Agenda and minutes

Call-In, Creating Opportunities and Tackling Inequalities Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday 3rd December, 2013 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber - Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Paulina Ford  01733 452508

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Day, Councillor Saltmarsh, Councillor Fower and Councillor Nawaz.  Councillors Peach, Harrington and Sandford attended as substitutes.

 

2.

Declarations of Interest and Whipping Declarations

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations of Interest or whipping declarations.

3.

Request for Call-In of an Executive Decision: Early Years Services Including Children's Centres - NOV/CAB/094 pdf icon PDF 68 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee had been asked to consider a Call-In request that had been made in relation to the decision madeby Cabinet and published on 18 November 2013, regarding Early Years Services Including Children’s Centres – NOV/CAB/094

 

The request to Call-In this decision was made on 21 November 2013 by Councillor Murphy and supported by Councillor Khan.  The decision for Call-In was based on the following grounds:

 

(i)            Decision contrary or not wholly consistent with the budget

 

(ii)   The decision does not follow the principles of good decision making set out in Article 12 of the Council’s Constitution specifically that the decision maker did not:

 

 

a)    Realistically consider all alternatives and, where reasonably possible, consider the views of the public.

 

The reasons put forward by the Councillors were:

 

“At the briefing for members and cabinet meeting it was explained that this proposal was being driven from a need to make savings. However on 20 November when asked specifically about Sure Start funding the Prime Minister stated that more money for children’s centres had been given to local authorities.

 

  1. Only the targeted hub option with the closure of all open access provision has been proposed to be consulted upon.
  2. The statistics used seem to be out of date and a nonsense with some areas having 100% children in deprivation and some Zero.
  3. Members nor the public have been given details on Central Government policy changes and how it funded services. The review carried out by PCC and other organisation has not been presented.”

 

After considering the request to call-in and all relevant advice, the Committee were required to decide either to:

 

(a)         not agree to the request to call-in, when the decision shall take effect;

             (b)       refer the decision back to the decision maker for reconsideration, setting out its concerns; or

             (c)       refer the matter to full Council.

 

The Chairman read out the procedure for the meeting.

 

Councillor Murphy addressed the Committee stating why he had called the decision in.

 

Councillor Murphy made the following points:

 

·         Cllr Murphy questioned the means by which the administration took the decision on 18 November, and stated that the consultation had gone ahead even though a call-in had been made.

·         Stated that the constitution requires that the decision be suspended until after call-in.

·         Said that there may have been an oversight as many service providers, members of staff and members of the public were not made aware of the decision to consult.

·         Made reference to the fact that the Prime Minister had stated in Parliament that more money had been allocated to Local Authorities for children’s centres however Cabinet had been told there was less money.

·         He further stated that only the targeted hub option had been proposed and that no other alternatives had been proposed or considered.

·         Members nor the public had been given details on Central Government Policy changes and how if funded services within the report.

·         The review carried out by Peterborough City Council had not been presented to Cabinet.

·         The decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.