Agenda item

Councillor Eleanor Jackson addressed the Panel on the subject of SACRE (Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education). A copy of the statement can be found as an online appendix to these minutes and a summary is set out below.

Under the terms of the 1988 Education Act, local authorities are required, as a statutory duty, to set up a committee representative of the local authority and local religious or faith communities and world views, devise an appropriate syllabus for their area, and monitor its delivery.

Since 1944 also, parents have had the right to withdraw their children from Religious Education and Collective Worship, though in fact very few do. It is also required by law that parents are advised clearly of their rights. More recently there is a move to establish the converse, children’s right to RE or its equivalent. This is vitally important because we live in a multi-faith, multi-cultural country, and children need to know how to relate to those of other traditions.

If this Council is serious in its professed diversity and equality policies, then it should be backing its SACRE to the hilt. I spend quite a bit of time in the SACRE monitoring of compliance.

I find it deeply shocking that the Council’s own website is not compliant, in that there is no explanation of our work, which is as much a part of the Council’s statutory work as the Planning Committee, and on the other, parents choosing a school cannot easily obtain the information they might value.

I am asking this Panel to investigate and find out why this is so. Is the Council ashamed of its exemplary work? Can you not get the correct links authorised?

Councillor Yukteshwar Kumar addressed the Panel on the subject of SACRE (Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education), a summary is set out below.

SACRE is a statutory body which must have a presence on the Council’s website so that information on Religious Education can be sourced.

In our world that is currently being torn apart by the ravages of war it is even more important to have an understanding of people’s beliefs and an awareness of different cultures.

The Chairman thanked them both for their statements.

Councillor Liz Hardman proposed that a link to the SACRE website be made available from the Council’s own website.

Councillor Andrew Wait seconded the proposal.

The remaining members of the Panel agreed with the proposal.

The Head of Education Commissioning commented that she has been in contact with the B&NES IT Department to discuss how best this could be arranged. She said that discussions had been positive and that she was also liaising with Dave Francis, Associate Adviser and Clerk for B&NES SACRE.

She said that the current suggestion is that a link to the B&NES SACRE website could be placed on The Hub, along with other key resources for schools.

Councillor Paul May asked if a timescale could be given for the link to be put in place.

The Director of Children's Services & Education replied that they would look to have this in place within three weeks.

Pam Richards, Protect Our NHS BANES made a statement to the Panel on the

subject of HCRG. A copy of the statement can be found as an online appendix to these minutes and a summary is set out below.

At the last Scrutiny Panel on 18th Jan. the Panel expressed their concern about the takeover of Virgin Care. The Panel was told that the due diligence reports would be completed by the end of February.

There is a great deal of public disquiet and concern about the secretive takeover of Virgin Care. I am therefore shocked and surprised to learn that there is no report on the agenda and therefore no opportunity for this Panel to scrutinise or ask questions about the future of this contract.  Furthermore, I have now learned that a decision is unlikely to be taken until June.

Protect Our NHS BANES on behalf of the wider public would like to know what is going on. We have several specific questions about this process. 

1. Why have the reports on due diligence undertaken regarding HCRG (Twenty20 Capital) and the legal advice about the contract not been made available to this committee? Have these reports been completed and submitted to the Council?

2. Will the Health Scrutiny Panel have an opportunity to ask questions and scrutinise the commissioned reports and recommendations prior to a decision being taken by Cabinet?  Can you please assure us that you will press for the maximum transparency and scrutiny in regard to any decision about the contract?

3. Is it legal, in terms of the contract, not to make a decision about an extension or otherwise before the end of March when this was the deadline quoted?

Councillor Pritchard advised me in an email that,

‘I am repeatedly advised that until negotiations are complete nothing will be referred to scrutiny.’

This reference to negotiations is rather concerning. Who is negotiating with whom? Surely the commissioners should not be negotiating with HCRG as they took over a company (Virgin Care) which had already negotiated the terms of a contract extension.

The Council and the CCG are accountable to the public for how they spend our money and for the quality of the services delivered. The decision making process should therefore be open and transparent.

The public have expressed strong objections to these services now being run by a private equity company. We would urge councillors to take these views into account when making any decisions about the contract extension.

Barbara Gordon made a statement to the Panel on the subject of HCRG. A copy of the statement can be found as an online appendix to these minutes and a summary is set out below.

Along with many others, I campaigned strongly against the awarding of the contract for Community Health and Care Services to Virgin Care in 2017. We have clearly been vindicated in our position since the contract has now been handed to HCRG Care, a company wholly owned by Twenty20 Capital whose stated aim is to ‘look for significant returns in 2-5 years’.

The secretive way that this transfer took place, announced just two weeks after Virgin Care had taken part in discussions with commissioners who agreed to extend the contract for three more years, raises huge concerns about a lack of good faith on the part of the provider.

Apparently, the Council have received assurances by HCRG that ‘nothing will change’. HCRG have said “Our contract and our contractual commitments remain the same.”

The decision whether or not to extend the contract when the current contract ends is a decision for Cabinet; the role of this Scrutiny Panel is to advise them before that decision is taken.

A provision of the Health and Care Bill currently going through Parliament is that the commissioners will not in future need to put contracts out for tender but will be free to take services back in-house, thereby saving the previous enormous cost of tendering. They will also be free from the constraints imposed on service provision by the needs of commerce to make a profit for shareholders.

The Chairman thanked them both for their statements and for raising their concerns to the Panel.

Councillor Liz Hardman said that she shared their concerns and stated that the Panel has a remit to contribute towards key decisions being made. She added that the Panel needs an opportunity to discuss this matter further, even if that was required to take place in an exempt session. She suggested that if possible this should form part of the agenda for the meeting scheduled for 8^th April.

Councillor Paul May said that he felt that the Council had been put in a difficult position, but that he understood the sensitivities involved and acknowledged the concerns raised. He added that it was vital to make sure our residents receive the best services.

Councillor Alison Born, Cabinet Member for Adults stated that the BSW CCG and Bath and North East Somerset Council had now received the initial due diligence report commissioned on Twenty 20 Capital/HCRG Care Group. She added that we have also been assured by HCRG Care Group that the acquisition of Virgin Care will make no difference to the way in which services are provided.

She said that following specialist legal advice, the CCG and Council have agreed with HCRG Care Group to allow more time for a more detailed review of the implications of these changes to our local services, and of their impact on the options appraisal that formed the basis for the original extension decision. She added that they were aiming to conclude this work in time for a decision to be taken by June 30th.

She stated that the intention is to bring a report to the Panel prior to the Cabinet making their decision.

The Chairman said that he welcomed this reply.

Councillor Joanna Wright said that the Panel have already asked for this information and for an additional meeting if required and that it must be able to have an input prior to the Cabinet decision.

The Director of Adult Social Care said that they were in the process of forming a timeline for this next stage of work following the receipt of the due diligence report. She said that there was a need to make sure the contract remains sufficient and robust and that the Council were not in any negotiations with HCRG.

She added that information would be shared with the Panel when possible and that it was so important to get this process right.

Councillor May said that he welcomed the commitment to involve the Panel prior to a Cabinet decision being made.

Councillor Hardman commented that she still had concerns and welcomed the Panel receiving a report in the near future.