Agenda item

1.    John Betts, Corporate Director of Finance, introduced the report and gave an overview of its content.

2.    In response to comments and questions it was said:

a.    A Member questioned the delivery of savings and the lack of financial support for SEN children.

b.    A Member questioned the nature of conversation with government about the statutory override. Mr Betts shared that the statutory override was due to end on 31^st March 2026. If this was to happen in Kent it was believed it could put the Council on the brink of a Section 114 notice. Many authorities were to put in Section 25 statements text which would state that their budget had been put together expecting a resolution to the statutory override, the Department for Education had acknowledged the issue. There was an expectation that in late spring/early summer 2025 there would be guidance available on the next steps to be taken to resolve this issue.

c.     When asked whether the safety valve was having an effect on the number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) available. Mr Love explained that the safety valve had no bearing on number of EHCPs issued, however the 2014 SEND Code of Practice did have an effect. EHCPs were for those with the most complex needs, the authority was now making  these determinations more accurately. The safety valve provided £140 million which otherwise would have had to have been found elsewhere, the Council was not avoiding the prospect of the government removing the statutory override. The Council had previously overspent on the high needs block, this was becoming under control, it was extremely important to lobby for changes to the SEND system nationally, KCC was getting the spending under control and assessing the causes of this.

d.    A Member explained that there was a Kent analytics paper that stated that new thresholds and a financial overlay were being applied to the number of EHCPs issued, expressing a desire to present this paper to Mr Love. 

e.    A Member questioned to repay the current year’s safety valve there was an intention to limit the number of EHCPs issued. Additionally, questioning the effect of the transformation scheme. Mr Love explained that the implementation of the SEN funding model would be devolved and support collaboration between nearly schools to manage SEN more effectively. The model aimed to streamline funding and ensure compliance with the 2014 SEND Code of Practice. The goal was to restore financial balance by 2027/28.

f.      A Member asked how with 50 groupings of schools, most containing one special school, money would be allocated without impacting services for SEN pupils. Mr Love explained that the High Needs Block was set by the Government, funding would only change if the Government reduced it. New special schools were being opened and some special schools were being expanded to allow for more spaces, to reduce the requirement to spend significant amounts of funding on private schooling.

g.    When asked about the timeframe of delivery. Mr Chapman shared that there was a five-year rolling process for the safety valve, it was identified that there was work to be done towards the target. Mr Love added a timescale would become clearer once an agreement was reached on the direction of travel of the special school review.

h.    A Member questioned the reduction of EHCPs in the young adult, 20 to 25 years of age, co-hort. Mr Chapman shared that Kent was working at 65% of its responsibilities in annual reviews which was an improvement from 50%, adding that families had the right to challenge a decision on an EHCP.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee noted the report.