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 Committee noted that the strategic plan goals around reducing inequality and supporting a cohesive society had not been fully reflected in the Decision. The proposals have focused on cost rather than the benefits of affordable specialised care that the LADNs provide.

The Committee then received and noted the response from the Lead Member which is summarised as follows:

The Committee:

·                    The Lead Member set out the context of the Decision and highlighted considerations around equity of the Early Years provision, limited resources and alternative provisions for those currently attending Local Authority Day Nurseries.

·                    Firstly, the Lead Member highlighted it had been not an easy to decision to make and one that has been ongoing for a number of years. The Lead Member further commented on budget pressures, number of children using the LADNs and costs, SEND provision, the quality of alternative provision and the consultation process. These are summarised as follows:

·         Budget pressure: The Council would have to find £1million savings to keep the provision of LADNs. Few boroughs have this provision and those that do, such as Birmingham, are seeking to close as the provision is deemed unviable.

·         Capacity and cost: A small number of childcare places are provided by the LADNs with high costs. At full capacity, the three LADNs could provide approx. 100 child care places. The cost per child, currently funded by the Early Years Budget, is approximately £11,000, which equates to 3 times the cost of alternative early education or childcare provision.

·         SEND provision: The Lead Member noted that there are no children on a child protection plan and no Looked After Children currently attending the LADNs. One child is on a Child in Need plan, one child has an EHCP and six children are deaf or hearing impaired currently attending the LADNs. Alternative provisions could cater for this cohort. The head teacher at the Children’s House maintained Nursery School is a trained audiologist with experience working with deaf children.

·         Consultation process: As this was a non-statutory consultation, four weeks would have been reasonable. However, following a call-in by the Overview and Scrutiny committee, the consultation period was extended to over eight weeks beyond the statutory consultation requirements. The Lead Member noted Unison’s letter regarding allegations of senior staff filling out feedback forms on behalf of residents and noted that this had not been corroborated and the Council had not received any complaints.

·                    Following the presentation by the Lead Member, the Committee queried the following issues:

·           Whether £1million savings are required to come from the Early Year budget and noted that there is pressure on the Early Years budget. Within that budget the discretionary elements are the LADNs and Children’s Centres.

·           To what extent the Council had considered the voluntary sector taking on the provision as an alternative way to provide for under two year olds. The Committee noted the staff transfer requirements under TUPE would mean a cost of approx. 1m. Accordingly, the Lead Member noted it was unlikely that providers in the borough would be willing to take on this cost. Further, there is no funding from Government for under two year olds. The Committee noted that there had been no formal consultation with the voluntary sector.

After hearing from the Call-in Members and the Lead Member, the Committee then considered the impact on children and parents, the need for due process for key decisions, the time and scope of the consultation and the need for affordable child care provision.  The comments of the Committee are outlined as follows:

·                    After hearing from the Call-in Members and the Lead Member, the Committee discussed the following issues:

·                    Budget focus: The Committee noted that the decision seemed to strongly based on budget considerations and insufficient focus on the benefits of the service provided for those children attending.

·                    Alternative options: The Committee were concerned that a series of alternative options had not been fully looked into, including partnering with voluntary organisations to continue the provision. While the Committee noted the benefit of informal discussions, the Committee commented that formal discussions with voluntary organisations should have taken place and considered as an alternative option.

·                    Specialised services: The Committee also noted that there did not appear to be comprehensive plans in place around the transition of SEN and vulnerable children and that specialised services need to be provided on more than just an ad-hoc basis during this period.

·         Consultation concerns:

o   Those who responded to the consultation were not reflective of those who use the LADNs.

o   Consultation process itself had not been fair and balanced and that LADNs had been “run into the ground’ beforehand.

·                    The Committee also commented that they did not believe the decision would be in accordance with the budget and policy framework and requested formal advice from the S.151 and monitoring officers (Formal Advice).

In conclusion, the Chair Moved and it was RESOLVED that:

I.                The Decision would not be in accordance with the budget and policy framework  and therefore agreed that  the advice of the Monitoring Officer and S151 Officer be sought on this question

II.                If the Monitoring Officer and S151 Officer agree that the Decision is outside the budget and policy framework, the Decision be referred to full Council in accordance with paragraph 7.3 of Part 4.3 of the Constitution.

III.                If the Monitoring Officer and S151 Officer do not agree that the Decision is outside the budget and policy framework, then the Decision be referred back to the Mayor in Cabinet to consider the alternative options outlined in the call-in requisition.