Agenda item

The Committee received representations from a number of parents and service users: 

·         Brian and Sue Leveson, parents and service users of SEND transport.

·         Marta Garcia de la Vega – SendPACT founder and parent/carer representative.

·         Paul Murphy – Head Teacher of Lancastrian School.

The following key points were noted in relation to the representations made by parents and carers:

a.    Mr Leveson welcomed the level of engagement to date from Cllr Brabazon.

b.    There were new officers in the Children and Young People’s Service as well as a new Cabinet Member for Children and Families. They had shown an increased interest in working jointly with parents and carers but there had not yet been any significant level of behaviour change within the service. In particular, concerns were raised that adherence to promises around co-production had been limited so far.

c.    Parents and carers had been involved in large-scale events, such as the one that had taken place as part of the Fairness Commission, and had mentioned their wish to be consulted on the development of SEND transport services. In addition, transport had been mentioned in passing as part of the engagement process for the recent Scrutiny Review that had focussed on children and young people with Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) issues and autism. However, the references to transport in such discussions were incidental and did not represent co-production or collaboration, which was an integral part of the SEND Code of Practice.

d.    Parents and Carers set out that they each wanted to see a proper process of co-production and co-design and urged that the Council honour its pledges to work closely with parents and carers to ensure that co-production was central to the redesigned service. It was suggested that proper engagement with service users was crucial.

e.    Concerns were raised about taking money out of existing budgets within the service to pay for a private company to undertake the change management.

f.     Parents and carers who would be affected by changes to SEND transport needed to be fully involved. Ms de la Vega raised concerns that the views of some parents and carers had been taken out of context on this issue and urged that hearsay should not be presented as consultation.

g.    The Committee heard from Paul Murphy, the Head teacher of Lancasterian School. The school shared a site with the Vale Special School. There had been continual issues with transport which included arrival times and the difficulties experienced by some parents and carers in arriving at the school on time. This had been raised but little progress had been made.

The following points were raised during discussion of the representation from parents and service users:

a.    The Cabinet Member thanked the deputation party for their contribution as well as the candour of their representations.

b.    The Cabinet Member set out that she did not disagree with some of the sentiments that had been expressed but cautioned that the decision that had been called in was specifically related to the award of contract. Many of the concerns raised related to co-production and how that had been undertaken to date, but the procurement process was an internal Council function. The aim of the service redesign was to improve the service and this is where co-production would be crucial and was the point at which the two issues coalesce. In effect the procurement process opened up the door to participation and co-production.

c.    The Cabinet Member reiterated that she wanted the redesign of the service to involve service users and parents and that there was a clear and explicit commitment to this. The Cabinet Member encouraged the parents and services users present to join to the co-production steering group.

d.    Officers advised that the scoping review involved engagement with schools and parents and the recommendations were drawn upon that basis.

e.    The Cabinet Member set out that the £600k budget did not come from the SEND service but was capital funding from the corporate transformation budget.

f.     The Cabinet Member reiterated that the appointment was a starting point for change and the company provided additional capacity and expertise that the Council did not possess. There had been no changes to the service as yet and the Committee was assured that any changes that were made would be subject to a process of co-production and engagement. The Cabinet Member also assured the Committee that the co-production process would be led by officers rather than the external partner.

g.    Officers set out, by way of an example, that under current arrangements the Council was paying more per mile than any of its neighbouring boroughs and that there were clear efficiency savings to be had that would not undermine the level of service provided.

The Chair thanked the parents and service users for their representations.