Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Mr A A J Adams, Mrs J A Brunner and Mr C B Taylor.

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 25 April 2018).  Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/e-mail address below.

Two people had notified the Chairman of their intention to speak under Public Participation:

Tracey Rochelle

Ms Rochelle introduced herself as a friend of one of the parents whose child attended Ludlow Road Short Breaks Unit.  She had supported the parents' campaign since the short breaks unit was first threatened with closure in December 2017.  She went on to make the following points:

·        She wished to thank Members of the scrutiny task group for their report and expressed her frustration at the lack of information available.

·        She was appalled at the way the consultation had been handled and would like to know who was responsible for this and how it could lead to an informed decision.

·        The figures provided on funding did not appear to be a true reflection of the real situation.

·        A recent letter received from Harriet Baldwin MP had suggested that Ludlow Road did not have a waiting list, something that was not true.  Referrals to the unit had stopped in August 2017.

·        A group of parents had been in touch with Irwin Mitchell, the solicitors involved in the Nascot Lawn judgement.  The parents did not want to go down the legal route but they felt they had been backed into a corner.

·        Parents had also been contacted by the TV programme Panorama who were investigating the funding of short breaks units nationally.

·        The parents would like someone from the Council to put their hands up and admit that they had made mistakes.  They were asking the Council to do the right thing.

Stephen Brown

Mr Brown made the following points:

·        He thanked the scrutiny task group for their report.  Although the report was very damning of the consultation, he suggested that it could have gone further.

·        Correspondence between the County Council, the Worcestershire Health and Care Trust and the Worcestershire CCGs had been released following Mr Brown's FOI request.  The County Council had not responded to the FOI request.  The letters revealed that there had been an ongoing dispute, with the County Council using threatening language and the WHCT warning of what was ahead.

·        The CCGs made a financial contribution to Ludlow Road but were not contacted as part of the consultation.

·        It would have helped if the scrutiny task group had also spoken to campaigners.

·        The cost of Ludlow Road had been conflated with the other units and the pricing given was a political construct to get the result WCC wanted.

·        Due to the serious nature of the issues involved, the final decision should be taken by full Council.

In response, the Chairman of the OSPB undertook  to follow up on why the FOI request had not been answered by the County Council.

(previously circulated)

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 28 February 2018 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board was asked to consider and approve the draft report of the Future Provision of Overnight Unit-Based Short Breaks for Children with Disabilities Scrutiny Task Group.

The draft scrutiny report was introduced by the Lead Member of the Scrutiny Task Group.  She made the following main points:

·       It had been a privilege to lead the Scrutiny Task Group.  She wished to thank the Scrutiny Officers involved and other Task Group members who had unanimously agreed the recommendations on a cross-party basis.

·       The Task Group felt very strongly that the final decision should be made at a public meeting of Cabinet, which would allow public participation.

·       It was clear that there were serious inconsistencies in the way the County Council carried out consultations.  In particular, there was a clear contrast between the short breaks consultation and a parallel consultation being carried out by the Adult Services Directorate in respect of proposed changes to Learning Disability Day Services.  Adult Services had undertaken pre-consultation engagement with service users.  If Children's Services had also done this, the scrutiny may not have been needed.  The Council needed a clear consistent consultation policy which was applied across all departments.  This should be open and transparent and understood by all involved.  The Task Group's recommendation on this would also be shared with the Cabinet Member for Transformation and Commissioning.

·       It was disappointing that the views of the WHCT were not taken into account at an early enough stage.

·       The Task Group had found it difficult to get information from the Clinical Commissioning Groups and it was frustrating that it had taken 10 days to get a reply to the initial enquiry.

·       It was clear that the WHCT had thought that there was insufficient information in the 14 December Cabinet report and the published consultation documents to enable them to support the consultation.

·       Engagement with service users could have been started in 2015 in preparation for the removal of the Public Health Ring-Fenced Grant.  If this had happened the Council would now be in a very different position.

·       The Task Group was concerned about how the parents of all units had found out about the proposal to withdraw funding from Ludlow Road.  Parents whose children attended Ludlow Road were told in a letter which was dated 7 December.  Given the Christmas post, some parents did not receive the letter until the week before Christmas.

·       Parents of children attending other units were not informed of the proposals until January and were not routinely offered one-to-one meetings as part of the consultation.  It was only late on in the process that these parents realised the impact that the proposals might have on the other units.  There was a need for a consistent approach to engagement with service users and an assessment of the potential impact on the whole service.

·       There was a further inconsistency in the approach taken to the one-to-one consultation meetings with parents, depending on which officer carried out the meeting.  Some officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1032.

Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Panel

The Chairman of the Panel had recently met with the Assistant Director Education and Skills to discuss holding a scrutiny conference on attainment at Key Stage 2 with the theme of 'One Worcestershire'.  All Key Stage 2 schools would be invited to attend and good practice from across the County would be shared.  She would be meeting the Cabinet Member to discuss this further.

Crime and Disorder etc

Councillor Middlebrough informed the Board that the scrutiny work he was leading looking at the LTP4 Consultation had now concluded the interviewing stage and he may be in a position to bring a draft report to the Board's next meeting.  He had met with Officers from highways and communications, the Cabinet Member for Highways and the Cabinet Member for Transformation and Commissioning.

Councillor Middlebrough had recently met with Officers to discuss how the County Council was responding to the Green Paper on the Domestic Abuse Bill.  This had been a positive meeting.  The County Council was working with partners on this and the Chief Executive planned to draw attention to the Green Paper in his next staff bulletin.

Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Committee had recently received a presentation from the West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust which had led to a discussion about delays in ambulance handovers to Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.  Letters from the Ambulance Trust to the Worcestershire Acute Trust were now in the public domain and had included the Ambulance Trust's concerns about blockages at the Worcestershire Royal Hospital.  Following the meeting the Chairman of HOSC had written to the Chairman of the Acute Trust and subsequently held a helpful meeting with her.  HOSC would be meeting in June to discuss the issues further.

The Chairman of HOSC also informed Members that the Committee would be discussing the Sustainability and Transformation Partnership at a future meeting.  The Chairman of OSPB thanked the Chairman of HOSC for welcoming him to the Committee as he had recently been appointed as the representative of Bromsgrove District Council.

Economy and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel

The Vice Chairman of OSPB informed the Board that she had been asked to present to the Economy and Environment O&S Panel on the subject of bus services.

Forward Plan

It was pointed out that the decision on the Future Provision of Overnight Unit-based Short Breaks for Children with Disabilities would not now be made in May.  Further clarity on the date of the decision would be sought from the Cabinet Member.

The Vice Chairman of the Board noted that the Forward Plan did not include reference to the consultation on the National Planning and Policy Framework 2 or the DEFRA Health and Harmony consultation.  These were areas that the Council did  not seem to be engaged with.  It was agreed that the Vice Chairman would raise these issues with the Economy and Environment O&S Panel.

An Urgent Item had been added to the agenda to consider the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's (CIPFA) Financial Resilience Review of Worcestershire County Council.  The Leader of the Council and the Head of Financial Management: Adults, Children's, Families and Communities had been invited to the meeting to discuss the review.

By way of introduction, the Leader of the Council made the following points:

·       The results of the review had been made public following an FOI request to all Councils across the country, as part of the fallout from the financial difficulties of Northamptonshire County Council.

·       The slides were originally presented to an internal meeting.  CIPFA had been commissioned to undertake the review by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at the time to set the scene on challenges ahead and stimulate debate at the start of the budget setting process.  Although the slides were not made public at the time, the data and information included had flowed through to the budget setting process.  This had been presented to OSPB in October 2017.

·       It was acknowledged that, seen cold without any background context, the slides would prompt a series of questions.  The Leader hoped to be able to allay people's fears about the information included.

Members of the Board were given an opportunity to ask questions.  During the discussion, the following main points were made:

·       The Chairman of OSPB commented that it was clear that this document was what subsequent budget decisions had been based on.  The language in the slides was alarming.  With reference to transparency, he asked why it was not felt to be appropriate to share the findings of the review with Scrutiny Chairmen.  In response, the Leader informed the Board that the information had been presented to an informal meeting of Cabinet and the Council's Senior Leadership Team.  These meetings were held regularly to look at items coming forward and to stimulate debate.

·       The Chairman of the OSPB understood this but asked whether, on reflection, it would have been useful to share the findings with all Councillors at the time they were asked to consider the budget for 2018/19.  It would have been good to share the challenges with elected Members as this may have had an impact on the decisions they were making.  He asked the Leader whether he regretted not making the findings public at the time.

·       In response, the Leader reminded Members that this work was commissioned by the Chief Financial Officer to inform his opinion.  Although the slides were not in the public domain, the information contained in them had informed decisions that were taken in the public domain.  It was never the intention for the slides to become public, but to be used by the CFO to inform the advice he gave to Members.

·       He went on to give the context for the slides, reminding Members that at the time the Council was dealing with the appointment of the DfE Commissioner, the Children's Services demand-led budget overspend, and the recruitment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1034.