Agenda item

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families, the Director of Children’s Services and the Assistant Director of ADM Programme and Communities had been invited to the meeting to update the Panel on developments relating to Worcestershire Children First (WCF).

The newly appointed Director of Resources for Worcestershire Children First also attended and was introduced to the Panel.  The Chairman of the Panel informed Members that in a previous conversation with the Director of Resources he had assured her that the same information would be available to the Panel as previously and he envisaged a smooth transfer to the Company.

During the course of the discussion, the following main points were made:

·       WCF’s Business Plan would be agreed by the Company’s Board and Cabinet.  The Plan would go to Cabinet in September and would be an interim plan to cover the set-up period, initially for a period of at least six months.

·       The consultation with staff who were in the scope of the TUPE transfer had now started and gave a reassurance to staff that their terms and conditions would not be changed.

·       The appointment of the Council’s Director of Commercial and Change as the Company’s final Non-Executive Director had now been confirmed.

·       It was confirmed that only part of the remit of the CMR for Education and Skills would transfer to WCF.  The ‘skills’ remit would remain with the County Council.  The Director of Children’s Services confirmed that the Scrutiny Panel would still be able to hold the CMR to account on the full range of his remit.

·       She went on to confirm that Councillor Roberts (CMR for Children and Families) was the statutory Lead Member for Children’s Services.  However, the Council would still have two CMRs and accountability would remain the same and would still be direct.  The CMR for Education and Skills would be a Member of the WCF Board.  She acknowledged that this was somewhat messy in terms of potential conflicts of interest and there may be occasions when the CMR for Education and Skills would have to remove himself from discussions.  However, on balance, it was felt to be better for him to be a Member of the Board.

·       The Company Board had met for the first time the day before.  This meeting had been attended by a mix of Executive and Non-Executive Directors and had focused on setting the scene and bringing the Board up to speed, looking at the vision and values of the Company.

·       It was confirmed that the Board would meet monthly with the Annual General Meeting being held in public.  It was not proposed that other meetings would be in public, although this was subject to ongoing discussion.

·       The Chairman of the Board had been contracted to work for 10 days per month and other Board Members for 5 days per month.  Two other committees would operate underneath the Board – Audit and Risk Committee, and Governance Committee.

·       Concern was expressed about the access to information implications of the Board not meeting in public.  It was confirmed that the minutes of Board meetings would be publicly available.  A Member suggested that it was important for Scrutiny Members to be able to see the direction of travel for the Company.

·       Most staff would see two main changes – the re-location to County Hall and IT changes such as a new email address and website.  The majority of staff would have moved to their new location by the go-live date of 1 October.  It was confirmed that the Family Front Door, which was currently based in Wildwood, would also be moving to County Hall once issues relating to IT systems in relation to police and health colleagues were resolved.

·       Three contractual relationships were being developed – the Service Delivery Contract, the Support Services Agreement and the Governance Side Agreement.  The Service Delivery Contract would be for five years with an option to extend for a further five years, and included 18 supporting schedules, four of which were considered to be the ‘key pillars’ of the contract: the Service Specification, the Financial Mechanism, the Performance Framework and the Governance Schedule.  The Governance Schedule confirmed that reporting to Scrutiny would continue as now.

·       Although some support services would transfer to WCF (such as performance management and elements of finance and HR), the majority would remain with the County Council and be ‘bought back’.

·       Finalising the detail of the Business Plan had been delegated by Cabinet to the County Council’s Chief Executive.

·       With reference to the perceived conflict of interest created by the same person acting as Director of Children’s Services and Chief Executive of WCF, Members were reminded that both roles were focused on improving outcomes for children.

·       Although the process of defining the KPIs was ongoing, it was suggested that they would not be new but would be familiar to Members.  Scrutiny would continue as it currently did.

·       The Chairman reminded the Panel that the Chief Executive of the County Council had given an absolute assurance that Scrutiny would see no diminution of the information available.

·       It was confirmed that the Strategic Commissioner for Children’s Services referred to in the agenda report had not yet been defined but was likely to be a senior officer who could be held to account.

·       In response to a question from the representative of Healthwatch, it was confirmed that how often KPIs were made public would depend on the indicator.  There would be quarterly reporting in the public domain.

·       It was confirmed that some of the KPIs were statutory.  Data would be reviewed against other Councils where they reported on the same KPI.

·       In response to a question about the involvement of children and parents, it was confirmed that part of WCF’s communication plan was to work with children and young people to share the direction of travel.  The Director of Children’s Services confirmed that lots of work had already been undertaken and she had attended several meetings with young people.  The key message was to ensure a continuity of improvement and continue to be child-centred.  Members agreed that it was important to reassure young people that things would not change.

·       In response to a question about how foster carers felt about the changes, it was confirmed that the fostering service would become an Independent Fostering Agency and was currently going through the registration process.  It was acknowledged that there was a risk that some foster carers would not want to work for an Independent Fostering Agency (IFA).

·       The Director of Children’s Services confirmed that representatives of primary, middle and secondary schools had been briefed on the move to WCF and headteachers had not raised any major concerns.  Headteachers were concerned about low funding and moving to WCF would not change this.

·       It was confirmed that work relating to the SEND improvement plan would become the responsibility of WCF.

The Chairman thanked those attending for the update and asked that this remained an ongoing item on future agendas.