 I can confirm that you are now live. Thank you very much. Good morning members, officers and members of the public who are viewing this live stream. Welcome to the meeting of the Grants Advisory Committee 30 of October 2020. My name is Joseph Hales, Councillor Joseph Hales. I'm the chair of this committee. For information from members of the public, the role of our committee is to consider and make recommendations to the lead member for finance. That's the gentleman with the glasses and the beard on your screen, Councillor John Williams. Applications made under the Grants, Council Grants scheme process. Councillor Willing then takes his decision into account. Our decisions account their recommendations are completely messed up, so apologies on that one, but you get the drift. Okay, members, can I ask you to mute your microphones? We're having a bit of bandwidth this morning, so if you need to turn off your camera feeds from everybody else, do that and then you'll be able to stabilise your connection. And then when you want to speak, the usual method, hand up or put your hand up on the signal and then you can be called to speak. Okay, we're going to go for apologies. This is agenda item number one, apologies. Can I ask the Democratic Services, Aaron Clarke, if you could do a roll call for us frozen to make sure that we'd call it? Thanks, Chair. Good morning. I can confirm we've received apologies from Councillor Claire Deltafield this morning, but for the rest of the members, I'll read out your name. If you could please confirm that you are present, remembering to unmute your microphone before you speak. Councillor Donson, please. Yes, present. Councillor Ellington. Yes, good morning. Councillor McDonald. Yes, present, morning. Councillor Hales, clearly we are aware that you're present, and Councillor John Williams, lead member of finance, if you could just confirm your presence as well, please. Good morning, present. Confirmed that the meeting is indeed poor at Chair. Thank you very much. If I might ask officers now, and if they could just unmute themselves and say hi, I think we might know we've got John and we've got Leslie and Jay. Yeah. Ladies first. Good morning, Leslie Farland. Good morning, Leslie Farland, Development Officer for Health. Catherine Hawkes, Program Manager within the Sustainable Communities and Wellbeing Team. Jay Clark, Program Manager, Sustainable Communities and Wellbeing. John London, North Stowe Development Officer, also doing a community chest and also in the Sustainable Communities Team. Thank you. I know in the background we've got a gentleman called Liam Martin, who's our IT specialist, if you like, and he's the officer streaming this meeting. Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Liam. Okie dokie. Do any members have any decorations of interest with any of the items on your agenda today? We are talking about mobile warden schemes and finances, so I think probably as a trustee of the Melbourne mobile warden scheme, I'm going to look to officers to give me a heads up on this, but I'm going to certainly declare a non-pecuniary because I have no financial interest, so to speak. But as I am a trustee, it may develop into something further. Councillor Allenton. I'm a trustee of Swayve C Mobile Warden Scheme. Thank you very much indeed. Minutes. Members, can we go through the minutes? Would you like to go through them at the usual page one, page two, etc.? So if you could turn to page one of your agenda pack, which is agenda item number three, which is the minutes, I'm just going to go through as usual page one. Yes, please, German. I was actually present at the last meeting. It's got me down as absent. I apologize, that is the wrong care that has been marked as absent. It often happens. Claire Deltafield and Claire Daunton, yeah, that often happens. We will have to ask one of you to change your name, okay? No, I have the advantage because I have an I in my first name, so it's slightly longer. Okay, thank you. Right, so other than that, page one okay, page two, page three, page four, page five, and page six, which is just a sign off. Are we happy that I can sign those off as a true record of the meeting, please? Just say I or wave. That's it, that'll do. Thank you very much. Aaron, I think I have a unanimous, okay. Just like to explain how we're to manage the items now. I'm going to call on John in a minute, John London, to introduce the report. Now, this is going to be a gender item number four, community chest funding applications. John is the officer doing a lot of work here, so he'll start to present this. So if I could hand over to you, John, and we'll go from there. Thank you very much, thank you. So we have three applications this month that makes up one deferral and two new applications as well as a proposed set of modifications to appendix B, which you will see the proposed modifications as appendix C in the pack. As a slide note, as you probably noticed, there are less deferrals coming back than have been deferred. The Orchard Road Community Group application has withdrawn its application and respite holidays are planning to submit next month. All of the applications this month have full documentation and all district councillors have been notified. And in fact, with the new process that is being put together, it will be impossible for an application form to be submitted in the future without full documentation. And the form will be automatically notifying district councillors when an application comes in. The first application is from Milton Colts Football Club. This is a deferral and it is for £1,000 for a Perot roll cart travelling sprinkler to provide irrigation and land-making factions for the football pitches at North Lodge, Milton. The reason why this was deferred was because we were aware that the land owner was Milton Parish Council and the committee wanted to see whether you froze. Well, it looks like John has either gone on strike. He's back. He's gone again. I think he's chair. He's going to have to put his camera off. Yeah. John, if you can hear us, do you want to shut down all your video of us and turn your camera off and just say, can you hear me now? No, not you, John. John London. Sorry, John. Sorry, did I drop out there? You did, fella. You did. Okay. Hold on. Let me just turn off the... Aaron, how do I turn off incoming again? Yes, you just find the ellipses and three dots on your bar, more actions, and then turn off incoming video should be at the bottom. Turn off incoming video. Okay, fantastic. I will therefore ask you to speak up if you miss here, because obviously I cannot see you now. Chair, where did I get up to before I dropped out? You were just going on, just explaining about the documentation was clear. Start again on the middle one. Okay. I will start again for Milton Colts Football Club, which is a deferral, and if this is an application for the part funding of a Perot roll cart travelling sprinkler, we've got an image of it in the pack for you. They've applied for £1,000 out of the 1.4k total project cost. We have... The reason why this was deferred is because it was clear that the land was owned by Milton Parish Council, but we couldn't determine whether Milton Parish Council put any money forwards for this. As is usually the case, unfortunately, it turned out to be a slightly more complicated situation. Milton Parish Council has the freehold for the land. It is on a 99-year long-term lease to Milton Community Centre, which is an independent charity. However, that independent charity does share a website with Milton Parish Council. The Milton Community Centre has put forwards £400 to make up the total project cost of the application. We have comments of support from Councillor Judith Ripeth, who has said it's a very strong application and will be of great benefit to the community. It has my full support. There is no green option considerations for this application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Members, this has been to a second pass. We've had more information now, I think, from John's comments. Good morning, Councillor Hanley. Thank you very much for coming. Aaron, would you mind putting Councillor Hanley down as attending in place of Councillor Dornton? Councillor Deverfield, sorry. Members, have we got comments, please? So, just to clarify with John, John London. So, John, the last time the total amount was £1,400, but now we're clarifying that the £400 is coming from the Milton Community Centre. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. I'm inclined to support it this time round. The explanation about the Parish Council is here. There is support from the Community Centre and strong support from Councillor Ripeth. It seems as if it's needed. The explanation of why it's being purchased is good. I'm inclined to support it. Thank you, Claire. Sue? I'm inclined to support it. I know with our own pitch here in Swavesy, it's been venti-drained and you need to keep the surface nice and moist. Otherwise, you get big tunnels that people break their ankles in. So, I would support. Okay. Peter? Yes. Now that we've got the additional information, I think it's fine. And finally, Bill, did you hear all of the presentation from John London? I know. I literally got into seconds ago. Sorry. Okay. Would you mind then if we just exclude you from the vote on this one at the moment? Yeah. Of course. Of course. We'll go next from carrying on. Am I taking it that we're all agreed, except for Bill, that we're going to support this because I also support it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Aaron and John. We'd like to make a note of that. Over to you, John, for number two. Thank you very much, Chair. The next application is a new application from Horningsea Residence Association, which is a community group in Horningsea. And they are asking for a grant of £876. This will be for the total cost of two wheelchair accessible picnic benches. These picnic benches are made from recycled materials, so they have considered a green option. They will be going to the Goose Green Village play area, which is owned by quiet estates and is in a long term lease to the village via a lease to the Parish Council. This is an extension to a separate project to upgrade and renovate the Goose Green Village play area. So over the last couple of years, they have raised over £34,000 for the renovation of the play area. This includes a grant of well over £5,000 from Horningsea Parish Council. They have been successful in this, but as a sort of an extra cherry on the cake, they thought that they would want to put in some of these recycled picnic benches, which is outside of the scope of the original project, but will support the community in accessing and enjoying the new play area. Thank you, Chair. Claire, would you like to go first, since this is your area? I hate to say this, Claire, but you're muted and muted. Thank you. Yes, so I'm on record as supporting this. Both the Parish Council and the community group, the Resident Association in Horningsea, have done a lot of work recently fundraising for improving play areas. I think this is a good application and I support it. Thank you. Other members? Sue? I support it in principle. The only comment I would make is that these tables can be extremely difficult for those of us who are of an old age and find it quite difficult to cock our legs over the bench and sit on them. And therefore, although there is access for a wheelchair, those of us who can't get on that sort of bench really need some other form of chair available to replace where the wheelchair is in this picture, but I support the whole principle of having those sort of tables. Thank you, Sue. General, Bill, would you like to go first on this one? It looks like a worthy, a good application and a worthy cause, and if Claire's wants and supporting it, so am I. Thank you. Peter? Yeah, I think they should be congratulated on how much money they've raised. I think that's amazing. The only goose green I knew up until now is in the Falkland Islands, so I'm pleased to hear there's one in Horningsea. Yeah, less troubles, am I? Right, okay. In that case, I'm of the same opinion as colleagues, so that would be a unanimous then. I'll take that. Chairman, might I come back to Councillor Eddington's comment? Because I think it's a really valid comment and I don't know whether it's worth passing that back to the HRA. I think you'd be very valuable to do so. Yeah. They might want to come back for some more money about it, but that's up to them, but I think Sue's made a very good point there. Absolutely. Thank you, Claire. I will include that in my letter confirming that their application was successful if and when that comes through after due process. Thank you, John. Over to you, John, number three then. This is the final application. This is also a new application from the First Hardwick Scout Group. This is the increasingly familiar situation of a piece of land that is owned by the Parish Council, but then is on a 99-year long-term lease to another group. In this case, the leaseholders are the First Hardwick Scout Group. This is an application for £4,000, which is approximately half of the cost of a new fence to go around the Scout Hut. I apologise. I did have some better images of the area in question, but if you wanted to, you can click on the map of the area on Appendix A and C, the area that they're talking about. It's currently a small piece of scrub land which volunteers are clearing, and they are going to then fence it in in the hopes that it will be able to be used by various organisations in the village for external children's activity. It will be used by Scouts, Brownies Guards and other youth organisations in the village. We have a statement of support from Hardwick Preschool that they would like to use that space for a forest school as well. The application for Section 137 funding went into the Parish Council meeting. That Parish Council meeting only happened on Tuesday, so I was unable to include its response in the report pack. However, I am happy to report that the Parish Council will support this application with a grant of £500 towards it. So that means that they have £500 from the Parish Council. They will be supporting £500 of the cost themselves and are applying to us for the remainder £1,000. Thank you very much. Thank you, John. Chairman, could I, first of all, before we discuss for some clarification, please, on the district councillor support, the councillors quoted are councillors Kahn, Hylings and Hunt, but the district councillor for Hardwick is councillor Chamberlain. If I have made a mistake in that, then I am entirely sorry. Easy to do, John, because Kahn, Hylings and Hunt are the district councillors for Histon, not Hardwick. It is entirely possible that I made an error there. I will get back to you and confirm which particular councillors I have emailed then. If I have made an error there, then you have my unrestricted apologies. John, before you go on and flow yourself any more, these are easy mistakes to make, and that is fine. You may be aware that we did speak to Liam at the start of the meeting, as he is the new boy. All blame will be fed towards Liam now, so you can actually offload this one onto Liam. He had nothing to do with it, but this is just life, Liam. I take no liability, as I have already said on record. Thanks for your openness there, John. That has been lovely. Okay, guys, shall we continue to discuss, if we wish, who would like to go first? Shall I go first on this one? Yes. I think it is wonderful. I think this is a scouting. I was a scout many moons ago, I think it was back in the Dark Ages, and I've always been very much of a supporter of the scouting movement, so that's where I stand, and whatever they're going to do to protect their pieces of land and what have you, and make it safer for the kids even better. Right, over to you guys. Yeah, if I can comment, Chair. I mean, I think John London answered my question, which is clarifying that it is available for other groups in the village, so I'm fine with it. Yeah. So you had your hand up? My only problem with it is it reminds me of the boy in the pyjamas, and I just feel it needs to be camouflaged somewhat. The principle's great, but I hate the thought of being shut in with a fence like that. Fair enough. Claire, you... I'm very happy with this. Again, Sue's made a very good point, but I think it's a good application, and it will be a good space for the young people in Hardwick. Yeah, I'm happy with it. Thank you. I wonder actually, our village college has just had this type of fence and put up just an awful lot higher with gates and stuff, and it was all to do with safeguarding. It was a requirement under the education department. They had to put this up. So I was quite surprised when we saw it, because there were public open space where people had access through the college grounds onto other land, which is owned by the parish or whatever, and so that now has been cut off of this type fence. It kind of doesn't surprise me that there's that potential issue to this. Bill, Mark, come to you. Yeah, I understand and appreciate Cat's Wellington's comments. And of course, as it matures, presumably they will plant shrubs and things in front of it would describe it, break it up visually. So no, it looks like a good application. I'm very happy to support it. Okay, so just on the basis of comments, can I just have a show of hands? Aaron, are you watching please? So all those in favour of supporting it, Peter? Against? Abstention. Honestly, Sue's hand, sorry. Are you abstaining, Sue? It wasn't there, I would abstain. Thank you. So that's one, two, three, that's four, four, one abstention, please. Thank you, Aaron. Right, John, that's it for that, your section now, isn't it? If I may, I would like to very, very briefly go over the modifications. Oh, yes, sorry. Yeah, crack on, yeah. Very, very, very, very quickly. The highlighted section in yellow, there are three very, very brief sections that are changed. The main one is the preferred green options. And this is an entirely new section. This is based around the conversations that were had earlier in the year. This is on page 20 with regards to internal combustion engines and lawn mowers. So the wording that we would like to propose is applications to the community chest to renovate or purchase items that include an internal combustion engine, including accessories, will not normally be considered. For such an application to be considered, evidence must be provided to demonstrate why an electric variant is not being considered. Such evidence should include market research demonstrating that a similar electrically powered variant is not within price range, or that due to technical differences, such a unit would not be fit for purpose. In addition to this, there is a section, there is one other addition where we have made a copy of your safeguarding policy is in the required section, rather than the required, if relevant to the project section. And whilst it's not particularly appropriate, important, we've also changed the contact details to a different email address. Are we all right? We're okay with that? Yeah, just to note that then, members? Yeah. Yes, because it doesn't completely preclude the purchase of a petrol engine vehicle, a piece of equipment, if there's no option. So it's not a problem at all. It just makes people think electric, doesn't it? It does. Sue, then Claire. I'm just concerned that some areas are not within lead length for electrical items, and that when, especially football pitches and things, and it might be quite difficult to have a safe electrical lead that is providing power for an electric lawnmower for some of these areas. Knowing where my village pitches, it would be impossible. I'll take your point, Sue. Probably this is where we're heading with this, with battery powered. But on the other hand, if a demonstration, as John read out in the second paragraph, if you can demonstrate why you can't use electric power, the fuel, then you just have to make that case. Claire? Yeah, it's just a very small point. The email address, it's not, you never give out any phone numbers now. Is that the case? If somebody needs to have a conversation with an officer, they have to email, first of all, to this general email. And just to be reassured that somebody is checking on the, because there's no phone number, someone is checking on the email on a very regular basis. I can confirm that I checked that on a regular basis. My general modus operandi, as it were, is when somebody applies to Community Chest, the first thing they do is they get a phone call from me. Unfortunately, as we are not all in the office at the minute, there is the possibility that if somebody phones in, it could end up sort of getting lost in the system and a phone ringing in the office and nobody picking it up. If somebody does need to contact an officer, they can and have contacted the main switchboard, which have our private mobiles, et cetera, so that that can then come back to us. And that system has worked. Okay, thanks for that reassurance. Right, I've got Jay and John Williams. I think perhaps John beat you slightly, Jay. Yes, sir. John, yes, you're unmuted. I'm unmuted now. Sorry about that. I couldn't unmute you. Can we make sure that we get Tom to do some comments on this, please? Because I think this is a really good change to our rules. It shows how important it is, how important going green is for this council, and to get our communities to take that on board. So can we make sure, Liam or yeah, to contact Tom and get this communicated on social media? Thanks. You can take your hand down, please. John, Jay, where you going? Yeah, I'm happy to take that forward, John. I think it's probably a good time to do some comms around community chest anyway. Obviously, we've got quite a lot of funding left this year, and I know a lot of groups haven't been able to meet because of COVID, but I think at the same time we go out about the green stuff, maybe we just do a little comms thing around community chest. And the other thing I wanted to say, just in response to Councillor Daunton, just we're not excluding email addresses, phone numbers. We do still have phone numbers. We have five communities, central phone number, and we do send out our phone numbers on our email signatures. A lot of us have changed those to our mobiles. Yeah, so it's just, I think it's just this appendix that doesn't have a number on it, and we can probably just add the community's number onto it might be the most sensible fix for this. Thank you. Great stuff. Thank you very much, John London, for the work on that and Jay. That's really, that's really lovely. Thank you very much indeed. So if no other questions on that, I'm going to move on to agenda item number five. And so I'm going to ask Leslie McFarland now who's done an absolute massive amount of work on this to present the report and the options to us. Thank you, Leslie. Unmute myself first. Thank you. So thank you, Chair. I'm presenting three papers this morning and two are in relation to the mobile warden view, and there'll be one also in relation to the service support grants. I think it's worth noting that the underspend that we will discuss in paper two could in effect also be used for the service support grants. It is grants money after all. So I could introduce all three papers together so that you can explore the landscape in full or if you'd prefer I can go one paper at a time. I do have a preference. John Williams, what's your take? Leslie Finance, what would you like to hear? I'm just here in listening mode really. I want to hear what the committee thinks about these choices. Yeah, I have not got a particular preference. Right, if members will excuse this then I'm just going to go around my screen in order. Bill, what do you want to do? Take it all at once or separately? I think if Leslie feels that she can present the case on all three papers clearly in one go, I'd be happy to run with that. Claire? I would much prefer taking all three together. I think it's going to make the whole thing clearer. Brilliant. Sue? I would support what Claire's just said. Pete? I agree. You've got it. You're unanimous. Leslie, where you go? All in one please. Okay, so paper one explores the impacts which COVID is having on the existing mobile warden schemes. So the paper outlines how each of the services have had to adapt their model and what the financial impacts are, and they have differed. They're not all negative, but some are really struggling, and I think we have to be aware of that. So if you look at that in relation to paper two, so paper two presents us with an underspend as a result of the procurement and grant applications that we did earlier this year, and it actually gives us quite a substantial amount of money. So we have discussed actually having a round two where we would consider having or attracting more schemes, but the more we looked into it, and I have to say Catherine and I, because this was a huge piece of work, the more we uncovered, and it became actually quite a complex landscape, because we started looking at the future for how we were going to finance the future scheme for the existing schemes as we sort of move into the future and the three-year funding model. We looked at actually, well, we've just financed, fully financed, two years worth of new schemes, and the full funding for those will expire partway through a financial year, which would be 2022. So what happens then? We would need to consider how we would continue to support, not fully fund, but perhaps part fund, those new schemes as well. And then you take into consideration the service support grant situation. So again, exploring with the recipients of our service support grants, again, the impacts of COVID have been varied, but there has been particularly, I'd say the advice services have had greater demand upon them financially as the kind of economic impacts of COVID are really beginning to take hold. So I think we have this pot of money, and I think it's really down, we're asking committee really, we've given you some recommendations, which you can go with, we can come up with something completely different, but it's complex, and I think it's important that we just look at that bigger picture rather than just thinking about another round of funding for more schemes. Does that make sense? It does indeed. Who would like to go first? And, Jos, could I just ask for some piece of information from Leslie, please? On page 33, Leslie, where you've got the table, can you just talk us through these numbers? Because I'm really quite puzzled and the difference between, just talk us through them because you know the details. So, for example, the Mordens and Littlington, there are 25 people benefiting from the scheme, and we've given them 2,155. In Cotnam, there are 22 people benefiting from the scheme, and we've given them 1,800. Just give us an explanation of those figures. So when we determine how much we're going to award each of the schemes, they all have different models, so don't just take into consideration how many people are benefiting from the scheme. We also look at the reserves that they have. We look at how much they charge per client, and we look at other sources of funding. So that's why you'll get that variation that I think the complexity of the mobile warden scheme is not one single scheme reflects another. The independent schemes have all been homegrown differently, and so it's very difficult to say, actually based on the number of people receiving the service, we will award this amount of money. So it's very difficult to answer that question. Yeah, I can understand that. Can I just follow that up please? Sure. So I guess what I'm trying to get at is just to make sure that proportionately taking into account the different circumstances, we are funding at a similar level or a fair level across the board that we can be sure that we're funding at a fair level given those different circumstances, because I wanted to be reassured on that before I make a decision about what we do next. I think that if this is a priority for the district council, we should be, I think it could be fairer than it is at the moment. I think at the moment, each of the independent schemes apply for the same amount every year, that's my understanding, and that's been the case for the last 10 years. Applications really haven't changed, and neither really has the amount that we have in the whole project. So I think it could really do with exploring and evaluating further. Before I come to Clare, I've already declared my interest, so that's okay. I feel more comfortable in speaking now, but this is one of the things that the mobile warden scheme in Melbourne has had, and Catherine will probably look at me and go, oh no, he's going to say something horrid. I'm not, right? But if you look, we have 47, and in actual fact that's now too low, because it's well into the 50s now. So, but that aside, there was only 2,200. I always mentioned it to Catherine when she was doing this many, many, many moons ago, which part of the pencil did you use, the rubber end or the pencil, you had the writing end, I just fell off. But it was explained to me on a number of occasions, and the big one from Melbourne was that we had substantial reserves, and so therefore we could weather a storm better than perhaps a smaller less well reserved, should we say, scheme. Catherine, I'm coming to you in a minute, so I am promised Catherine. There are so many variables between all of the different schemes. The other things that we have to take into account, things like how much is the parish council contributing to the scheme? How much does the scheme actually charge its residents? We've been trying to get them to become more sustainable over time by encouraging them to charge a little bit more, because in the beginning some of them were charging one pound 52 pound per resident for the service, and in addition to that, the service isn't the same across all of them either. Some of them make phone calls, some of them are doing three, four, five weekly visits, so it's really, it's not a level playing field in terms of the different factors involved in trying to make the decision about how much to fund each scheme. If they were all the same, it would be really nice, but they're not simple. Okay, thank you. So you're muted before you speak, but where do you go? I think we're not looking at the whole picture though, are we? All we're looking at are the independent schemes. We're not looking at any of the ones that are being run by Age UK, which also have, many of them, have local charities supporting them and parish councils supporting them and so on. If we're going to be looking at number of residents served versus how much we pay or how much it is being funded, then you've got to bring all of those schemes into the equation. And as Catherine says, they're all providing a different level of service and we need to, I'm not sure that we're wise in tampering too much. We can try and even things out as we progress over time, but I'm rather concerned about doing too much tinkering about because we may throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thank you, so could you take your hand down please, so Bill, you're next? Yeah, thanks, Joes. I'm declaring interest here because my wards to villages over and winning them and they are currently setting up an Age UK scheme, but I wanted to ask whether or not, if I'm right, is Leslie suggesting that maybe the new schemes might get some reassurance that there is money in the pot down the line after the first two years of full funding to support them in an ongoing way because if that's what she's suggesting, I would be very supportive because I know that both the Over and Winningham parish councils are a little bit nervous about the continuing funding after the end of the two years. And I think if we were able to give them some reassurance that there will be a level of support from Southcams Council, that would help them a lot actually. I would give them a lot of reassurance. Okay, thank you, Bill. Peter? Yeah, I'm really following on from Bill. I feel this is a balance, so what I've observed with my parishes as both Leslie and Catherine will know is you can bring them to the line, but very difficult sometimes to get them over the line and the reason for that is this sort of lingering doubt what happens after two years. Of course, for established schemes, they've been through that experience and they know and they've got confidence. So there is this invisible line and therefore whatever we do, if it's able to say to newly joining parishes, look, don't worry about the period after the two years on Julie, but at the same time, I think we have to have a deal and inverted commerce with those parishes to say, going back to Catherine's point, look, you should be charging a reasonable rate for this because otherwise effectively what we're saying is you're getting a free ride and that's never a good thing. I think the parish should have some skin in the game and it's a kind of deal, it's a contract between, it's not a formal con, but you know what I mean. We say we will support this and we will give you confidence about the period two years hence, but at the same time, you have to set it up and run it properly and charge accordingly. Right. Leslie, Catherine, have you got comments? You take your hand down, please. In the contracts that we have with our existing schemes at the moment, we have stated that there is a minimum fee that they must charge their clients and with the new schemes, the new independent schemes that are joining, so Age UK already have a set amount and I think they charge £9 for an individual and £11 for a couple, but with the independent schemes, again that varies a lot, but we're stating a minimum of £7.50, some of them have been as low as £6. So going forwards, when we start to begin the new contracts from April of next year, there will be a minimum requirement that they do charge, emphasising the ongoing sustainability. Okay, good. Thank you. Claire. Yeah, thanks, Joes. Leslie, could I just come back to something that you said earlier about over the last 10 years, things have developed in a sort of perhaps uneven way, if that's a fair word to use, and maybe there could be some investigation about how things could be more evened out. Could you say a little bit more about that? Again, I think what we need to do is, if you look at each of those different schemes, they all acquire additional funding from a wide range of sources, and I think, as Councillor Macdonald alluded to, when we're trying to attract new schemes and we want more schemes to set up, the biggest barrier to that commitment is the fear of ongoing funding. We know that, and Joes and I have discussed this in the past recently, at the moment there's no commitment from County Council, so I think if schemes could be assured that there was greater commitment from us, and if we could start those negotiations with County, I don't know how far that would go, and I think that would just take some of the burden from some of these small schemes in trying to find, scrabbling around really, just trying to find additional income to support these schemes. I think that would level out the playing field. Okay, thank you. Well, that will help me to make up my mind about what we should do next. Thanks. Can you take your hand down, please, Claire? That discussion that Leslie and I had is quite pertinent really, because I think you can perhaps confirm this, Leslie and Catherine, I think, but Melbourne scheme is the only scheme, certainly in South Cams. I have a sneaking suspicion, it's in Cambridgeshire as well, that actually has a grant, an annual grant, and we have, this is a historical one, this goes back a long time, at least 10, if not longer, years, I suspect longer. So that's 7,700, and that's been 7,700 from the word go, it's not gone up, so that was first awarded with 17 clients. So now I'm one village, now three villages, and 55, I think 56 clients now. So that money is just spread across the entire operation, if you like, so more clients you have, less you have to spend on each client, so to speak, as a support. But this is a real piece of work, I think that our officers can, perhaps with demonstrating what we're doing here now, can perhaps go then to county, with our county colleagues within our council as well, members to perhaps smooth the wire fraction, because if you look at adult social care, the cost to the state for those who aren't going to fund their own care is extortionate, and that bill has to be paid from somewhere, and for a small amount of money, and it is small, if you can help assist one member of public to stay out of state care, if you want to call it that, then that is a massive saving overall. So it helps to finance itself more or less within the first year, where you have one or two people across South Cams alone, the money they would hand out would actually be easily comparable to two or three people going into care. Okay, Sue, you put your hand up, you're still muted, so no. Hit that button Sue. Couldn't get me out, go on it. I think, and I know some of the history of mobile wardens in South Cams, that is one of the reasons that previous administrations were a little reluctant to invest too much, that they felt that the social services should have been funding this service, and now that we do fund this service, there is a reluctance from the social services counter-council to take it on board. I am very interested, Joe, that you know the scheme that we talked about at Lawworth, Fenstanton, and Fen Drayton, Fenstanton has got a grant from the counter-council, but we are supporting Lawworth and Fen Drayton within the same scheme. So there is an element of persuading the counter-council that it is their duty and their responsibility to support us. I agree. Sue, may I just ask, the grant that Fenstanton have had, the scheme itself that covers the multiple villages, are they spreading that grant amongst all villages? Fenstanton are carrying a very substantial proportion of the cost of the warden, yes. This is what ours is. It's not being said, if you see what I mean. It's like an income into the scheme, that's what we do, we don't make a big thing of it, we just get the money and we just spread it across the three villages, that's fine. That money has come from the Innovate and Cultivate Fund at Cambridge County Council, and the people that run that fund are really keen to set up more mobile warden schemes, so they see the model that we've got and they want to extend that across the county. So they are apportioning some money specifically for the expansion of mobile warden schemes countywide, so to me that gives me a kind of glimmer of hope that there's someone in county that actually values this scheme, so I think it really is just a case of speaking to the right person in commissioning adult social care and getting that person around the table to see whether we can get that kind of commitment for existing ongoing schemes. Agreed. Anybody else got anything to say? John Williams, if you've got anything that you'd like to add, being the lead member for finance obviously and the person authorising the money that we've spent now? Yeah, I pick up on what Peter McDonnell said. I think we do need to obviously look beyond 2022, and we need to set a roadmap, have a plan on how to take things beyond that in different scenarios. So scenario that the county supporters, another scenario that the new schemes achieve some degree of independence or the worst scenario, they don't actually get off the ground, and I think we need to be working quite closely with the county and Age UK to put that road plan together, to put a plan together to meet those different scenarios. But at the end of the day, we may well have to make the decision to step in and fund the new schemes for a bit longer. But to do that, I think we need to ensure that first of all, those schemes are charging a fair price for what they deliver to their clients, and secondly, that the management of those schemes is good and that they are actively seeking support. I mean, it is a difficult area because you could argue that parish council could well not do anything and just at the end of the two years say, well, this is going to shut unless you give us more money. I haven't seen any evidence of that. I think the parish councils in the new schemes have been very cooperative and been willing to work with us to make their schemes viable, and I think that's how we go forward. We did look at having a uniform scheme across the district under one contract, but that would take away, and very falsely members pointed out to me that that would take away the element of the local community being involved and supporting themselves. And I take that on board. I think a uniform district-run scheme would not be appropriate for us, and indeed would go against our principle of getting local communities to be self-sustainable. But that does mean that we're going to have to put up with the fact that every community will want to do its own thing. Some communities will want to join with others. Some communities probably will have a scheme very similar, if not the same to another community, but we have to take on board that there will be some places where the model is different, and we need to accommodate that in some way. I think Leslie's done a really good job on these reports. She's tempted to do that, tempted to give us a range of choices going forward, and as I said earlier, I'm here in listening mode. I have no one particular preference. I want to hear your views before we decide how to take this forward. But as you know, I'm very much in favour of us developing the warden schemes for the reasons that Joe's mentioned. From just the financial aspect, it reduces social care costs, but also it means that our local communities are looking after the most vulnerable people in their communities, and that's how it should be. It shouldn't be someone coming in without that local knowledge, because all it becomes then is a service, and I think this needs to be more than just a service, so we're going to have to accept we're going to have 80 odd bespoke services in our parishes, and somehow we're going to have to handle that and manage that going forward. Before I come to Bill then Claire, I thoroughly agree with what John just said. I mean, the example of community work in itself, yesterday the mobile scheme sprang into action after one of the wardens who was on the day off with the family couldn't get hold of the phone call that the person via phone call and so the scheme is galvanised into action. Somebody else goes round, in this case it was my wife and myself. We went round, we finally managed to gain access to the resident who was in excruciating pain with a knee. The doctors were called, Fed and Walter, I stepped out so that the lady could be dealt with by my wife for dignity, and as a result of that conversations had with members of the family over the phone where it was more of a direction than a request for a key safe to be ordered and placed on the outside of the building so that we could get in and not ask a lady who's got severe right knee problems to get up and try and walk 10 feet to get to the door to open it. So that happened, I have the key box sitting next to me here which I'll be fitting this afternoon but my point is that's the level of local community doing its thing for its thing and I see Sue nodding there and we've often talked about this so in the past over the years that we've known each other and it is very very important that that is maintained. So I shall go to Bill first if I may then clear. Thank you Joes. I'm going to ask a question really whether this is doable or not. First of all I say that I fully support what people, the things that Sue Ellington and others have said about the county council should be I think supporting us at a higher level and I think we should pursue that for sure but when it comes to the parish councils would it be possible to offer them a reassurance that we will be continuing support for their schemes beyond the first two years on the basis of maybe a percentage of what they put into the scheme as well maybe with a maximum so you know the more the parish council put in the more we will put in up to an agreed max. It's a question it's not it's just I'm just really speaking out loud in some ways but it does it will then both give parish councils and give them the reassurance that there will be support but it will also kind of make sure that they are thinking about their preset setting their preset at the right level to give the support from the parish as well. Claire. Thanks Joes. So I've got three points first of all to go back again to what Leslie was saying earlier and I think it's going to be very difficult but I would like to be sure that given all the vagaries of the different schemes we are funding them fairly. I appreciate that they're all very different but I think I'm being reassured on that but I just would like confirmation that we are funding them across the board fairly. In relation to Leslie's papers and what others have been saying I think we ought to be looking to use the underspend to secure the future. I'm not that keen on putting money into helping people who have difficulties with COVID because I think what Leslie's paper is indicating to me is that there are difficulties but not so many. I mean if there is a scheme that's in severe difficulties as a result of COVID we could take a special one-off application from them but I think we need to be securing the future of the current mobile warden scheme and also trying to expand it and I think that's where we should put the underspend and at the same time try to encourage the county to do its part, to play its part. Lovely, Bill and Claire can you take down your hands please? Thanks. Well said everybody actually, well said. Leslie, Catherine do you have any things to come back with? This is very much an open floor so... I wonder whether at this point it's worth just looking at the options in the paper and having a bit of a discussion if it's a good time to do that about whether... I think probably the question is are we concerned with using underspend or are we and if you like patching up, patching together, funding for the next three years for the existing schemes and then the shortfall for the new schemes or are we saying we need to just look at the entire pot and make sure the right amount is in the pot going forward and I think the two options sort of try to open that discussion but they're not the only two ways of doing it. We had lots of different options and we had to try and hone it down and there were so many variables that these are the two clearest options I think but it might be worth just going to those and having that discussion. Okay thank you. Leslie John. Well just to reiterate really what Catherine said and Catherine and I have you know we've been through many iterations of what could be done with the money and the ramifications and the what-ifs if we do this if we do that then what. So we would try to make this as simple as possible really by um so narrowing it down to two options but then trying to illustrate how much you would have to spend in and we're using that the dates which would coincide with now up until the end of the next anticipated three year contract for the existing schemes so it's really what we do now for the rest of this year with the underspend and then how do we allocate that if the underspend we're going to retain that underspend and not let it be absorbed into the general account then how do we use that money wisely taking into consideration the funding probably funding the 14 existing schemes and then as Bill suggested um part perhaps part funding those new schemes that just come on board that will whose funding will expire in September 2022 and then how will we then bring them in line to the existing schemes whose contract ends in March 2024 so we'd probably be looking at sort of 18 months of continued part funding for those new schemes as well if that makes sense. It makes it makes huge sense huge sense Peter. So the way I'm approaching this rightly or wrongly is sustainability overall what I mean by that is not just the existing not just existing 14 but getting to a new number whatever that new number is 20 or 20 plus or whatever so I'm inclined to go with the second option because if I understand the way Leslie and Catherine have laid it out that allows us to reconsider for the existing schemes in April 20 or for it from April 2021 uh plus it gives us this 18 months worth of new schemes from October 22 so I'm I'm I'm be you know prepared to be convinced otherwise but that that seems to me to be the more sustainable option personally. So are you talking on page 25 Pete? 31 or 31 sorry right. A question for John Williams if I may there's something that Leslie just said then about securing the underspend John how long can we secure an underspend for I mean obviously we've got a time lag here this is 2020 with the 2020-21 and we're looking at 2022 stroke 3 if I'm correct in that assumption is that this money that we have as an underspend here is likely to be spent certainly towards that end of the spectrum and it is now because these people are setting up. So are we permitted lawfully to to carry over funds and secure that for the I mean since we are doing service grants anyway for those three year periods or that's the intention kind of makes sense. It would require um probably the cabinet to approve the carry forward at the end of the financial at the end of that financial year. I mean this is a two year scheme so it's in the budget until the end of 21-22 but then if there's money left over then that would have to be wired for the following year and that would have to be taken by the cabinet I think the amount involved it wouldn't need to go to council I think it would be a cabinet decision to do that. So you can recommend clearly you can recommend to cabinet that that is that that is done but um yeah it would have to be a cabinet decision it shouldn't be done by me. I mean I'm I'm I'm I think with Peter with option two is that we can protect what we've done if you like in future years as we go forward. I think the COVID whilst I agree with Claire on this and I saw Sue nodding as well while Claire was speaking that I think perhaps the COVID is is fine there may be a special circumstance for perhaps one or two of the the schemes who have been hit extra hard or whatever but I speak from my own scheme we weathered the storm okay it was you know there was a bit of spend here and there but we had to reserve to be able to deal with that which ironically are what reserves are for right to you know you then move back forward so it's the new schemes that bother me the most trying to find their feet trying to to learn the craft it's it's a difficult craft to learn it's what line you don't cross and there are there are a whole load of things they have to learn the training will once they start their training processes with dementia training and safeguarding the world will open up before them and think why on earth did I do this because frankly there's a lot to learn right and I and I want to support them as much as we can you know and that's a case of talking to other schemes these people that we haven't had any contact as far as I know from our on our scheme from anybody apart from Joe Gamlingay other than that nobody else seems to have contacted so there's a deficit in the exchange of information but I do feel quite strongly about the option too but for me it's about how we secure that funding and John's already hopefully answered that but I wouldn't want that John that that funding to be secured for now and then to be if you like oh we were going to give you 100,000 to carry on for the next two years and we'll dock off 57,000 of that and only give you 43 right so we do need to be realistic as to what this is going to cost and obviously this is going to be a job for officers to say we're going to need x y and z going forward and I would like to have that my gut is telling me that the 57 is to temporarily look to support the the new schemes going forward in case they don't quite make it as Bill said with regards to supporting the parishes because ultimately we want the parishes to be able to cough up some as well year on year on year in their precepts so they're going to have to get used to doing this they're going to have to be able to justify it to their own parishioners within within their patches that will take a little while it really will I have to say in my own area Melbourne and my own village that's it's not it's not discussed it's just approved if you like as part of a process going forward in the other two villages there are still questions even two or three years down the line questions as to are we supporting this is it the right amount of money is it this is it that they tend to dissect it a bit more rather than just allow the process to happen so I can see this being replicated what I see yearly in all these other new schemes with parish council so as Bill rightly says perhaps we should look to the future as to how we are going to help the parishes on perhaps the percentages basis I don't know that practically for offices to come back and say what would be financially prudent so so my understanding then is that what you're agreeing is that we're not going to have any new additional schemes we're not going to provide a one-off covid grant unless there is one you know a particular scheme that is in dire need and you're the underspend that we currently have 58 000 is going to be reabsorbed into the general account and what you're going to do is a kind of ground zero we would work out how much we think these existing schemes will need come April 2021 and then what we'll need in 2022 in addition to when these new schemes their funding expires partly through the financial year when you said absorbed into the general fund so that to me says give John back the money so that was part of option no no no I'd like to change that bit I'd like to be able to have the money under your desk or your desks right with the proviso can be carried over so you maintain that money in your budgets yeah with the proviso looking after the new schemes as and when they may or may not need it the work that Bill was talking about with regards to going out to parishes to help kind of come up with some scheme that would make them a bit more confident that there is a bit of help going forward that might have to come out of that money but then there's going to be a long-term effect after the service grant period is then renewed as to then how we then fund that yeah going forward so before I come so do you mind coming in you're you're on mute mate um I agree with all you're saying jose the only other bit that I didn't like about what Leslie was saying was that we wouldn't have any more new schemes and I feel that if somebody comes forward with a proposal we ought to have that money under the desk as you suggest to be able to support them whenever that happens rather than waiting for next April or whenever so sorry Sue what I should have said is rather than go out now and specifically attract new schemes what we can do is when the next round of funding grant funding becomes available which we will start advertising at the end of November so in a month's time we can also attract we can ask new schemes to also apply for funding from that same plot that the existing schemes draw from Catherine you put your hand up well I was just going to say there are sort of three in my mind there are three different periods we need to look at there's how much is in the pot for the 2021 three-year scheme is 27,000 enough and what we're possibly saying based on that conversation is that some of the underspend could be used to top that up but that we just might need to look at what's fundamentally in that pot because the existing 14 schemes plus new ones could apply from November onwards so there's that there's what do we do about the 18 months where the new schemes who are being fully funded have no pot to apply to because it's already been set up as a three-year scheme and then beyond that from 2024 onwards what's in the pot for the old schemes the new ones and then any that have popped up along the way it may be too far in advance now to think about 2024 but we need to be mindful of the fact that we're setting up new schemes who then need a pot to apply to and whether it's done on the basis of what Bill has said in terms of a percentage of what parish councils put in or not there still needs to be a some consideration given to that pot that's currently only 27,000. Right before I come to Bill that's a really good point John J.W. is the fact that we spoke about this before as a committee and with officers and what have you about the future and we do like an MTFS don't we for the council and I'm actually I know this is I love MTFS and I love a spreadsheet but actually this isn't this isn't beyond the wit of man I mean really we've got a scheme here where we are essentially rolling out a service for our community groups to assist people if we don't think of the future quite a way down the line and it drops off the cliff as I think Simon Edwards used to say and then you say it will drop off the cliff of year four right so you always reevaluate so the MTFS is a good process to be able to apply to this and I just wonder whether or not we should do a mini MTFS and say actually we are going to require this this this and this each year we go forward and say there you go J.W. right or whoever's going to be lead finance whenever in the future this is what council needs you know the community's team need to fund this this process so Catherine I'm coming to Bill. Just another thing to think about on that basis is the inflationary uplift because what you if you have a pot of 27 000 and you allocate the inflationary uplift to the organisations then when you start year four do you go back down again to 27 000 or is the pot starting at the point at which it's got to with those three years of uplift we have the same issue on all grants where other than with the community chairs but with the service support grants we have got the same issue you provide a three year round of funding 85 000 in the pot by the time you get to the end it's 95 000 but then when they start again in year four and apply there's 85 000 in the pot and so actually they're losing each time losing out each time because their costs have gone up but the pot goes back down to what it was before and that's that's what's happened in the past so it's just another thing to be aware of and be mindful of that while the pot can't keep growing exponentially we do we do need to be mindful of those inflationary uplifts as well. Sure have you have you got that one John? Bill? Yeah I mean I'd hate to think that we couldn't introduce new new schemes in the future if people you know parishes request it but I do think we need to consolidate what we've got that's my that's I really feel great really quite strongly that we need to make sure that none of the schemes that we asked that are in train now fall fail because after all that would be a very bad advert for for the scheme and actually might be put other parishes off so I think we do need to consolidate and make sure that the schemes that are in their infancy can keep going and above all we can reassure parish councils that they're not going to be left with a huge bill at the end of all of this. Claire? Yes are we Leslie did you say that you were putting out a call for more schemes at the end of the month? Well what we can say is that grant funding will be available from April 2021 and we would what we could say is this is for existing schemes and any new schemes should they want to apply? On a part funded basis. So taking up Bill's point which is really important and then going back to the original purpose of this new look mobile warden scheme which was to to try to get as even a spread across the district because we had these blank spaces where there was no coverage at all so is there enough money in the pot supposing five places three to five places came forward wanting to set up new schemes are we then going to be completely overstretched and would we not be able to do what Bill is advocating? Theoretically I don't think that that would happen I don't know whether Catherine would agree I mean we offered full funding for new schemes to set up but only one or only three schemes came forward through that kind of non-procured route through the grant funding and that was offering full funding so I think going forwards if we're only offering part funding personally I don't think that that scenario would happen and we might we might achieve one or two would you agree Catherine? It's possible that they would yes and either now or in the future we could be doing some workshops with people to look at how they can fund these these schemes going forward so we could have some some workshops whereby we look at the different scenarios and the different makeup of funding that's possible the applications they can make places they can apply to as well as looking a parish preset but I in time for April 21 I don't think there would be a massive rush for part funding from new schemes that don't the already funded organisations that said the question still remains for me as to whether or not 27 000 is enough for the existing schemes we may think it is in which case that's that's that's fine. Personally I think it's on the low side especially if we want to do what Bill is suggesting and give people reassurance I think it's a small sum of money can I go back to something Jo's that Catherine just mentioned and that was to do with workshops and I just wonder whether or not we've had an opportunity where we could bring all these schemes that we funded together and have a learning exercise especially now is it's probably easier to do it on Zoom or teams than trying to bring everyone to Kanborn. I mean they're very diverse and I wonder if they have ever got together and exchanged ideas and whether any of us as members have ever heard their experiences. We have done grant funding workshops before but I think there's a very different applying for grants for bits and pieces of funding from schemes that exist around and about is very different from the the notion of trying to make sure that within your parish budgeting cycle you have allocated some of your preset to something and and done it in good time and I think if if there's an example like in Melbourne where they're doing it and doing it well then maybe we could pull people together in advance of the end of the two years of full funding with with with Age UK and bring them all together and and have a bit of a discussion and a demonstration if you'd like of how how best to do that that would help I think some of their fears. I will certainly support that. Yeah so would I. Take your hand down please Claire thanks. Okay so are we, someone else got their hand up? No. Are we, I just want to make sure Bill is the lead for this isn't he? He's the cabinet member. He's back now. Yeah yeah right sorry. Okay so Bill I was just saying as the lead this is your department so to speak from the cabinet point of view. I can see some extra bits of work going on here as well. I don't know about you Catherine and there's the other yeah just just a little bit. I don't know if we do over time but you might. They love it Joes. I don't really. I came in on my day off for this I really love it. Did you actually come in or are you still at home? No no no I'm at home in this. So your travel expenses shouldn't be that much. No no no it's fine. I told you I love it. I think we're looking at option two aren't we as a committee. Yeah can I see some nods if you are here? Kind of a hybrid isn't it? It's definitely, it's definitely nice to be a hybrid. It's a 2.1. Yeah indeed indeed. So chair I think it's option to Catherine and Leslie comment. If I understand what we've discussed it's option two which is existing in new schemes but for the 50 it was at the 58 or the 54k to be embedded into that somewhere if John is happy with that. So it's kind of an option 2.1 is that right? Yeah it's to go into Leslie's piggy bank. It's in the bucket under the desk. We don't want it absorbed back into the general fund where we then have to start larking around trying to to get money back when it might be something we can do reasonably quickly even via this committee or even officers own jurisdiction and what have you said to do what they've got to do. Yeah it's because you know when you look at the comments on the far right of option 2 it's saying the underspend is not used for existing budgets but what we're actually saying is the underspend will be used. So yes when you look at the comments in option one so we're actually going with the. So we need to reword it. Everything that's listed in option 2 in the first left hand column except for underspend being reabsorbed. Okay Leslie just and we're going to be rolling forward that 58k to 27. Okay Leslie can you just just hang for just for a second Aaron I was just going to come to you actually because of what Leslie was saying we have those two options and it looks like we have as Peter says a 2.1 whichever you want to call it another option we will need to reword this I'm assuming or would we just reword that as option 3 so that's big. I mean to be honest the best thing would be if the committee is happy with this to agree that. I'm not hearing you Aaron. Well can anybody hear me? Okay I can hear you. Okay well just if the committee is happy with this to agree that officers agree the exact wording with this along with the chair and the lead members of finance after the meeting is over just to tidy up any sort of minutiae of it but under the sort of proviso that it is option 2.1 but exact wording to be agreed. Okay did you get that Catherine? I don't know whether I dropped out or Aaron dropped out or what happened so no I didn't sorry. Aaron you say that again. Yeah of course yeah so it would just be as long as the committee is happy that officers so yourself and Leslie Catherine would go away and agree exact wording with Joseph's chair of the committee and John as the lead member of finance. Okay so we need the salient point then to agree the salient points for this to happen yeah so essentially it's going to be we'll call it option 2.123 whatever you have the no option the underspend is to be used for existing budgets. So can I be clear which year we're talking there are two years with the underspend there there's 57.655 from this year that could go into the first year of the three year funding and then there's 58 from next year where's that going are we are we rolling it all into one or I was going to be rolling it all into one and use it across the three years are we are we uplifting the amount essentially with that that's advertised as being in the mobile warden scheme budget I want I want to be clear what we are how much we advertise that scheme is having in it at the moment it's only got 27 000 in with the underspend from those two years it could be significantly more even if you spread that that 115 000 across the three years is that how you want to use it and advertise it as such or is it when we talk about Leslie keeping it in her budget is that something that she should use at her discretion but not advertise how do you want to use it we should we should take the two together this is just my view Catherine we should take the two together and we absolutely must advertise it because what we're seeking to do is to use those funds to maintain the sustainability and to extend by another six or another 10 or whatever the number is so we're spreading the 115 000 pounds with the underspend across the three years for the next three years of the mobile warden scheme for existing schemes but new schemes can apply into that should they wish yeah yeah yes okay are you are you and Leslie happy with that Leslie you're muted you're muted isn't you and Leslie happy with that sorry I was trying to say that that 115 000 are we also adding the 27 000 pounds that's already sitting in the budget yes I think it's 27 000 pounds a year plus a third from for each year of the 115 that's underspent so you're doing the maths quickly but you've got about 38 000 extra per year is that right yeah oh and and coming back to John's comment that I assume has to go to cabinet but probably not to council but to be confirmed sure we can do that chair sorry if you don't mind I did have a quick look in the constitution just with regards to that my understanding is that counselling is correct and that that can just be done by cabinet without needing to go to council thank you cheers Claire um yeah I want to come back to the point about the county are we going to go to the county and and let them know what we're doing the extent of what south camps is doing on the mobile warden scheme and try to enter into a conversation about there the county's doing more than it is at present more evenly spread across the district sorry absolutely I think we should absolutely I mean this is a discussion that Leslie and I have had on several occasions and the work that that Leslie's been doing with the fund from the county what's it called innovation cultivator who are essentially have an open door by the sound of it albeit a jar we just need to kick it in and make sure that and actually what we've just done here today if you like could demonstrates the next several years if it's allowed by Aaron it demonstrates the next several years that what we're intending to do and how we are going to be doing it is that there's a cunning plan if you like for three three years in the minimum here so it gives county a chance if it isn't going to be this year it gives them a chance to be able to sit down and work out what they can do and how they can then help partially fund this as they go forward because that is one huge chunk of money that we get in Melbourne if you look at it by comparison to everybody else boyfriend stands and getting nothing so it makes a big difference to us exactly can you put your hand because you're blocking out Leslie's face and it's terrible can I can I add as well just I'm just thinking so so potentially we've got 65 and a half thousand pounds per year for the next three years so we're going to have 65 thousand pounds for next year where we're for existing schemes plus any new that might want to have a part funded scheme but then partway through 2022 we're going to have that surge of 10 new schemes wanting parts of that funding so we need to allocate more money for the financial year 22 23 to 24 and 23 24 this is what I was saying Leslie about a mini MTFS because you can just stick it down into a spreadsheet and it spits out the number at the other end I don't know what a mini MTFS is medium term financial strategy it's just it's just literally a set of figures on the page that we need this we can put all of the the schemes into it if you like or just keep it very simple at high level and and just this is this is what he's going to mean now this is a current situation in 19 stroke 20 stroke 21 and for the next few years this is what I go here's the here's the cliff edge where you're talking about all these other schemes needing the 10 schemes or was needing the extra funding how the heck are we going to fund that that's the figure we're going to need at that point that gives John or who are in cabinet are the ones that they're going to sit down and go actually this is a good point we now need to find that money or have egg in your face. Yeah I'm Leslie I'll just say first of all that you don't need to worry spreadsheet Joe's will will help you out on this but where we go is it to be fair to Catherine and Leslie um Joe's maybe maybe we should agree if if Leslie was to put together what she feels we've decided because it we have changed things a bit um and to to put it past past us by correspondence just so that we're all happy that that's what we've we've agreed would that be the procedurally the right thing to do I'm just I'm just trying to think that you know it's a lot of money and I think Leslie probably would feel happier if we're all signed up to there's no misunderstandings basically you agree Leslie yeah oh I agree but I mean there's Leslie because it's you know it's her pen if we can I just say if we if we split that um underspend for the two years across the three years of the for the existing schemes that new ones could potentially apply to then that's fine what we then can't allow is the new schemes who will be setting up with full funding to then apply into that because the fund has gone so we still to take Leslie's point from before still have that 18 months to think about and I know you're talking about the medium term financial strategy and creating a mini one but there's still that to think about and then what will be in the pot from 2024 onwards needs thinking about as well so we we can we can say what we think we've agreed here with that underspend but we might need to do a little bit of maths as well around how much we think those those new schemes will want or need from us but that will again vary based on what their parish council is going to put in um we might need to say there is an a sum available and then worry about 2024 later right before I come to council is uh Aaron's just tuck his hand up so this is constitutional sort of thanks chair I mean I was just going to say that actually you know what has definitely been agreed at this meeting currently is that you know you are going to be taking this over and that uh John and cabinet will make the necessary arrangements to via this so that he can be kept in the budget moving forward what it seems to me won't be able to be agreed today because to my mind there needs to be additional information is exactly how this money is going to be dealt with going forward and what proportion should be allocated to each year moving forward so potentially what I would suggest is you agree the basics now in the sense of um carrying that forwards but for the detail of that and how that money will be used is potentially to well either agree that after the meeting or to bring a report back which would be my suggestion to the next meeting on that and then a full decision can be made with all of the information yeah it kind of seems sensible um while you're thinking about that Catherine because your face is definitely in thinking mode right I'll go to uh I think it was Peter then Claire if I may uh yeah thank you if I can just make a brief point then I unfortunately have to drop out for another appointment um uh we should be a little bit careful first of all I agree with what Aaron Aaron has said what we're trying to do here is discuss uh numbers we don't have in front of us I mean we have in general sense so um the consultants would call it an as is and to be analysis that that shows if we did nothing what would happen in the next three years for existing in new schemes and then the second scenario is under version 2.1 is what's the to be situation and that's what has to be agreed by us and ultimately go to a cabinet thanks Claire yeah so what I'm saying really is a combination of what both Peter and Aaron have just said I'm beginning to lose it now because I haven't got figures in front of me uh I'd like a report to come to the next meeting which brings together what Catherine and Leslie and everyone else has been saying uh unless we have to make a decision today I think we need to be working on the 2.1 option and then looking at the different scenarios across the few years ahead um I I've become really now rather confused okay stick your hand down please Claire Aaron just in a quickie what would your bit your advice be to to progress this this now um sorry can you hear me I'm not actually sure yeah there we go thank you um my suggestion for today would be to make an agreement that um the money will be kept in the budget uh not reabsorbed into the general account moving forwards um and that and actually just to agree that a report will be brought to the committee next time to make a full decision on exactly how and when that money will be spent um but with regards to details today I think you're going to struggle to get much else other than uh keeping that money in the budget thank you Aaron I think this is this is this is the most sensible advice we don't want to do anything that wrong and then puts the money at risk through a bad decision that would be wrong so shall we shall we follow Aaron's advice um so essentially I think we are if I'm going to have a show of hands Aaron do you want to just look at this to make sure or would you prefer to do it yourself Aaron right essentially make an agreement that we keep any of the monies that have not been spent the underspend in the budget for Leslie and Catherine whichever budget you want to call it so that that's where that stays at the moment so are we in and not to go back into the general fund are we in agreement with that that's unanimous Aaron thank you and then the next part of this will be could we respectfully and kindly ask officers to work extra nights and weekends for the next the next meeting if that if it's not doable for the next meeting please say so it needs to be done for the next meeting just because the grant scheme needs to be advertised to okay well then apologies for giving you this extra work sorry Joe's can I ask is it possible to actually do it between meetings if time is critical could can we do this agree it by correspondence or something I'm sorry I'm not sure on the procedure for that but um that might help Catherine and Leslie Aaron's got his hand up where you go Aaron um my advice would be to deal with this during committee um if you would like to deal with it sooner rather than later my advice would be to hold an extraordinary meeting we've actually got quite a busy agenda at the next meeting anyway so um I would be very happy to organise an extra meeting that would work for everybody and get this dealt with sooner so in that case then in answer to that given officers enough time to be able to bring the the report together rather than say in the next week or so should we should we look to have the extraordinary meeting for this report a week before the next the next meeting so we have two meetings following one week one the one that gives you three weeks give or take is that enough time ladies well remember I have to get the the report to Aaron a week before your meeting so it actually gives me two weeks yeah if we had it halfway through the week imagine start doing it this afternoon um Catherine um what I'm just I just want to be clear what we're bringing back we're bringing back proposals for how to spend that underspend across those three years and possibly using some of it to bolster the 18 months of no funding for the for the fully funded organisations we are are we or are we not being asked to then discuss in the paper or present options for how much should be in that fund in its entirety from 2024 onwards no I would say actually yes I think this is for me clear this is about how we we this is this is a recurring question from officers what are we going to do when this lot runs out how are we going to fund this lot when it runs out I actually think we can speculate to some degree officers can speculate to some degrees as to what is going to be required going forward to maintain the scheme after this three year period is over I think that would be sensible it also gives finance that the opportunity to say well where the heck are we going to get that okay all right you might you might find that the recommendation is coming out of the first two points influence the third any the third one anyway and what you have in the budget from going from 2024 onwards but we also need just need to cover off that point about inflationary uplifts because that then what's in the point in the pot from 2024 will be what's what it's been uplifted to potentially and not going back to what it was at the beginning I think if this report can be done in that without having you have nervous breakdowns the pair of you then I think that would be it would be lovely if we could have it for that meeting that's fine so every so the next meeting whenever that is in November end of November if we're looking for the week before the Friday before um an extraordinary meeting where the one agenda item which will be this report in answer to the days meetings and the essentially auction 2.1 is that okay everybody yeah according to my diary that's the 20th of November thank you yeah oh I was going to have my head on them but it's okay it's usually my excuse okay that's that's 24 November yeah I wouldn't I wouldn't be able to make that meeting myself but then I'm a substitute anyway well you're you're more than welcome to to to dip in if you wish Bill even from remotely as I mean as the the member for this department you know it's that's entirely up to you I mean I think really you've given your blessing for this to happen anyway yeah I have I mean process so yeah I've got a pension fund trustee meeting which tend to go on all day so I don't likely I'll be able to contribute okay well that's fine uh John Williams you've been very quiet um and I might have you I'll take it you're in acceptance of everything that's been said and your advice we've had from Aaron that's a thumbs up lovely thank you very much okay um where are we lost was there anything in the service support grant paper we needed to return to yeah it's a paper I think there might be a similar issue there just in terms of what is in that pot going forward so are we talking the uplift down there again it's it so there was the the paper I mean forgive me Leslie this is your paper but the paper was talking about um the impacts of COVID essentially on on those organizations but but it did bring given given the context of the conversation we've just had about generally what's in a pot um it did bring to light the questions around the the inflationary uplift and what what is in that pot um for next time when we do the next three years of funding varying in mind that they've already started their three years then they won't the two won't be lined up service support grants and mobile warden schemes won't be lined up if you want to add another paragraph then you report for the three weeks to time I mean really I suppose this is where we are this is this is looking into the crystal ball again isn't it it is this is crystal ball uh territory it is and and that's not to be to belittle this process because this is where we've started and we've moved on so we need we need to know it's as simple as that right we we there is no two ways about it we need to know what the impact of any decisions we make have made with regards to this and then how these service grants with the uplift on the inflationary uplift etc the impact on those those schemes I'm actually thinking unless we have an awful second wave of COVID I've got a sneaking suspicion I know I saw your face there so because I'm dreading it at all right but if we if we don't let's look on the bright side then I'm I'm recently confident that the impact isn't going to be as bad as perhaps we feared on the schemes themselves because they've adapted with the telephone and etc etc so there is that element we can perhaps slightly push to one side a little but it's the ongoing costs as you say I think if unless members disagree and I think they're nodding at the moment um would you mind adding that to your report matters just take all three all three in the same report and do it like that that's fine is it okay Leslie so in terms of options you're for this paper you're looking at option three so giving consideration for the budget from April 22 onwards yeah yeah yeah I do apologize about the actual work on this but I think it's so important um that we have a as as clearer an idea of what the finances are going to have to be in in a few years time as your recommendations or your discussions already have said so thank you ever so much um Joe's sorry I'm going to come back to the county again because we didn't resolve that one I think it's something that we if I may say here Leslie please jump in if you wish that Leslie and I have talked about quite significantly over the past few months especially around the mobile warden schemes that we've set up um I think Leslie you you were saying that we kind of need a track record we need to we need to show what we've done um we need to prove that uh where we are is something that and the savings that can be made with counties uh adult social services uh budgets and what have you um I think you said they've already got some uh big data haven't you Leslie um Age UK actually I've got a statistician uh uh who's putting together some cost benefit analyses so once we've got that I think we can then um build that into the conversation that we have for county just to show just to demonstrate because I they won't invest in anything unless we can demonstrate what the savings will be to them so that that's really important so we can't really step we can't go any further forwards until we have that data okay yeah I mean giving you example my father and I love him is today going into care um he's had four visits a day with the the people you know the the care people coming and what have you the amount of money that has been spent is an extortionate but for the last two years he hasn't been in care and I suppose a thousand pound a week for care you can see how it ramps up is an extortion and that's probably one of the cheaper numbers that have been quoted so these are these are the um the examples we have I mean Sue has been involved with this from nursing and heaven knows what for a long time so we've had these conversations ourselves so so a number of occasions over the last 10 years so it's we have the data anecdotally if you like Catherine I'm just thinking about whether there's anything we can do until we've got the data and we have in the past done things not necessarily on this issue but we have had a committee or the chair of a committee or a lead member right to county just to let them know what we're doing at the moment and the considerations that we're having to make in terms of budgets and things you can't you can't give them necessarily the data on savings to I don't social care um or to the early help team uh as well but we we could just say this this is a priority for us as a council um we would hope that it would be for you at some point in the future and have a have a a letter written that that just explains our position that's that's another another you know and as an interim point on the way to having something else that demonstrates um support Bill and John what do you feel about that I um I think I wanted yeah the thing about the county council is that it it's got to be a a lower priority I think because they're not going to act quickly um if it's going to be it's going to be putting more work on Catherine and Leslie I think it's something that we should put on the upward on hold for a while um and return to it when they've got more time that would be my view yeah I think given the financial situation of the county council the chances of us getting any success with this at the moment are not going to be very great can I pick up on some of these points made about the mtfs and all this I we don't know what's going to be happening in 2024 I don't know what's going to be happening next year we haven't had a we haven't had the financial sentiment yet from the government um that's not going to happen until later this month so to look forward to 2024 sorry joseph but you know it's a crystal ball we don't know what's going to be happening then we could well find ourselves in in a freeze the government could freeze our our expenditure um so everything we can't give any assurances beyond what we've already got at the moment and to do anything to and to give any assurances would be I'm sorry would would would be would be wrong um because we don't know what's going to happen after next year I say we don't know what's going to happen next year because we haven't had a financial settlement yet um the government may well come back um next year after COVID um with the need to find enormous amounts of savings across the board um you know and in those cases we could I can't guarantee that these schemes could be continuing in 2024 I'm very sorry but that's the state we find ourselves in so if we only do what we know now and I hear what you're saying and I I've you know support your option 2.1 but to look beyond that would be um I can't give any guarantees nobody could give any guarantees what's going to be happening in two or three years time you know John it wasn't it wasn't it wasn't I can't give any guarantees Joe no no no it wasn't for um any kind of guarantees it was moral if you like an internal internal aid or call to say actually if all was well and we get our finances from go you can't you can't base an MTFS on that you have to base the MTFS on what you know currently you know not not looking into a crystal ball and thinking what money we might have in two or three years time because we just don't know okay fair enough save you a bit of work there then John you got your hand up right then any any more comments than we made members Peter's gone I think can I just add one thing this is a completely off the wall question we call them mobile wardens aid UK calls them community wardens um to me community wardens means more I mean you know I just wonder why we why we still call them it's a historic thing perhaps um but community wardens just you know the name tells people much more about what they're about than mobile wardens I just wonder whether or not we should consider changing it I dare say that term mobile wardens comes from something that either care network or one of the original schemes used because the the mobile the warden is mobile and goes round and knocks on doors and and helps people so yeah we can we can we can switch our terminology and start calling them that if that's what we're going to do personally but I mean I don't just let me sway you I mean there are other people here who may have an opinion I don't want to start an argument but but you won't you won't start an argument but I mean you know mobile mobile warden scheme is a registered charity and that's its registered name so yeah there are a whole host of um issues to change change names I mean we can refer to it as community warden scheme it's not a big deal we can have a funding scheme for community wardens that mobile warden schemes registered with that name kind of like exactly yeah it's not I agree the I've always questioned the mobile warden scheme bit so I often think is where it gets confused with the sheltered housing mobile wardens yeah people think that you're offering so to have community warden yeah would make sense I think she's been around for a year or two but the year or two um I suppose my my um I suppose my angst has always been about the warden bit you know it's a bit like prison wardens and things and and I'm not sure I like that term so I go with you in in liking community wardens better but I'd love to get rid of the warden bit community carers would that be better oh no no no carer carer okay okay okay I'm just showing my ignorance now you're not you're not it's just that we're just talking about it all the time I do wonder whether if you start calling it a community some things let's say it's community warden scheme you might then open it up to people who've who've become quite active under the under COVID and those groups will then start because then good and good neighbour schemes those kinds of things so maybe it's the wrong time to change yes we definitely want to involve those people from the from COVID you know they've they've set themselves up and become very active we want to galvanize their you know make the most of their enthusiasm but not necessarily even in this scheme I don't know I think you're being too greedy you're wanting both more money under your name I'll shut up now I gotta go for broke a bit of what I say okay writing ladies and gents thank you very much I think there's nothing else now apologies to officers for the extra work you've been given and we're looking like we're going to have the meeting the week before as Sue said to be on the 20th of November where hopefully the report can come to us for this for all the bits we've been talking about now and then we'll have the normal meeting schedule meeting on the 27th I'm assuming thank you Joe might I might I just ask Aaron if he could give a warning to Claire Deltafield about that yeah absolutely in that case then thank you very much one and all thank you to Liam in the background there minding the store and we'll see you on the 20th of November thank you very much and have a good day thank you members of the public we're now going to end the live stream thank you yeah Liam if you just end the live stream now thank you thanks Aaron