Agenda item

The lead petitioners, Ms Frances Rehal and Ms Lucia Dello Ioio, were present for this item.

Mr T Wilson, Head of Strategic Commissioning – Children’s, was in attendance for this and the following item.

1.         Ms Rehal addressed the Committee and referred to her revised written submission, which had been circulated to Members.  She emphasised the importance of investing in children’s centres to benefit children’s future development.  Ms Dello Ioio explained that she was a parent and volunteer at a children’s centre.  She emphasised the importance of parents being able to access good service provision near to their homes, and said parents need to be encouraged to take responsibility for setting up and running some of their own local children’s services. Children’s centres are a success, and when something works well it should be retained. 

2.         In a timed debate, Members made the following comments on the consultation and on children’s centres generally:-

a)         it has been very enlightening to visit local children’s centres and see how they work locally, eg by linking to local schools.  The professionalism of the staff which run them was commended;

b)         concern was expressed that, as some centres close and staff are transferred to other centres, it may be difficult to maintain current standards of provision.  Parents in rural areas may have to travel to the nearest urban area to access the services they want;

c)         one speaker criticised the Government cuts which led to the proposed closure of some centres;

d)         many children’s centres are excellent at reaching hard-to-reach families, but some of the satellite arrangements being proposed may need adjustment. The proposed re-organisation of services will bring together communities in a new way and was thus commended; 

e)         areas currently without a children’s centre will still be affected by changes made in neighbouring areas, as parents rely on being able to access a centre by travelling a reasonable distance. The consultation is about providing support to parents; politics should be kept out of it;

f)          Mrs Whittle was thanked by several speakers for the work she had put into the consultation and in coming to a good compromise in the proposed changes.  The revised proposals were commended by several speakers;

g)         a comment made by a previous speaker, and in some media,  about rural parents needing to travel to an urban area to access services, is misleading; outreach services can be delivered via village halls and other community centres, and via mobile provision to reach remote villages and travellers’ sites – these parts of the service are not proposed to change.  The proposals were about maintaining services; they were not being made for political mileage;

h)         the lead petitioners were thanked for bringing the petition to the Council and for addressing the Committee.  The Cabinet Member was also thanked for having listened to the consultation response and the petitioners and for the resulting changes to the proposals. The proposals represent positive change;

i)          increased use of community resources, such as Parish Council premises, would be welcomed, to locate services near the families which need them;

j)          the current debate about children’s centres elicits much sympathy, and one can agree with the points made by the petitioners, and feel that the Cabinet Member also agrees. However, in some areas it is clear to see that children’s centre services are not integrated in the way in which they should be, and do not aspire to deliver the standard of service expected. To meet standards, and to benefit these areas, some adjustment of service is needed; and

k)         the point which Ms Rehal had made in her written submission, about the investment in a child’s early years bringing rewards in later years, was supported. To tie up money in a building which is used solely for one purpose does not seem economical. The way forward would seem to be to look at existing community premises and make the best use of them to achieve the services local people need, perhaps even using parents’ own homes to run a parent support group.   

4.         The Cabinet Member, Mrs Whittle, responded to the points raised.  She emphasised the breadth and depth of the consultation exercise and the challenge of undertaking this, having visited all except one of the 23 centres being proposed for closure.  She now sought to achieve a consistent model for centres, using St Mary’s in Faversham as a template. She emphasised that the services currently delivered by all the centres due to be closed would be re-located elsewhere.  She agreed with Ms Rehal’s point about the importance of investment in early years but also emphasised that continuing to maintain under-used buildings is uneconomical. She thanked the Committee for not making the issue a political one.  She cited the Howard de Walden centre in Maidstone as an example of one which is very active at raising its own funding locally and works very hard to achieve maximum community use of the building by hiring it out to local clubs and groups, to the benefit of all.  She suggested using this as an example to be followed, to achieve innovative service provision, coupled with expanding the health visitor service as an outreach service via children’s centres.  She summed up by re-iterating her personal commitment to protect children’s centres services across the County. Mr Wilson responded to a question about the working of the ‘hub and spoke’ model. 

5.         RESOLVED that the comments made by the Committee in debate, set out above, be noted.