Gareth Young introduced the report and sought the Panels views, ahead of Cabinet consideration, on the proposed move to a commissioning model for the delivery of Merton Adult Education Service (MAE). 

Gareth Young outlined the arguments for the recommended commissioning model and the benefits to the council and service, in light of Skills Funding Agency grant reduction expected in future years. The design and model put forward is in response to financial information, identified risk to the council and to the type of service that residents have shown they would like to see in the future. The commissioning model also enables the council to retain an adult education service which can easily be varied in light of grant reduction. It also provides a more flexible cost effective model and enables the council to retain full control over the commissioning process.

Gareth Young outlined the commissioning principles that the service would adhere to.

Councillor Ross Garrod asked if the consultation was open to the wider public or just existing users of Merton Adult Education. Gareth Young explained that the consultation was aimed at the wider public. The aim of the consultation was to allow as many to input as they wished. Most respondents were those that are service users at present but this is to be expected in a consultation of this nature. There were 850 respondents and a range of public meetings were held.

Councillor Ross Garrod asked how close to the make up of users was the data capture on age and ethnicity of respondents within the report. Gareth Young explained that there was a pretty good match to users, but not as good a match to the population of Merton as a whole.

Councillor Imran Uddin stated that there needed to be sufficient monitoring and review of the results of the operation of a commissioning model, once implemented, to determine with providers and users how effective this model is. Gareth Young explained that commissioned providers would be responsible for ensuring certain outcomes and user satisfaction. Provision can be varied dependent upon the outcome of on going monitoring and review of existing contracts and an analysis of user satisfaction. He added that this model wouldn’t necessarily alleviate the full impact of a reduction in the Skills Funding Agency grant. There would have to be further cuts to the service if grant was reduced. This commissioning model however, enabled the council to respond to this reduction in grant funding.

Councillor John Sargeant enquired about the potential cuts to vocational versus community learning courses and how it would be decided which courses to cut. Gareth Young explained that these courses have separate funding pots and therefore this is not a decision that will be made by the council, but reflective of the cuts to the grants received for either type of course.

Councillor James Holmes stated that the commissioning principles needed to be meaningful and there should be full commitment to them. Councillor Martin Whelton added that these basic principles would be implemented if there was a move towards a commissioning model and full commitment to their delivery.

Councillor James Holmes asked what these principles meant in practice. Gareth Young explained that tutors would have TUPE rights and have the right to be retained. Appropriate environments for certain learner groups, such as those who are older or have disabilities, would be commissioned and students would be engaged in the design of these services. A stakeholder group would also be set up internally to manage the commissioning process on an area by area basis and would engage with service users.

Councillor James Holmes enquired about the task group of adult skills and employability, that was previously undertaken by the Panel, and the recommendations made regarding MAE and courses for career development. Councillor James Holmes asked if these courses were being referred to in the economic skills agenda highlighted within the report. Gareth Young explained that the colleges were already working on implementation of the recommendations that were agreed.

Councillor John Sargeant stated his reservations about South Thames College being the main provider of courses and asked if they would be the predominant supplier. Gareth Young explained that South Thames College would be the dominant provider as they have the required facilities to deliver certain courses. The council would want to approach this relationship as a partnership. Councillor Martin Whelton added that there would be some smaller providers and flexibility in service provision, where necessary.

Councillor Daniel Holden proposed that the Cabinet Member should publicise his pledge to the commissioning principles outlined within the report.

Councillor John Sargeant asked what residual cost was to the council after the commissioning model was setup. Gareth Young drew Members attention to the residual overheads within the report at paragraph 2.35. This would cover management, staff, and fixed costs over time and would be adjusted to make the service cheaper to deliver or for it to be provided in different ways.

Councillor Stan Anderson asked if the council could commission specialist tutors if the preferred providers were unable to deliver a specific course. Gareth Young explained that this would be the case.

Councillor Daniel Holden asked what additional resource was required from council staff outside of the MAE service to support the commissioning process. Gareth Young explained that this was funded by a grant from the Skills Funding Agency.

Councillor John Sargeant highlighted that residents raised the issue with the wording of the questions in the public consultation. They felt the questions were not well conceived.  Councillor Martin Whelton agreed that there were some valid points regarding the construction of the consultation questions. Gareth Young added that the consultation included open questions to get a sense of where people’s priorities lie. The survey was designed to get a wider sense of what people valued in the service.

Councillor James Holmes added that the officer was making reasonable assumptions but that the Panel needed to see things happen and for the commissioning principles to be committed to and communicated to residents.

RESOLVED:  Panel agreed to forward a reference for Cabinet consideration at their meeting on 16^th February which would outline the following recommendations:

a)            That the Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Panel support the recommendation that a commissioning model be adopted for the delivery of an adult education service in Merton;

b)            That Cabinet communicate their commitment to the commissioning principles outlined within the report at paragraph 3.14, in particular, the retention of staff, where possible, and the development of a nurturing environment for learners; and

c)            That Cabinet consult the Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Panel at key stages of the implementation of the commissioning model to enable the Panel to undertake pre decision scrutiny.