasised the need for sustainability amid rising demand, with service quality feedback remaining largely positive. The following was discussed: - · The exact cost difference between independent‑sector and in‑house care would be provided separately, noting that councils with in‑house services still faced similar pressures around capacity, cost and flexibility. · Higher in‑house costs were mainly due to public‑sector pay and conditions. · Rising operating costs meant some providers were now using top‑up fees to cover general pressures rather than optional extras. · Wrexham Council continued to fund eligible adults placed out of county, often due to family circumstances or the need for suitable provision. · Out‑of‑county placements for children occurred when local capacity was full or when safety required it. · The Wrexham Council aimed to support adults to live near family, including outside the county; responsibility did not end at a set distance, though higher‑cost areas could require negotiation or family top‑ups. · Funding responsibility was determined by ordinary residence rules; if someone moved independently out of county responsibility could transfer, but where the Council arranged the placement Wrexham could retain responsibility, with each case considered individually. · The team had recently taken over children’s placements and was reviewing historical decisions; many out‑of‑county placements were due to a lack of specialist provision locally, whilst others were made to protect children from local risks. Strengthening the local market was a priority. · Children’s placements were moved from procurement to the commissioning team because commissioning held the specialist skills needed to manage complex placements and oversee quality. · One monitoring visit per year was standard, with further scheduled or unannounced visits carried out when concerns arose, often alongside the regulator. · Last year’s children’s placement numbers and costs were not available at the meeting but could be provided later, noting significant increases in both. · The eliminate‑profit agenda was led nationally by Welsh Government and progressed regionally, with Wrexham’s Children’s Commissioner feeding local issues into the sub‑group. · A detailed eliminate‑profit report was scheduled for scrutiny to give members clearer insight into progress, risks and timescales. · Direct payments gave people control over their care using a pre‑loaded card, with options to employ a personal assistant or use an agency; the Council was legally required to offer them. · The direct payments team carried out regular audits, and DBS checks were mandatory where children were involved and strongly advised for adults. · People struggling with direct payments could use an agency, employ someone they knew, or opt for a managed account service; social workers could support reassessment if circumstances changed. · Officers confirmed that spot checks were genuinely unannounced and that wider safeguarding involved regular contact with providers, joint work with health, and regional escalating‑concerns procedures. · Wrexham Council aimed to support providers to improve, but serious concerns had previously led to service closures. · All Welsh authorities were concerned about the non‑profit agenda and rising placement costs; Wrexham was developing more in‑house provision to bring more children back into the county. · Private providers sourced their own buildings and submitted planning applications independently, approaching the Council only once they had a property to propose. · Officers acknowledged the need to clarify ordinary residence boundaries, how information was fed back nationally, and to provide comparative data on costs and placement growth. · The April work programme would include updates from Children’s and Adults’ Services and a detailed section on the elimination of profit from care agenda. · Underperformance was managed through the regional escalating‑concerns process, using intelligence from monitoring, complaints and safeguarding to assess risk; providers meeting the threshold were required to agree an action plan with monitored timescales. · Officers said traditional questionnaires had low engagement due to survey fatigue and accessibility issues, and that online or on‑site surveys had similar limitations. · Informal conversations with relatives during monitoring visits were described as the most effective way to gather meaningful feedback. · The loss of traditional family and neighbourhood networks meant social care needed to work differently, working with third‑sector partners and community hubs to build a more resilient community‑based system. · Community agents and social prescribing were expected to play a growing role after 2027 and help reduce pressure on statutory services. · Members requested that a comparative version of Appendix 4 be included in the next report, as it had been useful for understanding trends. · Issues such as ordinary residence, care costs, regional comparisons and placement growth would be covered in the forthcoming eliminate‑profit report. · Members warned that cuts to preventative spending could increase the number of children entering care, especially in deprived areas, and asked that this risk be reflected in future discussions. · Members also raised concern about adult services being asked to underspend to offset children’s services overspends, questioning the sustainability of this approach. AGREED:- · That Issues such as ordinary residence, care costs, regional comparisons and placement growth to be covered in the forthcoming elimination from profit with care report. · That a comparative version of Appendix 4 be included in the next report, as it was useful for understanding trends. · That the Committee thanks officers for their work and acknowledges shared concerns about rising costs. · That the risk that cuts to preventative spending could increase the number of children entering care particularly in deprived areas be clearly reflected in future discussions.
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.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.