Return to AgendaITEM CH3
CHILDRENS SERVICES SCRUTINY committee
MINUTES of the meeting held on 11 December 2007 commencing at 10.00 am and finishing at 1.45 pm.
Present:
Voting Members: Councillor Sue Haffenden - in the chair
Councillor Marilyn Badcock Councillor Michael Badcock (in place of Councillor Lawrie Stratford) Councillor Ann Bonner Councillor Nick Carter Councillor Jean Fooks Councillor Deborah Glass Woodin Councillor Pete Handley Councillor David Nimmo-Smith Councillor Val Smith Councillor Melinda Tilley (in place of Councillor Mrs Anda Fitzgerald-O’Connor) Councillor David Turner Councillor Carol Viney
Ms Bernadine Spencer
Other Members in Cabinet Member for Schools’ Improvement: Councillor Attendance: Michael Waine Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families: Councillor Louise Chapman
By Invitation: Mrs Carole Thomson (Oxfordshire Governors’ Association) Mr Mark Forder (COTO)
Officers:
Whole of meeting: K. Coldwell (Corporate Core).
Part of meeting:
The Scrutiny Committee considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting, together with a schedule of addenda tabled at the meeting and:
· a design statement relating to Agenda Item 6
and agreed as set out below. Copies of the agenda, reports, schedule and statement are attached to the signed Minutes.
55/07 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
Apologies for absence and temporary appointments were received as follows:
56/07 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Sue Haffenden declared a personal interest at Agenda Item 2 in relation to Agenda Item 5 by virtue of being Chairman of the Learning Disability Partnership Board.
Councillor Val Smith declared a personal interest at Agenda Item 2 in relation to Agenda Item 6 by virtue of being a school governor at Peers School.
Mrs Bernadine Spencer declared a personal interest at Agenda Item 2 in relation to Agenda Item 5 on the grounds that she worked with children with special educational needs and her daughter had special educational needs.
Councillor Jean Fooks declared a personal interest at Agenda Item 6 by virtue of being a member of the City Council’s Executive and present at the meeting when it had discussed the withdrawal of joint use of the Leisure Centre at Peers School.
57/07 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 October 2007 were approved and signed.
Matters Arising
Minute 45/07 – Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments – Councillor Haffenden thanked Councillor Bonner for chairing this Committee’s previous meeting.
Minute 47/07 – Minutes – Councillor Handley reported that he had met with Councillor Waine to discuss the lack of sixth form in Carterton and lack of buses to the nearest sixth form in Witney. Further meetings would take place through to January 2008 and this issue would be brought back for this Committee’s consideration if necessary.
Minute 47/07 – Minutes – Councillor Handley reported that he had received a letter from the Health Authority regarding abortions as he had written to them in his role as Chairman of a Scrutiny Committee at West Oxfordshire District Council. West Oxfordshire residents still had to travel to clinics in London for terminations.
Councillor Chapman reported that the lack of termination facilities in Oxfordshire had been discussed at the last meeting of the Children & Young People’s Board. A report would be brought to its next meeting and she would keep this Committee updated.
Minute 48/07 – Follow up report on the first year of delegating the statementing budget – Mr Forder reported that there was a feeling amongst some of the County’s Headteachers that children who needed statements did not necessarily receive them.
Minute 50/07 – Educational Effectiveness – Mr Forder reported that there was still scepticism in Oxfordshire schools regarding the methodology used to measure Oxfordshire’s position in relation to its statistical neighbours.
58/07 SPEAKING TO OR PETITIONING THE COMMITTEE
The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:-
59/07 SERVICE AND RESOURCE PLANNING 2008/09 – 2012/13 (Agenda item 5)
The report before the Committee was one of a series of reports informing members on the service and resource planning process and budget issues for 2008/09 and the medium term and provided information that would lead to the Council agreeing a budget requirement and council tax for 2008/09 in February 2008.
The Committee was asked to consider and comment on the identified budget priorities and pressures and the choices as to how these could be funded for its programme area and to also give its view on the investment proposals as set out in Annex 4.
Comments from each Scrutiny Committee would be collated and fed back to the Cabinet by the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee on 10 January 2008.
The Cabinet Members for Schools’ Improvement and Children, Young People & Families, together with the Director for Children, Young People & Families, Mr Mike Simm (Head of Commissioning, Strategy and Locality Development), Mr Andy Tagg (Strategic Manager – Finance & Accountancy), Ms Jenny Hydari (Assistant Head of Finance – Financial Planning) and Ms Lorna Baxter (Strategic Finance Manager – Financial Planning) attended before the Committee in order to answer the Committee’s questions on the identified budget pressures.
The Director for Children, Young People & Families introduced the budget commenting that a strategic Directorate approach had been taken this year rather than submitting individual bids. This approach reflected the Directorate’s focus on its key priorities which were raising achievement in schools and breaking the cycle of deprivation (through prevention and early intervention).
The Committee then conducted a question and answer session. A selection of the Committee’s questions, together with the Cabinet Members’ and officers responses are listed below:
Annex 2 – Capital Priorities
· In relation to the youth centres, why was funding for some centres listed as zero and for some years as ‘unknown’?
Mr Tagg reported that a feasibility study had not been carried out before the papers had been produced. He stated that he now had details of the capital programme that was being put through for the youth service and undertook to send a briefing paper on this to all members of the Committee.
IT WAS AGREED that an explanation be provided in future budget papers where funding was stated as ‘unknown’.
Annex 3 – Efficiencies, Savings, Pressures & Reprioritisations
· Savings achieved on Home to School Transport – had these been made from existing contractors? Were the savings feasible in the long term? Wouldn’t it be the case that the existing contractors would walk away from the contract and children would have to double up on buses?
Home to School Transport had been an extraordinary success due to the re-tendering of the service. Different contracts were put out to tender every three years. Tenders had now been coming in at 25% less than their predecessors. This was a result of the widening of the market and the increased efficiency of the transport service. The policy that the Directorate was following had not changed. The safety net would come in 2011/12 when the contracts would be re-tendered. This was a high risk strategy and officers would continue to monitor it for the next two years.
· Could officers please explain ‘projects funded currently by Grant would need to reduce if full funding not received’ (under ‘Early Years and Family Support’)
Officers had been awaiting the settlement figures when the papers had been drawn up. They now had confirmation of the Grant. This was secure for the next three years and was no longer a risk.
· How would ‘efficiency savings through improved commissioning and contracting arrangements through placements and external care’ work?
The budget proposals were based on viring the savings made on Home to School Transport into Early Years and Family Support. There were no more additional savings to made until 2010/11. By then it was anticipated that pooled budgets would have been brought together and more effective commissioning of services would be in place.
· What did ‘pressures in Shared Services’ mean?
The Directorate contribution to Shared Services had been underestimated by £120,000. Therefore this was a pressure across the whole Directorate. Officers had identified a funding stream from the School Development Grant to fund this but had located this under Educational Effectiveness.
· What did the reduction in Redundancy/PRC budget under Strategy and Performance mean?
This related to the Schools’ Premature Retirement compensation budget. There were reductions in this area due to the recent age discrimination legislation.
Annex 4 – Investment Proposals
· How would the details of the draft financial settlement impact on the sum available to allocate?
A briefing note on this matter had been circulated to all County Councillors the previous week. It was expected that there would be £900,000 in addition to the existing sum to allocate. However, the County Council still hadn’t received all of the necessary information in terms of the finances allocated to it (for example, the tax bases from the District Councils). The final settlement would be announced at the end of January.
Ms Baxter reported that they had received details of the grants this morning and the figures were in line with what had been expected by the Directorate.
· Wouldn’t any efficiency savings be offset by redundancy costs? Was this in effect putting in another layer of management without restructuring others?
The Review of the Educational Effectiveness Service undertaken on behalf of the Directorate contained a number of recommendations. In line with these recommendations and the move towards locality working the Educational Effectiveness service would be restructured. The intention was not to bring in extra layers of management. The posts would be time limited so it wasn’t about growing another layer of bureaucracy.
· Could members see a copy of the review recommendations?
Mr Simm undertook to ensure that a copy of the Summary Review Report of the Educational Effectiveness Service was circulated to all members of the Committee.
· At what scale would the salaries for the Senior Advisors be advertised?
Salaries would be pitched in line with adverts from other Local Authorities who were initiating similar ways of working. Candidates would need to have current experience as a Head teacher.
· Would they be recruited from Oxfordshire Schools?
The posts would be recruited openly. Advisors would need to move in and out of schools so that their knowledge and experience was always up to date.
· Could the Committee have more information on how savings could be made to continue the new posts if they were successful?
A major restructure was proposed within the Directorate. The sum requested in Annex 4 would no longer be required in future years as savings would have been found as a result of the restructure.
· The Senior Advisors for Primary Schools would need to supervise about eighty schools each. Therefore, how could they get to know them in depth?
The new posts would need to deploy staff towards targeted schools.
· There was never enough money to assist children with Special Educational Needs (SEN). Didn’t Head teachers know best how to assist children with SEN in their schools but just needed more money?
Children and young people with SEN in the county’s schools did not perform as well as their peers in terms of comparative progress. The proposed team would get to know schools well enough to ensure that this was addressed. At present, the work of the Schools’ Improvement partners was varied. Their approach needed to be standardised. More sharing of best practice needed to take place.
· Why wasn’t the Youth Service included in the proposals?
The paper didn’t include a specific proposal regarding the Youth Service. The change in the Directorate’s approach would require changes to youth support and the Youth Service would be part of this.
· How did the Directorate currently monitor what funds were saved in the long term where funds were used for early intervention?
Earlier investment was resulting in 40% less admissions to the County’s Primary Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services (PCAMHS). Children were now seen within six weeks so there were no waiting lists. There were a whole number of indicators that could be used to assess the effect of intervention, for example, the number of children entering the Looked After system, improved behaviour in schools, the number of children on the Child Protection Register and the type of work undertaken by staff. Officers would be collating data to measure the effect of intervention strategies.
Following the question and answer session, the Committee AGREED to forward the following advice to the Cabinet via the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee:
This Committee:
(a) wishes to congratulate the Directorate on:
(1) its whole service approach to setting the budget this year (as opposed to a service by service approach);
(2) the savings achieved on Home to School Transport due to the re-tendering process; and hopes that the savings will continue in future years;
(b) recommends the Cabinet to consider the proposal for Raising Achievement (£350,000) as set out in Annex 4 subject to all members of this Committee soon receiving a copy of the Summary Review Report of the Educational Effectiveness Service;
(c) supports the proposal for Breaking the Cycle of Deprivation (£450,000) as set out in Annex 4; and
(d) should any funding be available this Committee wishes the Cabinet to look at youth centre provision in both rural and urban areas of the county in order to see where it needs to be improved (this review should include consideration of factors such as opening hours and staffing).
60/07 OXFORD ACADEMY – DRAFT OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE (Agenda item 6)
This item had been placed on the Agenda to enable members of this Committee to offer comment/advice to the Cabinet on the draft Outline Business Case (OBC) for an Academy on the Peers school site.
In January 2008 the Cabinet would be asked to agree the submission of a finalised OBC to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), with any final support subject to the outcome of the relevant statutory process.
The outline project appraisal and outline business case were to be viewed as draft as negotiations were still underway. The OBC was the latest draft and the highlighted text indicated where officers expected to be by the time it was submitted to the Cabinet before Christmas. There was little financial data included as officers were still to finalise the funding envelope with Partnerships for Schools.
Copies of the design statement were also before the Committee.
The Cabinet Member for Schools’ Improvement together with Mr Michael Mill (Strategic Manager – Property and Assets), Mr Shannon Moore (Assistant Head of the Raising Achievement Service) and Mr Nigel Cunning (Team Leader – Project Delivery) attended before the Committee in order to answer the Committee’s questions.
Ms Ruth Wilkinson (Rose Hill Tenants and Residents Association and a Rose Hill resident who had been co-ordinating the Save Peers Sports Centre supporters’ campaign to delay closure of the facility) made the following points:
· the consultation had not stated that the swimming pool would close; · the local community wanted the pool to remain in place; · increased uptake of the leisure facilities could easily be achieved by better marketing; · page 11 of the Outline Business Plan implied that the pool needed repairing. This was not the case. Dr Rundle (the City Council’s Executive Member for Stronger Communities) had been told that it could be used for at least another twenty years; · obtaining financial data regarding the leisure centre (eg usage and costs) was a real problem. The data maintained by the leisure department was not robust. An informal complaint had been sent to the Chief Executive of Oxford City Council regarding the quality of the data, which was being investigated; · page eleven of the draft OBC stated that the anticipated position by the time of the Cabinet meeting in January 2008 was that the City Council had decided to withdraw from the joint use agreement on 31 March 2008. However, the budget for the City Council for 2008/09 would not be discussed and agreed until after the date of the January Cabinet meeting: the Labour and Green parties had already pledged to support continuing subsidy for the leisure centre up until the end of August 2008, and by working together on this issue would form a majority and vote this through at the budget meeting in February/March; · public access to the facilities could be maintained during the rebuilding period by opening up Champion Way.
Mr John Green (Rose Hill Tenants and Residents Association) made a number of points as follows:
· there were very few local facilities in the Rose Hill area apart from Peers Sports Centre; · Littlemore Community Centre was of a poor quality; · the Academy should continue to provide facilities to the public; and · the leisure facilities should be the last to be demolished and the first to be rebuilt.
Mr Vim Rodrigo (Rose Hill Tenants and Residents Association) made a number of points as follows:
· his main contention was the closure of the Sports Centre. The Design Statement had not translated the vision for the school into the building proposals as part of the ambitions of the design were to ‘integrate community facilities in an exceptional resource for Oxford’; · the absence of a swimming pool would be a great loss to both the Academy and the community as it presently served the Littlemore and Rose Hill communities; · he asked a number of questions including: - why did the present sports hall need to be demolished and so early on? - what activities would be catered for in the new sports hall?; - were there to be two separate libraries? - if the public were to be barred during school hours what ‘times’ would be available for community use? - how could this be regarded as an ‘integrated solution’?
Councillor Olive McIntosh Stedman, speaking as a local member, stated that she was in favour of the Academy as the area was in need of regeneration and emphasised the health benefits of sporting activities. She stated that she would wish to see a youth centre located on site should any surplus land become available.
Councillor John Sanders, speaking as a local member, made the following points:
· the area around Peers School was deprived and overcrowded; · the County Council had a responsibility to maintain community facilities; · under ‘design and construction’ the OBC stated that ‘all existing and proposed third party users have been identified and there is a strategy in place for providing accommodation for these users where necessary’. However, the strategy was unclear and there was no evidence of any consultation having taken place and no mention of community facilities; · there was no evidence apart from four sentences on page 11 of the OBC, to demonstrate that the leisure centre should be immediately dispensed with and there were no credible costings (discounting the flawed city council officers’ reports) or surveyors’ reports; · he wished a professional survey and feasibility study of the leisure centre to be conducted in order to determine: - whether it could continue to operate until c. 2010 when a new facility might be built; and - proper costings for the site including staffing, security, running and maintenance costs.
A summary of responses from the Cabinet Member for Schools’ Improvement, Mr Mill, Mr Cunning and Mr Moore is listed below:
· Oxfordshire County Council was party to an unsigned joint agreement regarding the leisure centre and did not seek to step out of the agreement; · withdrawal of the City from the agreement would make the partnership vulnerable; · the Design Team had looked at the philosophy of providing sports facilities, the running costs and the curriculum offer and had concluded that the long term provision of a swimming pool was not viable; · in terms of the life of the pool, detailed surveys of the building and the pool had not been carried out. Any leaks had been fixed but it wasn’t known what the effect of the previous loss of water may have been; · it would take approximately two years for the new Academy buildings to be constructed; the existing sports facilities would not be demolished until the replacement facilities were in operation; · joint use of the facilities during the construction period was a possibility, but reliant upon a risk assessment by the contractors; · the library was just a design concept at present. The aim was to let the library be accessed by the public during and after school hours. It could also provide the community with a learning space when it was not being used; · the vision of the school was for community facilities to be provided and for operating hours to be ‘eight til late’. · the Academy did not have any further funding above what any maintained school would receive; · the OBC was to intended to demonstrate that the proposal was achievable within the funding constraints. Once approved, there would be a design competition. The final plan and exact situation for the school was unknown until that time.
Their responses to a selection of questions asked by the Committee are listed below:
· Was the swimming pool used by local schools and was this part of the curriculum?
There was no requirement for secondary schools to teach swimming. It was not thought that primary schools used the pool. Its closure in January would cause difficulty to pupils at Peers School who currently used the pool. The school would welcome arrangements to be continued until the end of the academic year. Pupils from Mabel Pritchard Special School also used the pool.
· Would it be possible to negotiate the continued provision of facilities with the Academy?
The majority of revenue costs would have to continue to be met by the City Council otherwise this would be an unsustainable drain on the schools’ budget. Clearer guidance from the City Council was required regarding where they stood in relation to the joint use agreement.
· If Oxfordshire County Council couldn’t sell off part of the site what would happen to the whole scheme?
£3m would be found from the capital programme to provide new buildings for Mabel Pritchard Special School. There would be some capital receipts from disposing of part of the site. There were additional costs to resolve other existing uses on the site (eg PEEP, Library, Adult Learning etc.) as the Government did not meet these costs. The County Council had a responsibility towards those services.
There was some surplus site to what was required by the Academy therefore it was prudent that this land be sold off for housing in order to generate extra funding. However, planning permission had not yet been obtained.
Following the question and answer session the Committee AGREED:
(a) to urge the Cabinet to ascertain the position of Oxford City Council regarding the Joint Agreement for the future provision of the swimming pool at Peers school; (b) to request the Cabinet to open up discussion with the Academy about retaining the present pool at Peers school for use by both pupils and the community; and (c) to inform the Cabinet that subject to Health and Safety constraints on the contractors, this Committee is of the view that public access to the pool and possibly the library could be maintained during the rebuilding period by opening up Champion Way.
61/07 PROGRESS UPDATE FROM TASK GROUP: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIORITIES FROM THE REVIEW OF YEAR ONE OF THE CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE’S PLAN (Agenda item 7)
One of the items in this Committee’s Scrutiny Work Programme for 2007/08 is an ongoing review of the Children and Young People’s Plan (CYPP) as it is implemented.
On 17 July 2007 the Cabinet approved the review of the first year of the Children & Young People’s Plan, which had been produced in April 2006.
The Task Group will be reporting back to the Committee periodically and feeding into the review of Year 2 of the Plan.
Members of the Task Group reported as follows:
· the Group had met once; · mental health had been identified as the most important area to focus on; and · Members had met with Mr Paul Sheffield (PCAMHS (Primary Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services).
IT WAS AGREED that:
· Mr Sheffield (PCAMHS (Primary Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services) would be invited to this Committee’s February meeting to inform members of work underway in that area; and
· Councillor Handley would replace Councillor Viney on the CYPP Task Group.
62/07 SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME (Agenda item 8)
To update this Committee’s work programme (CH8).
· Brief oral report from Councillor Haffenden on Bournemouth Conference: Social Services for Adults and children.
The Committee AGREED to consider this item at its February meeting as previously agreed.
63/07 TRACKING SCRUTINY ITEMS (Agenda item 9)
Report back on advice by this Committee to the Cabinet or Council.
The Committee noted the following information:
· Effective Communication To Parents Of Children With SEN
On 20 November the Cabinet AGREED all of the review recommendations.
· Follow up Report on the First Year of Delegating the Statementing Budget
On 7 November the Cabinet Member for Schools’ Improvement had AGREED to:
(a) endorse the continued implementation of the delegation scheme;
(b) ask officers to update the hundred primary schools with the smallest whole school budgets every new funding cycle (the next being 2008 – 2011) ;
(c) ask officers to continue to monitor the level of SEN funding and the impact on pupil outcomes.
IT WAS AGREED that the Schools Forum would be asked whether they considered that a contingency fund was required for secondary schools. If so the funding and administration costs would be top sliced from their budgets.
· Outcome of Formal Consultations (via statutory notices) on Proposals for Peers School to Become an Academy subject to consent from the Secretary of State
On 20 November the Cabinet AGREED to approve the proposal to close Peers School on 31 August 2008, conditional on the making of an agreement under Section 482(1) of the 1996 Act for the establishment of an Academy, where the proposal in question provides for all of the pupils currently at the school which is the subject of the proposals to transfer to the Academy and set a date by which the condition should be met.
Note: Given that the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee has considered this item, under Rule 16(j)(i) of the Scrutiny Procedure Rules in the Council’s Constitution, the decision of the Cabinet on this item will not be subject to Call-In.
64/07 FORWARD PLAN (Agenda Item 10)
The Committee was asked to suggest items from the current Forward Plan on which it might have wished to have an opportunity to offer advice to the Cabinet before any decision was taken.
The following items were raised:
Children’s Centres (Full Cabinet - 19 February).
Post 16 Education for Pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) (Full Cabinet - 15 January).
Sustainable Schools Travel Strategy (Full Cabinet - 19 February).
All members of this Committee were subsequently asked to note that this Committee’s next scheduled meeting was not until 26 February 2008. Therefore members were advised that they could either request to speak at the Cabinet meeting or consider calling in a decision if necessary.
................................................................................... in the Chair
Date of signing.................................................................. 2008
|