Minutes:
Racial Equality Task Force
The Chairperson welcomed Cllr Huw Thomas, Leader; Gareth Newell, Head of Partnerships Performance and
Sian Sanders, Operational Manager – Cohesion & Community Engagement to the meeting.
The Chairperson invited the Leader to make a statement in which he said that the report makes reference to a number of studies and reports from recent years with regard to the challenges that BAME people, but specifically black people, face in this country. He added that inequalities were still real and felt. There had been public calls for the removal of at least 1 statue in Cardiff and the Leader had shown his personal support for this but the Cabinet are keen to make a material difference to their lives, what they need and how we support them. They wish to establish quick agile tactical wins and now there was a need to find a means to hear what was needed and use the council’s power to encourage partners to respond in kind.
The Chairperson invited questions from Members;
Members asked about the timescales for membership recruitment and asked if all Members would have the opportunity to influence the Terms of Reference. The Leader explained that recruitment would be over the summer, the first meeting would be held around October time and at that meeting the Terms of Reference would be altered/confirmed.
Members asked what consultation/engagement had been undertaken to date with Members and particularly BAME members, as many will have experience, expertise and professional links they could share. Members also stressed the point about South Asian people having the highest casualties in relation to Covid-19. The Leader accepted the points made and noted that Members have a contribution to make. He added that Councillor Ebrahim had been proposed to Chair the Task Force and he expected other members and representatives from the wider community to form part of the Task Force; he added that expertise was needed as were voices that had not been heard previously. He agreed to look to Members for their expertise.
Whilst Members supported the Task Force, they asked how the Chairperson was chosen, who was consulted and what the thinking was behind having a member of the Administration as the Chair, as the Task Force needed to properly challenge the Administration. The Leader explained the decision to have Councillor Ebrahim as the Chairperson was mainly his after taking some soundings. He had also considered the option of a Cabinet Member or himself, as is the case on the Music Board, but on balance and reflection thought it needed someone with lived experience of Black issues. Councillor Ebrahim’s ward has the highest numbers of Black people in Cardiff and he will without doubt challenge the Administration if needed. Members asked if the Leader would consider a Vice-Chair from the opposition for balance and back up. The Leader noted that a Vice-Chair was important and commented that to date he had received no expressions of interest, although Members had not yet been asked.
Members enquired as to why there had been no Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out and were advised that the advice from Legal Services was that there would be no detrimental impact to any protected characteristics. A member noted that there were 10k black people in the deprived group in Cardiff and 50k white people and was concerned that without an EIA, the Task Force couldn’t be confident it isn’t discriminating against white people by excluding them from the Task Force. The Leader explained that the report highlights the increasing proportion of BAME people in poorer communities and that this hasn’t changed materially over decades. Paragraph 15 of the report draws this out and states that the Council can take some action to tackle this notwithstanding other deprived communities. The Leader reiterated his commitment in Capital Ambition to look at all deprivation, however there was a multitude of evidence in relation to the lived experience of BAME people in the UK to date and he did not see any issue with addressing this as part of the wider deprivation issue.
Members asked what role the Leader saw Scrutiny playing in evaluating the activities of the Task Force. The Leader saw this as monitoring the long-term effectiveness of how it changes the approach of the Council and its partners in the areas identified. He added it was a long-term project to listen and enable BAME people to share their needs and what they want from the Council, including those employed by the Council or in Education. Results will be seen over a period of years, Scrutiny has a role to consider enabling and enhancing decisions the Council takes off the back of the outcomes in this area.
Members noted other Sub Committees that had been established including one that Professor Singhal chairs and asked about the timeline of reports from these sub committees and if they will inform the work of the Task Force. Officers explained that reports were being written currently, the Leader has written to the Chairs about the connection between BAME people and Covid-19. Some work has been done and the recommendations will inform the work of the Task Force which will produce reports periodically.
Members asked the Leader how he could ensure the Task Force properly represented Men/Women/Young People/ Older People etc. The Leader referred to the paragraph in the report setting out the skills needed; he considered it was best to have a public recruitment exercise to get that correct blend. Members stressed that some of the BAME communities would be reluctant to come forward and would need engagement and encouragement to get that balance and blend.
Mutual Investment Model Strategic Partnering Agreement
The Chairperson welcomed Cllr Sarah Merry, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education and Lifelong Learning and Richard Portas, Programme Director, School Organisation to the meeting.
The Chairperson invited the Cabinet Member to make a statement in which she said that Members would be familiar with the Band B Building Plan and the buildings and shortage of places in the central area of the City. This report is to agree and enable this to happen through MIM’s.
The Chairperson invited questions from Members;
Members discussed Capital Receipts, Monies from School Estates, Capital Costs and the use of Reserves. Officers explained that a reserve allowance had been factored in and in relation to Capital Receipts, this can come from anywhere across the estate. Officers added that Willows won’t have a Capital receipt and with regard to Cathays, they will work through details of the scheme and identify areas of the site needed; a report was on the forward plan for September to identify risks, viable location and what comes out of the Capital receipt so these questions can be answered in due course.
Members sought clarification on the differences between MIM and PFI. Officers explained that the key difference was that PFI’s were managed though Local Authorities, the LA would be in a joint venture and therefore at more risk. With MIM the risk and contract sit at a National Level, the model is more in house for design and therefore there is more control. MIM is more simplified than PFI in that it is only the building fabric and operational management of the site in core hours. There are of course still risks such as Market Interest and that the 25 year contract needs to be robust up front.
Members asked how the consultation with regards to appropriateness of the building to meet the needs of the community, involving young people, access to the building etc. had been carried out so that it was futureproof to meet the needs of the community for years to come. Officers explained that the consultation was the same as the rest of the schemes in the City; there was also a formal SOP process and consultation in relation to planning. All stakeholders would be included in the development and vision of the school. In relation to community use, part of the MIM process follows a formal community use protocol; price is agreed locally and there is a buffer to ensure life cycle costs. For futureproofing, design always has the future in mind with the ability to extend etc. being built into the contract.
Members asked if the costs of the project would be capped and if not how would the Council deal with it going over budget. Officers explained that there are gateway review points and each point has an affordability cap and they work within that envelope. The affordability cap is set out at the start when it’s submitted to Welsh Government; it was important to have robust surveys at the outset to avoid unexpected costs. If costs are exceeded it was a Local Authority decision to continue or to go in a different direction. Members asked if it was a fixed price contract and Officers advised that after the design stage it becomes a fixed price contract.
Members referred to market interest and bidding teams and asked if there was a risk that as more partners are involved they may have more influence over the scheme than just the design, such as size, whether it is dual stream etc. and the Council has less control. Officers stated that they go through a school organisation process to determine what school is needed and that is done before MIM are involved.
Members asked how much influence there was to deliver Carbon Neutral and Energy Efficient schools. Officers referred to the design specification and that it is very good but not Carbon Neutral although they are looking at testing to get to that position; the buildings are Energy Efficient.
Homelessness : The response to the Covid 19 Crisis & Delivering the Future Service Model
The Chairperson welcomed Cllr Lynda Thorne, Cabinet Member – Housing & Communities; Sarah McGill - Corporate Director, People & Communities; Jane Thomas – Assistant Director, Housing & Communities and Dave Jaques – Operational Manager, Regeneration & Development to the meeting.
The Chairperson advised Members that Appendices 1, 2 and 4 would need to be considered in a closed session to discuss information deemed exempt, in accordance with paragraph 14, 16 and 21 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Therefore he would take this item in two parts, an Open Session where questions can be asked on the Cabinet Report and Appendices 3 and 5 and a closed session, if required, where questions can be asked on confidential appendices 1, 2 and 4.
The Chairperson invited the Cabinet Member to make a statement in which she said that she was very pleased to introduce this report which covers single and family homelessness.
In terms of single homelessness, the report provides a comprehensive plan to ensure that we don’t go back on the progress we have made to support vulnerable homeless individuals in Cardiff during lockdown.
Real progress has been made in reducing the number of rough sleepers in Cardiff during the pandemic.
In response to the crisis we moved quickly to secure self-contained accommodation to make sure that no-one remained on the street and everyone could self-isolate if they were symptomatic of the virus.
Welsh Government supported this immediate response & it quickly became clear that the new expanded accommodation and multi-agency support was delivering results for those who wanted to take a step away from substance misuse.
We knew from our strategic review that was underway before the crisis that this was the way forward and how we wanted to develop our future provision. In practice, this approach has enabled us to engage with more people, many with very complex needs, than ever before.
We now want to ensure we maintain the huge progress that had been made and this new vision will take us further forward again to ensure we’re doing everything we can to give vulnerable people the best chance of moving away and staying off the streets for good, this is very much in line with WG vision as well.
The delivery of some of the new permanent provision will be challenging. As the report states some concerns were raised by the affected ward Councillors and we have included in the report a commitment to mitigate the effects by putting in extra security and working with our partner organisations to address any issues, which may arise.
The Chairperson invited questions from Members;
For transparency, Councillor Howells wished to note that he had objected to one part of the plan.
Members noted that with the work carried out during Covid-19, rough sleeping had almost disappeared overnight and asked if the plan were implemented, whether the Cabinet Member was confident that they could bring an end to rough sleeping. The Cabinet Member said that it was difficult to give that kind of guarantee; there are around 5 entrenched rough sleepers that will not engage with services, but she considered it was clear from the work undertaken that the issue can be addressed if people do engage with services; it also stops the revolving door issue which she strongly believes can be addressed. Officers added that the situation needed to be monitored as there could be a drawback to the street for begging as the City Centre opens up.
Members asked what could be done to stop people giving to those begging. The Cabinet Member explained that there was a new scheme being launched, it was about getting people to understand that not all beggars are homeless and that those who are can get better results if they engage with services. Members discussed the need for a media and social media campaign to publicise the good work undertaken during the crisis. Officers agreed and explained that they are ramping up publicising; all partners are on board with the approach and the scheme will be advertised in bus stops etc.
Members discussed the partnership arrangements and asked how this is working in terms of support etc. The Cabinet Member explained that partners have been involved for a long time now with the multi-agency approach however this was the first time that all partners were on board with the plan. Officers added that during the pandemic, partnership working was better than ever in terms of going out to the community, hostels etc. There was also the outreach/multi-agency team who are a big team dealing with individual needs and assessing issues; all charities and providers are on board with the scheme.
Members asked how much weight was given to Local Members’ views during this scheme and asked why the police objections to Newport Road were not mentioned in the report. The Cabinet Member explained they have been trying to look for properties prior to the pandemic as well as during; properties need to be affordable to be paid for by housing benefit. They were forced to act quickly as contracts were ending on hotels and with having to move so quickly it was almost impossible to consult Members beforehand. Officers added that they have been trying for over a year and had very limited options before the pandemic; where hotels were being used previously, this was not a long term arrangement; officers will try and take Local Members’ views to mitigate impacts on the community and are working with the police with regards to the risk assessments and reducing impacts. Members noted that if price is an issue then these properties will always be in certain parts of the City, Officers explained that clients want to be in the City Centre location rather than it being down to price.
Members referred to the use of hotels during the crisis and stories in the press of difficulties in managing the hotels. Members considered that more needed to be done including the use of partners and asked if there was any way of using this time to establish how to deal with the issues. The Cabinet Member stressed that staff at the hotels had managed very well; there would always be some issues due to the clients having very complex needs and living in close proximity to each other. She stressed that this is temporary accommodation and they were looking to semi-permanent accommodation providing activities and multi-agency support; changing the lifestyles of homeless people, such as changes in habits and providing meals. The Cabinet Member added that the Huggard Centre was a good news story during this time, with better outcomes seen and people taking pride in where they live, however she noted that it is a long journey. Officers agreed that the staff had been amazing in difficult circumstances, the hotels are not set up for this type of accommodation, there are no kitchens in the rooms, no wide ranging CCTV etc. These are the most complex people in Cardiff and they have stayed in the hotels which is an amazing achievement. It was noted that sadly there had been 2 deaths, 1 suicide and 1 death in hospital due to health issues. Officers noted that the average age of a rough sleeper is 45; there is a need to have facilities to address the underlying needs and issues that have caused their chaotic behaviours i.e. health suites and communal gardens on site.
Members noted the proposal relies on money from Welsh Government and that all Local Authorities will draft plans to avoid the return of rough sleeping and will have a portion of that money. Cardiff would need a significant proportion of that money as a larger authority and Members asked if there was a plan B to address the issues if for some reason the money does not come from Welsh Government. Officers explained that in Capital terms there are a number of issues; when the council builds properties with a rental income there is a degree of security. With new units it is easier to see how to mitigate if capital funding isn’t realised. With regards to revenue it was about reshaping but this will take around 3 years, Officers explained they would ensure there were commitments and they could if they had to, provide accommodation with lower revenue costs associated with it. Officers explained they have had discussions with Welsh Government colleagues who were in favour of the approach, so Officers were hopeful; Ministers had also indicated that there was cross party support.
Members asked where the assessment centre fits into the scheme. Officers advised that it was mentioned in the report, it is the key pin holding all services together; it would be a hub for different services and the multi-disciplinary team would be based there along with some units of accommodation. The team based there would go to people and assess what type of provision is best for them. It was noted that the probation service has some centres where they provide services, but the multi-agency approach at the assessment centre including probation, health, the Huggard for advocacy etc., works really well.
Members asked if the fact that the new design standard is not in place at the moment would have an impact on the scheme. Officers explained that they are still working to achieve the design standards. These schemes are modular however they still achieve high standards, DQR, and are above and beyond the passive house standard. There is also a focus on public realm and the environment especially on the Gasworks family centre.
Members noted that the tenants will have complex needs and that anti-social behaviour can happen and asked if the design policy plays a part on the impact of anti-social behaviour. Officers explained it does, although modular they would still have sound insulation, there would be staff on site, open spaces, secure by design, energy efficient and a layout to provide adequate space for people.
Members asked if there may be an impact on selling properties around the schemes. Officers referred to the Gasworks site and that the units are guaranteed for 60 years, so there was a need to have regard to how they are located, amenities etc., they need to be a sustainable part of the overall scheme development and that will feature in how they are designed.
Members noted that they changed the single homelessness pathway last year and asked if this would be revisited now the Council is committed to a rapid rehousing model. Officers explained the different approaches such as straight into accommodation via Housing First, Supported accommodation, move on etc., they added that there shouldn’t be waiting lists but the accommodation needs to be appropriate for the individual and also in the right location.
Members asked about people who were seeking asylum and/or had no recourse to public funds. Officers explained that asylum seekers are housed separately, when they become refugees then the Council houses them. Those people the Council cannot usually house, they are now housing via Welsh Government. With reference to European Nationals, if they are working they can claim benefits and there are schemes to help them into work though grant funding. There is more work needed and conversations are happening with the Welsh Government in relation to those with no recourse to public funds.
Outturn Report 2019-2020
The Chairperson welcomed Cllr Chris Weaver, Cabinet Member – Finance, Modernisation & Performance; Chris Lee – Corporate Director, Resources and Ian Allwood – Head of Finance to the meeting.
The Chairperson invited the Cabinet Member to make a statement in which he said that this report was brought every year. The report shows an overall balanced position, within significant variances which show the story of what has happened over the year. It was important to recognise the significant challenges posed by unachieved savings. In the budget brought in February there had been a number of realignments, the budget had been impacted by the Covid-19 crisis but it was not yet known what the medium to long term impacts would be.
The Chairperson invited questions from Members;
Members discussed whether Directors have historically been over ambitious in setting savings targets or whether unrealistic demands had been placed on them to provide savings targets. The Cabinet Member did not agree with this, some savings had been achieved and it was noted that in areas such as Children’s Services that are driven by need, it was particularly challenging. Members considered that until there was accountability for not achieving proposed savings then things would remain the same going forward.
Members challenged the rational in Economic Development where Covid-19 was cited as the reason for the shortfall, noting that lockdown was only one week before the end of the financial year. The Cabinet Member explained that a significant part of this was the New Theatre and that at the point of Lockdown they had been at the position of a potential transfer. Members asked when this transfer was now likely and were advised it would be after the end of March.
Members noted the increases in some school surplus budget balances and asked why they were holding on to them. The Cabinet Member explained that some schools have deficit budgets and some are holding on to surplus budgets. He explained they would be challenged over why, if the surplus was over what is allowed then there could be the potential for clawback. He further explained that some years schools receive grant funding late in the year and they need to change their financial planning. These issues have been discussed by Cabinet and Audit Committee; there is a process for financial officers to discuss a valid reason for the surplus or to challenge if the surplus is too great. Members asked if there had been any clawbacks in the last five years and if not, why not. Officers explained that clawback was a protracted process which takes place over 2 to 3 years; letters had been sent to schools last year, discussions take place to ensure that schools have plans in place for utilisation of the surplus otherwise there would be the potential of clawback. Officers added that nothing has been clawed back previously stating that 3-4 years ago was a very uncertain time for schools funding; clawback is the last resort as they want every school in Cardiff to be viable.
Members noted the reference to transformational change in social services in recent years and asked if there had been any work to determine the costs of the transformational work. The Cabinet Member explained the challenges in social services including the mix of numbers involved, complexity of cases and increases in pressures, noting this was a National challenge. Spend to save would be a focus in the future and costs would be drilled down and challenged. Members considered that if the council were a business it would need to project the costs over several years to ensure transformation was viable. The Cabinet Member agreed that it was not yet complete but there were constant challenges in this area and service areas have been proactively trying and succeeding against these ongoing challenges.
Members referred to the Task and Finish work of CYP scrutiny on Out of County Placements from 2 years ago and considered that had the recommendations which had been accepted, been addressed then this would have helped reduce the deficit budget. The Cabinet Member agreed it was a good scrutiny and in the direction of where the Council wanted to go; adding that this year more than most, it was important to scrutinise our budgets more than ever and really look at these type of things.
Members asked what focus would be given to this year’s budget as it will be more complicated. The Cabinet Member made reference to being aware of the impact on savings proposals that were income related, such as the Castle; the recognition that some things need to change such as Waste Management and the focus on structural realignments and how we perform against budgets.
Members referred to short term borrowing risks and specifically the Red Dragon Centre and asked for an update on this. The Cabinet Member stated that there is an element of risk in all commercial retail operations. Officers added that the Arena work was being continued as planned; currently they are at the procurement phase and documents had been put to bidders; decision making by Cabinet was due in the Autumn. The risks from Covid-19 were mainly the income received from tenants.
Re-Procurement of Construction and Civils Consultancy Frameworks
The Chairperson welcomed Cllr Chris Weaver, Cabinet Member – Finance, Modernisation & Performance; Chris Lee – Corporate Director, Resources and Chris McLellan – Operational Manager – Category Management for this item.
The Chairperson invited the Cabinet Member to make a statement in which he said that collaborative purchasing arrangements across the region gives value for money. He added that the Welsh Government has changed the system which gives a number of public bodies’ economies of scale, the ability to include social values and operate on a levy basis.
The Chairperson invited questions from Members;
Members discussed the new focus on Community Benefits and asked who had responsibility for ensuring that this community focus remains. Officers explained it was their responsibility and noted that the track record for social value had been limited for this category. Going forward, having a focus where the council is in control and can include smaller SME’s, local opportunities, include criteria in awards such as apprenticeships, social enterprises etc., itwould be key.
Members asked how the Council would benefit by taking the lead on this. Officers explained that the benefits would include being able to drive efficiencies in the market, economies of scale, leverage of all LA’s spend being together, a more lean approach with less lots, more user friendly and more relevant.
Members were reassured that Officers were confident that they could cover the additional costs of administering the scheme.
Members asked if this was a collaborative approach or one being led by Cardiff. Officers explained that they will be creating a Category Forum with representatives of LA’s and contractors; they have engaged with Heads of Procurement, who challenged some of Cardiff’s assessments, this was taken on board and all are now happy and on side. Officers stressed that quality was key rather than a race to the bottom and less costs. Officers added that they had presented to Treasurers who were in agreement that there was a need to take a collaborative approach and that in future there could be a move from Levy to base funding.
AGREED: to write to the individual Cabinet Members with the Panel’s comments, observations and any recommendations they wish to make.