Cabinet Member:
Date:
Classification:
Title of Report:
Report of:
Wards involved:
Policy context:
Financial summary:
Report Author:
Contact details:
Cabinet Member for Children’s Services
11 January 2007
For General Release
Approval of Service Levels for the St Mary’s
Hospital Education Unit and Waiver to the
Procurement Code
Acting Director of Schools
All
Provision of Value for Money Quality Services
The 2006/07 budget for St Mary’s Hospital
Education Unit is £178,900.
June Simson, Head of Special and Additional
Educational Needs
020 7641 5356
Page 1 of 8
1.
Summary of this Report
1.1
This report recommends service levels to be included within the specification and
contract documentation for St Mary’s Hospital Education Unit. This is a new
contract, as the hospital unit is currently managed directly by the City Council.
1.2
The report also recommends that approval be given to a waiver to the competitive
tendering requirements of the Procurement Code to allow a three year contract
(with an option to extend for a further three years at the City Council’s discretion) to
be negotiated with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Chelsea
Children’s Hospital School from 1 April 2007.
2.
Recommendations
2.1
That the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services approve a waiver to the
competitive tendering requirements of the Procurement Code to enable a three
year contract (with an option to extend for a further three years at the City Council’s
discretion) to be negotiated with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and
the Chelsea Children’s Hospital school starting on 1 April 2007.
2.2
That the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services approves the proposed general
levels of service for St Mary’s Hospital Education Unit as set out in Appendix A.
2.3
That the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services authorises the Director of
Children’s Services to enter into negotiations with the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea and the Chelsea Children’s Hospital School to agree terms for the
proposed contract.
3.
Board Recommendations
3.1
The Children and Community Services Education Departmental Contracts and
Monitoring Board (DCMB) approved this report at its meeting on 16 November
2006.
3.2
Contracts Review Board (CRB) received this report on 28 November 2006 and
approved the recommendations.
3.3
The Westminster Schools Forum received this report at its meeting on 4 December
2006 and was content with the proposal.
4.
Background
4.1
Under the Education Act 1996, the City Council has a duty to provide fulltime
education for all children of statutory school age which is suitable for their age,
aptitude and any special educational needs they may have. “All pupils should
Page 2 of 8
continue to have access to as much education as their medical condition allows so
that they are able to maintain the momentum of their education and keep up with
their studies”
4.2
St Mary’s Hospital Education Unit (the Unit) provides a service for Westminster
residents and other patients whom the City Council has a responsibility to educate
while they are in St Mary’s Hospital. The costs for non Westminster resident
patients are recouped from the relevant local authorities. The Unit was formerly part
of a larger service with the Middlesex Hospital until the Middlesex Hospital merged
with Great Ormond Street Hospital School and transferred to another Local
Authority. Since April 2005 the unit has existed alone with the support and
expertise of an outreach service from the Chelsea Children’s Hospital School who
have provided INSET and professional development for staff. The Unit at St
Mary’s has experienced considerable staffing difficulties which have necessitated
having to work even more closely with the Chelsea Children’s Hospital School. The
Chelsea Children’s Hospital School provides the Unit with management and staffing
support and some of the teachers from the Hospital School are seconded to the
education unit. There is only one permanent member of Westminster staff at the
Unit. These arrangements will continue pending the Cabinet Member’s decision on
the recommendations set out in this report.
4.3
The arrangements with the Chelsea Children’s Hospital School have worked
exceedingly well and have provided excellent value for money. It is therefore
proposed to continue these arrangements on a more formal, longer term basis and
negotiate a contract with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the
Chelsea Children’s Hospital School to provide education provision to children who
are in-patients at St Mary’s Hospital rather than direct provision by the City Council.
5.
Scope of the Service
5.1
A summary of the proposed service levels is detailed in Appendix A. The City
Council is responsible for ensuring that a service is provided to children of school
age who are well enough to receive education that is flexible to fit in with their
medical care.
5.2
The St Mary’s Hospital Unit provides an education service through school-room and
bedside teaching for children between the ages of 5 and 19. This includes some
children and young people, who in addition to medical needs, have complex
disabilities, psychological or learning difficulties. Some pupils are short stay patients
with acute conditions whilst others are longer stay or have recurrent admissions.
5.3
There is a schoolroom attached to the children’s ward where lessons are held for
those pupils able to attend. Bedside teaching is also offered to pupils who are
unable to attend the schoolroom; video links to isolation cubicles are in the process
of being installed. This is a demand–led service and therefore it is difficult to
predict the exact number of children needing the service. There are currently
between 11 to 22 service users however these levels fluctuate from time to time as
Page 3 of 8
the numbers are determined by the number of children at the hospital who are
sufficiently fit to receive education.
5.4
6.
However, up to 30 children could need education at any one time given the current
allocation of beds/ward provision made by St Mary’s Hospital. In addition,
decisions made by the Hospital in relation to the number of patient beds, type of
need etc. will impact on the service provision. There is close liaison with health
professionals to pick up any developments at an early stage. Whilst marginal
increases in the number of children needing the service can be contained within the
core service level of 30 any significant increases as a result of decisions on the
number of beds/ward provision would need to be dealt with under the variation
provisions of the contract.
Reason for the Waiver to the Procurement Code
6.1
As indicated in paragraph 4.2 the Unit has relied on support from Chelsea
Children’s Hospital School since April 2005.
6.2
The Chelsea Children’s Hospital School has an excellent reputation for providing
high quality education services and achieved Beacon Status.
6.3
Future plans from Department of Health indicate that some of the services from the
Chelsea Children’s Hospital School may transfer to St Mary’s Hospital at some time
in the future, although the City Council will remain responsible for commissioning
the education service. Also medical staff from St Mary’s on occasion work at the
Hospital School so there is already close liaison with the medical staff across the
two hospitals. This facilitates effective communication which is essential for the
smooth running of the St Mary’s Unit.
6.4
St Mary’s as a small hospital unit has to provide a broad and balanced curriculum
and this is difficult to do with a small staff team. Formally linking the Unit with the
Chelsea Children’s Hospital School through a contract arrangement will mean the
Unit can benefit from the facilities and staff provided by the Hospital School. It will
also ensure that the service is provided in the most cost effective way.
6.5
The Headteacher and the Governing Body of the Chelsea Children’s Hospital
School have been consulted on the proposals contained in this report and have
expressed their willingness to manage the service on behalf of the City Council
within existing resources. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has also
confirmed that it is happy with the proposed arrangement.
6.6
The proposed contract arrangement with the Chelsea Children’s Hospital School
presents a real opportunity to develop a high quality service within existing
resources. Notwithstanding that there would not be the same benefits of
contracting with another Hospital School (e.g. proximity to St Mary’s Hospital is an
important factor in that it provides flexibility in the sharing of staff and resources), an
approach was also made to the three other hospital schools in London, The Royal
Free, Great Ormond Street and Evelina, in order to establish if they might be
Page 4 of 8
interested in tendering for a contract to run the St Mary’s Hospital Education Unit.
None expressed an interest in running this specialist service. It is also considered
that other general education providers do not have the necessary relevant
experience and expertise of providing specialist education in a hospital setting to
children with a range of complex medical and learning needs. Nationally this is a
direct local authority provided function which is delivered by a hospital school or
unit.
7.
Staffing implications and consultation
7.1
There is currently one permanent member of staff who would be affected by the
negotiation of a contract with Chelsea Children’s Hospital School. The member of
staff has been consulted on the plans to contract out this service and the Hospital
School is aware of the existence of an existing permanent member of staff and
accepts that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations
will apply. Other posts listed in the structure are being deleted and these are
currently vacant posts covered by seconded staff from the Chelsea Children’s
Hospital School and therefore will not be affected.
8.
Proposed timetable for negotiations
8.1
Subject to the decisions of the Cabinet Member it is proposed to hold negotiations
with the Chelsea Hospital School and the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea during January 2007. A report will be submitted to the Education
Departmental Contracts Board in February 2007 on the outcome of the negotiations
with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Chelsea Children’s
Hospital School and, in the event that the negotiations have been successful,
recommending the award of the contract.
9.
Financial Implications
9.1
There are no direct financial implications arising from this report. The budget for the
Unit in 2006/07 is £178,900, and the service will be contracted within current
budget.
10.
Implications for Information Technology, Property and Customer
Services Initiative
10.1
There are no implications for information technology, property or the Customer
Services Initiative arising from this report.
11.
Business Plan Implications
Page 5 of 8
11.1
This proposal supports raising attainment and achievement in the context of Every
Child Matters.
12.
Legal Implications
12.1
Under the EU Public Service Regulations, education services are residual (Part B)
services and it is therefore not a requirement to conduct a tendering exercise
pursuant to the EU Public Procurement rules. However in June 2006 the
Commission of the European Communities issued an interpretative communication
setting out its views as to how contracting authorities such as the City Council ought
nevertheless to comply with EU Treaty principles even for Part B and below the
threshold services. This Communication arose as a result of recent case law
suggesting that Part B and below the threshold services should nevertheless
comply with community principles such as the free movement of goods, non
discrimination, transparency, proportionality and mutual recognition.
12.2
As a result, the Commission has stated that a degree of advertising should be
conducted even for Part B and below the threshold services. However these
standards apply only to contracts having a connection with the functioning of the EU
internal market. In other words, if there is likely to be no interest in the contract to
economic operators located outside the UK, it would not be contrary to the
principles of the European community to award the contract without any form of
advertising. In each case consideration on the impact of the EU internal market
ought to be considered.
12.3
The question arises, therefore, as to whether the St. Mary’s Hospital Education Unit
could, or would, be of interest to contractors outside the United Kingdom. It is the
view of the City Council that the specialist nature of the service and the lack of a
market mean that it is highly unlikely that contractors operating outside the United
Kingdom would be interested in competing. By awarding the contract directly to
the the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Chelsea Hospital School
it is thought unlikely that the market will be distorted or the principles of the EC
Treaty offended. Although it cannot be said with certainty that there is no risk of
challenge, it is felt that a risk of challenge in this particular case is low.
12.4
Whilst the Hospital School is a legal entity, the Director of Legal and Administrative
Services has recommended that the City Council enters into a contract between the
Chelsea Children’s Hospital School and the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea which maintains the School as decisions made by that Authority may affect
the proposed contract.
13.
Health and Safety Issues
13.1 There are no health and safety issues arising from this report.
14.
Impact on Health and Wellbeing
Page 6 of 8
14.1
Providing a broad and balanced curriculum at St Mary's Hospital Education Unit has
a positive impact on the wellbeing of pupils and by maintaining continuity in their
education has a positive effect on their attainments and emotional state, aids good
recovery and builds confidence for their return to school.
15.
Crime and Disorder Act
15.1
There are no Crime and Order Act implications arising from this report.
16.
Human Rights Act 1998
16.1 The recommendations in this report do not contravene the requirements of the
Human Rights legislation.
17.
Outstanding Issues
17.1
There are no outstanding issues relating to this report. A report will be submitted to
the Education Departmental Contracts Board in February 2007 on the outcome of
the negotiations with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the
Chelsea Children’s Hospital School and, in the event that the negotiations have
been successful, recommending the award of the contract.
18.
Ward Member comments
18.1
As the report relates to all wards, no ward member consultation was required.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES ABOUT THIS REPORT OR WISH TO
INSPECT ANY OF THE BACKGROUND PAPERS PLEASE CONTACT JUNE
SIMSON ON 020 641 5356 E:MAIL ADDRESS jsimson@westminster.gov.uk
BACKGROUND PAPERS
The documents referred to in compiling this report are as follows:
Every Child Educated Otherwise than at School Matters- Westminster’s draft strategy for
alternative educational provision 2006- 2008
Education and Inspection Bill 2006
Page 7 of 8
Appendix A
General Service Levels – St Mary’s Hospital Education Unit

Provision of an education service through school-room and bedside teaching for up to
30 children between the ages of 5 and 19, including some children and young people,
who in addition to medical needs, have complex disabilities, psychological or learning
difficulties. Some pupils are short stay patients with acute conditions whilst others are
longer stay or have recurrent admissions. (

Specialist qualified teachers to provide a broad balanced curriculum with instructors for
other aspects of the curriculum.

Performance to Ofsted standards, in that it would be rated at least satisfactory in all
areas and at least good in the majority of areas reported on.

A regular daily timetable delivered during schools’ term times providing morning and
afternoon sessions to a minimum of four hours each day offering a broad and
balanced curriculum to meet the needs of pupils with complex medical needs. This
could be class, group or individual support depending on the needs of the pupil.

Liaison with Schools SEN Co-ordinators/home tuition service for Service Users with
long term or recurrent admissions to ensure that they receive appropriate education
after leaving hospital
Page 8 of 8
For completion by Cabinet Member
Declaration of Interest

I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME:

I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME:
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate
to make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled
Approval of Service Levels for the St Mary’s Hospital Education Unit and
Waiver to the Procurement Code and reject any alternative options which are
referred to but not recommended.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for Children’s Services
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection
with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out
your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the
Secretariat for processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an alternative
decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of Legal and
Administrative Services, the Director of Finance and, if there are staffing implications, the Head
of Human Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you can be made aware of any further
relevant considerations that you should take into account before making the decision and (2)
your reasons for the decision can be properly identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to the Members of the
relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision falls within the criteria for call-in, it will
not be implemented until five working days have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.
1