Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Welcome to this meeting of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. We begin our public session with item 2, introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest. We have received apologies from committee members Bethan Sayed, Jack Sargeant, Rhianon Passmore and Gareth Bennett. Are there any declarations of interest? No. 

We will move on, then, to item 3, which is our inquiry into public services boards in Wales and our first evidence session today. Could I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record, please, starting on my right?

Good morning. Bore da. Kelechi is my name, Dr Kelechi Nnoaham, and I'm currently director of public health in Cwm Taf and chair of the strategic partnership board in Cwm Taf, which is a kind of sub-committee of the Cwm Taf public services board. So, I'm here in that capacity this morning.

Good morning. Barry Liles, chair of the Carmarthenshire public services board, and also principal of Coleg Sir Gâr.

A member of the Vale of Glamorgan public services board and head of performance and development at the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

Bore da. I'm Bethan Jones, I'm an area director with Betsi Cadwaladr university health board and I'm chair of Conwy and Denbighshire public services board.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you all very much for coming along today to give evidence. We'll move straight into questioning, if that's okay with you. Perhaps I might begin in terms of structures and functions of public services boards and just ask you whether you think the current structure for public services boards is sufficiently robust and sustainable to enable them to fulfil the role required of them. Who would like to begin? Bethan.

Can I begin? I guess within Conwy and Denbighshire we have agreed that we'd have a merger of the Conwy PSB and Denbighshire PSB. I think that, therefore, from a health board perspective, that does make the footprint more sustainable for us and more manageable for us as a health board. Conwy and Denbighshire are quite similar, I guess, and have worked well together over many years. So, from a sustainability perspective, I think it bodes well for Conwy and Denbighshire.

I guess some of this will depend on what happens with local government reorganisation, if that happens, and I guess one of the complications is around some of the strategic partnerships that go across north Wales. I know that some of your questions later on will come to that, but in terms of sustainability, I think the footprint of Conwy and Denbighshire is local enough but big enough as well. So, I think it's a good balance. I think a single authority would probably be too small to address some of the issues that we need to address. That's speaking from the PSB perspective.

Okay. And Huw.

I understand we will go into those matters later on, but if I can just talk about the actual membership of the PSB in the Vale of Glamorgan. It's based largely, I suppose, on what the old local service board partnership was, and we'll talk about how effective that is in a while, on the basis that it's as inclusive as possible. We've included an addition to the statutory core members and the ones that I think we're obliged to invite onto the board. We've got people like town and community councils on board, so we always try to make it as inclusive as possible, on the basis that if it's what I've heard other people refer to as 'small and strategic', the danger there is that you shut people out. So, in terms of the membership, I think that there is something like 15 members on the board, but they represent a large number of different organisations working in the Vale of Glamorgan, whether it's—

Sorry, I didn't quite catch the figure you said.

It's around 15.

Okay, thank you.

I think. Something of that order, which I think as a committee, or whatever you want to call it, functions—it's not too big and not too small.

Okay. And Barry.

My perspective is I'd perhaps rather answer that question in a year's time, because we're at a significant turning point now. We've spent the last two years very much in a development phase, we're now moving to delivery. I therefore feel that the PSB structure is robust. Sustainability, I think, will now be reflected upon in the next year. We have ourselves moved into a new structure of delivery groups, so I'd like those to bed over the next year and perhaps answer the question of sustainability thereafter. But I think what we've done is we've reflected as we've transitioned from an LSB into a developmental PSB, but now we're gearing up for delivery. We've actually established delivery groups, which are new, meeting now for the first time, to oversee that delivery going forward. The PSB itself, I think, is adequately robust and we'll now be supported by the delivery groups going into the next phase.

Okay. And Kelechi.

I think our experience in Cwm Taf would be that the combination of almost a stipulation of what the statutory membership of the PSB should be, combined with some flexibility around invited members, I think, gives the PSB some sense of control about how it should be constituted. And for that reason alone, I would suggest that that gives it a greater chance of being sustainable going forward in the future than not. 

I see. Okay. Could I just ask you—? You mentioned the local service boards. Obviously, you're now on a statutory footing as PSBs. What impact has it had, putting PSBs on a statutory footing? What is the essential difference now between the way the LSBs worked and operated and the way the PSBs are going forward?

I was quite sceptical about the fact that, initially, the legislation required people to get together whether they liked it or not, as it were, and I didn't think that would work particularly well. I've been proved wrong in the Vale. I think the PSB operates differently to what the old LSB used to do and I've been racking my brain as to why that is. There is no doubt in my own mind that in particular the four core members take their responsibility seriously, because I think things are moving in that direction anyway—partnership working and an understanding that joint working is necessary to achieve these things—but also I suppose because of the statutory nature of what they are now required to do. There is a sort of accountability, particularly for those core members, that perhaps wasn't there before. So, I think it's looking quite good. What further statutory measures might be taken, of course, is a different kettle of fish.

Okay. Barry.

I was quite impressed with the collaborative nature of the LSB previously, and I think that gave us a good grounding. I think the statutory nature, as Huw mentioned, has brought it to a different level. But, from my perspective, what I'm observing is that it's a win-win situation. So, the public bodies themselves have to provide their own plan and there's a benefit from working mutually. So, I think the spin-off to me that I'm seeing is that there's greater ownership of the PSB because of the benefits to be gained by working, because they've got to go back to the core business as well. So, it's a win-win situation, I think.

Yes, okay.

I'd just echo that. I think, in contrast, the statutory organisations are taking the PSBs far more seriously than they did the local service boards. Whereas the local service boards dealt with some quite peripheral low-level issues, I think the guts of the PSB will be about dealing with some of those really big challenges that we're facing as public sector organisations, but also as geographical areas, going forward.

Okay. Thanks for that, Bethan.

I haven't been long enough in Wales to have a personal experience of how the LSBs functioned, but to reflect the experience of my colleagues who are on the PSB, I would absolutely echo what colleagues have said, that the PSBs being on a statutory footing gives a very different sense of seriousness, if you see what I mean. So, there's some real strong and meaningful participation of members on the PSB.

But, I also think there's a potential downside, and that potential downside is about history. So, people who were part of the LSBs and who saw the LSBs operate—sometimes, they think, 'Well, could PSBs turn out like some of the LSBs and end up as talking shops?' I think some of those things you'll probably want to explore a little bit in the course of the morning. So, I do feel it potentially works both ways.

Okay. Thanks for that. It's very useful. Janet Finch-Saunders. 

Thanks, Chairman. Good morning. What additional responsibilities are there on PSBs now in comparison to the LSBs, and how does this impact the work, overall, of local authorities and their partners?

I think the fact that the LSBs were very much identified and seen as a local authority body. The additional responsibility, coming back to it again, is far more widespread. So, we are having far greater responsibility upon all partners and an equity, I feel, among those partners. So, there's an equal responsibility moving forward, not simply that being on the local authority. Naturally, that comes at a cost, and that cost is the additional support being provided. Again, being the statutory requirement, what we are finding now is there is a greater eagerness to contribute that additional support, whereas previously, as an LSB, it was led and facilitated only by the local authority. There is greater ownership and sharing of that responsibility now coming from all partners.

Okay. Anybody else?

I would echo that. Previously, when I was on a local service board, I was from a local authority and I would suggest that then, yes, it was very difficult to actually engage some of those wider partners. I think the statutory nature has brought that responsibility clearly home. As well, I think the focus on the longer term brings into it then those discussions and challenges about how we do that long-term planning for this particular area and how we try and predict what the future is going to look like and what we need to do to make sure that that future is better for our citizens. So, I think there's much more co-operation now, and they are taking it far more seriously than they did when they were local service boards. 

But there's a danger in saying that the reason for that is that it's now a PSB instead of an LSB. I think you have to look at it in its wider context as well. All organisations, whether in the context of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 or the statutory nature of PSBs or whatever, now understand that this really is the only way forward. Therefore, the greater effectiveness, hopefully, of PSBs has coincided with that shift. 

In terms of the wheels going round as regards delivery, what about access to resources? It's all well and good having strategic aims but we all know that, with those, come—

We're coming on to resources later in another section.

Yes, I know, but I just want to put some meat on the bone so that we can start where we mean to go on, in terms of how well resourced are the services boards. 

No, I'd rather do that later because we've got a specific section on it later. If at this stage, we could—

All right. Okay. The next one, then, is: why are some PSBs starting the process of renewing membership of PSBs now, and how would this impact on delivery of the overall plan objectives?

There is no plan for ourselves, I think. We continually appraise the situation. We certainly don't have any plans at the moment. One thing that we've observed locally with ourselves is that there's been a great appetite in getting the assessments done together. That's created an environment that I feel is far more collaborative and well supported. We've identified one, for instance—the Welsh ambulance service. They've been very, very active in assisting us with the development of the assessment plans, but aren't yet a partner. So, I'd restrict the change in membership to the ambulance service only. The rest, at the moment, we certainly don't have any plans to change.

In Cwm Taf, we do, and the reason is that, when the PSB was initially formed, we had two local authorities or two PSBs coming together as one, which has been immensely positive in terms of allowing us to work as one PSB rather than two PSBs. And because there wasn't a clear well-being plan developed at that time, a lot of the things that the PSB took on were things that didn't necessarily have a house elsewhere in the system. It was good that the PSB sort of owned those agendas, if you like. But, further down the line, we've now gone through the process of creating a well-being plan, and we are very much in the delivery. I think it is absolutely right that we are continually asking ourselves: is this the right membership to enable and support delivery? That is the question. The answer may be, 'Yes, it is the right membership', in which case we don't need to change the membership, but actually the process of asking that question and embarking on the review is an absolute necessity for us if we're going to actually successfully get into delivery. 

Thank you. 

Our membership was quite a lot smaller than the local service board that preceded the public services board, and it was definitely a decision that we took to initially keep that membership small so that we could try and understand, going back to what the needs assessment was going to tell us, therefore, what the priorities would be. But while the membership of the PSB has been quite small, we have widely engaged in terms of priorities, and people have inputted into what they think those priorities are, because there is a danger that the smaller the group, actually, the less richness, I guess, the debate around what some of those priorities are, and all we see are our priorities rather than a wider group of priorities. But then the wider it gets, there's a danger that you can focus on some things that perhaps aren't as important or aren't as critical. So, I think getting that balance right is actually quite difficult.

We will review, now that we've agreed our priorities. The work groups, similar to the structure that was talked about before—the delivery groups—will be made up of a broader range of partners. I think one of the interesting factors, I guess, if you take the local authority membership, is that the types and range of services that local authorities represent are actually far more diverse than probably other members of the PSB, and therefore it's about getting some of that balance right. So, while housing comes under the local authorities, actually we are questioning whether we need somebody there from a registered social landlord who has got more of a day-to-day dealing with housing rather than perhaps just the local authorities now that retain the strategic housing function.

So, I think there are still debates to be had about what the right make-up is and how you get a balanced approach and a balance of leadership, because this is about public service leadership, at the end of the day. I think we're still exploring that, and as the PSB matures, I'm sure that there will be changes in the membership. 

And that leads on to the final question, from me anyway, on this part: how do statutory and non-statutory bodies work, then, in partnership on the actual public services boards? And it follows on really from Bethan. Do other members have experience of working with the statutory and non-statutory bodies within their own PSB? 

Yes, I would say that, as a function of the legislation, there probably is a difference.   

But do you have a mix?

Yes. I think the four core members are being identified by the PSB itself as people who can take the lead on things, whereas that's not necessarily true of the other members of the PSB. So, it's something similar with the other PSBs, no doubt, in that the Vale of Glamorgan's well-being plan has four well-being objectives. It's been quite easy, therefore, to say to each of the four core members, 'Well, you can lead on each of those objectives', and what we're currently doing is looking at what those delivery mechanisms actually mean and what role the other members of the PSB, then, can actually play in the working groups or whatever we set up in order to deliver the plan. But that's the point at which we are now—that's what we're trying to work out. There's a strength as well as a weakness, isn't there, in that you can say to the four, 'Well, look, you do have statutory responsibilities and therefore you do need to take the lead, whether you like it or not'? 

Do you work, then, with non-statutory bodies on your PSB?  

Yes, the majority are non-statutory. 

I would reflect that in Cwm Taf—. It's interesting you asked the question, because in Cwm Taf we assume that, statutory or non-statutory, as long as you are either a statutory member or an invited member, if you are on the PSB, you are on equal footing with every other member. That is an important principle that we just assume and don't think very much about, and, in fact, when you look at our well-being plan, there are three specific objectives and priority areas for delivery over the next 12 to 24 months in our well-being plan, and there is a cross-cutting theme around tackling isolation and loneliness. That particular cross-cutting theme is led by the voluntary sector, while the other three are led by a combination of the public and voluntary sector. There's a very, very effective way of working, but I think the important thing is that, in a sense—we'll talk about this a little bit when it comes to the resourcing—the extent of the recognition of the four statutory members in our public services board has really been around financial contribution. But when it actually comes to delivery and ownership, I think that's been very equally shared across all members of the PSB. 

I have to endorse that fully and I feel quite strongly about this, in fact. We've worked very, very hard—. We don't differentiate between partners—everybody has an equal voice, and I think that's a strength of our PSB. Perhaps I would say that because I come from the other side, but in terms of that context, it's particularly important for us, I feel, and that gives a lot of benefit, I think, to the PSB itself.

Thank you.

Are there any particular arrangements to facilitate the sharing of workload between the different partners?

I'm aware that we may have a slight difference in our governance in Cwm Taf that was absolutely created to enable that. So, our PSB has a sub-group or sub-committee, which I introduced earlier—the strategic partnership board—and which has a membership that, to a large extent, mirrors the membership of the PSB at different organisational strata, if you like, but also brings in more active involvement from public and community representatives. Part of the idea in that is to make sure that the items that get to the PSB for conversation and discussion and ownership are the right items, and the PSB has, in a sense, a mechanism to pass down and pass into the wider community decisions for action. And I think, part of what that has done for us is created a wonderful mechanism for us to make sure that the workload isn't overtly lopsided. Because the fact that the local authorities are providing, in a sense, the administrative mechanisms that support the PSB, there's a tendency or risk that, if efforts weren't made in that direction, local authorities would be carrying an undue amount of the load. But we feel in Cwm Taf that we have mechanisms, like I've just described, that really allow the workload to be shared more equitably.

Okay.

Whilst some are better resourced than others, due to the scale and the size of the operation, we have to consider that some of those partners are working across a number of PSBs. So, taking that into consideration, we use that as a balancing tool then, but, as in Cwm Taf, it's equated across the group. 

Okay, thanks for that. Perhaps we could just continue on that sort of theme that you mention, Barry, in terms of regional issues and coverage of geographical areas by the different partners on the PSBs and, you know, understand how, really, you work with other regional partners—partnerships such as the city deals and the regional partnership boards. Are there issues there for you as PSBs?

I think the partnership—. I think it's getting quite complex, I think in particular when we had two new bits of legislation coming in at more or less the same time. So, we had the PSBs and the regional partnership boards being established with different memberships and slightly different emphasis, or different emphasis, and we are at the moment trying to work through what those relationships need to be. So, while we've got on the regional partnership board the directors of social services sitting on those, the chief executives of the local authorities actually sit on the PSBs. So, I think, there's quite a complex dynamic there in terms of accountability and who's actually driving which agenda. So, what we're trying to work through at the moment is what is that PSB—what is our role as a PSB? I suppose, not so much in scrutinising the work of a Part 9 board, but ensuring that the work of a Part 9 board does actually fit with the aspirations of the PSB. And what we've got to try and guard against is duplication, because we're all really busy anyway.

I think there is a complexity there that needs to be unpicked, but, in some respects, I don't know whether that's something Welsh Government can do, or it's actually something we need to do on a local level, because a lot of that will be about relationships and about—. You know, we've got different sizes of regions, we've got different sizes of PSBs, and therefore I think, to a degree, that's something that we've got to unpick at a local level. But there are a plethora of partnerships, and there is a need, I think, to unpick those, to simplify some of the governance structures around those, if we are to be successful. Otherwise, I think there's a danger of some fatigue around partnership, and actually partnership isn't necessarily about a board or a group; partnership is actually about a way of working and a different philosophy in the way that you work. So, I do think that's an issue, but that's probably an issue that we need to unpick at a local level to see how we can work through those challenges.

Yes, I'd concur with that. I think, simply, it's early days as well, as far as PSBs are concerned, to talk about what they might do regionally, because I think, for example, in terms of the city deal, it's councils who have been driving it and therefore scrutiny arrangements et cetera will come back to councils rather than PSBs. I don't discount the involvement of PSBs in this at some point, but I do agree that partnership arrangements in terms of structures can become extremely complicated, and it becomes, then, a matter of who's scrutinising whom.

I think the regional partnerships are inadequately developed. I think it's a work in progress, and we need to perhaps put some resource into that. Huw mentioned the city deal emerging. We can see the advantages of those, and I think we've got better and clearer alignment to the city deal than we have to the partnership boards.

So, I think in Cwm Taf—I absolutely reflect those perspectives from colleagues and add that, with Cwm Taf, obviously there is the Valleys taskforce, so that's an additional complexity in terms of the collaborative mechanisms that individual organisations have to be part of. Now, is there a risk of duplication, overlap, confusion and dissipation of effort? Yes. Can that risk be managed? Emphatically yes, and we're managing that risk. We are trying very hard to manage that risk. If we spent all of our time trying to understand why two different legislations—. There's the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and then there's the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and if we try to understand the reasons why those two different legislations were enacted or developed in the way they were, I think that's going to be a lot of waste of time. The reality is that we are where we are, and we always understand, in our system, that every system works at a speed of trust, and as long as there's trust between individuals, between organisations, we do not underestimate the amount of progress that is made outside of the formal mechanisms of these boards and collaborative mechanisms, if you see what I mean.

So, I think we're trying to make the best and find the connections between the area plan and the well-being plan, and receive presentations from the Cardiff regional city deal, and make sure that there is alignment, and have conversations with colleagues in the Valleys taskforce. I think that's what all PSBs will be doing: trying to make it work. But are those risks real? They are real. And I think our responsibility as leaders in the system is to manage them.

I think, currently, they're talking about making sure there's no contradiction between them, rather than working—.

Good luck with that one. [Laughter.]

There is one point I suppose I would like to stress, I think. We don't have the city deals, but we've got the North Wales Economic Ambition Board in north Wales, and I think there could be a danger that while we have the North Wales Economic Ambition Board and we don't discuss, possibly, some of those issues at a PSB level, then actually some of the partners around the table won't necessarily take on those broader responsibilities. I think the health board is a really good example of that, as the largest employer in north Wales, as the organisation that probably spends the most money in north Wales. Because of the link between poor health and poverty, I think there's a real danger that if those economic regeneration things go on up here, and actually we don't get into that dialogue as a health board, then actually we miss some really big opportunities for our citizens in terms of really good jobs, but also in terms of how we develop business on the back of what we actually expend as a health board.

So, I think there are dangers that we don't get those connections right and that that's—. Well, as a PSB, we don't do economic development because that's the North Wales Economic Ambition Board that does that, so I think that's a real risk.

Yes, okay. Just before we move on—I'm going to bring Jenny Rathbone in in just a moment. Kelechi, just in terms of managing the risks that you mentioned—and you said you are managing them—is that done then, as I think you seem to suggest, on a fairly informal level? There's no sort of structure or official mechanism for doing that then, is there? It's informal conversations and—.

I think there are loads of informal conversations, and I think—. My point is those informal conversations can often be underestimated in terms of their impact because they're not taking place in the visibility of a formal collaborative system or mechanism. So, I think it's important to recognise them. But, even within the structures of those formal collaborative mechanisms, we're using them as much as possible to effect those conversations, so consciously receiving a detailed presentation from the council leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, who is very active in the Cardiff region city deal, that was a very, very interesting conversation that it enabled us to have in the PSB. So, we're using—. And then, of course, once the area plan was created under the mechanisms of the social services and wellbeing Act and a well-being plan was created—. A lot of times, it's sometimes the same individuals who are being stretched across those mechanisms. Sometimes, it is individuals in the same organisation who sit across one another in the same—. So, it's about those conversations that take place outside of—. Well, once we had those two, we sat down, and looked at where are the connections, where are the potential duplications, where do we need to be careful about dissipating effort, and where are we likely to make the most impact. So, it's a combination of using the formal mechanisms of our boards, but also recognising that the impact of informal conversations in the system is significant.

Okay, thanks for that very much. Jenny.

Thank you for those very thoughtful comments about the potential risks and pitfalls, which, obviously, are very important messages for Government, but I just wanted to pick up on the role of scrutiny for perhaps unravelling some of this because, Bethan, you said a lot of this is about relationships, and I think you also said that these are things that are sorted out in conversation. So, how robust at this early stage do you think the scrutiny mechanisms are, given that they are generally, as far as I'm aware, composed of local authority scrutiny committees?

I think we need to broaden that scrutiny. That's—

That seems rather blindingly obvious, yes.

—my personal view. I think it needs to be broadened, so I think we need to think about what's the role of the community health council, possibly, on that, from a health perspective—you know, are there are other agencies that need to be within that scrutiny process? But I'd also think, in terms of scrutiny—. So, while we've, as organisations, signed up to our well-being plans, we have well-being objectives, there's a question for me as well about what's the role of the PSB in scrutinising some of the key decisions that our partner organisations are taking to ensure that they fit with the direction of travel that we've agreed as a PSB. Otherwise, we can agree this is a PSB, but, actually, organisations can still go off and do their own thing. So, how do we knit them back into that PSB if that is going to be the vehicle of how we get public services to work more effectively together for the well-being of future generations, dare I say it? So, I think there is the scrutiny of the PSB, because of democracy, but I think that needs to be broader so it's not just about local authorities. But I do think as well there's an issue about what's the PSB role in actually understanding what our organisations are doing in line with our well-being objectives.

But, in terms of the local input, have you felt—

Scrutinised?

—scrutinised?

Not yet, really, no. And I think it's early days, as has been said. 

It is. The focus up to now has been—. Because councils take on a scrutiny function as part of their day-to-day service, they've taken the role of scrutinising PSBs, and, in the Vale of Glamorgan, for example, everything that we've generated as a PSB has gone to—in the Vale it's called 'corporate performance and resources'. But that's tended to focus on a quite small group of members. What we will be doing now, as a council, is, as the plan starts getting implemented, aspects of the well-being plan will be reported for scrutiny to those subject committees as well, so as to integrate it fully in the way that the council works. But I don't deny—. One of the difficulties we've always faced is: who do you co-opt on to scrutiny committees in order for them to be doing their work properly? There's a real danger there that you go around in circles in that you're co-opting the very people who you're scrutinising on to the scrutiny committee, but I think we can sort that out.

As to the issue about the other way around, I don't think we've even given that any thought yet, but it probably will need to be factored into the way—

I'm sure it will, yes.

I think, at a local level, looking at ourselves, there was a legacy from the local service board, and I think that the legacy that we inherited from that was perhaps a lack of scrutiny. So, we've worked hard. For instance, on two occasions now, whilst chair, I've reported to the local authority scrutiny committee. There's an open invitation for members of the committee to join, and I'm pleased, in fact, that we've had up to four members of the scrutiny committee attending PSB meetings. I give them the floor at the end of the meeting to provide feedback. So, on a local level, I'm becoming increasingly comfortable with scrutiny. I think, at a national level, up to this point in time, there's been a role for the commissioner. I think we need perhaps clarity going forward on her role in the delivery mode. We've got the audit office. I think we need to air some caution. We welcome scrutiny, but it's interesting: on the radio in the car on the way up, we heard Professor Donaldson mention, in terms of Estyn's role, that you don't create a high-performing sector with a culture of fear. I think we don't fear scrutiny. We welcome it, but, on a national level, I think there's a bit of work to be done there as to what the future looks like.

How about in Cwm Taf?

So, in Cwm Taf, we've been scrutinised a few times. Most recently, in February, I think—no, actually, in the month of March—I, as chair of our strategic partnership board, and Marcus Longley, as chair of our PSB, were invited onto our joint overview and scrutiny to be scrutinised on our arrangements in the PSB. Now, that gave us a lot of material for reflection, and some of my reflections would be that it is interesting that the overview and scrutiny mechanism is described as the mechanism by which the PSB would be held democratically accountable. Therefore, the role of elected members on that overview and scrutiny is deemed to be extremely important. While I'm not taking anything from that, because I think that's a fact, there is the question—the point that Bethan raised earlier—about how do we expand that remit in a way that it allows people to see that this is more than the local authority. Because the risk is that this is scrutiny being provided by traditional local authority mechanisms for excellent reasons, but the potential downside of that is that it becomes a local authority issue. So, I think that risk needs to be—we need to be mindful of that risk.

I think the other thing is, there is for me the question of: what are we scrutinising? What is JOSC—the joint overview and scrutiny committee—scrutinising? Is it scrutinising the governance of PSBs, is it scrutinising the process of PSBs, is it scrutinising the outcome or the output or the impact of PSBs? Those are not simple questions. They're complex questions that speak to the realities of what the PSBs are doing. So, for example, if we're being scrutinised on governance, then we don't want scrutiny to touch our delivery plan—so, to ask us any questions about our delivery plans. They can ask us about governance, but if we're being scrutinised on impact, then, absolutely, they want to be all over our delivery plans. My sense is that even scrutiny at this point is still trying to answer that question: 'What are we scrutinising?' Like the PSB, they are going to mature in the process, and I haven't described that in any way from a deficits perspective; I'm just saying that we recognise that both the PSB and the scrutiny mechanism are maturing, and I think that they're going to mature together. I think, at some point, it will be necessary to be very clear about the suite of things that we are being scrutinised on.

Okay. Obviously, the other people, apart from ourselves—here we are today—who—. The future generations commissioner obviously has a role in scrutinising the effectiveness of PSBs, and I just wondered if any of you had looked at the four recommendations that she made. I'm afraid I can't tell you the date, but she obviously looked at the initial workings of PSBs and then came up with four recommendations. Do you recall having looked at them? Because I know that one of you, for example—I think the Vale of Glamorgan is talking about changing your membership to better meet your needs, and that's one of her recommendations. 

It wasn't actually looking at changing membership.

She's obviously arguing that representatives need to—you know, we need to review invited membership so that representatives provide effective reach back into all the different sectors to bring the necessary insight. 

I think we looked at them, but I couldn't repeat them, if I'm being honest. [Laughter.]

Excellent. Okay, but, I mean, you—

We worked with the commissioner's office and we had feedback during the assessment stage, and we did react to that positively.

And I think it was the same thing with us. When we had our well-being assessments published, they were gone over in detail by the future generations commissioner, who gave us feedback that we absolutely took account of. But I suppose, in addition to the future generations commissioner, there is the series of letters, very welcome letters, that we've received from the older people's commissioner. So again, my point is: it isn't just about the future generations, because there seem to be other interests that stakeholders, who are giving very, very valuable feedback on our process and some of our output—. The danger, I always think, about what is the potential benefit and what are the potential downsides—. The potential downside of that is that PSBs have limited resources, they have to make choices, and sometimes the choices are between, when you have scarce resources, what do you spend on. When you make a choice, it means that there is something you are not going to pursue, and when you make a choice about not pursuing something, then you're going to have somebody in the system say, 'Well, actually, why are you not doing that?' Well, the reason we're not doing that is we made a conscious choice to put our efforts and our resources where we think we're going to get a bigger bang for our buck for our population. So, while scrutiny and feedback and challenge are welcome, we do not feel that we are bound to do everything that is fed back on. But we absolutely take very seriously the responsibility to consider the feedback that is given to us. 

I think it's fair to say that the relations between the PSB generally and the commissioner are very, very good, and suggestions coming from the commissioner have always been treated seriously, and sometimes they're very, very useful. But it does come down sometimes as well to conscious decisions having been made that this simply can't be done, and that this will be done instead.

Great. Thank you for that.

We'll have to move on to resources. Before we do, I think Siân Gwenllian had a very brief point.

We have—. Sioned is a member of ours. She goes to all the PSBs in north Wales. It's really valuable. It's really valuable because she brings the insight in terms of what's going on in Welsh Government at the moment, and which bits of legislation are being worked on—some of that futureproofing, then—but also really valuable in answering some of our questions. So, Brexit: 'What's going to happen to Brexit?', 'What's going to be the impact on north Wales in terms of some of that European money going forward?', 'Where are we with local government reorganisation?' So, it's really useful to have somebody there from the Welsh Government or Welsh Assembly because we do get that two-way dialogue then about what's going on and what is the future direction for the Government and the legislation. So, I feel it's really, really valuable. I think the other valuable thing is that she goes to all of them across north Wales so she gets the flavour then that I think she's able then to bring back, hopefully, about what's going on in north Wales, which I think is very, very valuable. 

Social services. 

Okay. We need to move on: resources and capacity. We'll have to be quite brief in our questions and answers from here on. Jenny. 

I hope we can be fairly brief, because we've covered quite a lot of this in passing. I wondered if you can give us an idea of how you've changed your ways of working to ensure that PSBs aren't simply duplicating work that's going on elsewhere. 

How the PSBs have changed the way of working? 

Well, how the member organisations have. Because PSBs have a specific role to bring together all the public bodies, all the 46, and clearly it means that we need to work differently. I mean, Bethan, you already alluded to the fact that there was a role for the PSB to scrutinise what some of your member organisations were doing that perhaps didn't meet the objectives of the PSB well-being plan. 

I don't think we've—. We haven't got to that stage yet. I think the stage we've got to in terms of how we will work together—I think resourcing is probably a little bit of a barrier at the moment. As public sector organisations, we're all really stretched in terms of our finances, and I just wonder whether there's an opportunity for some of the current grant regimes that go to local authorities and others—whether there's a role for the PSB in actually understanding what's happening with some of those pots of money that were actually already flowing through the system for some purpose. Because, I think, otherwise, it's actually quite difficult to go to a PSB with a pot of money as organisations because we're all stretched, and that's one of the dilemmas, I think. We've got a well-being plan, we really want to resource that well-being plan, yet there are lots of pots of money coming down that are earmarked for other things. So, there's something about how can we influence, then, how we could utilise those pots of money perhaps differently within a local area to meet the needs of our well-being plan. And there's something about kick-starting that. And, once we've kick-started some of that work, it's a bit like the pump-priming money; we need to actually get a little bit of money in there to get us to change differently so that we can then reorganise the way that we actually deliver core service, because that's what this is about at the end of the day. It has to be about how we deliver core service very differently in the future, but in order to do that, we need a little bit of space. And I think, sometimes, a little bit of resource can buy us that little bit of space to enable a different way of working.

I don't think the committee should be under any illusions: this is a problem that is being faced by all PSBs. Because the constituent organisations are all under huge financial pressure, they're reluctant to say, 'Well, I'll give you whatever it is', so what's happening, in effect—and it may be different, but I'll just tell you what's happening in the Vale, and I know it's happening elsewhere—is that the council, from the start, have been putting the spade work in terms of the well-being assessment in terms of the drawing up of the well-being plan, with input, don't get me wrong, from partners, but the posts, the expense, are in the council, and we will have real problems justifying the continuation of those posts if we continue to be under fire and under pressure, as of course we will.

So, I suppose the two issues are that, given the resources that the constituent organisations have got, should they be actually putting the money into it so that the council is under less pressure or, indeed, how can funding regimes from Welsh Government actually be looked at to see that the PSB is funded directly rather than through other means? I have a slight problem with that because I don't believe in hypothecation in any case, but that's my—

Okay, but, looking at it from the other end of the tube, Dr Nnoaham, you mentioned that one of your priorities was tackling isolation and loneliness. The paper that was written for the PSB board to consider—did it identify the mechanism by which you were going to move forward on tackling that objective?

Yes, and some of that is already ready and some of that is developing. The point about resourcing is that different PSBs would probably have different experiences at the margins, but at the very core of it I think that most PSBs are facing a challenge of resourcing. What we've done in our PSB is to identify a partnership support team so that this isn't just about dumping everything on the local authority. That partnership support team is financially supported by the statutory members. Now, the number of conversations we had to get to that point itself was a lesson, because, when you stand back and look at it, we shouldn't have had those sorts of conversations; that was a lot of time spent having the conversations about resourcing, because all partners are in financial difficulty. But we eventually got there, and that allows us to resource our ability to deliver our plan. So, there will be some variation in terms of experience around resourcing, but it doesn't take away from the fact that PSBs need proper resourcing in order to deliver.

The danger again—. You'll probably have picked up that I always come from different perspectives. So, that is what needs to happen. The danger of this is that we get into that narrative that it's all about money, and the truth about it is that it is not. So, in our PSB—coming back directly to your question about how we are working differently—there's a real emphasis on place-based approaches. So, we are working with Welsh Government on the community zones initiative. Our community zones initiative in the Gurnos and in Ferndale is really about bringing to life the whole idea of place-based initiatives. People affect place and place affects people, and when public sector organisations that tend to ordinarily go in their silos and work with the same families realise that, 'Actually, we are four public sector organisations working with the same families with our very different approaches, with our very different directions of finances', and if, instead of having a conversation about, 'Oh, actually we need more money', the conversation is about how we bring our existing moneys in those communities together, might that give us a different sort of value proposition? Emphatically yes. So, sometimes, it isn't all about money—we recognise that. But, sometimes, you just need the right amount of 'seed funding', for want of a better term, to get the system moving, and I think that balancing is what needs to happen for PSBs.

Thank you. Is that your experience in Carmarthenshire?

In terms of that, I would not wish to minimise in any way that there are resource issues going forward, but, going back to the original question once again of how the PSB is working differently, if I look at one example, we have a project of making every contact count. So, we are now training front-line staff. So, we go in. So, a fire officer will change an alarm and will identify, and that's fed back. Now, that would not have happened had we not had the PSB. There are a significant number of such initiatives falling out of this new way of working. We mustn't lose sight of that, whilst we must also address the resourcing issue.

Thank you.

There's a £25,000 per annum fund from Welsh Government, isn't there? How is that being used? Is that helpful?

It's been helpful for us on the regional basis. We took the decision—. We employed an officer in order to use that particular officer to disseminate across other lead officers in the region. That's brought us together, as I mentioned earlier. Now, we're going to meet as four PSBs. It's also given support, I feel, for those bodies who transcend a number of PSBs, and has saved them the repetition on that basis. So, it's been useful. I think, going forward, for sustainability—going back to the very first question—we need to revisit resourcing. Now, as we identify individual local plans, there's perhaps less ability on the regional and more of a greater need to support that local delivery.

I think it's been useful, but it was very prescriptive in terms of what we could use it for, and we would say it was too prescriptive, therefore we didn't spend the full amount in north Wales.

Yes, it specifically excluded general partnership support, which is precisely what we wanted it for.

What we need, yes.

We found it very useful. We recognise the restrictions around it, and we agree it was quite restrictive, but we used it for partnership support projects rather than just partnership support. So, we have an information-sharing sort of system that we've developed, and that went some way to supporting that. So, we've used them for projects, but I do agree that we probably need to reflect on how restrictive they are.

Okay. Thanks for that. Janet Finch Saunders.

Thank you. I think, really, as a committee, we'd like a little bit more information as to how the public services boards are actually resourced. I know there's concern about where does the balance of resource and capacity lie, or where it should lie, but if you could just explain a bit more as to how they are funded. Is it about partners bringing funds to the table? How is it—?

They get no money at all from the grant that we've just been talking about—

Yes, that's what we were—

—and then it's up to partners to fund the work that's necessary—to do what's statutorily required. That's it, in a nutshell.

And how does that work, in reality?

As I was saying in my comments, the council does most of the work and co-ordinates activities.

I would reiterate that. We've identified lead officers to work with the lead officers from the council, but the council very much resource the servicing of the board, pulling the organisation together. Conwy and Denbighshire take it in turns in terms of leading that and resourcing it. But, in terms of resourcing bits of work, I guess the delivery—

Yes, the delivery of your ambitions. Who's resourcing that?

Well, the stage we're at is that we're developing those delivery plans. So, I think, in 12 months' time, you could ask us whether we've been successful in diverting—because it will be about diverting—the core funding that we have into these, and that's why I go back to that, if there was the ability to use some of the grant regimes that currently come down, but to taper them and to tailor them—

And have more say on how—

—and have more say about those, in line with our priorities locally, then I think that would enable people to come along. The danger is, as we're looking for 4 per cent on an annual basis, practically, for cost improvements, then it's really difficult to pull that in. The business case in terms of the benefit to the organisations has to be very clear.

It occurs to me that what PSBs have been getting up to over the past two years perhaps isn't characteristic of what they will be doing in the future, in that it's conducting a needs assessment and drawing up a plan. Now, that very much needs to be driven by this small group of people, although you involve as many people and consult on the message. As we move into the—. You know, you can say there are three phases, can't you? One is the assessment, the needs assessment, the second is the planning phase, which we're now at, and we've all published plans. We're now entering into the third phase, which is implementation, and all of these issues about who's going to be resourcing what will be addressed as part of that implementation phase. What I've been talking about up to now is how we have been resourcing the first two phases.

Can I just say a word about needs assessments? Because I've been in the public service now in north Wales for quite a number of years, and every time there's a new piece of legislation and every time something changes, we have to do another needs assessment.

Actually, we've done lots and lots of needs assessments over the last, I don't know, 14 years or so, and they're all usually the same. We know we've got lots of old people; we know we've got pockets of poverty and deprivation; we know about the trends within our population. So, there's something for me about not every time something new comes in having to do yet another needs assessment, because it takes enormous amounts of resource and time. And actually there's something that is good, I think, about this, about having that live needs assessment that's a continual needs assessment, not something that we have to do for—. We had to do one for the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, so there's just something there about, 'How many needs assessments do we need in order to tell us what we know?' Because we know our areas pretty well: we know we've got lots of old people, as I say; we know what the pockets of deprivation are; we know what the health issues are, and the jobs and housing issues.

Is there a danger, because it's been led previously so strongly by local government, and you've got your structures within local government and your local authorities, and some strong players in those local authorities, that you may come to a delivery ambition that needs funding, but when you go to that local authority, or to the health board indeed, the players on their own boards—the cabinets or scrutiny committees—might dig their heels in and so you could have problems there? Because everyone's clamouring for the same pot of money, really.

My own feeling is that people will be more inclined to fund stuff where they know there's an output, an outcome and a result, rather than from—

But you're talking about democracy and elected politicians, and they're quite precious about being seen to deliver as well. I just wonder whether you could, you know, throw in a bit of a spanner there.

But that's why we've got to be aligned, and that's why very much the well-being plan has to be aligned with the plans of our organisations. That's why I come back to that question about, 'How do we know that what our partner organisations are doing is aligned to what the PSB priorities are?' That's a big question.

I think your example was a good one: the North Wales Economic Ambition Board. I can't understand why health isn't featuring throughout the whole thread of the agenda there, and it does baffle me.

Okay. We will write to you with further questions because we haven't been able to reach all the questions that we would've liked to have explored this morning. Before we do, just in terms of the designation of responsibility for necessary work and administrative support and so on, does it tend to be a person designated with that responsibility in addition to their existing responsibilities, or do people have just that exclusive role of working for the public services board?

No, it's very much a shared resource, and one we mustn't underestimate. The value being provided is quite significant, but it tends to be for a PSB on co-ordination and secretariat. Going forward—and going back to the point again—there's a delivery phase now; we are relying more upon the broader range of partners. I do fear that we need to—I think it's timely that we are discussing that today in terms of resourcing now for the delivery phase going forward.

There is—sorry, I just want to add—even when you're into the delivery phase, there is still a massive co-ordination job to be done. Now, hopefully, when you identify leads in various organisations, they will do the job, but in order to do a decent job, I think you need to have that additional resource so that all the necessary work is done.

At the moment, people are doing their day job as well.

As well. Yes. Absolutely.

Okay. Well, thank you all very much. Diolch yn fawr for giving evidence today. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in due course. We may well write to you with some further points that you may be able to help us with. Diolch yn fawr.

Thanks. It was really good evidence. Thank you.

Okay. The committee will break briefly for 10 minutes. Please don't leave immediately, though. 

Okay, everybody, welcome back to this meeting of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. We move on to item 4, which is the second evidence session of our inquiry into public services boards in Wales. I'm very pleased to welcome our second panel today. I wonder if you could introduce yourselves for the Record, please, perhaps starting with Kathryn.

Kathryn Peters, corporate policy manager for Caerphilly County Borough Council, representing the leader who also chairs the public services board.

Bore da. Huw Thomas, leader of Cardiff Council. 

Rosemarie Harris—good morning—leader of Powys County Council.

Andrew Davies, chairman of Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board and vice-chair of Swansea public services board.

Chris Sivers, corporate director of people services at Swansea council, representing the leader.

Okay, thanks very much and welcome to committee today. Perhaps we could move straight into questions and start with the structures and functions of PSBs. And perhaps I could begin by asking about the current structure and how sustainable and robust you think it is for the future. A general question to begin with. Who would like to begin?

I'm happy to take the first question and get us started.

Yes, obviously, we've got a relatively new structure with the statutory partners and the invited partners, so it has extended considerably from the former local service board. It is functioning very well and I think that fresh membership on the board has been beneficial. We did invite those members prior to April 2016, so by the time we came to 1 April, they were already around the table. Subsequently, there was the addition of Public Health Wales to the membership of the public services board, and I think having that broader public services context has assisted. 

In terms of sustainability, we have very good engagement and attendance at senior level at the public services board, so I don't see any difficulties with that, going forward.

Right, okay. Would anybody like to add to that? Andrew?

We have very complex governance arrangements now, following the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, but also the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. We have a regional partnership board with the social services Act and obviously PSBs. In our case, with the local authority, particularly, as partners, you'll be aware that there's an in-principle or intention for Bridgend County Borough Council to move into Cwm Taf. So, we've had discussions with local authorities in particular about whether there is an opportunity to simplify the arrangements and have a closer link between the regional partnership board on the one hand and the public services board, but it is very complex. What I would say is that it does take a substantial amount of senior management time and commitment from all of the partners in order to service effectively the PSB and the regional partnership board.

The other thing I'd say is, maybe it's because of the timetable set down by the Act, but a lot of the initial work has been in terms of doing the well-being assessment and then drawing up well-being plans, and that has been very, very time-consuming work. In particular, I know that for Chris and the executive directors it has been quite a burden. So, a lot of that focus has been on that, maybe more than on developing the partnerships.

Just on those points, Andrew, within the legislative constraints and the complexities you mentioned, do you believe it'll be possible for you to achieve that simplification that you're seeking?

My own view and the view of the health board very strongly is that if Ministers do make the decision for Bridgend county borough to move into Cwm Taf, then that does present us with a unique opportunity, obviously—it may not be open to other partners in other PSBs—to have a root-and-branch review of the governance arrangements and to simplify. Certainly, as a health board, we're very committed to doing that.

In terms of the assessment, which as you said was time-consuming and consuming of energy and staff resource, was it nonetheless worth while? Did it produce something new that you didn't previously know?

It just confirmed how difficult partnership working is, and you've got to be really committed and you've got to be focused on it. But it is not something, as you'll know from the Beecham report and the various other previous reports in Wales, that you achieve overnight; it does take a long time for partnership thinking and operation to be embedded.

Yes, okay. Anybody? Chris? No. Huw.

Just in terms of when you're considering the robustness and sustainability of the PSB, I think you need to assess what it is actually there to do, because if it's doing what it's there to do, then that by definition will maintain its sustainability. I think it's a significant improvement on the previous voluntary LSBs, particularly because there is now a political dimension, a political involvement, and the issues get dealt with at a more senior level within respective organisations.

I think what's critical is that there is a mandate for delivering a particular agenda within PSBs, but it depends on how each PSB operates. So, in Cardiff, for example, the well-being plan that we've developed there is very much aligned to a document called 'Capital Ambition', which, in effect, was the programme for government for my administration in the council. So, as far as I'm concerned, there is a strong political mandate, a read-across from the programme for government that we put in place for the council to the well-being plan and the PSB, recognising that a lot of what we want to achieve in the city cannot be done by the council alone and needs to be done via partnership structures.

It's worth noting, I think, that the PSB is just one of those partnership structures. There are lots of other elements of what we want to deliver in Cardiff that are being delivered outside of the PSB, but certainly, as a forum for giving a focus to some of the particularly sticky issues that require a multiservice response, I think the PSB is very effective and, therefore, it is robust. I think there is a sustainability of why we need it. I suspect you'll come on to ask us about resourcing it, and that's a different question.

Yes, we'll come on to that later, Huw. Rosemarie.

The trouble is when you get to this stage of speaking, when you're the last person to speak, everybody else has said what you were going to say, really, but I will just agree with what has been said there—obviously points that relate to all of us.

What I would say about Powys is that it is a vast area and we spend a lot of time on the road anyway. It can be quite difficult getting everybody to a meeting. That said, we do it, but we tend to ask senior leaders to be there and, sometimes, that can be a pressure. Similarly, we've worked on the well-being plan until now. That has worked very well. We are actually quite used to partnership working, particularly with the health board, so it certainly can be done.

I think the plans for the future will test us all. We have some quite interesting plans. We've shared out different work streams to look at where we can work in terms of going forward on projects, going forward, and I think keeping that all together may challenge us all. But I like the structure of the PSB, I like the fact that we're all in the same room, the same environment, from time to time, and we are able to discuss the issues that challenge us all. So I'm thinking positively going forward.

Okay. Well, thanks for that. Just in terms of—. I'll bring Siân Gwenllian in in just a second, or just a minute, but in terms of the LSBs, then, obviously they were a voluntary arrangement. Now it's a statutory matter. You mentioned, Huw, that there has been progress as you see it. Is that the general view? Has putting matters on a statutory footing made a significant difference?

What I would add to that is the fact of having political leadership around the PSB, whereas previously the LSB was officer led. So, I think there is a stronger sense of democratic accountability there, which I think is important from the citizen perspective. But also, even from an officer's perspective, the PSB delivery board, at least in Cardiff—I don't know about elsewhere—is chaired by the chief executive of the local authority. So there is a level of seniority there that can get things done.

Would that be the general view—that it's been a significant step forward?

I wasn't involved in the LSB, but we've taken a very different approach as a health board. I'm on each of the three public services boards, for example, that we're partners in, so there's much more—. Because I felt there was a danger that the old LSB didn't really have senior enough representation, so I think we've taken a very different approach now, partly because it's statutory, but also because we see the PSB is really important in helping to deliver our objectives as an organisation.

Okay, fine. If that's the general view, that's fine. Siân Gwenllian.

Can I apologise? I didn't hear the beginning of that question.

I'm looking at the complexity of the situation, really, about the different levels and different partnership boards doing different things all over the place. I was just looking at the north Wales one, for example. Is that sustainable and are these new boards now a way of thinking that we can move away from some of them and bring some of the functions together into these new boards?

It is a possibility and it is something that I've considered before. I think there is a risk of duplication, but I think we all have to work together. Let's face it, a lot of us are the same people who serve on some of these boards anyway. So, I think that if one board is perhaps pursuing an issue on housing, then another one has to be looking at something like transport. I think it is possible, but we certainly will need to work together. So far, the boards in Powys are working very well—the multi-agency boards, shall we call them. I think where it becomes very complicated is that, sometimes the size of these boards, they get to be—. We've got a regional partnership board as well and it's far too big. There are far too many contributions coming in from many areas. But I think it is possible to share the work out, if we were sensible about it. But I think really that's where, perhaps, the county council has to be the lead body so that there is at least one lead body that knows exactly what's going on everywhere.

Okay, thanks for that. Andrew.

I'm not sure which category I come under, official or politician. [Laughter.] But as I've indicated, I think there is an issue around complexity. I don't know if you'll be taking evidence from Cwm Taf health board, but they've addressed the issue where they cover two local authority areas at the moment—obviously there will be three, depending on the Minister's decision in the future. What they've done there is their regional partnership board is effectively their health and well-being committee or partner, which reports to, I believe, the public services board. So, it seems a clearer and more coherent approach, and clearer in terms of governance and accountability, and I think there's a lot of merit in that approach.

We did hear from Cwm Taf earlier, actually, in a previous session, and we're going to get more information from them on those arrangements. Jenny.

I just wondered why, if that looks good in Cwm Taf, your area PSB hasn't considered doing exactly the same.

As I said, depending on the decision by Ministers about the future of Bridgend County Borough Council and where that sits—

But the principle of having the regional partnership board report to the PSB—why is that not a possible solution?

That is being considered. We're in the early discussions with the leaders of the local authorities and cabinet members. That is certainly an ambition—to explore that as a model to simplify the structures.

Okay. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you. Good morning. What additional responsibilities are there on PSBs now, in comparison to LSBs, and how does this impact the work of local authorities and their partners? I know you've mentioned that it's on a statutory footing now, but what extra responsibilities would you say you've taken on, as a result of that statutory—?

It's producing a well-being assessment and a well-being plan—it's that.

But also, we've heard earlier evidence today where it does appear that, when legislation is passed through here, it then ultimately falls on the back of local authorities, health boards, the social care and well-being Act, and we talked about needs assessments. So, all those are extra responsibilities that would not have come before an LSB—am I right?

I think there are two elements to your question. Is there legislation passed, including this one, that puts additional burdens on public services that aren't necessarily funded? Yes. Is the PSB a good thing despite that? I would say that the PSB is an example of legislation that is, because of the convening role, backed by statute, that it gives to bring the public service partners and the non-statutory partners as well together to look at the issues that are faced within the area. So, I do think it has merit and I think it's something that should be being done anyway. I think the legislation is welcome in allowing us to do that, but I think, in terms of the resourcing of it, we've had the £25,000—well, that doesn't even fund a deputy clerk. So, it's a help, it's something, but it's not commensurate with the amount of effort that, frankly, the local authority in every case has to step up to provide in terms of secretariat, in terms of policy.

We'll come onto resourcing in due course, Huw, but we'll stick to structures and functions at the moment.

Just to say that, as well as the well-being plan and the well-being assessment, there has been a change of focus. Obviously, we've got to take account of the sustainable development principles. So, in terms of drafting the well-being plan, and throughout the assessment process, that was a significant draw on resource, particularly the involvement issue. So, having to engage with communities, which we did extensively, involving our partners—to do that was a significant amount of effort to make sure that we were engaging properly. So, that was additional. We know that we're going to have to produce an annual report, and, obviously, the public services board is now subject to scrutiny, so that is a completely different regime to the previous voluntary board, and it's something that we're building up to, and we're working on our performance accountability frameworks to make sure that we can do that properly.

Can I just ask two questions? (1) Is it all local government led across all the boards, do you feel? (2) Do you have a good mix of statutory and non-statutory—you know, like voluntary bodies—on all your boards? Yes? Everyone's agreeing.

We certainly do, and we've got some of our voluntary sector partners leading objectives for the collective, for the partnership, which is great and helpful. I suppose I'd agree with what colleagues said earlier. One of the things we found particularly challenging, having gone through the process of the assessment and developing the plan, now we're getting to a point about delivery, and one of the issues that's coming up consistently is about how we get a collective view. You know, we're always approached for, 'Can the PSB comment on this?' or 'Can you comment on this behalf of the PSB?' And I suppose it is a challenge to actually get a collective view on every single issue that we were approached about. We simply don't have the time to be able to do that in all cases. We do have partnership arrangements in place at a variety of levels. All of that is great, but, actually, the effort of coming to a single public sector view takes a lot of effort. We don't always get it right, as I'm sure you can appreciate, and, sometimes, that means other barriers are put in place when we don't actually get that right in that communication. But, trying to get everybody to a single view is going to be virtually impossible, and yet, to try and say, 'Can anyone speak on behalf of the public services board?', that's a really tricky balance to get right for us.

Can I just add one point as well? It's in terms of the bodies on the PSB, which I think was part of your question. One of the areas of weakness, I would say, is in the non-devolved public services. So, for example, I would feel strongly that the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, would have a strong contribution to make, and if we can better align what they're doing with what we are doing, that would be to the benefit of citizens. But, because it's outside the core framework, they're not even one of the statutory invitees. 

I would agree with that, although there's always a danger of boards becoming too big and unwieldy. But I think, if we are really to do the best for our residents—. You know, in my area, we have the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority on there, but we don't have RSLs, and I think a voice from RSLs would probably be quite useful. Likewise, in the area that I represent, it would be quite good to have the army there. There won't be anything to stop us doing that, but it just becomes rather big and unwieldy. And maybe there are ways of doing it—maybe just call people in for the occasional meeting. That should be possible.

And then how do PSBs work in parallel to, and in conjunction with, regional partnerships such as the regional partnership boards and city deals?

In relation to that, Caerphilly County Borough Council is obviously within the Gwent area, so there are five local authorities making up the regional partnership board for the social services and well-being Act. We've been very careful to work with partners who are responsible for the population assessment and the area plan to make sure that we've got a read-across all of the five public services boards' well-being plans and the single area plan, to make sure there is consistency across the two, that we're not duplicating anything, that the language is consistent, and that we've got a set of actions that are for people who need care and support, and then a set of actions that are complementing those for the wider population in terms of preventative issues. So, they should all feed each other.

Do you find it complex?

It is complex. It's particularly complex in the Gwent area, as I said, because we've got five local authorities and one regional arrangement. And, as my colleague said, likewise with some of the other boards—so, the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence board is regional, and the area planning board is regional. So, there are quite significant community safety responsibilities that are held regionally, and also local responsibilities. So, making sense of all that is sometimes difficult. 

Can I just ask—?

Yes, sure, Siân.

—whether Caerphilly did discuss going in with another local authority like Conwy and Denbigh, and Gwynedd and Môn?

It has been discussed at a senior officer group in Gwent. Local government reorganisation has tended to put those discussions on hold, pending whatever the outcome of that is or may be, but it is something that is constantly being discussed because it would potentially alleviate some of the complexity if that could happen.

It might be wise to get on with it rather than waiting for local government reorganisation, I think. [Laughter.]

In relation to city deals—you were asking about that—the objectives of the two bodies are clearly interlinked in terms of raising outcomes for people, but they do work in isolation, frankly. That partly reflects what the PSB is there to do, and partly reflects the fact you have several PSBs operating across different footprints. So, Cardiff's PSB is Cardiff only. I know there are other PSBs within the city deal region that are cross local authority boundary, but it's important that you understand that the PSB is focused around how public services are being delivered within a specific area; the city deal has its own set of economically-led objectives. Now, obviously, if they are successful, then they will contribute to the well-being outcomes that the PSBs are seeking to address. The point's been made it's often some of the same people, certainly from the political side, who are sitting on—

We're shaking our heads—we just see this complexity, and we're both from a local government background, and we remember how it was. But whether we've moved on from then—I'm not sure we have.

I can only say my lived experience of it is it's reasonably straightforward. [Laughter.] What is different—. Where you need the complexity to be more straightforward is from the citizen perspective. Certainly, in the past, in Cardiff until a few years ago there was something like 40 into work schemes running across the city. So, with reform and with better working through public service partners, those schemes are being condensed. So, you don't have this postcode lottery, you don't have a variety of different routes where you can access education or access skills. So, the complexity for the citizen is being addressed. But, certainly for me personally, and it might be different because of the particular structures we have where I'm at, I don't think the complexity is overburdening.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Andrew.

I think it would be difficult to argue that it isn't complex, but it's whether it needs to be complicated, if I can make the distinction. What I would say, because I'm on the shadow committee of the city deal, is that partly it's about making sure you get senior representation at all the relevant partnerships, but I'd make the point about culture, about that partnership is long-term work. We've been dealing with setting up public services boards and, for example, the city deal in a very, very short space of time. The timescale has concentrated minds, but I think it's inevitable that it's going to need a long time in which to embed that joint working. We are where we are and, in terms of the timescales, given how these bodies were set up, partly because of legislation in the case of the city deal, because of the opportunity of UK and Welsh Government funding—but, nevertheless, the true value of partnerships will only be delivered over a long time and you embed that culture of partnership.

I find it is quite complex. Our growth deal is a potential growth deal; we haven't quite got there yet. Ours is the mid Wales deal, jointly with Ceredigion, and of course although it would appear that in local government reorganisation Powys may remain as it is, Ceredigion is looking back towards the old Dyfed. So, I do actually have a concern about that. That said, we meet jointly as two cabinets, Ceredigion and us, and we each have our own PSBs. We actually are going to meet jointly with Pembrokeshire, just to work through what we each do as PSBs and what we have planned for the future. I don't know yet what may come out of that, but it'll be quite interesting.

Okay. Are any of you renewing membership at the moment and, if so, to what purpose? No.

We're not exactly renewing membership, but we are reviewing our governance arrangements. I think Andrew spoke about that earlier. We've got a paper coming to our next meeting that would include more about how do we operate and have we got the right people to deliver those objectives. Therefore, that would imply a review of membership. But we haven't gone back out to everyone and said, 'Do you want to be a part of this?' We've got the two groups at the moment, the one that is the core group, which is the decision-making body of the statutory and invited partners, and a wider partnership group, which is much, much wider, including other cabinet members, national, regional bodies, and others. So, we've got those two arrangements, which have at times been complex, but, at the risk of being inclusive, we wanted to make sure we had a mechanism, really, for engaging with a wider group of people than just the core, decision-making bodies.

Okay. Kathryn.

I think, similar to our colleague, yes, we are doing the same thing in terms of, as we move into the delivery phases now, making sure that we've got the right people involved in delivering the well-being objectives. So, at a tier below the public services board, that delivery cohort is extending to make sure that we've got the right people around the table. So, I think it's very similar.  

Okay. Are there issues in terms of how the workload is shared between partners? Are there any mechanisms that you use to allocate that work?

I think there may be problems going forward. For instance, we've just established a scrutiny group and we found that some of the component bodies did not want to send someone to be a part of that group. So, I do feel that everything falls back on the local authority, really, and I think that, as local authorities, we are happy to take the lead but there must be shared work. We've tried very hard. We are now past doing the well-being plan, and we've tried very hard to share out work streams. So, we are, you know, at a fairly early stage, so we'll have to see how that goes, but, when there's one body in the lead, it's very easy for others to step back. 

Yes. Okay, well, you mentioned scrutiny, Rosemary, and I know that Jenny has some questions—Jenny Rathbone.

So, on scrutiny, are the scrutiny mechanisms fit for purpose, given that PSBs are obviously multi-agency and the scrutiny panels of local authorities are made up of elected representatives? What's your experience so far of scrutiny in these early days?

I think, from our perspective, it's in development. They, so far, have been looking at the assessment and then the development of the plan. I think that the real issue is going to come when it comes to the delivery, and scrutinising delivery. That's going to be far more complex. We've similar challenges to previous colleagues, in the sense of making sure that we've got the wider representation, so it's not just local authority scrutiny members, but that we've got people from other bodies as part of those committees as well. 

We've had some success in some areas, and not so much in other areas. So, it doesn't feel quite balanced in terms of the membership of the scrutiny committees and how they're scrutinising. But it's such early days, I think, from my perspective, that actually it will become much more important as we go along the next stages in terms of delivery. 

I think that's a really good question, Jenny. Up to a point, I think the scrutiny is right within the bounds of scrutinising the well-being plan, albeit my experience of that was that it was not too dissimilar to the experience of them scrutinising our corporate plan. So, it was very much looked at within a local government context and that's inevitable, I think, because it's a scrutiny committee of local government politicians. I think that the nub of your question is: does that scrutiny have the means to really hold some of the other bodies around the table to account—particularly in terms of the health board, particularly in terms of the police? And, demonstrably, it doesn't.

So, I think that if the well-being objectives aren't delivered down the line, let's say, the only organisation that can be beaten by the stick of scrutiny is the local authority. So, I think it's appropriate to look at who else can be brought into the scrutiny process to also make sure that there is a carrot and stick for some of the other public service bodies on the PSB. That's not to say anything about how they're approaching collaboration and working on the well-being plan, but that's the concern I would have about the suitability of scrutiny.     

Okay. I mean, obviously, the issue that arises is whether the level of scrutiny is sufficient to pick up some of the other issues that we've already discussed around the overlap between regional partnership boards and PSBs, and ensuring that the PSB is fit for purpose and we're not duplicating effort, really.

Andrew, did you want to come in?

Yes. I think you need to look at holding people to account in a much wider sense. When you have a partnership, you have a distributed accountability system. Obviously, scrutiny in the local authority scrutiny process is an important element, but it's only one amongst many. And I think that that's the benefit of having PSBs on a statutory basis. Certainly, from our health board perspective, it's how we embed the reporting and holding to account of our operation and the other partners in terms of the well-being plan. So, I would hope that when we were discussing the review of governance that that will include the accountability mechanisms. Obviously, scrutiny committee is an important element, but it's only one amongst many. 

Okay, fine. Moving on—. Sorry, did you want to come in?

I just wanted to know what else—

I think there is a danger that we only see accountability in terms of democratic bodies. In fact, governance, robust governance, is based on accountability and I would say that health boards, in many ways, are held to account in a much more rigorous way than just through the democratic process. Obviously, we are accountable to Ministers in Government, but we're also—. Within our own governance arrangements within the health board, we—. We have accountability to professional bodies, but also, within our own governance arrangements, in terms of a board and committees. It's making sure that the actions of the public services board are transparent, reporting mechanisms are transparent and also we're able to hold, collectively, people to account for the delivery of well-being objectives.

Would you see any possibility of citizen-led accountability in scrutiny, then, in the future? 

I think that's a really important question. How that is to be done, I think, will be a big challenge, but, certainly as someone who established the citizen-centred governance principles in Wales, I would be really interested in exploring how that can be done effectively.

Jenny, are you—?

Just finally on this, the earlier panel told us about the involvement of Welsh Government and that's a sort of two-way scrutiny, really. And I just wondered if you also have a representative of the Welsh Government at your PSBs.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, fine. I think, moving on, because looking at the time—. I wanted to get some understanding of how member organisations are changing their way of working to ensure that we're doing things differently rather than duplicating effort, given that £25,000, as Huw has already mentioned, doesn't even pay for the full cost of the clerk, but that's not what public services boards are about; that's not what the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is about. So, how successful do you think your organisations have been in ensuring that we're integrating and in partnership we're doing things differently and more effectively? 

So, we're on to resource and capacity, really, aren't we, and what changes are being made and are necessary.  

The first point to make, I think, is that the sustainability and, ultimately, the resourcing of PSBs falls on, or relies on, the sustainability of the organisations that form part of them. If public sector austerity continues as it's projected to do, then these organisations become less and less sustainable, particularly smaller organisations. So, I think that concern needs to be parked front and centre.

I think in terms of how we are changing in response to the Act, what I am most pleased about, I think, is how there is a golden thread that runs through the council's corporate plan and through the council's delivery plans but that same golden thread runs through the well-being plan and, therefore, in consequence, through the delivery plans of the other organisations. And I think that the PSB has helped bring an unity of purpose, I think, to what these different bodies are trying to achieve within a particular geographical area, and in Cardiff, at least, I'm particularly happy, because we've been able to shape that and aligned with what we want to deliver as an administration.

I think it's also worth saying—. Huw mentioned austerity. I think austerity has brought everyone to the table, really. We need to work together. We have to work together. But, perhaps for the wrong reasons, there, really, a lot of things can be driven by austerity, and I find that there is much more of a willingness to work together these days. That said, there's been a certain amount of restructuring in many bodies now, because of austerity. There have been a lot of staff who've been shed, and I think that that will stretch things as well.

I think the crunch always comes when it comes to the pooling of budgets, and pooling the budgets to deliver specific projects, and, let's be honest, partners have not always been forthcoming to pool budgets. There's a good example, for example, around delayed transfers of care, where Cardiff, for example, has put in significant investment, reaped the rewards in terms of reducing the number of delayed transfers of care, improved outcomes for patients—a saving for the health board but not necessarily a saving for local authorities. The PSB does give a statutory forum for those issues to be talked through and worked out, and I think that's a positive.

Okay. Andrew.

I keep coming back to the issue around culture. Clearly, the Act's intention is that it's about a different way of working. In the early days, I'd often hear this comment made: 'We're doing this work for the PSB on top of our day job.' And I kept saying, 'This is the day job.' I don't think we've made that cultural shift yet. Peter Drucker, the management writer, said:

'Culture eats strategy for breakfast.'

You could probably now say, 'Culture eats policy for breakfast', and that is the big challenge. It's about changing the way we all work and, that, inevitably, is going to take time.

If I can just share an additional comment on that. Andrew is absolutely right. That is an agreement across our partnership where our focus really needs to be, in terms of developing different ways of working, being able to disagree with one another, and being able to resolve those disagreements together, because we're never going to agree on everything anyway. We've developed a programme of learning about one another's organisations, which we've called Walking in our Shoes. So, each of the bodies would hold a day where we all go and spend a day with the fire and rescue service, with the council, or whoever, to learn more about the pressures, challenges, successes and what that looks like, and, indeed, the culture of different organisations, to give us a better sense of how we might be able to work together and what the options might be. 

Specifically, in terms of your question, one of the things that we've done—I wouldn't say we're there yet, but we're working towards it—is around changing our engagement, both with one another and with citizens, increasingly to seek to speak with one voice as a single public sector body, at least on the areas where we can do, and having a set of key messages that we repeat, together, all of us, to try and get that step change in terms of both our own cultures but also the culture of the communities that we're serving. And two examples of that: one was about our well-being plan, and what we sought to do was translate a set of key messages from each of our organisations to our own citizens and service users, but the same set of messages went out. So, it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's moving away from seeing this a council-led body to a body that has a set of responsibilities for all the organisations, and therefore we have to change our concept of leadership, which is much more about a collective concept of leadership.

And a second example of where we've done that quite successfully, and it's a piece of work that Andrew's personally led, is around our best start in life. So, we've got a set of common messages about how we're going to work with parents and the kind of key things for them to be thinking about, as well as health visitors, teachers et cetera. Everybody involved in that agenda will say the same common 10 messages, and obviously there's a lot of evidence from Marmot and the others that that kind of approach really gets through to culture change and behaviour change. So, I think that's one of the things that we would highlight as a potential success. We're not there yet, but it's something we can see a real benefit from.

Okay. And in Caerphilly, have you been successful in ensuring that everybody's singing from the same hymn sheet?

Yes, in a similar way to Cardiff, we've ensured that the corporate well-being objectives have been informed by the well-being assessment. They've taken account of the PSB's well-being objectives and the well-being objectives of other organisations as well. So, with the way in which we're working, there should be a coherent set of objectives that are improving well-being across the county borough area. 

Going back to whether member organisations are working differently, I think that collaborative focus is altering. So, just to use an example, just getting those people in a room together, looking at public sector assets and sharing public sector assets is something that is being developed from the well-being plan. It's certainly something that came from our community engagement as well, so we've got a strand around that, particularly on the carbon-neutral public sector. So, we are looking at that together, looking at those things together now, which is different to what we would have done before.

Very good. And how have you used the £25,000 that came with some conditions attached that the Welsh Government offered?

For us in Gwent, we've taken the opportunity to pool. So, across the five authorities and five public services boards, we do work very closely together. We are ensuring we are identifying regional objectives, and things are being taken forward regionally. We've pooled our money over the last few years. In the last financial year, we used it to develop a futures assessment for the Gwent area, so we commissioned academics to produce that document for us, and that's come up with a really worthwhile piece of work that we are intending to share with the city deal as well. 

The other thing that we did was work on the Happiness Pulse that is now being taken forward as the thriving places index for Wales. Again, we commissioned out to a third sector provider to do that, but that was about measuring people's perceptions of well-being—so people within our communities, how they feel about where they live and what conditions they feel they need to thrive in the future. So, we've used it quite extensively but, by pooling it, we've been able to use larger amounts of money to do some real commissioning.

Okay, very good.

Maybe it would be an idea for all the organisations involved to contribute a small amount to a pool, because, at the end of the day, we can all say that we want to work together—and indeed we do, and we need to—but somebody has to take the lead, somebody has to take that co-ordinating role, somebody has to deal with all the public engagement. I think it would probably be a healthy situation going forward if we had some sort of a pooled budget. It need only be a reasonably small amount from each body involved. I think it perhaps would focus our thinking.

Okay. Janet Finch-Saunders.

There's been a lot coming forward, prior to your evidence session, that, in the past, and it continues to be the case, the weight falls very heavily on local government. Is that a fair assessment?

Yes, it is.

Well, there are four people around you—[Laughter.]

I think some of it—. Certainly, that's the way it appears to us, that's absolutely true. We've got good evidence of that and I could quote some figures at you, but I won't because that's not what this is about and it certainly doesn't approach it in the spirit of partnership. The pressures we don't see are on the executive leaders of other organisations and the time that that takes out from their organisation in terms of attending multiple meetings. So, as Andrew said, he's personally involved in three, and our Natural Resources Wales colleagues are involved in many, many multiple meetings, and it's not been a way of working, for some of the partners around the table, that they're used to. As a local authority, we hold partnerships all the time. That's some of the core business that we do, and so some of the kind of read through the organisations, from the executive level to the front-line level, has been quite challenging for some of us, and we don't see that. We see what the money is on the bottom line; we don't see the pressures on the other organisations. Hence that kind of cultural issue about how we understand one another better.

I think it's a challenge that local government is happy and willing to take on though, albeit in the context that we want more funding to do it. But we are held democratically far more accountable for the outcomes within our areas then pretty much every other body on the PSB, so it's within our interest to get those other partners to help deliver what we want to deliver. So, within that, I think local government is, by and large, happy to shoulder the burden of convening these partners.

Yes, because you have to go back, at the end of the day, to your local authority full of strong elected characters in terms of elected politicians. If you had a particular strategic aim or a particular project that you're working on, you've then got to go back, haven't you, and sort of say—?

Well, I have to go back to the people, you know. You were asking, Jenny, about how we used the £25,000 that we had. Well, one of the ways we used it was to commission some fairly in-depth research on some particular communities. So, for example, Ely and Caerau in the west of the city—one of the biggest council estates in the UK—. The interventions that we have to make in those kinds of areas to achieve the change I want to see in terms of their life outcomes require buy-in from all the public sector partners. If I can deliver that then that's a far easier thing for me to go back in five years' time on the doorstep and say, 'We've improved lives in this community by doing x.' 

But there is clearly an issue about this, about leadership and who takes the leadership. Is it the local authorities? That's your argument, and I can concur with that because of the democratic—. But that is not the argument that we're hearing coming from you. So, there seems to be a bit of an issue here around partnership—who is leading the partnership work, and it may be different in different areas.

I think it's worth reflecting as well, if you were to go back 20 or 30 years, a number of the functions being delivered by different organisations, representative of the PSBs, were actually being delivered by local government. I think the fact that you almost had to have a PSB reflects the denuding of local government now that has taken place over the last 30 years. There is local government organisation reform hanging over us, and perhaps if the Cabinet Secretary is serious about stronger local government, then that is an area that we can look at: how you transfer some powers back into local government where you then have that local government political accountability as well.

I've got an answer.

Good.

I think you have to distinguish the different stages of this process. As I emphasised at the beginning, the very first part of the process, the establishment of PSBs, was around establishing a partnership. It was undertaking the well-being assessments and developing the well-being plan, and I absolutely accept that, in our case, the bulk of that responsibility, or burden, fell on the local authorities. But Chris, I thought, made the important point: where it comes to actually service delivery and changing the way you do deliver services, she made reference to the best start in life. We have an existing partnership because Swansea is part of the Healthy Cities network, and that partnership has already been going for some time. So, we're able to build on that. I see that the next stage, in terms of delivering the objectives of the well-being goals will be an opportunity for much more shared responsibility than maybe has been the case in the early days. So, I accept the criticism, but I would also say what Chris said: that we have the same executives in our organisation who are dealing with three PSB and one regional partnership board at a time when, as an organisation, like all health organisations, we're under a great huge scrutiny on our performance.

Okay. Siân, shall we move on to some of the issues around innovation and good practice?

Who's going to start?

It's obviously important to do so. There are a number of mechanisms that we use to do that. The future generations commissioner's office is quite key in allowing us to share best practice and is very good at putting out those best practice messages, facilitating a number of events, which officers at my level—so, the PSB co-ordinators that support the public services boards—along with the members, can attend, can share best practice and understand what's going on across Wales. Similarly, the Wales Audit Office best practice events have been really useful in enabling us to do that. At a co-ordinators' level, the Welsh Government facilitates a PSB co-ordinators' network as well, so we're able to tap into that. We come together quite regularly, at least quarterly, to discuss what's going on across the 19 public services boards across Wales. If there's best practice in north Wales that we can adopt, then we will pick up on that and take that best practice into our public services board. So, I think those opportunities are there. Most of these events are open to senior members of the public services board as well.

I would just add to that and try and build on it. Obviously, the Welsh Local Government Association has a role in terms of allowing local authorities to discuss and share best practice. It has struck me, when you look at the role of commissioner to be the assessor of well-being plans—it strikes me that there must have been commonalities and common themes emerging from those well-being plans. Is there not a role also for the commissioner's office to be responding to the commonalities between those plans and informing Government—Welsh Government, that is—of the shared issues, so that policy can be formulated at a national level as well in response to some of those shared issues, rather than just being a piecemeal response, in turn, to each individual well-being plan? 

But hasn't the Government representative on your board got a role to do that? Do you have a Welsh Government representative?

We do. 

Surely, that's part of the role of that person as well: to convey the messages back and forth.

Yes. But I would think that that's a strong role that the commissioner's office, with the capacity that they have within that office, could also be doing as well.

Can I just say, I find the input of the Welsh Government representative who comes to us quite interesting, because he attends several PSBs and he's able to share quite a lot of information with us? That's quite a useful thing. But, as I said earlier, we plan to meet with Pembrokeshire PSB. And the reason that we're looking at Pembrokeshire is because we share a police force—Dyfed-Powys Police—and we share some health functions with Hywel Dda health board. We thought it would be good to have that joint—. And we're both quite rural authorities.

On that issue, I'm one of the rural affairs spokesmen for the WLGA for Wales, and I chaired a meeting yesterday in Llandrindod, and we're drawing up a paper—the WLGA are drawing up a paper—on the various issues that affect rural areas: transport, access to services generally. I would like to see those findings shared with all the PSBs, because all of us have some rural areas, anyway, and, as I said, we meet as a joint cabinet with Ceredigion, and the PSB will be on the agenda there.

Andrew.

I made the point about the burden on executives in terms of managing the partnerships. The other point I'd make is about engagement. For example, we've just gone through a major engagement with partners around the future of major trauma services in south Wales, and that's just one service change, and, along with the community health council, we undertake quite an extensive engagement process. I think everybody realises that, in the digital age, the way in which we engage with citizens needs a radical overhaul. That's why I was intrigued, Chair, by your question around citizen-centredness. I think, as a result, we're reviewing our strategic communications, because we think we need to have more of a conversation with citizens, rather than the traditional rather clunky way in which public services traditionally consult citizens about the future of their services. So, I think digital technology allows you to do that in a way, rather than public services basically deciding a proposal and then asking people what they think about it. I think it's much more about an ongoing conversation and engagement rather than traditional methods.

Okay, and Jenny.

Yes. Just following up on that, obviously, health services have the benefit of the philosophy of prudent healthcare, where we only do what we have to do, but we also engage with our citizens. So, I just wondered how that way of working and engaging with citizens is embedded into the public services boards. For example, in Ely, in Caerau, we're not going to be able to transform our communities unless we've got our communities engaged. So, I just wondered, you know, changing the culture, how well have you offered the best of the way of working within your organisations to change that culture?

I think it's very early days. I think there's a huge opportunity for improving the way we do that, but I think the will is there to explore what those methods might be.

Just one small example if I can, and it is small, but, going through our joint consultation process, both in terms of the assessment and then the plan, we learned a lot from how the health board works with patients and carers, and in particular around some of the disabled groups, lobby groups, carers' groups, things like that. Now, we do do quite a lot of that work as a local authority. What we haven't done is on the wider piece as a partnership. One of the things that was highlighted for us was the challenge around the production of Easy Read. So, you asked a question earlier about how we've made use of some of the funding from Welsh Government, and part of that was to train up some of our staff in developing Easy Read and other ways of working with particular groups with disabilities. So, that's something that we've learnt and shared from the health board, but tried to spread some of that learning across all of the organisations that are working together. It's a very small example, but it is one way. 

But it's important, though. 

Yes.

I think also there are other ways of, not necessarily consulting, but informing the public. We've just agreed to make the minutes of our meetings public, and we did a trawl around Wales to find out who else was doing that and there were very few PSBs—. I suppose it's because it's early days and we've been developing the well-being plans, but there weren't many that were making the minutes public. And also I think we can take the meetings around to different locations and let people know that we are there—you know, go to the public, rather than expect them to come to us.

Yes, it's interesting in terms of that sort of openness, because I think quite a lot of, not just individuals, but organisations, seem to be wondering what the PSBs are doing. So, obviously, they're not as aware and informed as they might be. So, I guess there are issues there, I'm sure.

I'm not sure many people are wondering what the PSBs are doing. I'm sure most people don't even know that PSBs exist, frankly. But I think that's okay, up to a point. If the PSBs are delivering better outcomes for them, that's what ultimately matters. So, on the statutory consultation on the well-being plan, we obviously did it the traditional way, but we also looked at doing electronic surveys, promoted via Twitter, via Facebook. We also held focus groups in some of those harder-to-reach communities, making sure that seldom-heard groups were being heard, including in Caerau and Ely. So, where possible, and where the funding allows, you try and get into those areas that don't understand and don't have a conception of what is going on around them. But it's an imperfect system, and you will never get to the point where you reach everyone. We are going through the same exercise now on a Green Paper on air quality in the city, and there are variances within the city in how many people respond, by geographic area and by socioeconomic background. But, if the council or the PSB puts the focus in, at least you can ensure that, as a broad survey, you are getting an accurate picture of all your communities, and that's what we've tried to do in the well-being engagement consultation.

But surely transparency is important.

Yes.

So, you will be publishing your minutes.

Truthfully, I'm not sure if we do, but I've got no issue with—. I've got no issue with publishing them. I'm not sure there will be particularly lots of people in Cardiff desperate to read them, frankly. I don't think that's the way politics works. 

No, but it's a transparency issue, isn't it, rather than—

Hopefully, as you move into delivery phase now, people will be considerably more interested.

Well, let's be clear: local government is the most transparent form of government there is. We have to publish every decision we want to take five days in advance. So, you know, there isn't an issue of transparency, I would argue.

No, well, there are the wider issues now with the public services boards, aren't there, and the different partners involved?

They're not local authorities, are they? That's the point.

Just in relation to that point, it was a matter of a report at our public services board on Tuesday, actually, around openness and transparency, driven, actually, by the partnership scrutiny committee, who felt that the board was council-led and wasn't open to the public. Our minutes are available on the public services board website. We've determined that we're going to make greater use of social media, and there's a further report going forward to September as to whether we should make the public services board meetings open to the public.

Okay. We'll have to draw a line there, I'm afraid. Our allotted time has elapsed. Thank you all very much for coming in to give evidence today. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Diolch yn fawr. 

Okay, we now move on to our third panel and Public Health Wales. Dr Sumina Azam—is that the right pronunciation?

It is, yes.

It is. Oh, good. Perhaps I might begin by asking some general questions in terms of the structure and functions of our public services boards and how Public Health Wales relates to those. First of all, then, perhaps you could give us an overview in terms of Public Health Wales's experience of engaging with PSBs across Wales.

Okay. So, PSBs are a really important mechanism for enabling change at a local level. I think of them as an engine and without it change will not happen, I don't think. So, we view engaging with them as being really important. We don't have a seat at the table—we're not a statutory partner—but we can be invited as an organisation. However, there is public health representation at some PSB meetings through, perhaps, the executive director of public health or their representative. But there are other ways that we can engage with PSBs apart from being directly at those meetings. There are frequently sub-groups that support those meetings, and public health colleagues who work in local areas I know provide support to those. So, particularly recently, there was a strong emphasis on the well-being assessments, and I know public health colleagues were working on those really hard with other colleagues locally.

The other way that we work with PSBs is through a range of mechanisms, because they're in demand. We work with other national bodies and we all want the same thing—we all want to work with PSBs and support as much as we can. The way we're trying to do that is through a variety of mechanisms. So, there's a co-ordinators' network and we try and engage with the co-ordinators' network to try and get things on the agenda for PSBs. We also work with our colleagues locally in terms of providing a support network for them, and we work with them as a way of disseminating any key information we think would be useful for them, and I think there are other routes as well. We do work with the future generations commissioner on several topics, so that's one mechanism that we use to support PSBs as well.

Okay, so, from what you say, it would be variable, I guess, then, from one PSB to another. Would you take a view that, if you felt—. I guess first of all it's a matter of whether you'd be in a position to know, and, if so, whether you would feel action by Public Health Wales would be appropriate. So, if any public services board in Wales didn't seem to be engaging in public health issues and perhaps with Public Health Wales or perhaps the local public health member of the local health board, if you felt there was a gap there in a particular public services board—would you be aware of that gap if it existed? And, if you were, would you take any action to try to address that situation?

We have very good links with colleagues who work locally and who link in through PSBs through various mechanisms, and I've not been made aware of a particular PSB where there is a gap. I'm not saying that doesn't exist, but I haven't been made aware of it. Sorry, could you repeat the latter part of your question?

It was twofold, really. Firstly, that issue of whether you'd be aware of any lack of public health input, but, if you were aware of it, is there action that you might take to make sure that there was that connection and relationship and input?

I think that's quite difficult as an organisation, because we're not statutory members of PSBs. However, there are local directors of public health who can seek representation through their health board, so there are other routes for public health, although maybe not Public Health Wales, to be represented at PSBs.

Yes. So, you wouldn't take an overview in that way, really. It would be left more to local public health.

Well, I think the organisation might have a discussion with directors of public health, but apart from that, I wouldn't know.

No. Okay. So, what's your view, then, on the extent to which public services boards have been working differently to the former local service boards? Obviously, they were voluntary; now, it is on a statutory footing. Has that made a significant difference?

That's a very difficult question for me to answer because I'm not involved in PSBs locally. However, I think that PSBs do have—. They're on a statutory footing. There's a lot more in terms of accountability. From experience, I used to work in a local health board in public health a few years ago, and there wasn't that sense of accountability then. So, I think that's a big change.

I think also that there is a sense of real movement with PSBs. I have had a look at well-being assessments and they feel different to previous assessments that were done in local areas. There is still work to be done, but I feel a sense of momentum with the PSBs that I personally hadn't felt with LSBs in the past. But, the degree to which that is happening, I can't answer, because I'm not present at PSBs, I'm afraid.

But, do you have a sense, then, that there are more innovative and creative ways of working now, through the PSBs?

Well, I think they foster that. They certainly do. They bring partners around the table. They provide opportunities and they bring people together that, I think, LSBs didn't. I think they provide an energy that wasn't there before. So, I think it's very positive.

Yes, okay. Would you have a view on their current structure—whether it is sufficiently robust and futureproofed?

I think it's rather early at the moment. I think they've only been in place for roughly a year, and I think they are finding their feet, from what I can see, and they are maturing. As I'm not present at them, the only way I can really answer that question is by reflecting what I've seen in reports, such as from the Wales Audit Office or from the future generations commissioner. They've reflected that change is happening but that there is more to come. So, it's a process, I think.  

Yes, okay. Janet Finch-Saunders.

On resources?

No, on the structures and functions, Janet.

Okay. What about if you could expand on Public Health Wales's support network for health colleagues across Wales, supporting PSBs? Do you know how many, for instance, of your Public Health Wales people feed into boards? Do you get the minutes, for instance, from the public services boards?

We don't ask for minutes. There are 19 of them, and it would be quite a task, I think, to go through them all. But, we have this PSB support network that was set up so that we have a link into all of the PSBs, and it's for our colleagues who work in local public health teams, who in turn support PSBs through one mechanism or other—so, be it either attending PSBs or supporting one of the committees or providing evidence or resources for them. The group is still evolving, and it will continue to evolve according to what we are told our colleagues want.

So, what we've done so far is we've had three workshops spread over the past year and a half to two years. These have been very much directed by what our colleagues locally want. So, the first workshop, for example, focused on data, resources and things that could help well-being assessments, because that was the focus of our colleagues' work then. Our most recent workshop focused on leadership skills required to work in a multi-agency setting.

As public health people, we are well used to working with partners. It's part of our core remit. However, the skills that you require to influence, to negotiate, we all sometimes need a bit of support in that, so we held a support session with regard to skills development. We are also quite keen to provide any resources, to provide signposting to any helpful resources that might be available, and it's also an opportunity for local areas to share what they're doing. Because there are 19 PSBs, they all have very different approaches and it's useful, I think, for local colleagues to be able to understand how different PSBs are approaching issues.

Okay, and then, do you have a view on the well-being plans that have been submitted and whether they will—? Do you assess the plans on an all-Wales level?

I know that the plans have been assessed in detail by the future generations commissioner—

What about you as Public Health Wales?

Yes. I've read that report and I understand what's in that. We've also had a look at the well-being assessments. Some of them are extremely long and detailed—some go into hundreds of pages. We've assessed them in detail with regard to one element. We've looked at what they're looking at in terms of long-term thinking and futures thinking, and how they could be more robust in terms of planning for the long term. So, we have looked at them in detail in that respect.

Okay, thank you.

Can I just ask one question?

Yes, sure.

The obvious question after that is: what did you find? What are your conclusions after looking at them?

It's a really interesting piece of work. PSBs took very different approaches to thinking about the long term. Some used data—. Actually, all of them used data, but not all the data that was available, and some used really interesting techniques of involving local communities and I think they were the most powerful tools, the most powerful way of doing it. Local communities provided really interesting insights about their views of the future and the quotes stick in my mind quite clearly. I think in one of the well-being assessments, one of the people was quoted as saying how they were worried about their community for the future because young people were leaving. And it's things like that that give you real insight into what communities think about their long-term sustainability.

Do you think that the plans are aligned to Public Health Wales, your policy intentions?

They vary hugely. I've had a look at the key themes that have come out of them and, I don't know if it's alignment, but there's a lot of overlap, I'd say, in what we want to achieve and what PSBs want to achieve. So, themes come out, such as adverse childhood experiences—that came up a lot. Early years—that's a theme that came out consistently. Homes, giving people good homes. The very determinants of health that we're also interested in. Those themes came up consistently in many of the well-being assessments, and they are areas that we're very much interested in. 

So, the preventative side.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay. Do you have a view on the way that the statutory and non-statutory bodies work together on the public services boards? Are there any issues there, do you think?

I wouldn't be able to answer that about how bodies work together on PSBs. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to answer that, because I don't attend, and I've not had feedback from colleagues on that issue either.

No? Okay. We'll move on to resource and capacity, and Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. Obviously, some of the priorities identified by public services boards are very much aligned with the public health agenda. So, for example, in Swansea, we heard about the 'best start in life' objective. In Cwm Taf, they've got tackling loneliness and isolation. So, could you just tell us what contribution Public Health Wales is able to make in helping deliver on these very important public health agendas?

Gosh. I think we can contribute in several ways. First of all, I think the key relationship here is our local public health teams who all work within the seven local health boards footprint. They understand their local needs and they're able to identify the key areas for focus and the key areas of work and they work closely with local partners in terms of responding to those issues. So, you brought up loneliness, you brought up early years, and many local public health teams are focusing on that. So, at a local level, there's an awful lot of work happening to take those key issues forward.

At a national level, there's also work going on through various work streams. I know from talking to colleagues that they're very keen that whenever they do work, they share it with colleagues who work locally and with PSBs, through whichever mechanisms we can. So, there's a huge amount of work going on in the early years agenda. My colleague who leads it, I know that she does work with PSBs, and from what I can recall—. Sorry, it's not my area, but from what she's said, they have an offer to PSBs where they provide expertise, support and opportunity for people who work locally to come together and talk about the agenda, whilst Public Health Wales brings in other resources as well.

This is a gift, isn't it, for public health?

Absolutely.

So, how do you think it's changing the way in which public health people work, in order to engage and run with these opportunities?

I absolutely agree it's a gift, and I've called the Act that myself many times. The Act is very much how public health has been thinking for a long time. It's the core of what we are. Sustainable development is what public heath does—

Obviously, you're one of the organisations named in the Act, so how has it changed your way of working?

Well, the way I look at it is we're trying to move from doing simple things first—the basics—and then moving on to trying to do things that are different, and then trying to transform. So, I think our responses vary from sometimes making simple changes, and sometimes we're trying to do things very much differently. I think, at the moment, it's an area that—. Sorry, I'm just going to grab water, if that's all right.

Sure, go ahead.

So, as an organisation, we've done some research into the Act and how we can really embed it in what we do. The findings are drawn from behaviour change, learning from other countries, from literature, from organisational development, and the key things that come through are that you've got to think of it in different levels. So, you've got to think of it in terms of individual change, so people individually thinking about the Act in their work, and thinking about the five ways of working. And then you've got to think of it in terms of teams, how they work differently together and how they deliver things differently together, and also how we as an organisation, as a whole, change. What we're trying to do organisationally is to put something in place so that it works at all of those three levels, so that we can bring a whole-system change. It does take time. This is a change in how we work. There's no clear end product. It's changing how we do things, and that's quite difficult to evidence—