Agenda item

1.    The Chairman introduced the item and invited Mr Brady and Ms Hawkins to provide an overview of the reasons for the call-in. 

2.    Mr Brady provided the reasons for the call-in of the decision which were set out in the paperwork accompanying the item on the Scrutiny Committee agenda.  This included, that the decision:

a.    Was not in line with the Council’s Policy Framework and conflicted with Government guidance and statute. 

b.    Did not have a presumption in favour of openness, in that the legal advice had not been shared with Members of the CYPE Cabinet Committee or Members of the Scrutiny Committee.

c.     Was not fully consulted on and young people had not been involved in the consultation. 

d.    Was not an action proportionate to the desired outcome and was a short-term saving which would lead to longer-term costs. 

3.    Ms Hawkins stated that the decision to withdraw funding from Commissioned Youth Services was a breach of the Council’s Statutory Duty in relation to the Education Act.  She also explained why the alternative services being offered were not a suitable replacement as they often met specific interests and ideologies and most had long waiting lists.  These already existed so were not additional. 

4.    The Chairman asked Mrs Chandler, as Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services, to respond to the comments made by Mr Brady and Ms Hawkins.  She explained that the decision paperwork acknowledged that this was not a welcome decision for those using the services and was a particularly difficult decision to take.  Mrs Chandler went on to make the following points:

a.    With regards to the statutory obligations of the Council, this was not restricted to the Council’s Services and did include other groups such as sports clubs, faith groups and uniformed services. 

b.    Framing Kent’s Future had been superseded by Securing Kent’s Future which was adopted by the Council in October 2023. 

c.     A directory of Youth Services would be updated and provided on a regular basis. 

5.    Committee Members made comments on the decision and asked a range of questions.  The key points raised and responded to by the Cabinet Member and officers present included the following:

a.    A Member requested that the Youth Needs Assessment be shared before the Scrutiny Committee agreed on its resolution. 

b.    A Member asked whether there was any risk to the authority in relation to TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings, Protection of Employment) Regulations. 

c.     Mrs Chandler explained that whilst the inhouse Youth Provision contributed to the overall statutory requirement it was not a like for like replacement of the Commissioned Services included within this decision. 

d.    Mrs Chandler explained that the in-house provision formed a significant part of the Council’s statutory obligations alongside other groups previously mentioned but was not a like for like replacement of the services covered within the decision.

e.    Did the decision take into account additional funding some of the Commissioned Services had managed to leverage into youth work?  It was considered that this was a complicated situation, and it was not considered reasonable, whilst accepting the value this brought, to include this when making this decision.  Ms James explained that through the Family Hub model the Council would be working with partners to enable any opportunities for funding. 

f.      In relation to the consultation responses, were the Police directly consulted?  Ms James explained that all professionals were approached to respond to the consultation. 

6.    Following some questions from Ms Dawkins the Chairman asked that Mrs Chandler respond outside of the meeting. 

7.    The Chairman invited the Cabinet Member and guests to respond to the additional comments and questions raised by Mr Brady and Ms Hawkins, the responses were as follows:

a.    In relation to young people and the transition into new services, KCC would work closely with children and young people and where there were existing relationships having conversations around the offers for young people with the existing providers.

b.    In relation to EqIA there were two groups of activities highlighted and the Council would work specifically with the impacted young people to identify which service was right for those young people.   

c.     Mrs Hammond stated that all the Commissioned providers were written to on 4 July 2023 with confirmation of the end of the contract ahead of this taking place in March 2024.

d.    In response to a question about the numbers of young people currently using the Commissioned Youth Services Ms Birdi explained that in 2023 the Commissioned Youth Services reached 9,280 young people. 

POST MEETING NOTE: An email confirming the figures was sent to Members on 20 December. It confirmed the following:

“In 2022, there were 270,000 Young People (YP) aged 10-24 in Kent. 2022 Mid-year population estimates: Age and Sex profile (kent.gov.uk) – 2023 figures were not yet available.

In 2022 we have a record of 5366 YP attending KCC youth settings during the same time period.

This equates to 2.1% of the overall relevant population.”

8.    The Chairman moved and it was RESOLVED that, under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the remainder of this item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. 

EXEMPT SESSION

(Open minute of exempt session)

9.    Mr Watts provided Members with a summary of the main public law risks associated with proceeding with a decision to cease to commissioned youth services. 

10. Dr Sullivan left the room at 1.55pm.

11. Mr Brady and Ms Hawkins left the room at 2pm. 

OPEN ITEM

12. The Chairman welcomed everyone back to the open part of the meeting and invited Mr Brady and Ms Hawkins to make their closing comments following the Committee’s questions and debate. 

a.    Mr Brady remained of the view that the decision was not in line with the Council’s Policy Framework and he remained concerned about the possibility of challenge over this decision.  He was not confident that that Council would signpost or help vulnerable children and young people following this decision and considered the decision was a direct breach of the Education Act which would not achieve the stated savings. 

b.    Ms Hawkins remained unconvinced that the needs of young people would be met, many of whom had additional needs and she considered this was the wrong time to make this decision. 

13. The Chairman invited Mrs Chandler to respond to the closing comments from Mr Brady and Ms Hawkins.  She responded with the following points:

a.    The decision would have an impact and was a difficult decision to make.  It was in line with Council Policy and was reflected in Securing Kent’s Future which put different priorities on KCC particularly in relation to finance. 

b.    There would be extensive consultation with the current providers and in relation to the Family Hubs Model. 

c.     The Cabinet Member understood the points that had been made but reassured Members that everything practically and reasonably possible would be done to address the concerns.  

14. Dr Sullivan proposed and Rich Lehmann seconded the following recommendation:

(c) Require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending reconsideration of the matter by the decision-maker in light of the Committee’s comments

15. Members voted on the motion, the motion was lost.

16. Mr Booth proposed and Mr Brazier seconded the following recommendation:

(b) Express comments but not require reconsideration of the decision

17. Members voted on the motion, the motion was carried by majority. 

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee express comments but not require reconsideration of the decision.

Dr Sullivan and Rich Lehmann asked for it to be noted in the minutes that they voted for option (c) and against option (b).