The Chair invited Councillor James Holmes to speak as a signatory to the call-in request. Councillor James Holmes said that he believed that the Cabinet’s decision was based on incorrect information and assumptions and had therefore been flawed. He laid round a sheet of paper containing two graphs, drawn from council data (the graphs have been published with the minutes). The first graph showed a sharp fall in the council’s financial contribution to Merton Adult Education. The second graph showed an increase in commercial courses that will increase income received. Councillor James Holmes added that the ward data showing service usage was flawed due to the location of the site at Whatley Avenue.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Panel:

Sue Hubbert, Merton Adults First

Merton Adults First is an organisation for carers of adults with a learning disability. Sue Hubbert handed a written statement to Panel members (published with the minutes). She said that many adults with learning disabilities use the Whatley Avenue centre and feel secure there. She highlighted the uniqueness of the environment at Whatley Avenue in successfully bringing together a wide mix of people. She feared that the loss of the centre would adversely impact on adults with learning disabilities and that support to travel to other centres would not be forthcoming given the context of cuts to the learning disabilities team. She urged the council to retain this specialist centre of excellence and take into account the needs of this highly vulnerable group of service users when making decisions about the future of the adult education service in Merton.

Gay Bennett Powell, Save Merton Adult Education

Gay Bennett Powell said that the consultation and accompanying communication had been poor. She said that there were leading statements within the consultation document, biased description of the options, that some of the wording was unclear and inaccessible to lay readers. She also criticised the provision of the same questionnaire to people with learning disabilities and those for whom English is not their first language as being inappropriate given their very different profile and needs.

Alison Caraccio, UNISON

Alison Caraccio said that the number of reviews of adult education in recent years demonstrates a lack of commitment to the service. She pointed out that 41% of adult learners live in the east of the borough and feared that the diverse needs of existing learners will not be catered for by the commercial model of provision. She urged the council to be transparent about its plans for the future of Whatley Avenue, including detail about the value of the site.

Shas Sheehan

Shas Sheehan asked the council to focus on the impact that the proposals would have on vulnerable groups and to bear in mind the prevention objectives of the Ageing Well programme. She said that consultation on the options had been belated and rushed. She said that the council’s reserves provide it with choices on spending and urged the council to postpone a decision on the adult education service so that a different vision could be considered, perhaps along the lines taken by Sutton Council.

Stephen Hammond, MP for Wimbledon

Stephen Hammond said that the decision undervalued the service. He pointed to the excellent service provided and the benefit to the community, including to vulnerable individuals, in all parts of the borough. He said that Councillor Holmes had demonstrated the flaws in the financial case. He read out some quotes from representations made to him by constituents who valued the service. He urged the Panel to refer the decision back to Cabinet and he called for honesty and transparency regarding plans for the Whatley Avenue site.

The Chair invited Councillor Martin Whelton, Cabinet Member for Education, to respond. Councillor Martin Whelton thanked the speakers for their contributions and said that it had been a difficult and challenging decision to take but one that had to be made given the financial situation facing the council. He said that the financial graph circulated by Councillor James Holmes showed predicted budgets but did not include the overspends and overheads and that these are likely to continue.

Councillor Martin Whelton said that he believes that adult education provides a valuable role in the community which is why Cabinet has chosen to continue to provide it. He said that the public consultation had been wide and extensive, that he had met with  groups representing vulnerable people and he had listened to them. He said that he is committed to bridging the gap between the east and the west of the borough and that an equality impact assessment will be provided to Cabinet for its decision following the consultation.

In response to a question from Councillor Russell Makin about the future of Whatley Avenue, Councillor Martin Whelton said that there would be consultation on any future proposals and that any proposals would be drawn up in discussion with Joseph Hood School as the sites are interlinked.

Councillor John Sargeant said that he regretted the lack of pre decision scrutiny on this issue and asked a number of questions about the public consultation. In response, Councillor Martin Whelton said that views heard during the consultation would be taken on board but the financial situation would also need to be taken into account in order to put the service on to a sustainable long term footing and also taking into account service users with special needs. Councillor Martin Whelton said that the preferred option had been selected on the basis of detailed information that had been made available to Cabinet. Councillor John Sargeant said that it would be helpful if this could also be provided to the Panel.

Councillor Tobin Byers asked Simon Williams, Director of Community and Housing, about the financial risks associated with continuing the existing model of provision. Simon Williams said that the main funder, the Skills Funding Agency, had reduced funding each year whilst expecting more for the money provided and that he expected this to continue. He said that the fixed costs associated with the existing model of one main centre at Whatley Avenue made it difficult for the council to respond quickly to reductions in funding provision.

In response to a question from Councillor David Williams, Simon Williams said that there hadn’t been a detailed financial appraisal of each of the options. He said that the three options in which the council was the provider would keep the financial risk within the council, and  the two commissioning options would transfer the financial risk, and that this was sufficient at this stage to go out to consultation.  He said that detailed financial analysis had been done on how the service operates at present; it would take considerable time to provide a financial model for the partnership options as this would require a partner to be found and details to be worked up in partnership.

In response to a question, Simon Williams offered an explanation for  the two graphs laid round by Councillor James Holmes. The first showed planned expenditure, so the planned reduction in council financial support required savings which had not been achieved which is why there is an overspend. The second showed an increase in commercial learners but the income from this hasn’t been sufficient to offset funding cuts and required savings.

Councillor David Williams said that the demographics of the areas around the Whatley Avenue site and the South Thames College were similar and so a move wouldn’t impact on the profile of learners. He also said that the high fixed costs referred to in the Cabinet report would remain unless the Whatley Avenue building was sold. In response, Councillor Martin Whelton said that the South Thames College was slightly closer to the less affluent parts of the borough and that no decision had yet been made on the future of the Whatley Avenue site.

At 10:10pm  the Panel agreed to suspend standing orders and to extend the meeting by fifteen minutes in order to finish at 10:30pm.

In response to questions from Councillor Abigail Jones and Councillor Stan Anderson about how the consultation would progress, Councillor Martin Whelton said that there had been two well-attended public meetings plus a printed and online questionnaire, with the deadline now extended to 4 January. He encouraged people to respond to the questionnaire. The results will be made available to the meeting of Cabinet on 19 January and there will be an opportunity to make representations at that meeting.

In response to a question about progress on implementing the recommendations from the scrutiny task group on adults skills and employability, Yvonne Tomlin-Miller (Head of Community Education), said that discussion has started with Kingston University regarding possible franchising but more time would be required to develop a marketing strategy and implement it.

Councillor John Sargeant sought reassurance on the future of the Ageing Well programme. Simon Williams said that there are a variety of Ageing Well activities across the borough as well as ways of continuing learning provision in places other than Whatley Avenue. He said that he would do his utmost to ensure that the quality and outcomes that service users value will continue to be available in whatever model is provided.

Panel members discussed the evidence received and varying views were expressed about whether to ask Cabinet to reconsider the decision and to review the financial information.

The Panel then voted on whether to uphold Cabinet’s decision. 4 members voted in favour and 3 against. The motion was carried.