|
City Of York Council |
Committee Minutes |
|
|
Meeting |
Corporate Services, Climate Change and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling In) |
|
|
Date |
4 November 2024 |
|
|
Present |
Councillors Fenton (Chair), Ayre, B Burton, Coles, Crawshaw, Healey, Rose, Waller, Widdowson, Whitcroft and Moroney (Substitute for Cllr Melly) |
|
|
Apologies
|
Councillors Melly and Rowley |
|
11. Apologies for Absence (5.32 pm)
Apologies had been received from Cllr Melly.
12. Declarations of Interest (5.33 pm)
At this point in the meeting, Members and co-opted members were asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest, or other registerable interest, they might have in respect of business on this agenda, if they have not already done so in advance on the Register of Interests.
None were declared.
13. Minutes (5.33 pm)
Resolved: That the minutes of the last meeting held on 12 August 2024 be approved as a correct record.
14. Public Participation (5.33 pm)
It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.
15. Called-In Item: Community Contracts To Support Early Intervention And Prevention In Adult Social Care (Asc) (5.34 pm)
Members considered a report which set out the reasons for the call-in of the decisions made by the Executive on 10 October 2024 in respect of the above matter, along with the committee’s remit and powers in relation to the call-in.
The decisions contained in the extract from the relevant Decision Sheet at Appendix 1 to the report had been called in by Cllrs Runciman, Vassie and Hollyer. The original report and associated annexes were attached at Appendix 2. The Monitoring Officer had determined that the call-in request, at Appendix 3, was partially valid and the following reasons for the call-in could be considered:
· ASC (Adult Social Care) 05 saving agreed was “to remove duplication and to generate efficiencies in services” Agreements made are merely to end contracts that have reached the end of their commissioned period. No evidence of duplication or efficiency. For example, Independent Care Group funding unique service merely ended no duplicate provision and loss of service leads to further inefficiency in dealing with the care sector.
· The paper has not set out all options and alternatives. Community Contracts total several million pounds and the saving agreed represents £275,000 this year. The only option presented is to either retender one version of a scaled back set of community contracts or not retender and lose all the services. There was no consideration of applying a 10% reduction in all contracts, cutting others more than the ones highlighted for cutting or not making the cut at all. These options should have been fully considered within the paper and presented to the Executive for discussion. Such decisions should have included an equality impact assessment of the effect of losing part of services or services in totality.
· There was no reference in the paper to the totality of contracts within scope of the review. There is no mention in the paper of the carers contract which was included in the scope of the review. There was no reference to the York Mind contract, the Yorkshire Housing Limited contract or Community Links (Northern) ltd contract in the paper the funding for which makes up the bulk of the saving. There was also no reference to the ASC 05 savings target which this paper is supposed to cover and the reason for the cuts to begin with. There is also no reference to the uplifts in the other contracts which some of the funding cut within the paper is being repurposed to fill those gaps in funding. There is also no reference to which ones of the community contracts will be extended beyond the March 2025 contract ends. Additionally, there is no mention within the paper what the breakdown of the costs of the short term contracted services (Advice, Information, shopping and befriending, and the Dementia Day Clubs) that have replaced the Age UK contract and whether or not the value of these are sufficiently covered by the funding approved. There is no analysis of what the existing provision is and subsequent comparison of the new service to allow an informed decision. Over £600k of contracts will end as a result of this decision and no analysis is made of the impact of the loss of these services and whether the mitigation within the new contracts is sufficient or correctly targeted.
The Lead Call-in Member, Cllr Runciman, addressed the committee, expanding on their reasons for the call-in. Cllr Vassie also addressed the committee, and at this point, the Deputy Monitoring Officer provided additional advice to Members in relation to what could be considered in the call-in, clarifying that the purpose of the call-in was to examine the process rather than the detail of the decisions themselves.
There followed several points of order relating to what could be discussed as part of the call-in and the Chair noted his concerns regarding the interpretation of the advice and that a Chair’s briefing had not been provided by the Monitoring Officer. The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that the Monitoring Officer’s determination and reasoning was set out in the call-in papers.
The business of the meeting resumed, and Cllr Vassie addressed the committee. Cllrs Runciman and Vassie then responded to questions from Members.
The Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care then addressed the committee regarding the decisions, and she was joined by the Executive Member for Finance and Major Projects when responding to questions. The officer responsible for the report to Executive, the Corporate Director, Adult Social Care and Integration, spoke to clarify financial matters and was available to answer questions.
Finally, Cllrs Runciman and Vassie summed up on behalf of the Calling-in Members and the Executive Member for Health summed up their position.
During the above process the Corporate Director confirmed savings from contracts of £264,000 in 2024/25 and £75,000 in 2025/26.
Under the provisions of the council’s constitution at the time the call-in was made, Members were asked to state individually whether they considered the core principles identified in the call-in request had been breached or not. The following options were available:
· In the event of the majority of Members finding no breach, the call-in request would be immediately closed with no further action unless the Committee identified any areas worth of future exploration by the scrutiny function.
· In the event of the majority of Members finding a breach, the called in decision would be referred back in full for further consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Executive.
With five Members finding there had been a breach, and eight Members finding there had not been a breach, the call-in fell and it was:
Resolved: That the call-in request be closed.
Reason: To determine the outcome of the alleged breach in Executive decision making.
Cllr S Fenton, Chair
[The meeting started at 5.30 pm and finished at 7.20 pm].