Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of a notice of call-in received from six Members of the Council of the Cabinet decisions (3-6/2016) in relation to the commissioning of the three Medway young people’s services, Youth Service, Youth Offending Service and YES IAG service and the related consultation.  The Committee must consider the Cabinet decision and decide either to take no further action or to refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration.

The Chairman has agreed that this matter is both urgent and cannot be reasonably deferred until the next meeting on 3 March 2016 given the procurement timeline set out in the Cabinet report.  The report and the exempt appendix could not be despatched with the agenda as these decisions were called in following the Cabinet meeting held on 12 January 2016, after the despatch of the agenda.

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding a call-in received from six Members of the Council of Cabinet decisions (3-6/2016) in relation to the commissioning of the three Medway young people’s services, Youth Service, Youth Offending Service and YES IAG service and the related consultation.The Committee was requested to consider the Cabinet decisions and decide either to take no further action or to refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration.  An addendum report was circulated at the meeting which informed the Committee of a further call-in of these decisions, which had been received from a further six Members of the Committee.

Councillor Royle, the Lead Member for the first call-in, explained that they had called in these decisions in order for the Committee to be better informed about the proposals.

Councillor Price, the Lead Member for the second call in explained their reasons for calling in the decisions, which related to :

·           Wanting further scrutiny of the decision to commission out the services,

·           Concerns about outsourcing to a third party organisation, particularly in light of a current investigation relating to G4S,

·           Concerns that a market testing event, that had taken place with potential providers, had included G4S.

The Director of Children and Adult Services explained that a lot of work had taken place prior to the options put forward to Cabinet on 12 January 2016, which included contact with a number of interested external providers and with local authorities who have outsourced youth services.  She expressed her disappointment that the link between the recent allegations against G4S and these proposals had been made.  She confirmed that Medway Council had not commissioned G4S to run the service at Medway Secure Training Centre (STC) and was not party to quality control of the contract.  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) commission the provider for the Medway STC and therefore YJB were responsible for monitoring the contractual arrangements.

The Interim Assistant Director, School Effectiveness and Inclusion added that initial market testing had taken place to ensure an appetite for outsourcing the service existed and that dialogue had taken place with G4S, along with many other providers.  She added that the YJB, who oversee the Youth Offending Team, had stipulated that the outsourcing needed to be with a third sector provider (i.e. a third party with charitable status).

Members then raised a number of questions and comments which included: -

·           Reduction in funding for Duke of Edinburgh (DofE) Award Scheme – in response to a question about the impact the reduction in budget would have on the provision of this programme, the Head of Integrated Youth Support Services confirmed that colleagues and DofE representatives believed it possible to continue this service on the reduced budget and added that there was an expectation that community investment into the scheme would increase.  He also explained that the National DofE restricted the local authority from sub-contracting the running of the programme.

·           Medway Youth Parliament (MYP) and the voice of young people – in response to a question about engagement with MYP, officers explained that initial consultation on the proposals had taken place with MYP and added that engagement with young people would be key within the proposed specification.  It was also confirmed that when speaking with local authorities who had already outsourced youth services, there had been no indication of a weakened engagement with young people and in some cases it had been substantially strengthened.

·           Other options to outsourcing MYP – in response to a question about other possible options for MYP, officers confirmed that the consultation process would provide an opportunity to voice and explore alternative options but added that currently the proposal included MYP in the commissioned package.

·           Inclusion of youth service buildings and length of contract – in response to a question about whether management of youth service buildings would be included in the contract and the impact this would have on the length of the contract, officers responded that the length of the contract would be a matter for Cabinet when they consider the outcome of the consultation.  The inclusion of the buildings in the contract was being considered as part of the process and interested parties would be shown these buildings in order for them to understand their usage and potential.

It was proposed that the Committee take no further action.  An amendment to this proposal was made, to refer the matter back to the Cabinet for consideration, which was lost.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to take no further action in respect of the call in of the Cabinet decisions (3-6/2016) in relation to the commissioning of the three Medway young people’s services, Youth Service, Youth Offending Service and YES IAG service and the related consultation.