To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Whilst no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest were received. Councillor Marc Francis and Doctor Philip Rice (Church of England Representative) both indicated that they had expressed concerns regarding the phased closure of the three local authority childcare day nurseries (Item 3.3.1 refers)

The report “Securing the future of early years services – local authority day nurseries” was considered by the Mayor in Cabinet on 27th June 2018. The following decisions were agreed and published on Friday 29^th June 2018:

1.            To note the proposal to undertake a phased closure of the council’s three childcare day nurseries.

2.            To agree that consultation take place in respect of the said proposal(s) and that the feedback of the said consultation to be brought back to the mayor for consideration.

3.            To note what further actions will be undertaken to improve the availability of affordable and accessible childcare.

Decision (2) above has been ‘Called-In’ by Cllr Puru Miah; Cllr Tarik Khan; Cllr Eve McQuillan; Cllr Shad Chowdhury and Cllr Gabriela Salva Macallan.  This is in accordance with the provisions of rule 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules in Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Call-in Submission is presented as Document 1 under agenda item 3.1, the report presented to Cabinet is presented as Document 2.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) considers:

1.    The contents of the attached report, review the Mayor in Cabinet’s decision (provisional, subject to Call In) arising; and

2.    Decide whether to accept the decision or to refer the matter back to the Mayor with proposals and reasons.

CONSIDERATION OF THE “CALL IN”

Having met the “Call In” request criteria, the matter is referred to the OSC in order to determine the “Call In” and decide whether or not to refer the matter back to Cabinet for further consideration. 

The following procedure is to be followed by the Committee for consideration of the “Call In”:

·         Chair to invite a call-in member to present call-in.

·         Chair to invite members of the Committee to ask question.

·         Chair to Invite Cabinet Member to respond to the call-in.

·         Chair to invite members of the Committee to ask questions.

·         Followed by a general debate.

N.B.    In accordance with the OSC Protocols and Guidance adopted by the Committee at its meeting on 4th June, 2013, any Member(s) who present(s) the “Call In” is (are) not eligible to participate in the general debate.

It is open to the OSC to either resolve to take no action (which would have the effect of endorsing the original Mayoral decision/s), or to refer the matter back to the Mayor for further consideration setting out the nature of its concerns and possibly recommending an alternative course of action.

3.1         Securing the future of Early Years services

·                    The reasons for the Call-in and the concerns over due process, insufficient alternative options considered and a focus on budgetary issues.

·                    Due process:

·         The Call-in members had stated that Mary Sambrook had stopped taking children prior to the decision and consultation process, accordingly the numbers presented to the Schools Forum and used throughout the consultation were in their view not accurate

·         Unison claimed that senior staff apparently put pressure on children centre staff to encourage parents to complete the survey in favour of closure of the LADNs. The Call-in members noted that on the principles of democracy, accountability and integrity, the consultation should be investigated.

·                    Service for the end-user:

·         The call-in had expressed concern that there was insufficient provision, particularly for SEN children, and consider Overland to effectively a unit for those children livening with a hearing condition. Concerns were raised that the closure of the LADN will mean residents loosing provision for under two year olds. Overland and John Smith are linked to children’s centres and provide specialised affordable quality day nurseries with wrap around care.

·         The Decision does not factor in the work needed to make up other services to the standard that Overland already is at.

·                    Alternative options:

·         Alternative options should have been considered, such as investment and reconsidering charging, opening up the waiting lists, using spaces in better ways and looking at the voluntary sector. LADN staff have ideas and should have been engaged in the process.

·                    Following the presentation by the Call-In members, the Committee queried the following issues:

·         Noted that the charge of £4.80 was very low and had not been reviewed for over ten years. The Committee noted comments that the Council could consider alternatives rather than charge families with the full cost of £40 to be viable.

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

·                     The Mayor in Cabinet’s decision, published on 28 September 2018, had agreed to Support awarding a contract to Medequip Assistive Technology Ltd (Medequip) for the Community Equipment Service via a call-off from the framework agreement procured by Hammersmith & Fulham, for four years, from 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2023, with an option to extend for a further two years.  Which would enable delivery of the savings target for Community Equipment Service of £308,000 for 2019/20 as agreed by the Cabinet in the MTFS plan;

·                     The early surrender of the lease on the Yeo St premises (12 years unexpired) would result in the landlord paying the Council an estimated £900,000 as a surrender premium.  This would be a one-off payment back to the Council, and in part be utilised to cover the one-off moving and setup costs;

·                     The alternative course of action proposed in the call-in was that the Decision to outsource the Community Equipment Service to Medequip Assistive Technology Ltd via the London Community Equipment Consortium framework is withdrawn.  Then Officers to be instructed to draw up a business plan to improve the service further and secure better Value for Money over the next two years, when the service should then be reviewed;

·                     Discussions should be initiated with the local NHS to determine the future level of funding it will provide for community equipment

·                     Full details of the budget for Community Equipment Service, Telecare Alarms and Assistive Technology, and the external consultant’s report (underpinning the “due diligence” work in relation to this proposal) are published;

·                     There Call In had referenced concerns over outsourced services failing to maintain or improve the quality of service that residents had received in the past.  Which apparently had included persistent problems with some private agencies that had taken over Homecare, following the decision to close the award-winning in-house Homecare Service in 2011;

·                     In accordance with the Labour Local Government Trade Union Principles, an opportunity should be given to in-house services proven not to be delivering value for money to make the required improvements to avoid costly tendering and outsourcing procedures. The Community Equipment Service had apparently not been given this opportunity with three years’ worth of uncertainty and several vacant staff posts. However, despite this uncertainty, Community Equipment Service staff had remained committed to their service users and the delivery of a good service.  In response to this point the Committee queried whether the Labour Local Government Trade Union Principles were relevant to the Council and a cross-party committee. However, the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.2

The Call-In documents are presented as unrestricted documents on the agenda. However, should the committee need to discuss any matters that were exempt/restricted then the Committee are recommended to adopt the following motion:

“That, under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section Two business on the grounds that it contains information defined as Exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972.”

As the agenda circulated contained no exempt/ confidential business and there was therefore no requirement to exclude the press and public to allow for its consideration.