Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies had been received from Linda Gabriel and Rosalind Luff.

There were no additional declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2015 were agreed, and signed as a correct record.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 10^th August 2016.

Three questions for written reply had been received from Mrs Sue Sulis. Secretary, Community Care Protection Group:

27^th JUNE 2016 OFSTED REPORT OF INSPECTION OF BROMLEY’S CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Q.1. In order to prevent the ‘corporate failures’ identified recurring, how can Members; staff; users and public understand fully how this situation developed, without further information on the role of those involved?

Please outline the responsibilities of the:-

(a) Leader

(b) Portfolio Holder for Care Services

(c) Chief Executive

(d) Director of Children’s Services.

The Inspectors are really clear in their assessment why the service had deteriorated since the last inspection including their concerns about leadership.

The 4 roles you mentioned in your question all had varying responsibilities for the leadership performance and practice  of the service.  All four have recognised the issues and are working with Ofsted and the Commissioner to put in place stronger leadership and governance of the service, ensuring better oversight and levels of details not previously addressed.  This will enable and facilitate improvement in practice.  Initial feedback from Ofsted on this approach has been very positive. 

Q.2. Were the problems identified attributable to:-

a)  The performance of the previous Director of Children’s Services, Terry Parkin?

b)  &/or, as a result of the absence of a CS Director from May 2015 onwards?

c)  &/or Budgetary cuts and savings producing an under-spend of  £4,350,000 on Care Services controllable expenditure for 2015/16?

In their Report, the Inspectors stated that the deterioration had been occurring over the past few years, since the last inspection. 

This has been exacerbated over the past year and the report highlights leadership capacity as a key requirement for improvement.  This has been put right now and we are now advertising for a new permanent Executive Director.  The majority of the underspend of £4.35m in 2015/16 for Care Services was not attributable to children’s social care. In 2015/16 the budget for children’s social care of £27.9m was underspent by £196k (0.7% of budget).  Of this underspend a sum of £97k was carried forward into 2016/17 to fund a strategic review of the Youth Offending Service.

Q.3.

a)  What was the reason for the departure of DCS, Terry Parkin, in May 2015?

b)  Why was he awarded £96,000 by the Council for “compensation for loss of office”?

c)  When, why, and by whom was the decision taken to delay/defer the appointment of a new DCS for over a year?

Mr Parkin left LB Bromley in May 2015 by mutual consent.  With regard to your issue re compensation I cannot comment on this as I am bound by the terms of the compromise agreement between Mr Parkin and the Council.  The Chief Executive took on a broader role covering Education, Care and Health with the respective Assistant Directors assuming more responsibility in their areas and specifically in Children’s Services the Assistant Director was designated statutory officer and subsequently appointed interim Director of Children’s Services.

Report CS17025(A)

A Gateway Report (CS15922) was presented to the Care Services PDS on 23^rd September 2015 and Executive on 14 October 2015 outlining the current provision of respite services for people with dementia. The report projected that these services would be required for future service users in order to prevent the move to expensive residential care.  The report detailed the proposed commissioning strategy for the tendering of these services with an emphasis upon ensuring the continued safety and wellbeing of vulnerable service users whilst achieving best value. Agreement to establish a framework for respite care was obtained.  Soft market testing prior to commencement of the tender highlighted the importance of   sufficient volumes to attract provider interest.  Providers indicated that a framework would be unattractive and would increase unit cost due to low volumes.  The results of the evaluation process were set out the Part 2 Paper which also contained the detailed evaluation scoring.  A recommendation to not award the contract for the provision of Respite at Home Services was included within the Part 2 Appendix Paper.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Report CS17026

The Portfolio Holder considered a report providing a summary of the Part 2 “Contract Award for Tenancy Sustainment Services” considered later in the meeting.  The report provided an overview of the process for tendering a tenancy sustainment service in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and the Council’s financial and contractual requirements.

The Tenancy Sustainment Service would provide support to tenants of Social Housing provided by Registered Social Landlords in Bromley who were at risk of losing their tenancies.  The main purpose of this contract was the prevention of homelessness.  Tenants accessing the service represented all vulnerable adult client groups, but the main groups were people with complex needs or mental health problems and older people with support needs.  The service assisted people to manage housing and financial problems which would otherwise have resulted in presentations at the Council’s Housing Needs Service.

The Service would also provide support for up to 9 tenants in a supported accommodation scheme for ex-offenders.

The report set out the tender process in addition to the justification of the award.  The provision of this service assisted in supporting Social Housing tenants in order to maintain their tenancy, thereby reducing the number of people presenting as Homeless to the Council Housing and Temporary Accommodation Services.  The provision also continued to satisfy the Council’s statutory duty to house clients leaving prison or adult ex-offenders who had unsatisfactory short term housing solutions in the community.  This included the option to house more than one Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) client at Orwell House, dependant on risk assessments.

RESOLVED: That the summary report be noted.

RESOLVED:  that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business listed below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.

Report CS17025(B)

The Portfolio Holder noted the report and approved the recommendations.

The Portfolio Holder considered the report and approved the recommendations.