Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Day, Charles Hoseason, Christine Gooch and Rowan Woodward.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest being declared.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2013 – attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2013 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

The committee will receive a presentation on Children’s Centres at its meeting on 15 April 2013.  This report provides further details of the Children’s Centres in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, including information on their key programmes and interventions.

Report of the Assistant Director for Protection and Early Help attached.

A presentation on the borough’s Children’s Centres was delivered jointly by the Head of Early Years and Children’s Centres (LBRUT), the Children's Centres Strategy and Development Manager (LBRUT) and the Heathfield Children’s Centre Manager (LBRUT).

The Committee heard that it was a priority of the Children and Young People’s Plan 2013 - 17 to provide early help to children, young people and their families to prevent significant issues arising later in life. Children’s Centres provided support to children and families from pregnancy onwards. Services were delivered by a skilled work force through an integrated, multi-agency approach using the ‘hub and spoke’ model of service delivery.

Children’s Centre Local Commissioning Boards (CCLCB) identified services to meet local need based on statutory responsibility, data and feedback from multi-agency meetings and centrally commissioned services. The services commissioned differed among quindrats and each contract was for a maximum of 12 months to ensure the regular review of local needs.

Members of the Committee were informed that the Council had to ensure that the centres were registered with Ofsted. The Committee was advised of the staffing structure of the Children’s Centres and noted that Children’s Centre Co-ordinators were a critical point of contact for families and played a crucial role in gathering information from parents via an initial registration form. 

The Committee heard that three of the borough’s Children’s Centres had been inspected under Ofsted’s former framework between March 2011 and March 2013. All three had been judged as ‘good’ overall and both Heathfield and Ham Children’s Centres had particular areas of service provision judged as ‘outstanding’. The aim was that all Children’s Centres would achieve an ‘outstanding’ inspection result in due course.

Service provision within the Kew, Mortlake, Barnes and East Sheen quindrat differed to the other 4 quindrats due to the services being spread across four small sites. Work was being done to identify a suitable single site which would bring the quindrat in-line with the ‘hub and spoke’ model.

Members of the Committee considered the numbers of funded places for eligible two year olds as set out in the report. Once eligible two year olds were given a funded placement, their support needs would be identified through analysis of the information gathered by the completion of registration forms. Children would also be given support for transition into school.

The Committee was presented with a case study as evidence of good multi-agency working. The case study evidenced the ongoing support given to a family through the provision of counselling, child first aid training and assistance with childcare.

The following questions and comments were from members of the Committee and the following points were raised:

               I.      Children’s Centres provided ‘universal’ services to children across the borough but would continue to identify and prioritise intervention work for the most vulnerable.

              II.      Work was being done to increase awareness of the services provided by Children’s Centres through schemes including leaflet-drops, social media and the use of Health Visitors

            III.      There was no change to related budgets since the last budget report to the Committee

It was RESOLVED that:

The arrangements for the provision of Children’s Centres be NOTED.

This report describes the proposed arrangements for the establishment of a Joint Committee with the Royal Borough of Kingston to oversee the design and development of the jointly owned local authority company to deliver children’s services, to be known as Achieving for Children.

Report of the Chief Executive attached.

Members considered an update on the proposed arrangements for the establishment of Achieving for Children (AfC.)

The Chief Executive briefly outlined a change to the financial implications contained within the report to bring it in-line with the report being presented to the Council’s Cabinet on 18 April 2013.  The developmental nature of the Achieving for Children (AfC) proposals and the clarity being established regarding each organisations Commissioning requirements meant that it was not possible to fully establish the level of savings which would be achieved at the current time.  The revised section would read:

‘‘The establishment of a Joint Committee will enable robust and efficient decision making on the design, development and operation of AfC. The Councils are jointly working up proposals to establish how budget and performance expectations would be agreed to ensure value for money is maintained through the new arrangements’

In response to questions, the Committee was informed that the role of the Joint Committee would be to oversee and review the establishment and performance of the Company. The Education and Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee would retain its powers to scrutinise the organisation, with an emphasis on reviewing the company’s performance against the commissioning intentions of the Council in line with the Children and Young People’s Plan goals. The Chief Executive explained that the Joint Committee would enable both Councils to exercise their ownership rights over the company.

Members considered the proposed appointments process for the initial Shadow and final Boards. The Director of Education, Children’s and Cultural Services explained that he required the expertise which would be provided by Non Executive Directors (NEDs) across a range of areas including education, business and social care as soon as possible to support the establishment of the company. The Joint Committee would be responsible for appointing NEDs and a competitive recruitment process would be put in place. Remuneration for the roles was currently being benchmarked nationally and NEDs would require both high calibre professional experience and local knowledge.

A discussion took place regarding the interaction between Achieving for Children and the range of local partnership and voluntary Boards in Richmond. Members were informed that the role of the Director of Children’s Services was statutory in nature and would continue to work in the interests of children and families in the Borough to ensure their needs were fully met.

The Committee sought reassurance that neither Borough would subsidise the other and that the high standards provided to children and families in the Borough would continue. The Chief Executive noted that each Borough could commission services jointly or individually. As services were combined, a business case would be provided to ensure financial prudence for each Council was maintained. Members considered the requirement for commissioning and contract management expertise to be maintained both within the Council and through transfer across to Achieving for Children to ensure the aims of the Children and Young People’s plan were delivered in the most efficient and effective way.

It was RESOLVED that:

The AfC update be NOTED.

This report provides an update on the actions taken in response to the recommendations made by the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Scrutiny Task Group, and updates the Committee on recent developments relating to the provision of SEN in Richmond upon Thames.

Report of the Assistant Director for Protection and Early Help attached.

The Assistant Director of Protection and Early Help (LBRUT) presented an update on the implementation of the 25 recommendations made by the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Scrutiny Task Group to improve services for children and young people with SEN.

The Committee was informed that where recommendations had been substantially addressed, the action was marked as ‘completed’. Some Members of the Committee highlighted that the recommendations should only be marked a completed where they had been fully delivered. Recommendations that had not been fully completed would be brought back to the Committee for further updates.

After consideration of the update, comments were made on the following recommendations:

Recommendation 6:

The outcome of this recommendation would be changed as being ‘Partially Complete’. Whilst the new data system could be used to inform parental choice about their child’s education, this was not yet being done.

Recommendation 9:

Whilst the Gateway was noted to be full, some children accessing the services provided were from the London Borough of Hounslow. Services provided by the Gateway were good but work was ongoing.

Recommendation 14:

The new Strathmore and Clarendon sites would help reduce journey times by having sites either side of the River Thames. Impact Needs Assessments would need to be completed where transport arrangements were changed.

Recommendation 5:

The action had been marked as ‘completed’ as the training programme for professionals was being delivered.

Recommendation 11:

Members were given a copy of the new SEN Prospectus and were informed that the prospectus would be available online. Mr Simon James (Principle Educational Psychologist) and the rest of the team responsible for the production and design of the prospectus were thanked for their hard work.

Recommendation 22:

Whilst a borough-wide campaign had taken place, there had been a lack of employers taking up the scheme.

It was RESOLVED that:

               I.      Recommendation 6 be changed to ‘Partially Completed’

              II.      The SEN update be NOTED.

This report gives details of the Council’s forward procurement activity for the three years from April 2013 to March 2016.

Report of the Assistant Director for Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy attached.

The report was presented by the Assistant Director of Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy. Members of the Committee considered the Council’s forward three year procurement activity for April 2013 to March 2016.

The Committee was advised that there were three broad types of scrutiny to consider when deciding how to scrutinise procurement activity. These were: Information and updates, short scrutiny and full procurement scrutiny. The Committee considered the relevant contracts in the procurement plan and following questions and comments from Members, the following points were made:

               I.      AfC was not listed as a commissioned service because AfC was to be owned jointly by Kingston and Richmond.

              II.      All current contracts were listed on the Contracts Register which was publicly available.

            III.      Councillors were able to contact officers when making individual contract enquiries on behalf of constituents

            IV.      The contract value for SEN transport services was high due to the level of service provided by Richmond but savings were being sought

             V.      Details of any outstanding contracts would be displayed on the website at the start of the tendering process

            VI.      The Community Counselling Service contracts each focused on different service users

In conclusion the Committee discussed which specific procurement activity it would like to scrutinise over the procurement period.

It was RESOLVED that the Committee select the following contracts for scrutiny:

1.       Pools in the Park (swimming pool management and lease)

2.       Framework of Passenger Transport Services for Children with Special Educational Needs.

This report gives details of the proposed work programme for the Education and Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Committee will also be considering alternative scrutiny methods for the year ahead.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services – attached.

The Committee discussed its work programme for the 2013/14 municipal year and considered the suggested scrutiny methodologies and improved working practices detailed in the report. It was noted that the Work Programme for the June meeting included a number of substantive items.

It was RESOLVED that:

               I.      The Committee adopt the suggested working practices contained within the report.

              II.      The work programme be agreed subject to the following additions:

(i)                   SEN Transport Framework

(ii)                 Update on the Statutory Consultation of Strathmore and Clarendon Schools.