Agenda item

1.    Mr Watkins introduced the report which had been requested by Mr Streatfeild, supported by the Chairman, Vice-Chair and Spokespeople.  The paper quantified and costed the short, medium and long-term impact of the Safety Valve agreement with regards to costs incurred by adult social care, and the council’s overall financial stability. 

2.    Members asked questions in relation to the report, key issues raised by the Committee and responded to by the Cabinet Member and Officers included the following: 

a.    A Member asked whether savings in one directorate drove costs in another?  Mr Watkins explained that any changes would have some impact, whether this be to reduce costs or increase costs later on.  This was very difficult to quantify but the most important factor was ‘how’ services were provided rather than purely considering the money spent in particular areas. 

b.    Mr Love explained that Safety Valve was not intended to remove services but to get spending back in line with the available funding and reiterated the point that it was not only important to look at how much was being spent but where and how it was spent.  The Council was identifying those individuals who needed support and targeting services towards them. 

c.    Mrs Hammond explained that the funding of early years services (0-5 years) was not linked to the Safety Valve agreement.  The funding of early years provision had increased and it was important to determine why Kent still had the greatest number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) per head in the country, way above the national average. 

d.    A Member asked a question about the wider education offer available and asked for reassurance that the future implications on other directorates had been considered and addressed.  The Cabinet Members agreed with this comment, that a lack of or poor education would have a significant impact on a child’s life and work was ongoing to improve the education offer available.  Mr Albiston, as the author of the report, commented that the report had focused on the financial answer to the question originally posed by Mr Streatfeild.  A further report could be brought to the committee which included information on research and social impacts to provide additional assurance.  

e.    Mr Streatfeild as the Member who originally requested that this item be brought to Scrutiny commented that he had seen joined up working between the Adults Directorate and Children, Young People and Education (CYPE).  The boards he sat on meant he had a good overview of the situation, there was not a correlation between having an EHCP and a need for future adult social care.  An EHCP was provided in cases of severe and complex need and it was the need that should be focused on rather than the EHCP. 

f.     Members considered that further investigation should be done into the numbers of EHCPs given, what forms of support were and were not being offered and the problems this would create in adulthood.

g.    It was confirmed that Safety Valve had no implications on the process for annual reviews of EHCPs or the support given to children.  There was support available for children whether they had an EHCP or not.  A report would be going to the CYPE Cabinet Committee on a new locality model to better target support for SEN with great empowerment within the education system and schools being more involved with making decisions around targeting of resources.  Members had concerns around some of the comments made and considered that the active intention was that KCC would issue fewer EHCPs, it was agreed that this was not the only route of support but for some parents it was a vital source of support. 

h.    Members commented that it shouldn’t be asserted that neurodiverse issues were not genetic when this hadn’t been properly investigated as it was considered that this was frequently the case.  This was also the case with other potential triggers including pollution levels, diet and selective school systems.  It was important to determine why Kent was an outlier in relation to numbers of EHCPs. 

i.      Members discussed the previous offer of a report back to the committee and following a proposal from Mrs Prendergast, seconded by Mr Hook, the committee voted on the motion set out below which was supported by majority.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee requires further review of the issues raised at the meeting regarding the social impact and the impact on ASC of Safety Valve.  The approach to this will be considered via the agenda setting process with opposition group leaders and discussion with the relevant Portfolio holders.