Agenda item

1.    The Chairman invited one of the call-in members, Ms Meade, to provide an overview of the reasons for the call-in. Ms Meade set out her reasons for the call-in and explained that it was believed that the decision was not in line with the Council’s decision framework or policy framework. Ms Meade shared that these centres had a higher footfall and lower cost per client compared to other hubs, from April to November 2024 the Seashells Hub had a 25% larger reach than the six hubs that surrounded it. Whilst the report stated that KCC would receive a £426,000 annual saving by not renewing the contracts, it was considered that there was a lack of detail regarding additional costs alternative hubs would have to cover due to this.

2.    Ms Meade requested: complete funding plans and analysis in relation to this decision, full disclosure of the existing contracts and the contract extension requirements and full detail of what the £4.1 million additional family hub funding from central Government was to be used on.

3.    The other call-in member, Mr Lewis, explained that there was a significantly higher footfall of users for the Millmead Family Hub than those hubs surrounding it. The closure of this hub would cause inconvenience and higher travel costs for its 120 monthly users. Mr Lewis believed that closing Millmead Family Hub and keeping open Cliftonville Family Hub would increase costs significantly, adding that the Millmead Family Hub had agreed to work on a reduced budget of £165,000 for the next year.

4.    Ms Chandler, Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services, shared that within the 2025/26 KCC Budget there was funding for the equivalent provisions within those districts from alternative venues. The additional family hub funding had been already encompassed into the budget. The Millmead Family Hub was to become a Healthy Living Centre, which would provide additional services funded by the public health budget. The proposal for equivalent provisions within those districts at alternate venues, had been incorporated into the overall budget for 2025/26. There was a desire to offer more services in-house, allowing for the management of costs, some of which were to be shared across the county and would allow for a parity of quality across the county.

5.    Ingrid Crisan, Director of Operational Integrated Children's Services, added that family hubs were a national programme that had specific requirements in areas such as perinatal mental health, parent infant relationships and parenting support. A comprehensive manual issued by the government detailed how areas of work were to be delivered including KPI’s and overall expectations. An assessment of services provided at the hubs revealed that Seashells Family Hub provided 14 hours of family hub services a week, and Millmead Family Hub provided nine hours.

6.    Mr Lewis asked how many hours of family hub services the Cliftonville centre provided weekly. Ms Crisan explained that the work conducted at Cliftonville was in line with the national programmes of delivery for these services.

7.    A Member asked for clarification, that the allocation of family hub funding was not only for early years, expressing concern that young people were overlooked if funding was not being utilised for older children. Ms Crisan assured Members that parenting support, home learning environment services and parent child relationship care panels were open to children of all ages and was extended to 25 years of age for those with special educational needs.

8.    A Member asked for clarification on the duration of the funding for the Millmead Family Hub to become a Healthy Living Centre and for clarification on the data provided to the Committee.  

9.    A Member questioned what was to happen to the delivery of services after March 2025 if the decision was to go to County Council. Additionally, the Member raised an issue with the accuracy of the EQIA and asked for clarification as to why these commissioned services were not included in the Kent Communities Programme. Lastly, expressing that there was not enough support for vulnerable children within these proposals. Mrs Chandler shared that the Kent Communities Programme initially included all services and buildings but the current matter involved commission projects from buildings not owned by KCC.

10.A Member expressed the importance of community value when assessing best value. Further, highlighting the lack of data available on the costs, funding allocations and outreach plans.

11.A Member shared that the Sheppey Gateway was run under a partnership between KCC and Swale Borough Council, the Member suggested that the Chief Executive Officer at Swale Borough Council had not received any correspondence from KCC about the potential move of the family hub services into the gateway. Secondly, the Member added that the minister recognised the vital support provided by Seashells and Millmead and had shared the government’s intention to keep family hubs open, asking whether the Cabinet Member could request the funding from the ministry. Finally, the Member questioned the legality behind this decision. Mrs Chandler assured Members that limited conversations had taken place with the Sheppey Gateway. Additionally, Mrs Chandler assured Members that the minister was aware that KCC had plans to deliver the family hub services nearby.

12.A Member expressed concern at the impact of the loss of the family services in a deprived area, noting that travel to alternative locations may not be viable for some residents.

13.A Member expressed the desire for KCC’s Cabinet to be completely informed before they were to hear this decision and asked for clarity on the timeline of this decision following a recommendation from this Committee.

14.A Member shared that Members had received no clear answers to questions previously raised about the finances of this decision or the legality of a contract extension. Mrs Chandler shared that legal advisors provided guidance which stated that an extension was not possible, largely due to the terms and conditions of previous children’s centre contracts.

15.Ms Meade said that the questions surrounding the validity of the figures provided, undermined the decision-making process. Additionally, asking for further clarity on Infant Feeding Support and the viability of the timeline for implementation. Furthermore, Ms Meade criticised the accessibility of the service if the two hubs were to be closed, emphasising the importance of providing services in the frequently used locations.

16.Mr Lewis noted the lack of support for closing the Millmead and Seashells Family Hubs. Furthermore, adding that there were no management costs at the Millmead Hub.

17.Members discussed the possibility of delaying the debate to allow for all Member to properly review data that was shared. Members believed that option D “implementation of the decision to be postponed pending review or scrutiny of the matter by full Council” would be the most appropriate course of action. The clerk advised that in line with the constitution, if the Committee referred the decision back to either the decision maker or to full council the Cabinet would first be asked to reconsider the decision with the ability to confirm, amend or rescind.

18.The Chair moved and Mr Whiting seconded the motion that “implementation of the decision to be postponed pending review or scrutiny of the matter by full Council”.

19.Members voted on the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending review or scrutiny of the matter by the full Council.