At a meeting of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel held on Monday, 16 February 2015 at 7:00 pm at the Committee Room 1, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. Present: Councillor Linda Green (Chair) Councillor Tony Louki (Vice-Chair) Councillors Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Samia Chaudhary, Mel Collins, Tony Louki, Paul Lynch and Alan Mitchell Zara Qureshi and Robert Was

Apologies for Absence Councillor Peter Carey. Kamal Ahmad and Jacqui Corley

150. Apologies for absence, declarations of interest or any other communications from Members

Apologies had been received from Jacqui Corley, Co-opted Member and Kamal Ahmad, Co- opted Member. Councillor Atterton had sent apologies for lateness.

Alan Adams and Jacqui McShannon had an alternative meeting and gave apologies. Jacqui McShannon did join the meeting for a short time subsequently. Ian Duke gave apologies as he was unwell.

The Chair invited any declarations of interest or other communications from members. For Item 5: ‘Arts Provision for Young People’, Councillor Mitchell declared that he wished to talk about the Dramatic Edge project in the London Borough of Richmond and should declare that he had contact with the project in the past and had hosted their events.

151. Minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2014

The Chair noted that the minutes had been issued late and checked that all members had had the opportunity to read the minutes. It was noted as something to be corrected for the future that the names of the former youth co-opted members had been shown on the agenda front sheet.

The minutes were agreed, subject to the following amendment – Councillor Lynch believed that he had sent apologies and it was agreed these should be noted in the record.

Councillor Mitchell moved approval of the minutes, subject to the amendment above. This motion was seconded by Councillor Louki.

Resolved:

That the minutes were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

152. Matters Arising

There were no matters arising from the minutes. 153. School Transport Assistance

See the report by Councillor Linda Green, Chair of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel and the tabled responses to questions submitted by Scrutiny in advance of the meeting – Agenda Item 4.

The Chair introduced Merle Abbott, Head of Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disability, who was attending the meeting for this item to give an update on school travel assistance and changes to the policy. The issue had come to the Panel’s attention when raised by a parent. The Panel would not look at individual cases but considered that this was an opportunity to address the wider issue of school travel assistance in the climate of cuts and overspend. The Chair invited Merle Abbott to update the Panel.

Merle Abbott advised that she had discussed with Ben Knight, the Scrutiny Officer that a suitable approach would be to go through some of the key issues and allow the maximum opportunity for members’ questions. Some data had been requested in advance of this meeting to provide context. The numbers might assist members. This information had been circulated to members at the meeting.

Ms Abbott explained that she was speaking of the latest iteration of a policy which had been introduced in 2010/11. Prior to that date if a child had a Statement of Special Educational Needs and needed to go to specialist provision, transport was automatically provided. However, as the numbers increased, this became unsustainable. So in 2010/11 a new policy was introduced involving an assessment each year of the child’s needs. If the child required local authority provision, arrangements would be made.

Ms Abbott explained how a child in law was deemed ‘eligible’ for free transport but in London all children of statutory school age could travel by bus free of charge. So a child might be ‘eligible’ but the authority then considered whether the child needed provision beyond the normal public transport.

(Zara Qureshi and Mr Was joined the meeting at this point – 7.08 p.m.)

The assessment of need looked at the needs of the child, the complexity of the journey and special circumstances. In making the assessment, the department took into account the form completed by the parent and other information available to the local authority, such as information on the child’s disability and information from the school.

Ms Abbott explained that statutory guidance advised of issues to be taken into account when making a judgement on travel assistance. In the past the then statutory guidance had been described as a ‘little woolly’ by the judge in a judicial review case. However, the statutory guidance was turned into criteria concerning the eligibility for free transport and the entitlement of the Council to make other arrangements.

At this point, the authority introduced something new to the arrangements, namely the use of pick up points.

(Councillor Atterton joined the meeting at this point – 7.10 p.m.).

Merle Abbott clarified that as numbers increased it became necessary to consider the way the service was delivered to meet the need and its cost effectiveness. Where an assessment showed that a child needed travel arrangements, it was not necessarily the case that the child needed to be picked up from home. In the case of children with physical and medical needs such as children in wheelchairs, the service did continue to collect children from home. However, children with other needs were able to walk a short distance to access transport at a pick up point.

In the autumn of 2012, two parents took a judicial review of the decision to introduce pick up points. The judgement of the case was given in March 2013. The parents argued that ‘home to school’ transport meant transport from the child’s home. The authority provided evidence to the court on the rationale behind the decision to use pick up points and the safeguards in place. The judgement ruled that the phrase ‘home to school’ did not require provision from the child’s home to the school in every case. It also allowed the use of pick up points to be imposed rather than consented to by the child’s parents.

Ms Abbott raised this matter with the Panel because she understood the parent who had raised school travel assistance with Scrutiny was concerned about the variation in pick up point. She confirmed that pick up points designated were a maximum of half a mile from the child’s home and assessed to be a safe place to wait and be collected.

The Chair asked in the particular case what had changed for the child when the change to a pick up point was made. It was explained that the child’s needs had been assessed previously as suitable for use of a pick up point but the previous year there had not been a pick up point assessed to be used. Ms Abbott explained that each year the team refined the practice on the basis of experience and lessons learnt. So for the future in letters to the parents when the authority said that the child has been assessed for a pick up point, they would also say that it was likely that the pick up point would not be the child’s home. This would allow the parents the opportunity to challenge the decision at an early stage.

Merle Abbott advised the Panel that the Department for Education had issued new statutory guidance in July 2014. This guidance in some cases led to changes in the decision on circumstances. Every parent in receipt of school travel assistance had been written to in order to advise of the change with the new guidance included as an attachment to the letter. The key change was the section on accompaniment by parents.

(Jacqui McShannon joined the meeting at this point – 7.15 p.m.).

Ms Abbott explained that the new guidance made it clear that parents were expected to accompany their children to school unless there was good reason why that was not possible. She referred members to paragraph 17 of the new guidance (included in the Scrutiny Panel agenda pack at page 20). Ms Abbott read out to the Panel what the local authority needed to consider in respect of whether the child’s parent could reasonably be expected to accompany the child to school especially where ordinarily it would be expected that a child of that age would be accompanied. The legislation did not just apply to a child with special educational needs so the department would consider what would be reasonable for the parent of a child without a disability, unless the child’s needs precluded them from walking a normal distance.

Merle Abbott explained to the Panel that in the borough the census returns showed that there were 15,845 children from Nursery age to Year 3 (so generally aged 8). Up to and including age 8, it was expected that a child could walk up to 2 miles to school. So this was the context for decisions. The key factor was the child’s needs. Where a child was not physically able to walk, arrangements would be made to get them to school without cost, but there were many thousands of children in the borough where it was expected that their parents would get them to school. Included in the new policy was the expectation that the parents would take reasonable action to discharge their duties to accompany a child to school.

Councillor Candice Atterton pointed out that one big issue for parents was the need to get another child to an alternative school. Ms Abbott acknowledged that there were exceptional circumstances which the service would take into account to determine whether there were good reasons why the parent could not accompany the child. Parents did raise the issue of going to work but this was also the case for parents of other children. Hence it was important to look at the child’s needs not the family need. If the department were to make arrangements for transport because a parent was working, it posed the question of how this differed from the case of a child without special needs where the parent worked. However, it was accepted that sometimes the child’s needs were such that it was not reasonable for a friend or neighbour to manage these and such circumstances were taken into account.

Ms Abbott pointed out that some issues had arisen which made it important for them to be explicit in the policy. For example, there were examples where issues had been in the policy in the past but where a parent had not understood the matter fully. An example was a parent choosing a residential school. The legislation allowed the local authority to recommend to the parent to make their own arrangements for transport. So the local authority could agree to a placement subject to the parent agreeing their own transport arrangements.

Councillor Mel Collins asked how the policy fitted with the new legislation in respect of SEND from September 2014. This gave rights to parents and he questioned whether this contradicted the transport policy. He noted that the parent had choice and a budget, so he asked who held the budget, suggesting that if the Council held the budget the parent lost the right of decision on transport. Merle Abbott did not feel that the two pieces of legislation were contradictory and was happy to circulate the relevant part of the Code of Practice to the Panel.

Councillor Collins considered that this would be helpful as members needed to be clear if the new legislation affected the Council’s policy. However, Merle Abbott explained that the draft policy had been amended in the light of the Children and Families Act. She explained that what the Act said in respect of parental choice and a personal budget was that the parent had the right to request this. There was no entitlement. It was for the local authority to consider and agree where it was feasible to do so. This applied in the same way as the parent had a right to express a preference for a school. The local authority had to consider the preference and comply unless there were good reasons for not doing so. This was not different to the current Code of Practice.

The final iteration of the Code of Practice had been moderated and it was clear that expression of preference was not the same as a right and the local authority was required to consider if the preference was appropriate. There was a tribunal process with the right of appeal whereby parents had the right to apply to the independent SENDIST whose decision would be legally binding.

Ms Abbott gave an example of a recent Tribunal decision in respect of parental preference. The parent had requested a mainstream placement but the local authority had recommended a special school as most appropriate to meet the child’s needs. The Tribunal had agreed with the local authority. The local authority made professional decisions in the child’s best interest.

Councillor Collins asked for more information about the Tribunal and Ms Abbott explained that SENDIST was an independent, national body chaired by a judge with two other members with knowledge of special educational needs. The local authority would be called to the Tribunal hearing to defend its decision.

Merle Abbott explained that there were not many occasions where a parent provided their own transport but it was within the legislation for them to do so. She highlighted Appendix C of the policy document at page 50 of the agenda pack. This clarified that if a parent requested a residential school and this was agreed, transport would be provided at the beginning and end of term. There had been requests from parents for the child to come home at weekends but the view was that this was a personal choice for which the parent would need to make arrangements. The intention of the new draft policy was to make these points explicit.

The Chair invited questions.

Councillor Alan Mitchell referred to paragraph 3.9 of the covering report at page 8 of the agenda. This noted that the DfE school transport guidance was written in accordance with the commitment to reduce prescription but that many local authorities had fed back that the more prescription was reduced, the more open the policy would be to interpretation. He asked how the department had found this from the London Borough of Hounslow perspective and the DfE response to this.

Merle Abbott advised that it was not an issue on which the borough had fed back. She explained that in 2012, different options had been offered where it was determined that some support was appropriate. Options included a mileage allowance for use of the parent’s own car, calculated on the distance from home to school and provided on the basis of four journeys to go and come back or the offer of an oyster card for the parent if there was a reasonable/appropriate journey by public transport for which the child could be accompanied. This was also the second year of a project commissioned via Ealing Mencap to provide young people with travel training. The authority had approached an established organisation for a programme to meet young people’s needs in respect of developing skills. It was hoped to provide training to at least 24 young people and the more successful the programme, the more likely the numbers would increase.

The Chair asked whether this equated to a buddy system but Ms Abbott explained that it was different. Whereas a buddy system could be another student in school to accompany someone, this was a training programme of up to 12 weeks to encourage independent travel. The programme had had huge success with hundreds trained in Ealing.

Ms Abbott stressed that the legislation was not seen as an impediment. It enabled the local authority to have clarity in respect of the expectations for both the parents and the local authority.

Councillor Mitchell asked how the policy had been affected by the use of pick up points (PUP) both practically and financially. Merle Abbott explained that it was difficult to quantify but if two young people were collected from one place this shortened the journey and impacted on the cost. However, in particular it had an impact on the time the children spent on the vehicle and provided benefits from a shorter journey. She believed that the pick up points were successful and noted that other boroughs were following suit.

There could sometimes be an issue where the family was not happy with the pick up point but the local authority would endeavour to find one which was more suitable. However, it was a balance. It was not always possible for the local authority to comply with one family’s wishes as this could cause inconvenience for others.

The Chair asked whether many cases were taken to the independent tribunal and Merle Abbott explained that such cases were not taken for matters of transport, but generally around the question of education provision. For example, a parent might want residential or mainstream provision or vice versa.

In respect of the transport provision, there was a two stage appeal process. The first stage review allowed parents to submit new information at that stage for consideration and sometimes changes resulted from that. For example in the first year a couple of children in wheelchairs had not been offered a home pick up point because the parent had not said that they were in wheelchairs. The authority was assessing over 1000 cases and had made it more explicit about the type of wheelchair. Each year the process was refined where issues had been raised.

Councillor Collins noted that paragraph 3.1 of the report referred to the age range of 5-16 but he pointed out that the education range was to 18 and the legislation related to Looked After Children gave a duty of care to 25. He asked why the provision was not to age 18 and relating to transport for further education and college. Merle Abbott explained that there was a post 16 policy statement and that the authority did not operate a cut off. The statutory education age was to 16 but the policy included post 16 remaining in full time education so that the authority did apply the same principles as pre 16 to these young people.

The Chair asked whether a parent had to reapply if the family moved and the service changed. Merle Abbott confirmed that they did have to reapply. Sometimes notice was given and sometimes not. Eligibility took into account the distance and the nature of the journey so families needed to reapply if the circumstances changed.

Councillor Tony Louki asked how long it would take to review an application and was informed that the authority aimed for a decision in 14 days. In year changes were generally provided in the timescale. The peak for applications was the end of February/March to May/June.

The Chair asked whether there were circumstances in which the authority had been unable to provide transport within the given timeframe and Merle Abbott undertook to check.

The Panel noted that the service had answered some questions put forward by the Chair and Vice Chair in the tabled paper and it was proposed that this paper should be incorporated in the minutes of the meeting and published with the meeting papers.

Councillor Louki asked how feedback on the service was sought and what user forums there might be. Merle Abbott explained that the main forum was the Parents/Carers Network which met monthly. Public meetings had been set up when the policy was first changed. At that point there had been good attendance but this had reduced to two parents for the last consultation who were happy with the transport provision. As an alternative for this present consultation, the authority had written to every parent, to special schools and special centres, in order to ask about provision and where the parent needed support and guidance.

Councillor Louki explored whether the authority sent a general letter inviting responses or a survey and asked how often this was done. Ms Abbott explained that this was not done routinely but when they consulted on policies. They had written to 800 parents and received 10 responses.

Councillor Louki questioned whether a survey format might be more effective, using some comments that parents had raised through the forum. He also suggested the option of an incentive to respond. He understood the average spend was £695 per child. He felt that more could be done in respect of user involvement on the service delivered. He noted that the parent might be grateful for the service they were receiving and would not complain unless something went awry. He spoke of seeking the views of the young people. There were appropriate ways of consulting. He agreed that something was working, given that only around ten applications per year went to appeal. Nevertheless, there were issue to consider. Some children were travelling to Isleworth from Feltham and it would be useful to know how they got on with public transport or with a vehicle provided. There were questions such as were contractors or in house providers providing a better service. These were all things that members might wish to review. It might be helpful to have performance data on contractors to assess whether they met targets, or how many times they might have been fined for not meeting targets. Councillor Louki understood that this was extra work but tied into the Scrutiny work programme, it could be useful to test whether the Council was getting value for money. The Chair agreed the importance of achieving value for money.

Merle Abbott explained that Transport Operations did monitor performance. There might be questions about how they monitored and evaluated themselves and contractors. They did record complaints and compliments. Ms Abbott suggested that Scrutiny might want to take up these issues with the head of that service.

Merle Abbott also noted that the point members had raised about the view of young people was important. They did work with young people with special educational needs and disabilities concerning how they might be consulted on their own situation. There was ongoing work on a mechanism to achieve this. Once arrangements were in place they could be linked in with transport provision.

Councillor Louki requested that the Panel might receive figures on performance targets and outcomes once or twice per year as part of the Panel’s work programme.

The Chair drew the distinction between Travel Assistance and Transport. Merle Abbott confirmed that Travel Assistance involved assessing the range of options whilst Transport related to the provision of the vehicle. Transport Operations were a separate team which commissioned transport. The role of the Travel Assistance team was to determine entitlement and format of any provision.

The Chair asked whether all appeals were up to date and was informed that they were not. Merle Abbott explained the two stages of a review at officer level and then to a panel of two councillors and an Assistant Director who was not responsible for that service area. So Jacqui McShannon would be excluded from the panel. It was acknowledged that a number of members, including Councillors Louki, Anderson, Lynch, Malhotra and Mitchell, had sat on panels but it was a challenging area where volunteers were needed.

The Chair expressed her willingness to help and proposed emailing members to encourage them to serve on panels. Also in response to a question from Councillor Atterton, Ms Abbott confirmed that although figures might show a snapshot on the day, there were no delays in assessment at this time of the year.

Councillor Atterton also asked whether there were any particular concerns arising from the cuts and whether the service was being squeezed financially. Merle Abbott advised that the service exceeded the budget by a significant amount of over £1m. There were difficulties for the service as ultimately if a child had relevant needs, the service had to and did provide transport. Ms Abbott confirmed that the policy was not compromised but was applied with a consistent approach. Transport was provided if the child’s needs required it, but could not be provided simply because it suited the parents’ wishes.

Jacqui McShannon, Assistant Director, Children’s Safeguarding and Specialist Services, apologised for her late arrival as she had had an alternative meeting.

The Chair thanked Merle Abbott for a very informative presentation. She also thanked the Travel Assistance team for their extra work at short notice to provide the information requested by the Panel.

Merle Abbott and Jacqui McShannon left the meeting at the end of this item.

Resolved:

That the following actions were agreed by the Panel:

1. Merle Abbott to check whether there were circumstances in which the authority had been unable to provide travel assistance within the given timeframe when there had been a change of family circumstances in year, for example the family moved house. 2. It was agreed that the answers to the questions submitted to the department by the Panel in advance of the meeting and tabled at the meeting should be incorporated in the minutes. The document would also be published on the website with the Panel papers. 3. Members suggested in respect of consultation with users that a survey format might elicit a better response. 4. It was proposed that Scrutiny might invite the Head of the Transport Operations service to explore performance monitoring questions in respect of that service and that of the contractors. 5. Members noted that there was ongoing work to establish a mechanism for consultation on their own situation for young people with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities. It was agreed to report this to the Panel once arrangements were in place to link this mechanism with transport. 6. It was also proposed to include a report on figures on performance targets and outcomes on the Panel’s work programme for them to receive once or twice per year. 7. Members expressed their willingness to assist with independent Travel Assistance appeals and asked that they be emailed to establish availability. There was the possible option of widening the pool of members to sit on these appeals.

154. Arts Provision for Young People

See the report by Councillor Linda Green, Chair of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel – Agenda Item 5.

The Chair welcomed David Brockie, Senior Education Adviser, London Borough of Hounslow; Sarah Ruane, Head of Preventative Health and Leisure, London Borough of Hounslow; Oonagh Barry, Hounslow Music Service and Jan Lennox, Director, Watermans Art Centre. She asked the Panel’s guests to introduce themselves briefly and outline their role in art provision for young people.

Watermans Centre

Jan Lennox introduced herself as the Director of the Watermans Art Centre but also pointed out that alongside the venue the Centre had a wider arts development role across the borough. In respect of the Arts Centre venue, they were working with children and young people on programmes promoting accessibility and aspirational activities to progress the arts experience and develop creative skills. Their programmes covered babies from 0-6 months through to young adults up to 25. They worked through informal education, participation out of school and developing young audiences.

There were three key areas. Firstly, the centre provided high quality professional arts and performance through cinema, plays and special screenings for families with disabled children. They provided opportunities for participation, for young people to work with professional artists in all art forms such as theatre, music, dance, creative media, film and fashion design. These activities were available for all abilities with weekly workshops and extra in school holidays. One such example was a project called Ambush, run over the summer for young people for four weeks. The programme included 300 projects covering TV programmes, robots, circus and shows.

Overall the Watermans ran 2500 sessions per year with attendance of over 50,000. The centre worked with the Early Intervention Service to develop a more structured programme to inform arts provision across the borough, improving quality and consistency. They were two years on this journey and there was work still to do at the Watermans and elsewhere.

They offered support for young people towards creative careers. One in six new jobs was within the creative sector and this could rise to one in four. There were school work placements and internships for colleges and local universities. There were also apprenticeships, for example creativity weeks for 20 NEET young people to obtain work experience, funded by the Mayor’s Fund. These provided experience in customer service, event management and related activities. Thirteen young people were into employment through the programme and a similar programme in the summer would support another eight.

There were more out of school activities than in school, including work with the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) and special schools. The Watermans was recognised as a regional centre for the Arts, able to offer an accredited award at three levels.

There were two big priorities. The first was to do more and extend the offer to Early Years. The second was to focus on a more coherent offer to schools and to reach wider groups, so that schools would engage with the Watermans as a resource.

The Chair asked for information on the team working to deliver the service. Jan Lennox explained that there were 17 people, 12 of whom provided the front line service for an open venue, box office and activities, so it was a lean set up.

Councillor Mel Collins noted that the centre was situated right next to the water. He asked whether there was any creative art which was water related. Jan Lennox replied that some projects were inspired by water. For example the Open Ambush programme had a river theme. They also held a weekender – a mini festival which tied in with the Thames Festival. However, there were no activities on the water as the costs would be prohibitive.

Councillor Collins noted that thirteen young people were now in employment. He asked who monitored the remaining seven young people. Jan Lennox explained that there was a monthly meeting and ongoing support including an employment adviser who would guide young people to follow on opportunities.

Councillor Collins asked whether there was contact with the Duke of Edinburgh awards and was informed that there was a comparable Arts award. The Early Intervention Service had projects which fed into the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, for example the Hub at Beavers Outdoor Arts where free running was part of the Duke of Edinburgh scheme.

Councillor Collins knew the centre worked with schools but asked outside of schools where young people came from to participate. He suggested that there were a number of estates where the police or other agencies might direct young people to activities. He asked how the Watermans got to the hard to reach young people.

Jan Lennox advised that they did not have referrals from the police but did work with the Youth Service so that they would get out into different areas rather than young people coming to them. Although Watermans was based at one end of the borough, the onus of their work was with schools and youth centres across the whole borough.

Councillor Paul Lynch remembered that there had in the past been work with young offenders in Feltham and he wondered whether that work continued. Jan Lennox replied that Watermans had not worked with the Feltham Young Offenders institute for some time. However, they did work with the Youth Offending Team (YOT) in the community and with different groups to draw in people. In response to a further question from Councillor Lynch, Ms Lennox agreed that working with Feltham might be something they might explore.

Councillor Alan Mitchell declared that he had had involvement with drama provision via a school in Richmond which had hosted Dramatic Edge. This company worked with secondary and junior schools and also on themes such as local areas of history. The school was involved and shared the work. Councillor Mitchell asked whether anything similar had been done by the Watermans and whether there was scope for something similar.

Jan Lennox explained that they ran different types of drama projects including workshops in school for them to create their own show. So young people got to showcase their work as professionally as possible and would finish the project with a performance in the Watermans Theatre or their film shown in the cinema.

Councillor Mitchell asked whether these projects involved work in school and was informed that they could be either but were generally where the Watermans had worked on the project. They had, for example, worked with the National Theatre with the Green School. The class had created a play to perform at a local venue and another venue. Specialist tutors from the National Theatre worked at the Green School and as a result of the project the intake for Drama GCSE doubled. There was a balance between available resourcing and how widely projects could be offered but the aim was very wide access.

Councillor Mitchell asked about connections with the local authority and was informed that Watermans had a lot of connections as there was a varied programme. These included the Early Intervention Service and Youth Workers as well as a more direct relationship with schools.

Councillor Candice Atterton asked whether the connections tended to be schools which were more involved in the Arts and whether schools approached the Watermans or the Watermans chose particular schools. Jan Lennox explained that it tended to be driven by individual teachers rather than by school policy. Certain schools were more interested because they were strong in performance arts. For example, Brentford School for Girls had an interest in creative media and so they worked a lot with them. The centre did try to attract others who were not engaging and these could be the hardest to target and hard work to involve.

Councillor Tony Louki noted that the centre got funding from the Arts Council and the borough but he was interested in finding the ratio of funding if awards were going down every year and where other funds and applications came from. He asked where they applied, for example did they work with Ealing.

Jan Lennox advised that they did. She pointed out that the nature of funding had changed dramatically over the last ten years with a shift away from grants towards contracts for service. The Arts Council grant now represented about 7% of their income. Increased income resulted from public sector contracts around children and young people, tenders, box office income, catering and hiring space. So there was a mix of funding sources plus funding applications for particular projects.

Councillor Louki asked for turnover figures and was informed that this was around £1.5m. The vast majority was the cost of running and staffing the building and licensing requirements. The challenge was to use the resource as much as they could for as much activity as possible.

Councillor Louki noted that there were a number of schools in Hounslow. He asked how many the Watermans worked with and which schools might have been approached but were not interested. He explained that part of what the Scrutiny Panel was looking at was children without opportunities to access arts provision. He noted that one school sent 80 children to a Children’s Festival at the Festival Hall but this was the only school from Hounslow.

Jan Lennox explained that over the course of a year the centre engaged at some level with most schools. This might be through a project or through the school attending the Christmas show. It was possible to have a conversation with schools who said that they were not interested to ask how the centre might help. The real challenge was schools which did not respond on any level.

Education Adviser

Councillor Louki asked how they might find schools which were not showing an interest as there might be schools which were not engaging in any opportunities.

David Brockie, Senior Education Adviser, explained that his service worked with schools, acknowledging that there was much greater knowledge in some areas than others. He noted that Oonagh Barry’s Music Service reached every last corner of the borough and provided a radar for school improvement and way of extending music. The School Effectiveness Team had the role of ensuring the school was in a good place and there would be no surprises in an inspection. Support was offered to those schools which were not yet good. However, increasingly it was about schools working together. Eight years ago there had been an Adviser for the Arts but these posts had been the casualties of cuts. The subject adviser would have run a network of meetings now the role was to encourage schools to support each other. They would set up an infrastructure for say Heads of Drama to run their own network, meeting once per term. The School Effectiveness Team monitored this and provided a budget of £3k for development work and specialist advisers.

The Chair asked whether all schools used the network. It was explained that there were budgets for the network and a particular school, for example Isleworth and Syon in the case of the drama network, would host that network.

The Chair asked whether it would be possible at a later stage for the Panel to have information for all subject areas so they could see who was doing what. Mr Brockie confirmed that this information could be provided. He pointed out that the knowledge could be very detailed, for example the Music Service offered strong music support in various schools. Mr Brockie explained that it was unusual that Oonagh Barry represented a specific subject. This offered a fuller knowledge of music than was true of other areas. However, Mr Brockie confirmed that schools did have frequent discussion on arts provision at their leadership teams. The secondary schools worked to protect Arts in the curriculum. However, they were under increased pressure, for example from the introduction of the English Baccalaureate. There were indicators of performance and schools sought to protect the arts but increasingly provision was provided via extra curricular activities. Brentford School for Girls was a champion for creative media and Heston Community School clung to Arts specialism at the sacrifice of the English Baccalaureate.

The Chair asked whether the team dealt with specialist schools. Mr Brockie confirmed that there was an adviser for specialist schools but they also had a lot to do with the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU). The PRU made good use of drama in conflict resolution and these skills were central for teachers working with those groups.

The Chair asked for information on schools which were not using these services.

Music Service

Oonagh Barry, Hounslow Music Service, explained that the focus of her service was music education in schools. She spoke of budgets and funding at 5-6% of the entire budget for schools. The responsibility for delivering the statutory curriculum did not rest with the music service but they provided a specialist service, enhancing the curriculum. Ms Barry spoke of delivery of the 2012 National Plan for Music Education. This compared with previous government statements about Music Services, which were renamed Hubs. They were funded for four core roles. These involved enabling children to play musical instruments, progress routes for affordable tuition, encourage bands etc after school and singing in school. There was also an extension in providing instrument hire, a performance platform and continued development for teachers (both the services’ own tutors and those in school). There were 70 professional musicians in the borough and over 10,000 pupils taught per week.

The service delivered all the above roles and taught about 29% of the school population. They excluded 4 year olds. At Key Stage 2 there was an ensemble programme in all but three schools with 3,000 per year involved. All had instruments and first year instrument tuition, usually provided in Year 3 or Year 4. This was the age at which a child could play most instruments and was considered best practice. However, children gained most benefit if they started earlier at age 7-8 so instruments were made available in every school.

Progress routes had proved a great success. With the support of schools, 67% of pupils continued for the first year, compared with 20% across the country. Schools invested in the programme because there was a good quality offer. There were a range of choirs and ensembles available at a cost of £27 per term. These were provided at the right level and there were funding bids made for children where cost was a barrier. Funds such as the Mayor of London’s Fund for Young Musicians, a City Hall charity, would enable continuous tuition and instrument hire for four years.

The service ran a series of summer singing festivals and in 2013 a thousand children from the across the borough, from 32 of 45 primary schools, sang at the Royal Festival Hall. There were infant and secondary festivals offered free to schools.

In respect of current funding, Ms Barry explained that there was £281k from the Department for Education (DfE) and £94k from the borough. This would reduce but they had set up the infrastructure. For the rest of the budget they charged schools and achieved £1.6m from schools and bids to Trust/Foundations and fees to schools and parents.

The Chair asked whether the service had to pay to hire facilities for performance. Oonagh Barry explained that the Festival Hall offered a community rate of £15k. The cost of the projects was £33k but they brought back in £20k from receipts on the door. So for a total of £13k, children from the borough were offered an amazing experience. Similarly Hammersmith Town Hall offered a local rate of £6k for three nights. They invested in a singing strategy and also got things in kind. They had £281k from the DfE to cover these types of things. There were 70 staff but the majority were sessional, working 6-34 hours per week. This allowed for the type of instrument as all were specialist musicians.

Councillor Collins understood that two primary schools were not covered by the service and was advised that both were Academies, Oriel and Westbrook, who did not want the service. The Music Service supported delivery to all state funded schools. Westbrook did take part in the singing and at Oriel the service had managed to ensure with parents where children transferred that their lessons would continue on Saturdays.

Councillor Mitchell asked whether the service operated in Oakhill Academy and was informed that it did. A school could opt to work with the service or not. However, Ms Barry explained that her concern was if the school did not work with anyone. In respect of Rivers Academy, she confirmed that there were instrumental teachers working in the school.

Councillor Paul Lynch asked about financing and whether the service operated as a free standing Trust with its own governance or whether this was yet to come. Oonagh Barry explained that currently they were a Council service but were exploring different status so they were able to attract different pots of funding in the future. In response to a question from the Chair, Ms Barry further explained that staff were directly employed to ensure quality of service.

Councillor Mitchell spoke positively about all that had been achieved in one borough and the relaxed, magical feeling about all the work that was done. For example, he spoke of a percussion tutor teaching two pupils from scratch in November to great effect. He asked what the plans were for the future.

Oonagh Barry explained that they had fantastic staff who were in schools every day creating a culture for new teachers to feel empowered to have bright ideas. In respect of plans for the future, Ms Barry spoke of previous experience in East Sussex where there was an outstanding music service creating a climate in which wherever the child grew up there was the possibility of them securing a place at the Royal College of Music. So, the future plans involved increasing the reach of the service. They were seeking funding sources to establish a Feltham Music Centre. There was lots of music in the area but people did not want to travel to Isleworth so it was proposed to being ensembles to them. This would probably be based in Victoria Junior School or Feltham Community College as there was great support for music in both schools.

Members asked to be informed of the next event and the Chair asked that all members should be sent a programme. Councillor Mitchell also reported that he had written a review of the excellent Remembrance Day service.

Councillor Candice Atterton and Councillor Harleen Atwal Hear explored how the whole class ensemble arrangement operated. Oonagh Barry explained that a teacher worked with the whole class who would all learn to play the same instrument. The class did not choose the instrument. The purpose was to learn musical skills and to read music, which they could then transfer to learning another instrument.

Leisure contracts

Sarah Ruane, Head of Preventative Health and Leisure, explained that the Council had no dedicated arts officer so instead they tried to complement arts provision through commissioning services which already existed elsewhere. Carillion commissioned delivery of arts provision, providing poetry and other activities as a focus of community engagement. The Library Service provided a vehicle for children and young people to engage with the Arts. There were a range of events and arts projects to build with the community so a community would take on the project. London contemporary arts provided outdoor performances at Boston Manor Park and Turnham Green, linked with workshops. Fusion provided dance and there was engagement with national bodies for sport and activity and dance to develop a network of sports development/arts and sports links.

Activities took place in Council buildings such as the use of Library space for workshops and displays. There was the Paul Robeson Theatre and also opportunities for better use of historic houses such as Boston Manor, Gunnersbury and Hogarth.

The Chair asked what plans there were for historic buildings and was informed that Hogarth House had an exhibition from local colleges. There were plans to develop a programme of activities for arts performance or arts space linked with heritage.

The Chair asked about links with the Watermans Arts Centre and was informed that they drafted outcomes in relation to a contract. They had a heritage lead who was looking at services and tying in with arts programmes where it was possible to do so.

Councillor Paul Lynch welcomed the use of historic houses. He noted difficulties with the national curriculum but advantages for a borough which was rich in historic houses such as Chiswick, Osterley and Syon. These offered an extraordinary educational resource on the doorstep. He felt that the opportunities these properties offered were underplayed and that local children should grow up knowing about the Renaissance and all the art history which was within the borough.

Sarah Ruane agreed that it did not matter who managed the service as the heritage lead would engage with all those partners. They were looking to fund a heritage plan to look at the best use of resources. Councillor Lynch noted that there was a previous heritage plan from around 1992 which might be updated.

Councillor Collins spoke of his disappointment that there was not an officer for Tourism and Leisure in the borough. He felt this was a necessary role as there was so much culture to promote and it was a long held dream of his that there should be such a role. He also asked whether Sarah Ruane might give a brief synopsis of the programme for Gunnersbury Park and retention of the educational thread there.

Sarah Ruane explained that there was someone in the Council who provided support for heritage and tourism. This was an Economic Development officer within the Regeneration team whose role was to look at better promotion of Hounslow businesses and visitors to the borough. So this area was being looked at. In respect of the Leisure restructure they would also look at the possibility of an Arts and Heritage post but funding for this was still to be identified.

In respect of Gunnersbury Park, which was co-owned by the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hounslow, there had been a successful Heritage Lottery Fund grant of £8.9m. This was supplemented by additional funding from both boroughs. The first phase would cover redevelopment of the Large Mansion to improve the museum and landscaping. The second phase involved other buildings in the park and the third a sports hub. The Education Service would continue. The Museum was closed to decant the collection by the end of March in order to start the refurbishment from April. The management of the Education Service would transfer to the London Borough of Ealing and the service would continue. The Victorian Kitchens would be open until a date later in February and then the Education Service would operate from the Small Mansion and via workshops with schools.

Councillor Mitchell asked where the source of artistic expertise was in Carillion and what the long term plans were for the Paul Robeson Theatre.

Sarah Ruane replied that the Arts and Events Team were looking at how to maximise the potential through the commissioning process or whether to deliver the service themselves. There had been proposals for the Paul Robeson Theatre and Redlees as part of the Tranche 1 savings, looking at alternative service delivery models. There might be a change of service or of provider but this was under review. The Chair questioned whether this meant that the Paul Robeson Theatre would cease to exist and was informed that this was under review. There was a question about what it would mean for the theatre if the library were to move, but there might be another provider.

For Redlees, there might be a change to how the provision was managed. The Chair believed that local people would be upset to see the provision go. Sarah Ruane explained that for Redlees they were looking at the site, developing changing rooms and questioning how they might develop better links. This was an exciting project.

Councillor Atterton asked about the work of Carillion and Fusion and targeting of vulnerable groups. She asked whether these targets were met universally and how the activities were advertised. She also asked to what extent activities linked with public health.

Sarah Ruane explained that Carillion and Fusion did have targets. Carillion used the Hounslow information website as the place to provide information about the Leisure Centres and newsletters. This reached a lot of people and all schools. She welcomed feedback on the experience of the email newsletters. There was also a piece of work to be done to review numbers and performance indicators. This needed to be sought from the contracts team. The new team were proactively seeking external funding for vulnerable groups.

The Chair asked that the Panel should be kept informed of progress on this point.

In respect of public health, Sarah Ruane explained that she reported to the Director of Public Health. There was a programme with St Mary’s which had a dance element and work with mental health teams and also dance in the Cranford area.

Councillor Louki was doubtful as to whether Carillion held all information on activities. In particular he asked what information was available over the school holidays, especially in the summer and how parents would find out what was available with regard to arts and sports for young people. He understood that there might be information in Leisure Centres and Libraries and in Hounslow Matters but asked how far the authority might go to produce a special Hounslow Matters for the holidays which would identify what was available, the cost and where young people should attend. He was aware that other authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham did produce a booklet with this information but Hounslow did not. He looked for opportunities for young people from different backgrounds to turn up and take part in activities locally and asked how Hounslow might achieve this.

Councillor Atwal Hear was aware of a leaflet in the Hounslow Chronicle but members noted that not all residents received the paper. The Chair noted that Carillion co-ordinated Hounslow’s information and wondered whether a what’s on section might be incorporated in Hounslow Matters rather than reinvent a publication. Or there might be alternatives to publicise in schools via another format.

David Brockie pointed out that the Youth Team might use the mechanism of Hounslow Matters which was good for parents but for young people it was also helpful to use new media.

Members discussed providing information so that young people were aware of opportunities available over the summer which might not have been available to them in school. Councillor Lynch recalled some research undertaken previously by young people serving on this Panel as to where their peer group obtained information. At that point, social media was not the most used source. Stephen Hutchison, Youth Service Project Manager, agreed to seek out this piece of research and send to Ben Knight, the Scrutiny officer.

Oonagh Barry also pointed out that it was worth remembering that a number of school ran summer schools and gave good information to feeder schools. For example, Cranford Community School had a four week summer school programme, as did the Heathland and others.

Councillor Louki suggested that people did not rely on the internet for information and that a booklet/publication which people could flick through was more useful. This would include arts, sports and other activities in the locality. He suggested that such a publication could be self funding via advertising for a football school or other advertising. He recognised that it was too late to undertake such a publication for this summer but wanted to note the suggestion. He felt the information was more than just giving data on what young people could do in the summer and involved bringing young people together. He did not think members could rely on Carillion providing this information without monitoring what they were providing. He suggested that the borough could promote its own activities. There would be a guaranteed circulation of 20,000 school children in the borough. He suggested that officers could speak to Communications or could talk to the publicity people at Hammersmith and Fulham about what they produced.

Sarah Ruane clarified that Carillion as the contractors were commissioned to provide a newsletter. What was important was to ensure better integration with them on the content so that the newsletter might look at all service areas. She believed that it was worth a discussion with them and she would meet with Mary Fisher the new lead for Children and Adults communications.

Councillor Louki advised that the contact for the tri-borough booklet was Louise Raisey, Head of Communications in Hammersmith and Fulham.

The Chair concluded this item, thanking all for their attendance and contributions.

Resolved:

That the following actions were agreed by the Panel:

1. Members noted the information from the School Effectiveness Team about the schools running networks in particular subject areas and asked to receive information on all subject areas so the Panel was clear which school was doing what. 2. Members asked to be sent the Music Service events programme. 3. The Panel asked to be kept informed of the progress of a piece of work suggested by Sarah Ruane to review numbers and performance indicators via information from the contracts team and 4. Sarah Ruane also invited members to feedback any specific experience of events by email. 5. Stephen Hutchinson, Project Manager, Youth Services, would look out the research previously undertaken by the youth representatives on the Panel concerning what sources young people used to access information. He would pass this to Ben Knight. 6. Sarah Ruane would discuss with the new Communications lead for Children’s and Adults Services the option of a more integrated approach across all service areas to advertise events and activities in the newsletter already produced and circulated by Carillion. 7. Members asked that the example of the Tri borough leaflet produced by Hammersmith and Fulham to inform of all activities available over the summer holidays should be explored. It was noted that the contact was Lousie Raisey, Head of Communications at Hammersmith and Fulham.

155. 2014 - 2015 Work Programme

See the report by Councillor Linda Green, Chair of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel – Agenda Item 6.

Ben Knight, Scrutiny and Performance Officer, introduced the report. He asked members to note that the next meeting had been moved to 30 March 2015.

The agenda for that meeting would include an Ofsted update, an update on Prevention of Child Sexual Exploitation and Child Obesity, considered through sport and leisure. He had arranged a meeting for the Chair and Vice Chair with the Director of Public Health.

Councillor Mel Collins was disturbed that the focus was just talking about child obesity when he felt that the Panel should also be exploring the background of children with eating disorders. He felt that the topic should be broadened to cover eating disorders.

The Chair clarified that this was one of the reasons why the topic had been opened up to discuss the issue of reducing problems via sport and leisure. However, Councillor Collins noted that there had not been a report about eating disorders and he felt that there were significant differences. It was noted that these were sometimes a mental health issue.

Ben Knight suggested they should scope out the item with the Director of Public Health as an item for 30 March meeting. He hoped that the Director would be able to attend.

The Chair invited other members to submit ideas for the work programme via Ben Knight. She had asked for St Margaret’s Leaving Care facility to be put on the work programme but needed information from Councillor Lynch. Councillor Lynch advised that he would fix a meeting outside of the Panel meeting with Ben Knight.

Councillor Louki emphasised that this was a rolling work programme and it was helpful for members to add to it. He reminded members to bring issues forward for inclusion and suggested that the Scrutiny officer circulated the programme periodically so members could add to it.

The Chair concurred that it was important for all to take part. She particularly invited items from the young people representatives.

She thanked everyone for their attendance and asked members to remember to send apologies if they were unable to attend.

Resolved:

1. Members noted that the next meeting had been moved to 30 March 2015. 2. It was agreed that a meeting should be arranged for the Chair and Vice Chair to meet with the Director of Public Health to scope out an item for the next Panel meeting relating to reducing child obesity through sport and leisure, but also to include eating disorders. 3. Members were invited to submit any further ideas for agenda items to Ben Knight. 4. Councillor Lynch would arrange a meeting with Ben Knight in respect of further information on St Margaret’s Leaving Care Facility. 5. It was proposed that the work programme should be circulated to members periodically for Panel members to add items to it as a rolling work programme. Items from the youth representatives were invited particularly.

156. Urgent Business There was no urgent business. The meeting finished at 9:37 pm. The minute taker at this meeting was Carol Stiles