The Chair reminded all present that the purpose of the call-in was to determine whether Cabinet’s decision on 16 February was flawed in relation to the council’s principles of decision making and, if so, to demonstrate where it fell short. He invited Councillor James Holmes to speak as a signatory to the call-in request.

Councillor James Holmes said that, whilst he welcomed Cabinet’s pledges in relation to the commissioning principles, he believed that the Cabinet’s decision had been flawed in relation to the consultation process and to consideration of the current site at Whatley Avenue. He said that the questionnaire had not given respondents an opportunity to support continuation of current provision at the current site. A large number of respondents said they wanted the service to remain at Whatley Avenue and Councillor Holmes queried the extent to which this was considered by Cabinet.

Councillor Holmes said that Joseph Hood Primary School had not been consulted as fully as it should have been and that Cabinet had not taken into account the implications for the school of potential future uses of the Whatley Avenue site.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Panel:

Posey Furnish, Chair, Governing Body, Joseph Hood Primary School

Posey Furnish said that the school is in close proximity to the Whatley Avenue and that both councillors and council officers have failed to take that into account in their decision making to date, despite promises to consult the school. She said that she had heard that the Council had approached Harris Academy regarding use of Whatley Avenue rather than vice versa as she had previously been told. She said that although there had been a survey of the site during half term, she was still being told that no decision had been taken regarding the site and it was therefore difficult to know what to believe. She urged the council to protect the interests of the school, staff and pupils and to keep them informed about what is planned.

Isabelle McGrath, staffside representative

Isabelle McGrath said that staff did not feel they had been listened to and that they had concerns regarding the transparency of decision making, fragmentation of adult education provision, processes for listening to students and the safeguarding of vulnerable learners. She said that the surveying of both sites and the announcement the previous day regarding free schools had created mistrust. She said that staff were worried about job losses and the council’s capacity to handle that number of redundancies. She questioned the meaningfulness of a TUPE transfer for staff who are on zero hour contracts and their position in relation to entitlement to redundancy payments. She urged the Overview and Scrutiny Commission to refer the decision back to Cabinet.

Gay Bennett Powell, Save Merton Adult Education

Gay Bennett Powell said that the commissioning model would lead to a serious reduction in services, especially for vulnerable learners who feel secure at the Whatley Avenue site. She also asked for assurance that lifelong learning will continue so that older people would also benefit from adult education services. She feared that the community spirit amongst learners, developed over many years, would be lost.

She questioned the purpose of the decision to move to a commissioning model, wondering if profiting from real estate was the key driver, and said that, although MAE had been told there would be no decision on the Whatley Avenue site until other decisions had been taken, Harris Academy had expressed interest in the site and surveyors had been in to measure up the site.

The Chair invited the Cabinet Members to respond to points made by the speakers.

Councillor Andrew Judge, Cabinet Member for Environmental Sustainability and Regeneration, said that he has responsibility for asset management so would have to consider all possible uses for the site should it become available. He said that no Cabinet decision had been taken regarding the site, nor had there been an assessment of options for future use as a school or housing. He added that such a decision was some way in the future.

Councillor Martin Whelton, Cabinet Member for Education thanked the speakers for their contributions and said that it had been a difficult decision to take but one that had to be made to put the adult education service onto a financially viable and sustainable footing. He said that the commissioning principles had been endorsed by the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel and by Council. He added that there had been discussion of potential sites for new secondary schools two years ago and that Whatley Avenue had been identified as a possibility but no final decision had been taken.

Councillor Whelton said that he had visited and met with Joseph Hood School during the consultation process. He confirmed that the school would be part of the consultation process on future options for the Whatley Avenue site.

Simon Williams, Director of Community and Housing, made a number of points in response to questions from members of the Commission:

• consultation results were shared with the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 3 February

·         the service has made good progress in making costs more variable but there is a high ratio of non-direct teaching costs to teaching costs and we are approaching the limits for reducing the former due to the relatively small size of the service

·         the service does not generate a surplus and there has been an overspend in 4 of the last 5 years. If this were to continue, it would expose the council to increased financial risk

·         the consultation was not intended to lead to a preferred outcome and results show that the majority supported the status quo. A decision was taken to include the status quo as an option and to take views on how it could work better than it does at present.

·         the consultation sought to go beyond views on options for provision to explore what aspects people really value about the service and this has been helpful

·         officers took a lot of trouble to summarise the consultation results in an impartial way to fairly represent what respondents said

·         whilst Cabinet had taken the decision to go with the option for which it had originally expressed a preference, this did not mean that consultation had had no impact, and there were three examples of where it had (commissioning principles, time scales for implementation, and community learning provision). 

In response to a question about the apparent discrepancy between the Cabinet Members and what discussions had been held with whom on the future of the Whatley Avenue site, Councillor Andrew Judge confirmed that there had been no comprehensive review of options and that the status quo would continue for some time. Councillor Martin Whelton said that he had been transparent regarding Harris Academy’s interest in the site and that he had a duty in regard to providing sufficient school places.

One member commented that a siloed approach seemed to have been taken and urged a whole council approach in future, including the treatment of fixed costs.

Commission members discussed the evidence received and varying views were expressed about whether the decision was flawed in relation to the principles of the presumption in favour of openness and clarity of aims and desired outcomes.

The Commission then voted on a motion to reject Cabinet’s decision. 3 members voted in favour and 6 against. The motion fell, therefore Cabinet’s decision was upheld.

The Commission then agreed, at the suggestion of the Chair, to send a reference to Cabinet:

RESOLVED: to ask Cabinet to ensure that Joseph Hood Primary School is kept fully informed of the decision making regarding any plans for the future use of the Whatley Avenue site. Cabinet is also asked to take account of the views of staff working for the adult education service, as set out in the consultation results and expressed at the Commission’s meeting, and to work with staff in a positive and constructive way to address these following the HR procedures of the council.