Agenda item

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 took notes during the meeting, whereas others did not.  Anecdotally, the Task Group heard that some parents were concerned about giving their views as they feared the support they currently received from the Council might be at risk.  Whilst the Lead member did not believe this to be the case, she considered it highlighted the nervousness parents felt about the process and that   the Council should ensure  respect for and understanding of vulnerable families when potential changes to services were being considered.

·       Throughout the scrutiny exercise, there had been confusion and a lack of clarity in much of the information provided by the County Council.  For example, it was not clear why costs per bed night were so much higher at Ludlow Road.  It would be important that the final decision was based on accurate information.

·       The Task Group had not seen any projections for future demand for the service.

·       It was not clear why preparation for Ofsted registration would have led to suspension of referrals to the service.

·       Members of the Task Group had been able to talk to approximately 15 or 16 of the 21 families who used Ludlow Road.

·       Increased journey times and the impact on emergency provision were also causes for concern.

In summing up, the Lead Member of the Task Group informed the Board that it gave her no pleasure to present the Task Group's conclusion.  The Cabinet Member would potentially be making a decision based on a consultation that was seriously flawed.  She did not want to see the Council being put in the position of facing legal challenge.  It was important to remember that these services were provided to some of the County's most vulnerable families who were looking after the most vulnerable children.

The Chairman of the OSPB reminded those present that the scrutiny report was not part of the decision making process and a decision by the Cabinet Member was not yet available.  He thanked Members of the Task Group for the time and effort they had put in to what was a concentrated exercise.  He also thanked officers in Democratic Services.  He went on to make the following points:

·       It was hard not to be troubled about the difficulty the Task Group had had in obtaining information and the lack of credibility of the information received.

·       He was also alarmed about the clear breakdown of relationships between the County Council and other organisations involved.

·       This decision had not crept up on the Council; it had been known about for some time.

·       Nothing in the report would give confidence to parents about what would happen next.

·       In making the final decision, the Council needed to be 100% sure that this was the right move.

In conclusion, the Chairman informed those present that he wished to apologise on record to the parents involved and assured them that he would seek clarification as to why the original letters were sent out just before Christmas.

The Democratic Governance Manager reminded Members of the OSPB that they were considering the draft report in their role as the overarching scrutiny body and they were being asked to decide whether they could support its recommendations.  The final decision on the service would be for the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families.  Once it was agreed, the scrutiny report would be sent to the Cabinet Member who would respond to the recommendations.  His response would be shared with Members.

Members of the Board were invited to ask questions.  In the course of the discussion, the following main points were made:

·       The Vice Chairman informed Members that, as a former Cabinet Member, she had 15 years' experience of working with the short breaks units.  She admired the sincerity, hard work and dedication of the Task Group and the Lead Member.  She was pleased to see such extensive scrutiny taking place before the decision had been taken, although she acknowledged that this had been difficult as the Task Group had no idea of the Cabinet Member's final proposals.

·       She referred to a previous consultation on a proposal to close Moule Close, another of the short breaks units.  On that occasion the consultation process had been poor and she had hoped that lessons had been learnt.

·       She felt that it was not possible to say that it was a robust report as on 18 occasions the report stated that the Task Group did not have the evidence.  It would have been nice to know how many carers had been spoken to during the exercise.

·       Another Member of OSPB commented that there appeared to be confusion between the terms of reference and the conclusions of the Task Group, with a focus on the consultation process.

·       Paragraph 29, which asserted that the CMR did not offer to meet the parents until pressed to do so, was particularly damning and a member asked for more background information about this .  The Lead Member confirmed that the Task Group had been advised by parents that there were initially no plans for the CMR to meet parents.  The CMR had not been directly interviewed by the Task Group on this matter.

·       In response to a question about a potential future legal challenge, it was confirmed that the Ludlow Road parents were themselves taking legal advice.

·       It was suggested that paragraph 75 (which outlined the report's conclusions) could be expanded to include some of the points made by the Lead Member during the discussion.

·       A Member of the Board recognised that a lot of time, energy and commitment had gone into the report.  However, it was a shame that the other three Members of the Task Group had not been able to attend the meeting.  It was confirmed that the three Members had given apologies for the meeting and the full Task Group had agreed the final report.

·       The Chairman of OSPB reminded the Board that it was up to the Cabinet Member to provide evidence to prove that the proposed change was needed.  It was not the Task Group's role to provide this evidence.  There was a need for parity of access to information and in his view it was an indictment of the system in the Council that the Task Group had found it so difficult to obtain information.  It was difficult to understand why information could not be shared.

·       The Vice Chairman suggested that the information in the report should have been marshalled in a way that met the terms of reference more clearly.  The financial reason behind the proposed change was known about in 2015 and she suggested that it was a failure of the budget scrutiny process that this had not been picked up by the Children and Families O&S Panel.  In response, the Lead Member agreed that this should have been looked at in 2015 but commented that the Cabinet Member should have taken a lead on this rather than the Scrutiny Panel.

·       The Lead Member reminded the Board that the Task Group had received different evidence from different partners and therefore concluded that it could not have confidence in the process and did not believe that a sound decision could be made.

·       The Chairman of the Board commented that, when these difficult decisions were being made, the minimum the public could expect was transparency and clarity.  Pre-decision scrutiny could not happen if those scrutinising did not have parity of access to information.  The Scrutiny Task Group could not be accused of not including the evidence if it was not given the information.

In conclusion, the Board agreed to accept the report and its recommendations.  It also agreed that that the Vice Chairmen of OSPB and the Lead Member of the Task Group would work together to produce a short executive summary to accompany the report.