Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest received at this point in the meeting.

The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting held on 19 March 2025 were submitted and approved as a correct record.

The Chair invited the Executive Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health to deliver her presentation. The presentation outlined the service structure in Adult Social Care which included Head of Prevention; Provider and Support Services; Access and Safeguarding and Specialist and Lifelong Services.

In terms of Access and Safeguarding; the presentation listed a range of services that were operated within the service which acted as a front-door for service users. Some of those services included:

·         East and West locality teams which between them had received more than 9000 service users.

·         The service also included a hospital team that assisted patients when they were being discharged.

·         The Deprivation of Liberty team undertook best interests’ assessments and offered advice and guidance regarding the Mental Capacity Act.

In terms of Prevention, Provider and Support Services this service provided support to help people stay at home, safely and independently. Services within this area included:

·         The staying put agency

·         Sensory loss

·         Community Reablement

·         Community inclusion services

·         Levick Court.

In terms of Specialist and Lifelong Services, this area included services such as:

·         Older person’s mental health team

·         Forensics Social Care Team

·         Learning disability and Transitions team

Members were advised that other dedicated teams from commissioning and finance also worked across the portfolio area.

The Chair thanked the Executive Member for her presentation and invited questions from Members.

A Member queried if the Sensory Loss team was restricted to sight and hearing loss. Members were advised that the team was small but growing and provided a very important service. The team worked with people who had lost one of their senses, and an example was provided of a lady who, through the help of the team had reduced the number of support carers from four to zero. It was also noted that Redcar and Cleveland Council had also referred people to the service. It was also asked if the team could be grown. It was clarified that it hoped the service could be commercialised so the service was available to a wider cohort of people. This would be one of the main priorities of the new Director of Adult Social Services.

In regard to the Community Inclusion Service, a Member queried if the there was a waiting list for this service and it was available to those with autism. It was clarified that the Community Inclusion Service did not cover such assessments. However, it was possible that support could be provided to those people on waiting lists. It was also clarified that waiting list length was not in the remit of the Council but was determined by central government.

It was also asked if the Sensory Loss team would teach people who had lost their hearing how to use sign language. It was confirmed that this was the case and that there were a range of options available to provide support for those that had lost one of their senses.

Regarding the promotion of the handy person’s service, it was clarified that while some publicity was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/84

The Mayor, Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer will be in attendance to discuss progress made on the Council’s Transformation journey.

The Chair welcomed the Mayor to the meeting and invited him to deliver his presentation.

The Mayor’s presentation included the following information:

• Intervention in Children’s Services had come to an end as well as the Best Value Notice intervention. Linked to this the Middlesbrough Voluntary Independent Improvement Board had issued its final report.
• From a financial perspective the Council was previously overspending between £10 and 15 million per year. 
• There had been cuts to frontline staff with the example of Environmental staff being cut from 220 to 70 over a period of 14 years.
• There was no longer an events team or events budget.
• All hard decisions that were viable had been taken in the first year of the administration.
• There had been a shift in funding to more preventative measures with the SHiFT programme being used as an example.
• The Council had received an additional £4million in the Local Government Settlement for 2025-26. This additional money was directed into the Priorities Fund which would be used for transformation projects.
• For some transformation projects investment may not yield financial return but it was deemed the right thing to do.
• It was important that processes across the Council were fit for purpose, as this would improve services for residents.
• One of the first improvements to be made concerned the ACT service and reviewing the Council’s approach to Homelessness.
• Another example of process improvements concerned demolitions which was antiquated and had no on-line component.
• Initiatives that should be celebrated included the SHiFT programme which was jointly funded by the government and the Council. 26 Children were part of the programme with each placement costing £30,000. Aside from the moral and ethical reasons for the programme, SHiFT was also financially sound as the average saving, per child, was £1.27 million.
• In terms of upcoming initiatives, Neighbourhood working would be part of a report submitted to Executive in the near future. This would require more staff on the ground to solve problems for residents such as Link Workers at James Cook University Hospital. There would likely be initial significant costs, but these would contribute to significant savings going forward. 
• Another initiative was the Middlesbrough Priorities Fund which had the aim of investing initially to realise savings later. This would not be part of the base budget. The Priorities Fund was going to contribute to several projects such as the Child Enrichment Team and Ward Funding.
• The Mayor was also keen to launch the Middlesbrough Childhood Guarantee, which would see children achieving 10 opportunities by the time they reached 10 years of age. Those activities would be offered to children who may not ordinarily be able to access them and included swimming lessons and visiting a farm. Two key elements of this initiative were education and workplaces. 
• In terms of Ward Funding, £5,000 would be made available per Councillor, per Ward for projects of their choice if it aligned with a council vision. Applications for funding also needed to be signed off by all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/85

Councillor Branson, Chair of the Place Scrutiny Panel, presented the Final Report on Home to School Transport.   

The purpose of the review was to ensure that the Council was meeting its obligations to provide Home to School Transport whilst effectively controlling costs.  

The Terms of Reference for the review were set out at paragraph three of the report together with the evidence gathered by the Panel during the review.

The Panel’s conclusions, based on the evidence gathered during the review, were detailed at page 59 of the agenda pack, paragraph 74 of the final report.  In summary, the Panel found that in recent years there had been a sharp increase in the cost of Home to School Transport provided by Local Authorities, by up to 50% in some cases. Middlesbrough Council’s 2024-2025 budget for providing the Home to School Transport Service was £6.7m. Free school transport was provided for students at compulsory school age based on distance from a suitable school, ability to get there safely, or on low family income.

Middlesbrough Council had provided free transport for 1069 SEND students and 238 other students in the previous year. The key issue was SEND students under the age of 11 since they were provided with free transport in almost all cases. Middlesbrough also had higher numbers of SEND students than other LAs in the North East region and nationally according to the Local Authority Interactive Tool (LAIT). 

During the course of discussion, the following issues were raised:-

• It was a complex area with costs having doubled since 2019 and expected to grow significantly further.
• One of the main problems was that Local authorities were reluctant to challenge parents.
• The cost of transport had also increased.
• Some schools had contacted the Task and Finish Group associated with the review expressing their dissatisfaction at the lack of passenger assistance.
• In terms of self-diagnosis the service relied on doctors but there had, nevertheless, been an increase in SEND children nationally.

The Board was asked to consider the Scrutiny Panel’s recommendations (page 38, paragraph 232, of the report), as follows:-

a)     Investigate whether it would be cost effective to devolve the provision of Home to School Transport to individual schools, as they may be able to provide a more localised service. Ideally the funding could be passed directly to the schools making them responsible for controlling costs, ensuring there was no additional cost to the Local Authority.

b)     Review the eligibility requirements for free school travel, especially for post-16 students and for pupils who attend a school that is not in the catchment/nearest school by parental choice, but they meet the low-income criteria. There would need to be an option included for consideration of special circumstances.

c)     Ensure closer collaboration between Children’s Services, Schools and the Home to School Transport Unit to make certain that the most cost-effective and suitable transport arrangements are in place for each student, particularly in relation to students with SEND. The requirement for transport assistance should be included as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/86

The Chair introduced the item for the Board’s consideration.  A copy of the Work Programme was attached at Appendix A and Members were asked to raise any issues they had in relation to any of the items listed.

There were no questions from the Board.

NOTED

i)              Transfer of Land and Assets at Gresham to Middlesbrough Development Corporation

The Chair stated he had raised a question regarding the decision to dispose of land and assets to the Middlesbrough Development Corporation that was considered at the Executive Sub Committee for Property on 2 April 2025.

The Chair also stated the report associated with that decision was attached to the agenda pack and the minutes of the meeting were available on Modern.Gov.

NOTED

In the absence of its Chair and Vice Chair, the Chair of OSB updated Members on work carried out by the People Scrutiny Panel. The last meeting of the People Scrutiny Panel was held on 24 March 2025 where an update was received by TEWV on their improvement plan as well as an update from Adult Social Care following the CQC inspection. The committee also heard further evidence in relation to the Panel’s review into Homelessness. The next meeting of the Panel was Monday 4 April.

The Chair of the Place Scrutiny Panel advised Members there had not been a meeting of the Place Scrutiny Panel since the last meeting of OSB to allow the Home School Transport report to be completed. The Chair of the Panel had also met with the Directors of Regeneration to discuss potential future topics.

NOTED

The Chair of OSB invited the lead Member of the Community Cohesion Task and Finish Group to provide a progress update to the Board.

Members were advised the Task and Finish Group was set up largely in response to the riots that took place in Middlesbrough. The Task and Finish Group had spoken to Middlesbrough’s MP as well as the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Members were advised that, due to the complexity of the issue, more work was needed on the report in conjunction with Democratic Services. It was requested that an updated report be brought back to OSB in the new municipal year.

AGREED that an updated Task and Finish report be provided to OSB in the municipal year 2025/26.