Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cooke, Senior and Westley.

Apologies also were received from:-

·           Councillor Cleaver and Anu Kapur (Secular Society), who had been invited to attend the meeting for agenda item 15, “Any Other Urgent Business – Ofsted Report on the Inspection of Services for Children In Need of Help and Protection, Children Looked After and Care Leavers and Review of the Effectiveness of the Local Safeguarding Children Board”; and

·           Councillors R Patel and Riyait, who had been invited to attend the meeting for agenda item 15, “Any Other Urgent Business - Senior Management in Adult Social Care”.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

Councillor Osman declared an Other Disclosable Interest in agenda item 11, “Executive Decision: Welfare Advice Services Review”, as he was a member of Highfields Community Association, which would be affected by the changes proposed.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, this interest was not considered so significant that it was likely to prejudice Councillor Osman’s judgement of public interest.  He therefore was not required to withdraw from the meeting.

The Chair welcomed all present to the meeting, noting that there was a very full agenda for this meeting.  In addition, two items that had not been concluded at the meeting of the Committee held on 23 March 2015 would be taken as urgent business, these being firstly consideration of the recent report from the Office for Standards in Education on children’s services and the effectiveness of the local Safeguarding Children Board, and secondly consideration of management arrangements in Adult Social Care services.

The Chair explained that he wanted to complete consideration of the agenda at this meeting and accordingly asked participants to be concise and when asking questions to refrain from making long introductions. 

It also was noted that the City Mayor needed to leave the meeting for a short time at about 6.00 pm.

In order to facilitate the efficient despatch of business, items would be taken in a different order to that printed on the agenda.

The Monitoring Officer submits a report which explains that a petition has been received which asks the council to review and resolve the traffic chaos / congestion. The committee is recommended to consider the petition and representation and make any recommendations to the Executive in accordance with the Petition Scheme.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report explaining that a petition had been received asking the Council to review and resolve the traffic chaos / congestion caused by the various improvements made to the city centre and surrounding roads.

At the invitation of the Chair, the lead petitioner, Mr Radynski, addressed the Committee, noting that, unfortunately, the petition did not contain enough signatures for a Council debate to be held on this matter, as many signatories had used their home postcodes, which were outside the city, rather than work ones which were in the city, when signing the petition. 

Mr Radynski reminded the Committee that, under the Traffic Management Act 1984, the Council was responsible for ensuring the smooth flow of traffic.  However, if people did not take up alternative methods of travel, such as cycling, walking or using buses, congestion remained.  The resulting pollution had an impact on public health, which was contrary to the Council’s stated policies.

The Council had not acknowledged that congestion had increased, stating instead that it was unchanged.  Mr Radynski therefore questioned how things could improve if the Council refused to accept the situation.  People were still signing the petition, so the Council was asked to listen to their concerns and act accordingly.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair thanked Mr Radynski for presenting the petition and his comments.

The Committee noted that this was a matter of considerable public interest, as could be seen, for example, from comments in local media.  However, Leicester was an ancient city, with a road pattern dominated by that laid out in the Roman and Medieval periods.  After the Second World War there had been considerable reconstruction of the city for the benefit of motorists, but this had been at a cost to historic elements of the city.

It was stressed that, as well as considering the issues raised through the petition, ways needed to be found for the city to continue to prosper.  For example, pedestrianisation of areas of the city centre initially had been very controversial, but the city centre continued to thrive.  However, a balance had to be maintained between the needs of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, traders and the wider city, which it was recognised was not easy to achieve.

The Committee suggested that it would be helpful if the City Mayor could set out all of the plans for change over the next three to four years.  This would enable people to see how they worked together and they could then comment in the full knowledge of what was trying to be achieved.  It also could mean that situations were avoided where plans had to be changed as people were not aware of the context of individual proposals.  The City Mayor welcomed this suggestion.

Members noted that views had been expressed that some of the new facilities, such as bus lanes, were well used, but no figures had been produced to substantiate these.  In addition, some of the changes appeared to oppose each  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any questions, representations or statements of case received.

A statement of Case has been received from the Chair of Women’s Aid Leicestershire, in respect of the Changing Specialist Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence Services in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, consultation.

In accordance with Rule 10 of the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, further questions have been received as follows:

1)    Will the Council ensure that the Advice Services review includes a full assessment of the current need for welfare rights’ services in the city and likely future needs?

2)    Will the committee recommend that a full public consultation is carried out in relation to the Advice Services review with the citizens of Leicester and relevant organisations which work with city residents who require these services?

In accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rule 10 of Part 4E of the Council’s Constitution, the Chair informed the Committee that the Monitoring Officer had received a Statement of Case from the Chair of Women’s Aid Leicestershire in respect of the Changing Specialist Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence Services in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland consultation.  This had been circulated with the agenda.

The Chair also informed the Committee that, in accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rule 10 of Part 4E of the Council’s Constitution, two questions had been received.  These had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting, but were read out by the Chair for the sake of clarity:-

a)     Question from Mrs Sandra Thomas:

“Will the Council ensure that the Advice Services review includes a full assessment of the current need for welfare rights’ services in the city and likely future needs?”

b)     Question from Lorna Anderson:

“Will the committee recommend that a full public consultation is carried out in relation to the Advice Services review with the citizens of Leicester and relevant organisations which work with city residents who require these services?”

As the questioners were not present, full written replies would be sent to each.  The Chair further suggested that the matters raised in the questions could be considered in the forthcoming discussion on the recent Executive decision on the Welfare Advice Services review, (minute 105, “Executive Decision: Welfare Advice Services Review”, referred).

RESOLVED:

1)    That the Assistant Mayor (Neighbourhood Services) be asked to send a full written reply to Women’s Aid Leicestershire in response to its Statement of Case regarding the Changing Specialist Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence Services in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland consultation, copying interested Members in to that reply; and

2)    That the Assistant Mayor (Neighbourhood Services) be asked to send a full written reply to each of the Questions recorded above to the respective questioners.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any petitions received and not considered elsewhere on the agenda.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received that were not already being considered at this meeting.  (Minute 101, “Petition requesting the Council to Review and Resolve the Traffic Chaos / Congestion: Officer Response”, referred.)

The Monitoring Officer submits a report that updates Members on the monitoring of outstanding petitions. The Committee is asked to note the current outstanding petitions and agree to remove those petitions marked ‘Petitions Process Complete’ from the report.

The Monitoring Officer presented a report which updated Members on the monitoring of outstanding petitions.  Information on progress with various petitions since the publication of the report was tabled and is attached at the end of these minutes for information.

With regard to petition reference 15/05/2014, (measures to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in Vulcan Road), it was noted that Vulcan Road fell in two wards, namely Spinney hills and Charnwood, not just Spinney Hills as stated on the monitoring sheet.

RESOLVED:

1)     That the report and current outstanding petitions be noted;

2)     That the Monitoring Officer be asked to amend the Ward stated for petition reference 15/05/2014 be amended to show it falling within Spinney Hills Ward and Charnwood Ward; and

3)     That petitions referenced 04/12/2014, 18/06/2014, 16/09/2014, 02/10/2014, 16/10/2014, 20/11/2014 and 19/12/2014 marked as ‘Petition Process Complete’ be removed.

Members will consider the Executive Decision relating to the Welfare Advice Services Review.

A minute extract from the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 9 March 2015, which asked for this matter to be considered, is also attached for information.

The Committee received details of the decision taken by the City Mayor to approve proposals for a review of the Welfare Advice Service.

The Chair introduced this item, outlining three main areas of concern about the impact of the review:-

·           One of the reasons given for the review of the service was that welfare rights advisors were expensive, due to reliance on experienced staff.  The service was accredited by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which created additional administrative tasks, (for example, opening files and sending regular written updates to service users).  It was proposed that this service would be replaced with Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) volunteers;

·           The service currently found approximately £5 million in benefits for the city’s residents; and

·           The welfare rights advisors undertook significant background work for claimants.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Aqbany addressed the Committee, explaining that he was a former welfare rights worker, having worked with St Peter’s Tenants Association for 13 years and in a private capacity for a further four.  He currently worked with a high number of people in his ward on welfare rights issues. 

He then made the following points:-

o    Cases dealt with by welfare advice workers were often complex and the in-house service were best equipped  to deal with these because of their expertise.

o    The Council sign-posted people to other providers for guidance and advice, but this could be difficult to do, as other advice providers were overburdened with work;

o    Recent welfare reforms meant that a lot of benefit recipients needed specialist help.  This could also impact on their ability to pay rent and Council tax; and

o    If the changes proposed were made, the Council would be in a position of picking and choosing who was helped.

At the invitation of the Chair, Gaynor Garner of Unison addressed the Committee.  She drew attention to comments on the decision from Unison, which had been circulated before the meeting.  Details of two case studies submitted by Unison were tabled at the meeting and are attached at the end of these minutes for information.

Gaynor Garner explained that Unison was concerned about the proposal to move to CAB volunteers providing advice and away from Council staff doing this.  She noted that the report stated that there currently was a duplication of services, but what was meant by this was not explained.  In summary, it appeared that the review was budget driven, not service driven, and would impact on the most vulnerable in the city.

The following comments were made in discussion and responded to by Councillor Russell, Assistant Mayor (Neighbourhood Services):-

§   The Council had, for many years, supported the welfare advice service.  This helped ensure that people received what they were entitled to, as it was known that many benefits went unclaimed every year in the city.  It was recognised that savings needed to be made in services, but there was continuing and increasing concern about changes to welfare benefits, including the imminent introduction of universal credit.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

Members will consider the Executive Decision relating to the Corporate Resources and Spending Review Programme.

The Committee received details of the decision of the City Mayor to approve proposals to achieve savings from the corporate resources division as part of the Council’s spending programme.

An assurance was requested that there would be continued support for Community Meetings and that an allocation would continue to be made for Ward Grants, as there had been some concern that both of these things would be removed under the proposed review.

The Deputy City Mayor confirmed that Ward Meetings would continue to have an important role in communications, but it was recognised that they were more successful at this in some parts of the city than others.  Support therefore would continue to be generally given to community meetings.

With regard to Ward Budgets, it was noted that there was a view that other budgets could be used to enhance these. For example, health funding recently had been approved to wards to be used to encourage people to grow their own food.  This highlighted the need to bring coherence to how budgets were used in the future.

It also was asked whether the posts in the Press Team that currently were vacant would be deleted under this review.  In reply, the City Mayor confirmed that the Press Team was excluded from this review.

The Committee noted that details of anticipated savings for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance were not given in the report, as they were for other service areas.  The Director of Finance explained that this figure was profiled in the report, but each division was structured differently.  Delivery, Communications and Political Governance Services consisted of a number of small teams; however, in Financial Services for example, teams were large and therefore it was impossible to allocate targets to teams within the division. More detailed information could be provided to Members as it became available, along with details of current and proposed staffing structures.

In reply to a query about the future structure of Democratic Services, it was noted that every area of those services would be reviewed.  This would include consideration of how meetings would be supported in the future.  However, the review would not just focus on staff, but would include things such as increasing use of paperless technology and how the public could be engaged in scrutiny meetings.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the relevant Directors be asked to provide more detailed information on where savings will be made under the spending review of Corporate Resources and Support services as they become available, this information to include current and proposed staffing structures; and

2)    That the Chief Operating Officer be asked to consider the comments recorded above during the forthcoming spending review programme review of Corporate Resources and Support.

The meeting adjourned at 7.25 pm and reconvened at 7.40 pm.

The Chair has indicated that he will take the following items as Any Other Urgent Business. These items were both on the agenda for the meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on 23 March 2015.

1)    OFSTED REPORT ON THE INSPECTION OF SERVICES FOR CHILDREN IN NEED OF HELP AND PROTECTION, CHILDREN LOOKED AFTER AND CARE LEAVERS AND REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LOCAL SAFEGUARDING CHIDLREN BOARD

Discussion of Ofsted report by Committee members.

2)    SENIOR MANAGEMENT IN ADULT SOCIAL CARE

To consider senior management arrangements in Adult Social Care Services.

The Chair stated that he had agreed to take the following two items as Urgent Business in accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rule 14, part 4E of the council’s constitution.

1)    Inspection of services for children in need of help and protection, children looked after and care leavers and Review of the effectiveness of the local safeguarding children board.

2)    Senior Management in Adult Social Care.

The Chair stated that the reasons for taking the items as urgent business were:

a)    Due to time constraints they could not be fully considered at the meeting of the Overview Select Committee on Monday 23 March 2015;

b)    Because of the considerable public interest in the items of business; and

c)    Also because there would be no further opportunity for the committee to meet prior to the pre-election period which would commence on Monday 30 March 2015.

The Chair explained that a number of questions relating to the Ofsted Report had been submitted in advance from Members, in order that the responses could be received and considered before the meeting commenced.  The Chair had formed the questions into what he considered to be nine significant events in the Review of Children’s Social Work. Of these, events one to five had already been considered during the previous meeting on 23 March.

Event 6: A recovery plan is developed

The City Mayor was asked whether he had commissioned a report into Children’s Services following meetings in May or June 2014, with the then Assistant City Mayor for Children, Young People and Schools.  There had been a reference to this in the previous meeting; a copy of the report had been requested but had not been received. There followed some discussion as to whether this report was actually commissioned in 2014 by the City Mayor, or whether it was being confused with a report that the Chief Operating Officer (C.O.O) had asked Elaine McHale, the incoming Interim Director of Children’s Services to produce 2013. The City Mayor confirmed that he had not said at the last meeting he had commissioned a report as asserted by Councillor Porter.

Members raised a series of other questions relating to the Ofsted Report, which were responded to by senior officers, the City Mayor and Councillor Dempster These included the following (responses are in italics).

·         Following the recent Ofsted Report, when would the draft Improvement Plan be made available to the scrutiny commission?

It was expected that the draft Improvement Plan would be drafted by the end of April 2015; it needed to be submitted to the Department for Education in June. The City Mayor explained that as there would be no formal meetings during the pre-election, this could be brought to the first meeting after the election but also copied into Members before that.

·         Did the council now have a full complement of social workers? It was noted that previously actions had been taken to recruit more staff, but despite this, staff had continued to leave.

There were currently two members of staff over the establishment, but the situation was very fluid, as the figures included agency staff that could leave at very short notice. The aim was to move to a high quality more permanent work force.

Members requested details of the number of staff, including information as to how long they had worked at the council.

·         It was recognised that agency staff were expensive. What initiatives were in place to develop our own social workers (such as by working with Universities)?  The long term advantages would outweigh the initial expense.

There were various initiatives now in place as part of the workforce strategy that was currently being developed; these included, working with the universities, induction programmes and ensuring that staff felt valued.  Further suggestions on how this could be further developed were welcomed.

Event 7: When did Ofsted Arrive?

Ofsted telephoned the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

The Chair led a discussion regarding senior management in Adult Social Care.

A Member questioned whether there would be an outside independent review of Adult Social Care in the same way that Ofsted had reviewed Children’s Services.  The City Mayor responded that he did not feel that this would be helpful as the services were very different, but what was important that lessons were learned from the Ofsted inspection. He also said that it was important that the Adult Social Care, and the CYPS scrutiny commissions were given the performance data and information that they required.

Members noted that the same person chaired the Local Safeguarding Board for Adults and that for Children and it was questioned whether this would be reviewed. Members were advised that it would be inappropriate to talk about individuals, however consideration was being given as to whether it was feasible for the same person to chair both boards, given that there was such a focus on children. 

Concerns were raised in relation to whistle blowing, as it was understood that a communication had been sent to staff informing them that it was inappropriate to talk to councillors about issues or concerns they had. Comments were made that such whistleblowing (and not lobbying) should be permitted. Officers responded that the council had a robust whistle-blowing policy, which had recently been agreed at Audit and Risk, and the code made the distinction between lobbying and whistleblowing clear.  A representative from Unison, added that staff could talk to their unions if they had any concerns.

It was noted that Ofsted had carried out their review specifically in Children’s Services, and the City Mayor was questioned as to whether there were similar problems in other areas within the council’s social services.  The City Mayor stated that safeguarding children was a very special responsibility of the council and of the highest priority. He welcomed that fact that 7 – 8 hours had been spent in discussing the issues around the Ofsted Report and that so many probing questions had been asked. However, he could not say that within an organisation as complex as the council, that everything was as good as it should be, because that would lead to complacency.

Councillor Chaplin requested that the following recommendation should be added to the list of interim conclusions and recommendations relating to the earlier discussion around the Ofsted Report:

That Councillor Chaplin is in dialogue with the C.O.O. and hopes that this will continue over the election period.

RESOLVED:

1)    that the comments of the Overview Select Committee be noted; and

2)    that the recommendation as requested by Councillor Chaplin be included in the list of  interim conclusions and recommendations agreed in respect of the Ofsted Report.

This concluded the items considered under any other urgent business.

The City Mayor will answer questions raised by members of the Overview Select Committee on issues not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

The Chair announced that due to time constraints, there would be no questions for the City Mayor.

To receive and endorse the following reports of reviews carried out by Scrutiny Commissions:-

1)     Employment, Skills and Training Review (Economic Development, Transport and Tourism Scrutiny Commission)  (Appendix H1)

2)     Communal Cleaning Task Group Report (Housing Scrutiny Commission)

 (Appendix H2)

3)     Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Trans (LGBT) Issues (Overview Select Commission)  (Appendix H3)

Due to time constraints, the Chair invited the committee to note the following reports of reviews:

Employment, Skills and Training Review (Economic Development, Transport and Tourism Scrutiny Commission)

RESOLVED:

                        that the report be noted.

Communal Cleaning Task Group Report (Housing Scrutiny Commission)

RESOLVED:

                        that the report be noted.

Equality Impact Assessments and Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Trans (L.G.B.T) Issues (Overview Select Committee)

Councillor Chaplin, the Chair of the Task Group stated that the report set out recommendations for the Executive and Scrutiny Commissions and she hoped that these would be read and taken forward in the new municipal year. The recommendations were about the services that the council delivered as well as Equality Impact Assessments.

The work with the Task Group was achieved with the cooperation of the L.G.B.T.Centre and if the recommendations were taken forward, the council had the opportunity to be one of the first authorities in the country to separate out those groups and acknowledge them to be separate communities.

RESOLVED:

                        that the report be noted.

Members will be asked to consider a briefing note on Member Involvement in Procurement. The briefing paper is attached for Members only, as it is still in draft form.

“In accordance with Rule 1 of Part 4B of the Constitution (Access to Information – Procedure Rules) the report is not available in the public domain as it is in ‘draft’ form and is only circulated to Members of the Committee at this stage.   Should Members wish to discuss specific circumstances, the Monitoring Officer may need to advise Members to exclude the public and press, in accordance with item 8 below, and discuss the issues in private session. “.

Due to time constraints, this Item was not considered.

The Deputy City Mayor submits a paper which provides an overview of actions taken since the Leicester Child Poverty Commission published its initial recommendations in January 2013. The paper outlines work taking place to deliver those recommendations and also considers the current child poverty challenge in Leicester. Members are asked to consider and comment on the update as they see fit.

THE CHAIR HAS INDICATED THAT HE IS MINDED TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE MEETING

Due to time constraints, this Item not considered.

The Committee will receive an update on the how the council is adopting the principles from the Ethical Care Charter and seeking accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation.

THE CHAIR HAS INDICATED THAT HE IS MINDED TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE MEETING.

Due to time constraints, this Item was not considered.

The meeting closed at 10.00 pm.