Agenda and minutes

1.    Ms Meade declared that her husband was in receipt of PIP (Personal Independence Payment) but was not in receipt of a care package.

2.    At the commencement of Item C2 SEND Scrutiny Process Sir Paul Carter declared an interest as a Director of the Leigh Academy Trust.

RESOLVED that, the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2024 were an accurate record and that they be signed by the Chairman. 

To follow

1.    The Chairman invited the proposer of the call-in, Mr Streatfeild, to provide an overview of the reasons for the call-in.  Mr Streatfeild set out his reasons for the call-in and explained that he had concerns around legal issues the Council could face if it proceeded with the decision. He considered that the Council could use its reserves to fund the expected £3.7 million income from this decision.   Mr Streatfeild also referred to evidence obtained through public consultation where 80% disagreed with the proposed action and 74% strongly disagreed and he suggested there was a political risk for the Council in that the proposal ran counter to the policy documents Framing Kent’s Future and Securing Kent’s Future.

2.    Ms Meade explained the purpose of a PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and referred Members to guidance set out on the Government website. She maintained that the implementation of this policy would take away a recipient’s ability to obtain this and that in her experience a PIP was difficult to obtain. 

3.    Ms Meade explained that there was currently a national consultation regarding the PIP scheme and so consideration of this policy could be premature.

4.    The Chairman invited Mr Watkins, as the Cabinet Member who took the decision, to provide an overview of the decision. 

5.    Mr Watkins referred to the technical information contained in the papers and in response to comments made about competing priorities in the Council’s Policy documents confirmed that ‘Securing Kent’s Future’ took precedent. Mr Watkins explained that this was a difficult decision to make and that mitigations were in place to protect the most vulnerable people within the cohort.

6.    Members made comments on the decision and asked a range of questions.  The key points raised and responded to by the Cabinet Member and officers present included the following:

7.    Following a question, Mr Watkins confirmed that the 2014 Care Act allowed all Councils to make the change being discussed and many other councils had already done this.

8.    Mr Watkins confirmed that no suggestions were put forward at the budget discussion as an alternative and the implementation of this policy would save £3.5 million per year. He continued to explain that the circa £300k monthly costs was the annual saving, divided by 12 months.

9.    Members asked for assurance of the other considerations given to this decision, taking into account the consultation was overwhelmingly against the proposal.  Mr Watkins confirmed that he would take into account responses to the consultation and accepted that this decision would be difficult for vulnerable adults. 

10.A Member indicated that there were choices available and asked where the £300,000 factored into delays was coming from.

11.Members asked what alternatives had been looked at, rejected and what made this policy the optimum way of making savings.  In answer to the other considered options, Ms Hill explained to Members that the proposed option was the one which it was felt had the least impact on people and they had taken into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

1.    Mr Oakford confirmed the Budget outturn position for 2023/2034 for both the Revenue and Capital Budgets. He confirmed that at the end of financial year, the Council were in a position of recording a revenue overspend of £12.4 million, after the £12 million reserve was used to offset overspend.

2.    Mr Oakford took Members through the Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring report and referred to Appendix 1 and Appendix 4 in relation to significant overspends in Adult Social Care of £32.6 million and Childrens’ Services of £26.6 million, as well as the roll forward amounts.  He highlighted the roll forwards underspend of £700,000 for Members’ grants. Mr Oakford commented that total budget for Member Grants was £300,000 with two years of underspend.

3.     A Member referred to the budget amendments submitted in relation to increased Member Grants and clarified that there were two versions but just one amendment and this would have been funded by freezing member allowances and not taking money from another spend area.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee noted the Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring Report Outturn for 2023-2024.

To Follow

(Sir Paul Carter declared an interest as a Director of the Leigh Academy Trust)

1.    Mr J Cook, Democratic Services Manager introduced the report regarding the proposed approach for the scrutiny of SEND at KCC.

2.    Members made comments and asked a range of questions.  The key points raised and responded to included the following.

3.    A Member shared comments from Kent SEND School Head Teachers about the Council’s proposals to reform the SEND school processes and the Chairman reminded the Member that the Committee was being asked to review the SEND Scrutiny process report, which was contained within the agenda pack, and that there was an agenda setting process with the Chairman and Spokespeople to follow in order to add items to future agenda. 

4.    A Member spoke about the need for Members to have the full information about the whole role out of the programme including the full financial plan.  He commented that working with Head teachers of both mainstream and special schools was key to working well.

5.    Following further comments from Members about the wider SEND projects Mr Watts commented that it was important that members were in receipt of all the information, and this would be achieved if the agenda setting process was adhered to and carried out effectively. 

6.    Mr Cook, in response to a question, confirmed that consultation with relevant stakeholders would take place outside of the formal Scrutiny meetings by way of conversation so that information could be obtained as appropriate

7.    Following a question around the Scrutiny Committee agenda setting process, the Chairman confirmed that this took place between him, his Vice-Chair and the Opposition Group Spokespeople. 

8.    Mr Watts suggested that in the initial meeting the report should set out how the Committee proposes to deal with a specific concern and how it will be addressed, then Chairman and Spokespeople could review to check on progress.

9.    A Member commented on the role of the DFE (Department of Education) mandated independent chair to the Transformation Board and the role that this individual might play in future meetings.

RESOLVED that Members of the Scrutiny Committee AGREE to adopt the following as the approach to SEND Scrutiny by the main committee:

To follow

1.    Mr Watts introduced the item to the Committee. He highlighted that forthcoming development sessions would be available for both existing Members and, following the KCC election in May 2025, new Members. These sessions were designed to provide information to formal committees of the Council so members developed their role on these committees.

2.    RESOLVED Members noted the review of Scrutiny activity.

RESOLVED that the work programme be noted.