Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and apologised for having postponed the meeting from earlier in the week.  This had been done in order to encourage as much public participation as possible.

Members were reminded that, in hearing the call-in, they were not able to overturn the Cabinet's decision, but were being asked to ensure that the proper decision making process had been followed.

Apologies were received from John Smith (Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Health and Well-Being), Liz Eyre, Kit Taylor and Tom Wells.

None.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by e-mail indicating the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 30 June 2016).  Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/e-mail address below.

Four people spoke under public participation and a petition of more than 650 signatures was presented to the Board.

Siani Driver:  Members of Worcestershire Mums Network valued the Children's Centres and were deeply worried about the proposals as it was not yet clear what the changes would look like in practice and whether any jobs would be lost.  What impact would the changes have on services?

Concern was expressed about the level of transparency, as very little notice had been given about the consultation.  Children's centre staff had emailed her anonymously to express concerns about their jobs and stating that they had been told not to talk about what was going on.

Although money needed to be saved, this felt like short term saving for long term loss.  This preventative work was needed to support troubled families and prevent more families falling into crisis.  The changes appear to have been rushed through with little thought for the long term impact.

Hannah Cooper, Co-ordinator, Malvern National Childbirth Trust: The NCT currently ran services in Children's Centres such as breast feeding support and sling libraries.  In a recent public health impact assessment, breastfeeding rates had been identified as a cause for concern nationally.  Where such services were available, breastfeeding rates were up 20%.  The cost of not providing services needed to be considered.

Louis Stephen: Children's Centres provided preventative services to families before they got into trouble.  The proposed changes would have an effect on the local community, on community cohesion and on the mental health of parents.  There should be an assessment of the long term impact on the mental health of new parents.  If Children's Centres did not provide the services, then who would?

Kate Wilkinson: Kate wished to draw on her own experience to demonstrate the value of Children's Centres.  She was a mum of two who had previously worked to support adults with learning difficulties.  Following a relationship breakdown, she was now accessing services to help with depression, financial difficulties and her son's behavioural problems.  She had been able to access help from the first time she visited the Children's Centre.  If the Centre was not there, where would she go?

For many, Children's Centres were the hub of parenting life, and she implored Cabinet to think about the implications of cutting services which provided necessary tools for families' lives.

In accordance with the constitution, the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board (OSPB) was asked to consider decisions made by the Cabinet on 16 June 2016 in relation to the Provision of Effective Prevention Services for Children and Young People Including Optimising the Use of Children's Centre Buildings.  These decisions had been called-in by the required number of Members and a copy of the call-in was attached to the Agenda.

In accordance with the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Rules, the following had been invited to attend the meeting:

·         The signatories of the call-in

·         Marc Bayliss, Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families

·         The Director of Children's Services

·         The Interim Director of Public Health

The following order of proceedings had been suggested:

·         Presentation by Members of the reasons for calling in the decision

·         Questions and clarification

·         Response by the Cabinet Member/Officer

·         Questions and clarification

·         Any closing remarks by the Cabinet Member/Officer

·         Any closing remarks by those calling-in the decision

Once it had heard from all parties and considered the decision called-in, the OSPB would need to consider whether to:

a)      accept the decision without qualification or comment (in which case it could be implemented immediately without being considered again by the Cabinet); or

b)      accept the decision (in which case it could be implemented immediately without being considered again by Cabinet) but with qualification or comment which the relevant Cabinet Member with Responsibility must consider and respond to; or

c)      propose modifications to the decision or require a reconsideration of the decision (in which case the implementation of the decision was delayed until the Cabinet has received and considered a report of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board); or

d)      in exceptional circumstances ask the Council to consider whether option (a) (b) or (c) is appropriate (in which case the implementation would be delayed until after the meeting of the Council to which it had been referred and, if Council resolves option (c), the Cabinet had reconsidered the matter having regard to the Council’s view).

Presentation of the reasons for calling-in the decision

Signatories to the call-in presented the case for the call-in and in doing so made the following main points:

Cllr McDonald

·         Looking at the Cabinet report, it was very difficult to see the evidence that the Cabinet Members had used to make their decision.  The report was not up to the usual standard of the County Council and was not evidence based.  The report was full of presumptions and provided no clarity on what early years and preventative services would be affected and the impact on service users.

·         Furthermore, there was no explanation of the new consultation process – who would be consulted and what is likely to be cut?  There was also no regard to the previous consultation process and outcomes.

·         It was not clear what had gone wrong with the 0-19 tendering process.

·         This appeared to be all about driving through the cuts.

·         Cabinet had made its decision based on a flawed report with no evidence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 940.