To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr PE Crockett and Cllr A Seldon.

To receive details of any members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the committee.

Cllr J Hardwick attended as a substitute for Cllr PE Crockett, and Cllr EPJ Harvey for Cllr A Seldon.

It was noted that Cllr Hardwick was in attendance as a substitute committee member and not as a substitute call-in member.

To receive any declarations of interest by members in respect of items on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were noted at the start of the meeting. However, during the discussions regarding SHYPP, the vice-chairman declared that he had participated as former chairman of the council in the diamond awards.

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the committee could scrutinise in the future.

(There will be no discussion of the issue at the time when the matter is raised.  Consideration will be given to whether it should form part of the committee’s work programme when compared with other competing priorities.)

No suggestions were received.

To note questions received from the public and the items to which they relate.

(Questions are welcomed for consideration at a scrutiny committee meeting so long as the question is directly related to an item listed on the agenda.  If you have a question you would like to ask then please submit it no later than two working days before the meeting to the committee officer.  This will help to ensure that an answer can be provided at the meeting). 

No questions were received.

To consider the call-in of the housing related support service – SHYPP contract (supported housing for young people project).  The decision has been called in by three members of the committee: Councillors ACR Chappell, PE Crockett and MD Lloyd-Hayes.

The chairman introduced the item and confirmed that the cabinet decision had been called-in by Councillors ACR Chappell, PE Crockett, and MD Lloyd-Hayes.

The monitoring officer clarified the purpose of the meeting and structure, with reference to the call-in protocol that had been circulated to committee members, asappended to the minutes. 

At the invitation of the chairman, the cabinet member for health and wellbeing outlined the decision taken by cabinet, making the following points:

·         That it was positive that the decision had been taken in public by cabinet and that the issue of homelessness had attracted much interest with a motion in full council and a 2000-signature petition

·         The proposal was well thought through and took into account the equality impact assessment and full dialogue with SHYPP

·         This was a hard decision to take; however, there were limited resources available to the council and it was important to understand the context of challenges faced and the need for commissioners to review contracts.

·         If this contract were not reviewed, it would have been necessary to find savings elsewhere in adults and wellbeing.

·         The quality of service provided by SHYPP was not in question; however, affordability was not sustainable and it was necessary to prioritise the most vulnerable and to reduce duplication of service provision.

·         Twelve months’ transition funding was identified to support the decommissioning of floating support, for which £78,000 was allowed. SHYPP identified floating support and conducted a full case audit to establish need and a future delivery model.

The chairman invited the call-in members to present their reasons for the call-in.

A call-in member confirmed the reasons for the call-in:

·         That it was contrary to the corporate plan regarding giving people the best start and protecting vulnerable people

·         That counter proposals from SHYPP were not considered

·         The decision was outside the budget and policy framework

·         That the equality impact assessment was not properly considered

He stated that the decision to call-in was not taken lightly. However, it was considered that the decision taken by cabinet was not the right decision. In supporting the decision to call in the decision, the call-in member made the following points:

·         SHYPP was more than merely a housing provider; taking cuts in the floating service reduced SHYPP’s impact with regard to protecting vulnerable people who lacked other support networks and who had witnessed a great deal of domestic upheaval in their lives and therefore needed consistent support.

·         Whilst social workers could provide support and guidance, many vulnerable people saw them as authority figures and therefore would find it difficult to accept the loss of the floating service.

·         Unlike other services such as WISH, who provided signposting, SHYPP provided a consistent person for someone to be able to contact.

·         The alternative proposals made by SHYPP needed to be considered more carefully in order to retain the floating service as there was concern that housing agencies would re-assign homes to the general rental market. It was therefore suggested that the cabinet decision be suspended pending a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.