Agenda and minutes

Dr Sullivan declared an interest in item 2, Commissioned Youth Service Contracts.  Her husband was a Council appointee on one of the commissioned Youth Service groups and her son had used some of the Commissioned Services – this was not the case currently.

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

2.    Mr Brady provided the following reasons for the call-in of the decision:

a.    The decision was disproportionate to the desired outcomes agreed with Government:

                                      i.     The Family Hubs model did not provide effective integrated youth services as it appeared to be heavily weighted towards the provision of early years services at the expense of youth activities.  Youth services should be given more priority because 87% of the consultation responders said that they thought this age group would use family hub services the most. 

                                     ii.     It had not been made clear how the Family Hubs model would meet the requirements to deliver additional services.

                                   iii.     Services should be universally available across the County; however, this could not be correct because some rural areas would not have a hub in the local vicinity. 

b.    Due consideration and taking of advice:

                                      i.     90% of consultation responders indicated that face to face services were their preferred format.  There was no desire for face to face services to be replaced with digital offers.

c.     Clarity of aims and desired outcomes:

                                      i.     There was no information about dedicated spaces for young people.  These spaces should not be shared with other family hub services.

d.    Financial pressures:

                                      i.     There was concern that in future, there would be increased reliance upon digital and online services because they were cheaper to provide.  Members needed to be confident that the proposals were financially sustainable and that there would not be significant changes to services in the future.

e.    The views of young people:

                                      i.     Statutory guidance indicated that Councils must consult and consider the views of young people when redesigning a service.  Young people were not involved in the decision to move to the Family Hub model as the decision, made in October 2022, was taken as an urgent decision before any consultation with young people had taken place.

f.      Family hubs were not in line with the Council’s Policy Framework:

                                      i.     Family hubs were not mentioned in ‘Framing Kent’s Future’.

                                     ii.     Resident’s opinions were not reflected in the decision and there had been no Member involvement.  This was contrary to the principles of openness and transparency.

g.    The decision conflicted with Government guidance and statute:

                                      i.     The Education Act was updated during September 2023.  The consultation period was already live at this time therefore the consultation could not take these updates into account. 

                                     ii.     Local authorities (LA) had a duty to provide young people with access to a sufficient quantity of youth services and activities.  However, there were no details about the activities that would be offered to young people.  

3.    Mr Streatfeild noted that Mr Brady had comprehensively outlined out the reasons for the call-in.  He added that in Sevenoaks, the Library would become the hub.  The majority of people who used the services lived more than 1.5 miles away, and the youth outreach  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

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

2.    Dr Sullivan 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 the following:

a.    Dr Sullivan set out the cost of the consultation as £1.9million, this was clarified later in the meeting as £1.9million being the cost of the project to date.  The cost of the consultation was £40,000.  It was understood that the Government had directed the Council to close buildings in line with the Family Hubs Model and clarity on these points was sought. 

3.    Ms Hawkins quoted Statutory guidance from the Education Act 1996 which referred to the consultation of young people on existing provision.  She considered that the proposed savings through this decision had been overestimated. 

a.    The Chairman asked Mr Oakford, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services, to respond to the comments made by Dr Sullivan and Ms Hawkins.  He explained that the Kent Communities Programme project had begun before the Family Hub project.  The Council had been looking for a method of redefining and better utilising its buildings.  The financial challenges of KCC could not be ignored and the Communities Programme sought to rationalise the Council’s physical estate and proposed a greater mix of alternative methods of service across the county.  KCC had over 400 buildings with a maintenance budget permitting £6000 per building per year which was not feasible.  The project was slowed down to work alongside the Family Hub project, but it would have gone ahead without the Family Hub Project or the Youth Commissioning Decision.  In response to the cost of the project Mr Oakford did consider this good value for money, it was spending to create reoccurring savings over a longer period of time to ensure the Council was sustainable. 

4.     Mrs Chandler confirmed that the DfE did not ask the Council to close buildings.  The DfE commented on the proposals in the consultation paper in terms of the (in their view high) number of buildings that were identified to continue.  

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.    This was another difficult decision that the Council had no choice but to make given the financial situation, the Council was considering alternative options, i.e. could buildings be leased, rented, did they have to be sold.  

b.    A Member asked that KCC continue its effort to keep communicating with people currently using the buildings to support them where possible.  Local Members also had a role in talking to their community about any changes. 

c.     In relation to the earlier comment about the £1.9m cost – Mrs Spore confirmed that this was not the cost of the consultation, the consultation cost £40,000.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.