Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all in attendance to the Call-In meeting.

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that 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, as follows:-

Agenda item 7 – The JPCP report and addendum, contract award report and appendices 1 to 7 supporting the delegated decision under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 (3).

RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated exempt on the grounds that 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 public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information so designated as follows:

The Joint Preventative Commissioning Panel (JPCP) report and appendices referred to in Minute No. 43 under the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 (3) (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information), and on the grounds that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

To declare any personal/prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Selby declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 7, Call-In – Review of Delegated Decision D35924 – To Award a Contract for the Delivery of Connexions Intensive Support Services – Wedge Based Services, due to Archway (which was one of the current providers) undertaking work in his Ward (Minute No. 43 refers).

Councillor Driver declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 7, Call-In – Review of Delegated Decision D35924 – To Award a Contract for the Delivery of Connexions Intensive Support Services – Wedge Based Services, due to St Luke’s Cares (which was one of the current providers) undertaking work in his Ward (Minute No. 43 refers).

Councillor Dowson declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 7, Call-In – Review of Delegated Decision D35924 – To Award a Contract for the Delivery of Connexions Intensive Support Services – Wedge Based Services, in her capacity as a Member of Leeds Groundwork, which had been involved in bidding for connexions services (Minute No. 43 refers).

Apologies for absence were submitted by Councillor Gettings and Co-opted Members; Mr Britten and Ms Johnson. The Board was informed that Councillor Chapman was to substitute for Councillor Lancaster, Councillor Dowson for Councillor Coupar and Councillor J Lewis for Councillor Renshaw.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report regarding the procedural aspects of the call-in process.

Members were advised that the options available to the Scrutiny Board in respect of this particular called-in decision were:

Option 1 – Release the decision for implementation. Having reviewed the decision, the Scrutiny Board (Children’s Services) could decide to release it for implementation.  If this option was chosen, the decision would be released for immediate implementation and the decision could not be called-in again.

Option 2 – Recommend that the decision be reconsidered. Having reviewed the decision, the Scrutiny Board (Children’s Services) could recommend to the Chief Officer for Early Years and Integrated Youth Support Services, that the decision be reconsidered.  If the Scrutiny Board (Children’s Services) chose this option, a report would be submitted to the Chief Officer for Early Years and Integrated Youth Support Services within three working days of this meeting.  The officer would reconsider the decision and would publish the outcome of their deliberations on the delegated decision system.  The decision could not be called-in again whether or not it was varied.

RESOLVED – That the report outlining the call-in procedures be noted.

In accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rules, to review a decision of the Chief Officer for Early Years and Integrated Youth Support Service taken on 16^th September 2009 in relation to awarding a contract for the delivery of Connexions Intensive Support Services – Wedge Based Services.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report, together with relevant background papers, relating to an Officer Delegated Decision D35924 of the Chief Officer for Early Years and Integrated Youth Support Services as follows:

To award a contract for the delivery of Connexions Intensive Support Services – Wedge Based Services

‘The Chief Officer for Early Years and Integrated Youth Support Services approved the recommendation to award the Connexions Intensive Support Services to Igen Ltd for wedge based services’.

The decision had been called-in for review by Councillors Ogilvie, Lowe, Coulson and D Blackburn on the following grounds:

‘We the undersigned members would like greater clarification regarding options considered during the awarding of the Connexions Intensive Support Services – Wedge Based Services Contract.  Further information is also needed with regard to the various options considered and the reasons the final recommendation was agreed.’

The Scrutiny Board considered the following written evidence:

• Delegated Decision Notification form – D35924
• Report of the Youth Strategy Implementation Manager to the Chief Officer for Early Years and Integrated Youth Support Services – 9 September 2009 – Connexions Phase Two Tender Evaluation Outcome Recommendations.

The Scrutiny Board also considered the following written evidence which was confirmed as exempt under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 (3):

• Report of the Youth Strategy Implementation Manager to the Joint Preventative Commissioning Panel 27^th August 2009 – Recommendation relating to the IYSS Wedge Tender Evaluation Outcome – Report and appendices.

(Consideration of the JPCP report and appendices designated as exempt under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) were considered in private at the conclusion of the meeting.)

The following signatories of the call-in attended to present the reasons for the call-in;

• Councillors Ogilvie;
• Councillor D Blackburn; and
• Councillor Lowe.

The following witnesses were called in by the signatories of the call-in to support the original justification for the decision having being called-in;

-  Lynne McLaughlin of Archway; and

-  Louise Megson of St Luke’s Cares.

The following officers were in attendance to explain the reasons for making the decision;

-  Sally Threlfall, Chief Officer for Early Years and Integrated Youth Support Services;

-  Barbara Newton, Chair of the Joint Preventative Commissioning Panel;

-  Gerry Hudson, Integrated Youth Support Services Manager;

-  Maz Asghar, Youth Strategy Implementation Manager;

-  Iain Dunn, Principal Procurement Manager;

-  Neil Warren, Head of Finance Children’s Services; and

-  Andy Palin, Principal Finance Manager.

In explaining the reasons for calling-in the decision, the following comments were made:

·  Concern about the lack of engagement with existing providers, locality enablers and children’s champions, particularly that their depth of skills, local knowledge and experience had not been utilised.

·  Concern about the robustness relating to some of the questions raised as part of the tender process.

·  Concern about how the tender scoring process took account of experience in delivering wedge based provision.

·  Concern about risks associated with the proposed sub-contracting model.

·  Concern that igen might not be able to meet their financial obligations and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

In accordance with Scrutiny Board Procedure Rules, to consider the Board’s formal conclusion(s) and recommendation(s) arising from the conclusion of the called-in decision.

Following consideration of the evidence presented and the options available to them, as outlined in Minute No. 43, the Board resolved that ‘Option 2 – Recommend that the decision be reconsidered’ was the most appropriate action.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY) – That the Scrutiny Board recommends that the Officer Delegated Decision D35924 be reconsidered on the following grounds:

• Whether sufficient consideration had been given to the financial status of each of the bidders, and their track record in reducing the number of young people not in education, employment and training (NEET), and the consequent risk assessment regarding the delivery of the contracted service to the young people of Leeds.
• Whether the specification and tender questionnaire contained sufficient input and emphasis on local wedge needs for the bids to be appropriately quality assessed on this acknowledged important aspect of the proposed service.
• Whether the proposed sub-contracting model was desirable as opposed to a direct relationship between the council as contractor and the provider.
• Concerns regarding public perception of the appropriateness of the composition of the evaluation panel.
• Clarification regarding the suggestion that TUPE regulations could rule out the proposed sub-contracting model, and consideration of any implications arising.

(The meeting concluded at 1.47 pm).