Minutes:
(1) A member of the public asked now the Sites and Policies Consultation had just closed what processes would be put in place to ensure all the representations sent in on paper, via the website or by email would be considered equally, fully and fairly and how this would be demonstrated in due course?
The Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services confirmed that a Feedback Report would be produced, which would set out what had been considered, how the representations had been received and which sites were being considered as the final proposed allocations. The Local Plan Steering Group also had discussions with local Members about specific issues and locations and all representations would be considered.
The process would start shortly running into next year. Further consultation would take place as part of the examination in public of the Sites and Policies Document with an Independent Inspector, where members of the public would have the added opportunity to raise any concerns about other sites, which the Inspector would consider.
In a supplementary question, the member of the public suggested that the Feedback Report be included as part of the consultation document that would be published on the website, as on previous occasions it had been omitted.
The Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services was in agreement with this process given the importance of local issues and the effect that this may have on people’s lives.
(2) A member of the public referred to the excellent public debate held at the Unity Centre which featured on the radio and asked what action was being taken to ask the victims of child sexual exploitation about the support they required, given that this was central to the content of the Jay Report and the Children’s Commissioner Report. Victims were still waiting for support and many of the voluntary and community organisations providing support had a six month waiting list or like the N.H.S. were under extreme pressure.
Taking this into account reference was also made to the report also on today’s agenda which would consider “Improvements to ICT Use Within Social Care” and some of the terminology used within it and it was suggested that plain English be used in future. The Cabinet were asked how they could approve the report moving forward when it may not be the system that was inadequate, but the users who were struggling with the functionality and which was resulting in poor quality data being accessible and leading to poor case management.
The proposals for consideration as part of this report referred to the system costing around £2.6 million to replace, which was fifteen times more than the financial support being provided for victims. From experience it was highly likely that the true cost of a system replacement would be over £3 million. The Council were, therefore, asked to look at alternatives for which the Northgate system could be used for and it was suggested that the Leader of the Council, Chief Executive and the Strategic Directors responsible for Social Care and Children’s Services meet with representatives with Northgate to explore all options of using the current system better.
The risks associated with a full system replacement were set out in the report, but it was important that strong child support systems were in place to meet the needs of those at risk and the existing victims of child sexual exploitation. It was unacceptable to use taxpayers money to fund a replacement system when this could well be the wrong approach.
The Leader of the Council explained that he had requested the inclusion of the report due to the issues raised by Ofsted and the Children’s Commissioner.
The Acting Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services explained that support for victims was being co-ordinated across a range of different agencies, to which victims would be engaged in the process.
It had always been made clear that the immediate resources put in place were a drop in the ocean to what was needed, but discussions were taking place with various organisations to put in place a single helpline for victims, which would then signpost them to the right kind of support. The helpline would be Rotherham focused and a single number, which would ensure victims were being properly advised and supported.
Discussions were also taking place with two organisations, which would feed into the needs analysis once it was known how many people were coming forward for support.
The representative from Public Health confirmed how the needs analysis would inform future arrangements across the whole system in relation to victim support. This would involve working closely with Voluntary Action Rotherham and the voluntary and community sector. An event on the 5th November, 2014 kick started the process of consultation with clients to ascertain what kind of support was required to meet unmet need. The consultation process should be concluded by the end of the week and inform the needs analysis of support requirements from April, 2015. It was all about listening to service users and the voices of the victims and having a robust evaluation of service requirements.
In a supplementary question the member of the public welcomed this approach, but pointed out it was three months since the publication of the Jay Report and it would appear the Council was not being quick enough to respond to victims. The improvements now taking place would hopefully enable the Council and its partners to grasp the extent of the problem and put the support in place what was needed.
(3) A member of the public referred to the matters relating to Abbey School. New management arrangements from Winterhill School, a comprehensive school with no S.E.N. provision, introduced a new staffing structure in December, 2013, which resulted in strike action when the numbers of staff were proposed to be reduced by six. Reducing the numbers of staff in a special school for vulnerable children would have a detrimental effect on the learning provision. This led to seven teachers either resigning or requesting voluntary redundancy as a result of stress and as predicted the behaviour of the students deteriorated. Why had the Local Authority and the relevant officers not intervened sooner to prevent this situation occurring. The final straw being the recent Ofsted report which was instrumental to the proposals being put forward for the school’s closure.
The Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services pointed out that no decision had yet been made to close Abbey School and the proposal was still out for consultation. It was important that the children were at the centre of the proposals being put forward and that any decision would be placing their needs first.
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning pointed out that the Local Authority had put in arrangements to support Abbey School. The school had given the Local Authority concern for the past eighteen months, long before the Ofsted inspection.
Significant support was provided to the Executive Head Teacher and the Head Teacher of the school to secure the improvements that the Local Authority deemed necessary. The recent Ofsted inspection deemed the school to be “Inadequate” as a result of the culture, historical issues and challenges.
The consultation proposal to close Abbey School was based on the concerns that pupils were not receiving the best education that they deserved and their educational needs were not being met in the short or long term.
Consultations were also taking place on an individual basis with parents and pupils to ascertain if their specific needs could be met in other special schools. Parents were engaging positively with the process about the future needs of their children.
In a supplementary question the member of the public expressed his discontent with the answer, but pointed out that many of the children had already moved out of Abbey and it was anticipated that only half of the pupils would be left by December.
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning expressed the importance of children receiving the best education and alternative arrangements, where possible, were put in place to secure their needs and for them to move schools as quickly as possible.
(4) A member of the public also referred to Abbey School and expressed concern about the events that had taken place and asked why the Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning had not responded to calls, letters or emails.
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning confirmed she had responded to any correspondence received in whatever format and asked that she be informed of any concerns to which she needed to reply.
In a supplementary question the member of the public confirmed she too had not received a reply to an email she herself had sent in September, 2014.
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning agreed to investigate this further and would respond accordingly.
(5) A member of the public referred to the recent “Inadequate” report by Ofsted for Abbey School and confirmed it was indeed a good school and could return to the success it once had with the right Management Team in place. It was believed that a potential cover up had been managed by the Local Authority with health and safety issues gone unreported. The Ofsted report lay the blame at the management of the school. It appeared the Local Authority had not investigated a report that a senior manager’s experience/background was incorrect. It appeared that the decision to close Abbey School had already been made given the level of consultation already taking place with parents to move children. This was not proper democratic engagement in a consultation process and Elected Members should ensure that this practice ceased immediately.
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning again reiterated the historical concerns about the school and the need to ensure the pupils that attended Abbey School received the education they deserved. The Local Authority would be failing in its responsibility by not offering alternative arrangements that currently existed in other schools in Rotherham.
The Interim Chief Executive asked that any information available be passed onto herself or the Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning.
In a supplementary question the member of the public pointed out that information was available via the Council’s Health and Safety Section and that it amounted to complete denial by the management of the school.
The ideal situation for all involved would be for a complete change of management and leadership at Abbey School and return it to its former glory rather than this being a managed situation towards closure.
(6) A member of the public referred to comments that the children’s best interests and welfare/wellbeing were at the heart of the consultation, why were the management at Abbey School still in post if this was an unsuitable position for the children to be in?
The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning confirmed that the arrangements for Abbey School were being enhanced with extra support being provided to support the education at Abbey School.
Forty-seven pupils were being provided with alternative educational placements and a similar number at the school were being given extra support. Parents were being assured that pupils were safe and being provided with a good education. An Interim Executive Board was now taking responsibility for the governance arrangements to ensure any concerns about the safety or the education of pupils were being met.
(7) A member of the public asked if schools were failing and some children of Rotherham were not receiving appropriate education, then why were Elected Members and officers not taking responsibility? In addition, the member of the public also asked why was the Council spending £4.2 million on industrial units at the Advanced Manufacturing Park for big businesses when Elected Members were voting in favour of cuts to children’s services and special schools?
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration provided some background to the decision to spend over £4 million to purchase three industrial units at the Advanced Manufacturing Park. The essence of the purchase was to pump prime business growth in Rotherham and to create jobs and stimulate the global economy. The intention was to sell on these industrial units and then make a profit. The Council had already been inundated with approaches to purchase two of the units and safeguards were in place to ensure the Council had a return on its investment.
In a supplementary question the member of the public asked why the Council were investing £4.2 million at the Advanced Manufacturing Park, supporting the Three Cranes Project and New York Stadium when it was reporting it had no money for essential services due to Government cutbacks in funding. How much profit was the Council likely to make from the sale of one unit?
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration confirmed the Council was set to see a return of around £40,000 once all the legal fees were taken into account and would assist in the stimulation of the local economy. The investment was provided from the capital programme rather than the revenue budget, which had seen a reduction in the Early Intervention Grant in terms of children’s services.
In terms of New York Stadium and the Three Cranes Building, these were loans at commercial rates for which the Council were in a position to benefit.
The Deputy Leader clarified the position with regards to Local Government finances in relation to capital and revenue budgets. The revenue budget was made up from grants from Government, business rates and council tax and was set to be reduced by a further 16% for next year. Councils were becoming more reliant on business rates as income to support essential services and would support stimulating business growth in the local economy.
(8) A member of the public referred to the former Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services’ reports of improvements to children’s services, which was also the same message provided by the Leader of the Council who also had responsibility. Given the recent result of the Ofsted inspection, did the Leader still stand by that statement?
The Leader of the Council confirmed that the recent Ofsted inspection report was regrettable. The service was not good enough and Elected Members or Cabinet Members did not get involved with frontline services. Cabinet Members were expected to demonstrate the seven principles of Local Government and take their responsibility seriously, which he had done.
In a supplementary question the member of the public referred to the Jay Report, comments by Ofsted and Members of Parliament about the raft of measures in place to protect children and asked why Elected Members had not scrutinised this in more detail to demonstrate they were fit for purpose. The failure was not just in Social Services or Social Workers but also in the Council because they had not scrutinised to ensure that arrangements were put in place.
The Leader of the Council confirmed scrutiny of children’s services had taken place. In consultation with the Children’s Commissioner the Council were in the process of putting arrangements in place to turn children’s services around as quickly as possible.