Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Mrs. Binks, Mrs. Game and the Parent Governor representatives.  Mrs. Game joined the meeting virtually. 

Declarations of interests were received from the following Members:

·       Mrs. Prendergast had been invited to be a Trustee for one of KCC’s special schools, this had not yet been formalised.

·       Mr. Webb was a Senior Officer at KCC at the time that the previous special school review took place.

·       Mr. Reidy was a Chair of the Local Governance Committee at St Simon Stock Catholic School

1.    Mr. Oakford presented the monitoring report on the Council’s financial position at the end of quarter two.

2.    In answer to a question regarding the monitoring of spending, Mr. Oakford explained that much of the Adult Social Care portfolio was demand-led, with statutory responsibilities under the Care Act to meet individuals' needs. 81% of other Councils faced similar challenges to those at KCC in Adult Social Care. Mr. Oakford also recognised the excellent work in Children's services and SEND, which had started to come in under budget. This positive trend, along with some wise investments, had helped reduce the £32 million overspend to £26 million.

3.    Mr. Oakford commented that if the council was to do nothing there would be approximately 18 months before it would be necessary to consider issuing a Section 114 notice. 

4.    Mr. Gough reiterated that the 18-month timeline mentioned by Mr. Oakford was based on current trends, emphasising the need to address ongoing spending pressures to protect reserves. He noted that many authorities shared similar concerns about financial sustainability beyond 2025-2026. Previously, three areas faced significant spending pressures, but two were now on track or underspending due to realistic budgets. However, national spending trends  for Adults, Children's Services, and SEND were unsustainable. While there was progress in Children's Services, detailed reforms were still needed. Adult Social Care remained challenging, exacerbated by employers’ National Insurance changes. Achieving the necessary savings trajectory was essential, with some areas outperforming, but overall savings targets had not yet been met. The focus remained on balancing internal solutions with government reforms to ensure sustainable services.

5.    Mr. Oakford stated that if KCC had stayed on its previous overspending  trajectory, auditors would have questioned the levels of reserves. He noted the Council was on the right path with controls and budget adherence. The same focus was needed for Adult Social Care. The challenge was implementing savings and resisting service pressures.

6.    Mr. Oakford stated that next year's budget assumptions would remain until the settlement agreement was understood. The Government had allocated £1.3 billion to local government, with Kent County Council expected to receive £20 million—£15 million for Adults and £5 million for Children's Social Care. However, this was insufficient given the savings target of over £40 million for Adults alone, not accounting for inflation and other pressures. Incremental costs from increased employer National Insurance and the Living Wage posed further challenges. Providers had stated they face an 11% increase in staff costs, while the Council's budget allowed for only a 3% uplift, leaving an 8% gap. Despite the additional funds, significant challenges remained, though the Council was grateful for the extra support.

7.    Regarding Adults, and the Government recovery grant, Mr. Oakford stated that the total recovery grant was £600 million, which would be quickly exhausted. It was uncertain if it would be available for KCC. Although more funds were allocated to Adult Social Care, as in previous years, the methodology for distribution was still awaited. If the same methodology was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

1.    Mr. Oakford introduced the budget report, which had been submitted to all the Cabinet Committees in November and would be considered again by the Scrutiny Committee on 29 January 2025.

2.    The Cabinet Members and Officers responded to questions which included the following: 

3.    Mr. Oakford acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding the settlement agreement and potential funding for Adult Social Care. He highlighted the uncertainty regarding expected grants and possible changes in Government methodology.

4.    Once the settlement details were known, Mr. Oakford would have a clearer understanding of the financial situation. The goal was to achieve £85 million in savings, and even with an additional £20 million from the Government, finding £65 million in savings was a significant challenge that would impact services. Efforts were focused on reducing pressures and securing necessary funds.

5.    Regarding Discretionary Council Tax Incentive Payments, Mr. Oakford noted that District Councils were legally responsible for collecting council tax. While the authority had previously supported them financially, it could no longer afford to do so. He believed it was necessary to stop subsidising District Councils to fulfil their statutory duties, as this would otherwise divert funds from essential services.

6.    Mr. Gough added that despite the policy statement indicating a positive direction, there are still challenges, particularly the National Insurance impact on providers. The Office of Budget Responsibility suggested that the £600 million extra for Adult Social Care would be offset by increasing sector costs. This highlighted the competing demands on the additional funds. Prioritisation of the funds was necessary to address the competing demands effectively.

7.    Mr. Watkins hoped that next year it would be easier to make the £50 million savings in Adult Social Care. He noted that referring to savings as cuts was not accurate as services were not being stopped, instead they were being carried out in a more efficient way to achieve savings.

8.    Mr. Oakford summarised by confirming that when he returned to the Committee with the final draft budget and answers to the questions regarding the settlement agreement, he would be in a much better position to engage in a debate on the budget in February.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee

a)    NOTE the administration’s overall draft revenue budgets including responses to consultation, and;

b)    NOTE there will be further opportunity to scrutinise the final draft budget proposals at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 29 January 2025 ahead of Cabinet endorsement on 30 January 2025 and Full County Council meeting on 13 February 2025.

To Follow

1.    Mr. Love presented the report which was the second quarterly report on SEND to the Scrutiny Committee.

2.    In response to a question about realistic achievements within the service, Ms. McInnes stated that there had been an improvement in the culture of the team and consequently staff productivity had risen whilst maintaining a focus on quality of service provided. Despite recruitment challenges for Educational Psychologists in Kent and nationally, response rates to annual reviews had improved alongside the implementation of various quality assurance measures. Significant investments in staff training, coaching, and peer reviews had been made, and work in these areas continued.

3.    Ms Gleave stated that a strategic decision had been made to address overdue and new statutory assessments, fulfilling a moral obligation to complete late ones. The number of weeks overdue was reduced to 26, and backlogs were removed. Emphasis on thoroughness and quality of plans continued, with regular training sessions and process improvements. Managers actively managed officer caseloads and held regular meetings to address issues. Liaison between Health and Social Care had improved, with ongoing enhancements.

4.    Mr. Love highlighted the significant cultural shift in the organisation over the past 14 to 16 months and how much it had driven improvements.

5.    Regarding questions referring to Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and their review process, Mr. Love highlighted that KCC were currently issuing more EHCPs than the national average and almost double the long-term national average. Ms Gleave continued by explaining that children were given broad outcomes over a Key Stage within their EHCPs, which were reviewed annually. Schools monitored progress through provision planning, data, and regular meetings if a child was at risk of not progressing. If concerns persisted, schools or parents could request an early review. Typically, an early review would not be held less than six months after the last one, but it could be requested.

6.    Ms. McInnes also noted that there was a capacity issue with the increase in annual reviews, making it difficult to balance, but improvements had been made. EHCPs typically ceased for older age groups, such as when a young person went to university. Few families returned to KCC after an EHCP ceased.

7.    Ms Gleave explained that even if an EHCP was not issued, the assessment still provided valuable information. This information was used by SEN Inclusion Advisors to help schools plan provisions and inform meetings with parents. She continued to explain that there was a very small minority of children that did not attend schools, and in that instance, the local authority had the responsibility to arrange a review.

8.    Ms. McInnes highlighted a sophisticated tool that was being developed to create a five-point scale for each outcome in the outcomes framework, allowing development to be tracked over time. Discussions were held to obtain permissions to use AI for processing the large amount of data.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the report. 

To Follow

1.    The Chair noted that this was not the end of the scrutiny on this subject, but the end of a section of the work. The Scrutiny Committee had committed to quarterly reporting on SEND. He then asked for members’ comments. Comments were as follows:

2.    Members who had attended the evidence gathering sessions – commended the quality of the meetings.  The work undertaken by the group had been intense and valuable and the contributions were acknowledged despite time constraints to ensure the conclusion aligned with decisions due to be made by the Cabinet Member.     

3.    A Member commented on the impact of Kent's selective education model on the SEND offer that needed more clarity and information. It was considered that recommendation six could be more strongly worded to address concerns about special schools, particularly regarding physical buildings. Specific questions about plans for building adaptations, budget, and completion timeline before September 2026 needed to be answered.

4.    Concerns were voiced about Capital Funding and adapting schools for inclusive education. It was crucial to address parents' concerns and ensure their voices were heard, improving communication with schools, and recognising that this was just the beginning, requiring more detailed work.

5.    The Chair commented that this marked the beginning of ongoing work and continual review by the committee. Many people had felt unheard and forgotten but appreciated being listened to by the committee. Mr. Love would respond to the recommendations contained within the report in January. The committee aimed to proceed without further delays, continuing with deep dives and related work.

6.    A Member commented that the committee spent over 20 hours listening to often contradictory information. But agreed that the report identified areas for further examination, gave a voice to those involved, and highlighted people Members still wanted to hear from. It outlined a pathway for future work.

7.    One Member commented that the recommendations were insufficient to prevent the Council having to issue to S114 notice.   The 2014 SEND Act had increased EHCP demand, straining the budget. Kent had issued more EHCPs per 1,000 young people than any other local authority. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) had a significant, poorly monitored overspend. The Safety Valve agreement required balancing the DSG by 2028, necessitating urgent action. The government’s additional funding might have helped, but immediate steps were needed. The balance between mainstream inclusion and special school provision had been better in 2015-2016. Strategic and operational plans were essential to balance the budget, with concerns about mainstream inclusion's impact on special schools and the need for proper funding. Urgent financial modelling and planning were crucial to avoid financial ruin.

8.    A Member raised concerns about the lack of a business case for the special school transformation project. The number of commissioned SEND places was insufficient, and there were issues with capital investment, exemplified by Stone Bay School. There was no political consensus on the way forward. Both mainstream and special schools lacked necessary investment for SEND pupils. Urgent answers were needed, especially  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

1.    Mr Hill introduced the report which provided an overview of the work of the Committee for the period November 2023 – November 2024. 

2.    Mr. Hill stated that significant progress had been made through collaboration with the Southern Water and Clean Water and Seas Taskforce including distributing over two thousand water butts. Four schemes were being developed to prevent flooding in high-risk areas. He emphasised that teamwork with suppliers and partners could make a substantial impact.

3.    Regarding the quality of the water in Deal, Mr. Hills stated that there was a project in the works to get a buoy that can track real-time water quality using a phone app however he cited that the EA should have a better, more regular system to test the water. He hoped that there would be improvements seen by next year.

4.    Regarding Flood Wardens, Mr. Hills stated that he is a Flood Warden, and the best way for member to help is to become one themselves, however, he noted that there was currently insufficient manpower to organise and fund training.

5.    In reference to building on flood zones, Mr. Hills stated that the Environment Agency and Water Companies needed to be more assertive in attending planning committees and halting proposed building works.

6.    Mr. Hills agreed that the EA need to be pressured to look at the damage unclean swimming water is doing to local economies.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the Kent Flood Risk and Water Management Committee Annual Report.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the work programme.