Agenda and minutes

The Chairman reminded those attending that it was the 50^th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster and led a minute's silence in remembrance of those who had died.

No apologies were received.

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families declared an interest as his sister worked for the County Council on the Connecting Families Programme.

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 20 October 2016).  Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/e-mail address below.

Eight people spoke under public participation.

Julie Wills, Headteacher, Upton-upon-Severn CofE Primary School: With reference to the Children's Centres, it was important to acknowledge that change happened and there was a need to be positive and look to the future.  Riverboats Children's Centre in Upton had laid a strong foundation for future development.  It was a sadness to Ms Wills that the Centre was currently closed for 2 days per week and she had previously tried to work with Action for Children to expand provision.  If the school was able to take over the building, they would be able to create a service for the future, but this would need public support.  The school was working with health visitors and midwives to ensure that all services were able to continue or be enhanced and increased.  The school wished to build a vibrant and successful centre but there was a need for the negativity to cease in order to achieve success.

Martin J Barratt, Vice Chairman, Mid Worcestershire CLP: Mr Barratt referred the Board to various Sections of the Childcare Act 2006 which he felt had been contravened.  In particular, he suggested that the lack of detail in the proposals as to the reduction in services or staffing clearly contravened section 5D.

He felt that the OSPB should recommend that the decision be delayed for 12 months in order to allow the detailed and specific information to be provided.

Nicola Perrins: Ms Perrins told the Board her personal story.  Her daughter, who was 4½, had Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD,) with traits of ADHD and Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD).  She also had Hypermobility in her joints and her school were questioning Dyspraxia.

From August 2015 until January 2016, she had received 1 visit per week from a 'Family Support worker' from a Worcestershire Children's Centre.  This support turned family life around and provided continual support as other problems came up.  The Family Support worker arranged 'Multi-agency' meetings for all the professionals involved and would also chase reports.  Since September 2016, the family had received 1 visit from the Family Support worker and Ms Perrins was concerned about where she should now go for support.

She said that schools were already pushed to their limit and could not provide the same emotional and practical support that a Family Support worker could.  The family had been discharged from this service because they did not live in a disadvantaged area.

Lisa Everall-Vaughan on behalf of Siani Driver, Worcestershire Mums Network: Ms Everall-Vaughan told the story of Lexi, a member of Worcestershire Mums Network.  The support provided by the Children Centre had literally saved her and her daughters' lives, giving advice on how to leave a situation of domestic violence and how to stay away.  She had not sought this help, but staff at the centre had noticed that she needed support.  Without the staff working in Children's Centres, people like Lexi would fall through the cracks.  There was no clear way  ...  view the full minutes text for item 956.

In accordance with the constitution, the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board (OSPB) was asked to consider decisions made by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families on 16 September 2016 in relation to Optimising the Use of Children's Centre Buildings in the Context of Effective Prevention Services for Children and Young People.  This decision 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

·       John Smith, Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Health and Well-Being

·       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 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 had 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), Cabinet had reconsidered the matter having regard to the Council's view).

Members were reminded that the debate should focus on the decision making process.

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

·       The decision had been based on false evidence and was driven by finance rather than need or demand.  The consultation process was a sham and was a process of imposition rather than consultation.

·       It would have been important to listen in detail to those affected and to take their advice, but the decision had already been taken.

·       There was still no indication of what services would be cut and where.  How could there be a consultation on this basis?  There was a lack of transparency.

·       The principles of transparency had not been adhered to, leading to irrational decisions.  The decision should be evidence based and backed by sufficient funding.

·       The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 957.