Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Day, and Councillor Peach was in attendance as substitute.

Councillor Shearman requested that each Member of the Committee declare individually if they had been whipped.  The following Members declared individually that they had not been whipped:

o   Councillor Harper

o   Councillor Rush

o   Councillor Peach

o   Councillor Shearman

o   Councillor Fower

o   Councillor Saltmarsh

The minutes of the meetings held on 11 November 2013 were approved as an accurate record.

The decision notice for each decision will bear the date on which it is published and will specify that the decision may then be implemented on the expiry of 3 working days after the publication of the decision (not including the date of publication), unless a request for call-in of the decision is received from any two Members of a Scrutiny Committee or Scrutiny Commissions.  If a request for call-in of a decision is received, implementation of the decision remains suspended for consideration by the relevant Scrutiny Committee or Commission.

There were no requests for Call-in to consider.

Due to the number of members of public in the audience and young people in attendance for item 6, New Vision for Early Years Services Including Children’s Centres in Peterborough the Chairman asked the Committee if they would agree to move this item to first on the agenda.  The Committee agreed to this.  Item 5 on the agenda City College Peterborough would therefore become item 6.

The Chair acknowledged that there had been two written submissions to the Committee prior to the meeting from members of the public for consideration:

• Miss Sarah Tomkins, Peterborough Against Poverty who provided some alternatives options to the closure of the Children’s Centres
• Susan Cooper, Hamptons Children’s Centre who was opposing the closure of Hampton Children’s Centre.

The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services introduced the report which updated and informed the Scrutiny Committee of the outcomes so far for the consultation around the proposed changes to the way early years services were run in Peterborough including Children’s Centres. Information was provided on the consultation process, emerging issues and themes that had come forward from parents and the community including alternative proposals. The Committee were asked to comment as part of the consultation process.

The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services expressed a desire for an open an honest consultation and acknowledged that there was still time for people to express their views and reiterated a commitment to hear views of all people in Peterborough, including the wider public and parents that did not use the children’s centres.  Members were reminded of the financial restraints of the council over the next few years and that doing nothing was not an option.

Six public meetings had been held in three separate locations, with a total attendance of 107 people who shared an interest in children’s centres provision. A wide variety of ideas had come forward including concerns about the social isolation of new parents and the benefits of mother and baby cafés which allowed new parents to form new social contacts. A strength of feeling among young mothers was recognised at these meetings and it was agreed that mother and baby groups should be supported. Parents had also expressed interest in volunteering in such support groups and training recommendations will be offered in response to this interest. A number of commercial organisations had also shown an interest in providing pre-school services and universal services to families in communities. Young families would be listened to up until the end of consultations on the 8 January. This would then be analysed and included in the report to Cabinet on the 20 January.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members stated that the evidence in favour of children’s centres was clear and showed a positive effect on families and people in the community. The proposal placed super-hubs north of the river, which disproportionately affected children not deemed to be living in areas of deprivation. The Stanground, Brewster Avenue and Hampton centres had 21%, 18% and 22% respectively of children living in poverty. Therefore it was stated that the argument that it would help the most vulnerable did not stand up. Members asked how the services would help those south of the river. The consequences of not supporting young mothers would be felt later in life and have a negative impact on society as a whole. The centres provided many local families with vital services and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Principal of City College Peterborough introduced the report which provided the Committee with an overview of Peterborough City Councils Adult and Community Learning Provision at City College Peterborough (CCP).  This included who used the college, its outcomes, NEETS, the Raising of the Participation age and the impact the service had on local residents and businesses. A short video of interviews was provided showing two NEETs (not in education, employment or training) who had been attending Peterborough City College.  In the video they discussed the training Peterborough City College had offered to them to help them in their job search and in their personal lives.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members sought reassurance that Peterborough City College had the capacity to broaden the provision of qualifications offered and continued growth and success of apprentice schemes.  The Principal replied that the apprentice scheme was an area of growth and the Skills Funding Agency has noted that the College had achieved their contract early and had been told to expand the apprenticeship provision and to continue recruiting over target as it would attract funding.

·         Members asked if courses at the college could begin to address issues around the poverty strategy. The Principal replied that a contribution had been made to the poverty strategy and that one of the Vice Principals had been involved with the poverty strategy and that City College would look to see how they could further support this.

·         Members congratulated the Principal on the success of the John Mansfield Centre.

·         Members expressed concern regarding the categorisation of pupils and asked if pupils were aware of which categories they were placed into. The Principal stated that such categorisation was confidential and the categorisation was for support staff in order to assess what type of support pupils would require in order to remove barriers to learning and apply for funding to increase support.

·         Members asked for a hypothetical example of a change in categorisation. The Principal responded that a criteria of somebody who may be in care or have drug abuse in the family would place that individual into a category so that if they failed to attend college they would be prioritised for further support. The Principal further clarified that the introduction of a new category of purple to indicate an increased cause for concern in addition to the already existing categories was a response to more pupils indicating significant barriers to learning and therefore a new category was introduced.

·         Members asked about the youth access hub and inquired as to whether it would be part of the poverty strategy. The Principal stated that she would make sure that this would be included.

·         Members then asked where funding for each individual person came from and if funding was allocated based on individual need. The Principal responded that funding came from a variety of agencies. Young Persons’ funding came from the Educational Funding Agency. An allocated amount was given per young person and additional high needs funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Acting Assistant Director, Commissioning introduced the report which provided the Committee with an update in relation to Children in Care placements and progress relating to the Fostering Action Plan. The report focused on progress made in bringing the mix of placements for children in care in Peterborough more into line with national averages through the recruitment and retention of in-house foster carers. It also detailed actions that were being taken to help ensure that the local authority only looked after the right children, at the right time in their lives and for the minimum possible period in line with best practice.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members asked if there was pressure for less families to provide fostering services because of financial pressures and whether it continued to be well-funded. Members also asked if the targets aimed at a reduction of children in foster care by 2017 were realistic given the growth in population figures. Members were advised that some foster carers were motivated to some extent by financial reward but this tended not to be their main motivation. It was made clear to foster carers that the amount of money given to foster carers was not dissimilar to the amount given by an agency. Rates had been increased significantly at the beginning of last year however private agencies still did offer more remuneration.  Other aspects were therefore emphasised such as the fact that foster carers were part of a close-knit community. Population growth figures were challenging to meet and implications were being looked at. Further analysis needed to be done to assess the nature of population growth.

·         Members asked how quick the process of placing a child up for adoption was and whether or not this was usually met. If not was it due to a lack of parents willing or able to adopt. Members were advised that children were best placed for adoption at a young age.  The older children were the harder it was to find adoptive parents. When a child reached five it became harder to find parents able or willing to adopt. Court processes then needed to be gone through however the department tried to work as quickly as possible to place a child.

·         Members wanted to know if foster carers were able to pick and choose which children they looked after. Members were informed that foster carers generally have a pre-approved criteria based on either preferences or ability as to which sorts of children they would like to look after. Foster carers were further able to say if they felt that a child may not be a good match but the procedure was handled with great care.

·          Members further asked why a couple would choose to go to an agency as opposed to the   council and why was there a difference in pay.  Members were informed that the rate paid depended on the age and needs of the foster child relative to the experience and training that foster carers had.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Head of Adoption and Fostering introduced the report which provided the Committee with an overview of the adoption reform and implementation plan and explained the Government’s priority to increase the number of adopters available to children and to reduce the length of time children waited for adoption. The report stated that this required structural reform on the adoption process, additional post-adoption support services, development of skills and capacity within the workforce and ensuring children who were at risk of suffering harm were identified earlier.

A short presentation was delivered which covered the following key points:

·         Key drivers for change

·         Service activity

·         Adoption outcomes

·         Fostering outcomes

Members were informed that the directorate had increased the total number of approved adopters this year from 16 to 24 over the past year. The most significant figure, however was that the total number of adoptions had risen from 14 to 22 which was a  50% increase on the previous year. In terms of outcomes the number of enquiries received had increased as had the total number of approved carers. There had also been a significant reduction in agency placements versus in-house placements.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members sought clarification on the meaning of customer care and assumed it meant the care that was given to parents after a child was adopted. Members were informed that this was correct and part of the government’s program. Peterborough was committed to the changing legislation which gave access to an assessment of adoption support following an adoption order being made.

·         Members mentioned that the Adoption Panel had asked for more feedback on cases that have been brought before them and expressed a desire for updates to become a regular item on the panel. The Head of Adoption and Fostering stated that it was important for the panel to understand the context of their decisions and stated that regular updates to the panel would be implemented in the near future.

·         Further concern was expressed around Liquid Logic and the issues that had been reported.  Members were advised that a new version 9 of Liquid Logic was being developed and tested and there was optimism expressed that many of the issues would be addressed.

·         Members asked if Liquid Logic was used by other authorities. Members were advised that there were a number of software options available but Peterborough chose to use Liquid Logic after testing out other options.

ACTIONS AGREED

The committee noted the report and requested the following:

1.    That a month after Liquid Logic is implemented Members of the Committee should be invited to attend a discussion with the Head of Adoption and Fostering to assess the progress of implementation.

2.    The committee recommended that in future reports more data should be provided on previous years’ figures rather than solely comparisons with the previous year.

3.    The Adoption Panel to receive regular updates on cases that had been brought before them.

The Executive Director of Children’s Services presented the report which provided an updated position statement on the progress and sustainability of social care performance as reported to the Department for Education.

The following comments and suggestions were made:

·         Members were concerned about social worker retention and numbers and requested more information for the next meeting. The Executive Director of Children’s Services responded that there was difficulty in recruiting social workers but discussions were taking place to see how the advertising campaign could be refreshed.  A further report could be provided.

ACTIONS AGREED

The committee noted the report and noted the progress made and continued improvement.

The committee requested that officers bring back to the next meeting required information regarding recruitment of social workers.

The Committee received the latest version of the Council’s Forward Plan of Key Decisions, containing key decisions that the Leader of the Council anticipated the Cabinet or individual Cabinet Members would make during the course of the following four months.  Members were invited to comment on the Forward Plan and, where appropriate, identify any relevant areas for inclusion in the Committee’s work programme.

ACTION AGREED

The Committee noted the Forward Plan of Key Decisions.

Members considered the Committee’s Work Programme for 2013/14 and discussed possible items for inclusion.

ACTION AGREED

To confirm the work programme for 2013/14 and the Senior Governance Officer to include any additional items as requested during the meeting including:

·         17 January 2014 – Joint Scrutiny In a Day – Focus on the Impact of Welfare Reform

·         10 February 2014 – Joint Scrutiny of the Budget

·         17 March 2014 – Creating Opportunities & Tackling Inequalities Scrutiny Committee

·         17 January 2014 – Scrutiny in a Day

·         10 February  2014 – Joint Scrutiny of the Budget

·         17 March 2014 – Creating Opportunities and Tackling Inequalities Scrutiny Committee

The meeting began at 7.00pm and ended at 10.00pm