Transcript

it do not use the lift. Does anybody today have an issue with mobility getting out of the building? No, cool. Can I ask everybody to turn their mobile or electronic devices either to silent or turn them off as they do have a tendency to play around with the internal communications here? Can I ask everybody that is wishing to speak and I hope everybody does this morning to use your microphone provided and speak directly into the microphone. We do have a couple of guest stroke members online as hopefully they can hear us and obviously we'll call them in as necessary. Okay, that starts a one. Agenda item A2, Anna, please, apologies and substitute. Thank you, Chairman. We've had apologies for Mitch Lehmann and Jenny Hawkins is substituting. We've had apologies from the Church representatives and parent governors. And I know that Mr. Love is on his way but is stuck in heavy traffic. Okay, thank you. I am disappointed that the parent governors have chosen not to come today for whatever reason. The items we're going to talk about are significant, but that's their choice. And happy birthday as well, Anna. I won't ask us all to sing happy birthday, but there we go. Agenda item A3, do any members of the committee have any declarations of interest on today's agenda? Chillinga, please.

• Thank you, Chairman. Just in relation to item C1, it makes reference to the cabinet decision regarding the safety of the agreement. Just a note that I was on cabinet at the time.
• Okay, thank you very much. Noted, anybody else? No. Gender item A4, these are the minutes of the meeting held on the 28th of February. This year, pages one to six of your agenda pack. Those that were present, are they happy? Or are you happy for me to sign them as a true record? Anna, please.
• Sorry, Chairman, Mrs. Pendergast just notified me that she was actually in attendance virtually, so I'll amend that.
• Cool, yep, thank you. Everybody happy? Yep, thank you very much. Right. I was going to do a play around with the agenda, but we don't have the finance portfolio holder here, so we're going to carry on. So, C1, this is the safety of our implications for the cost of adult social care, pages seven to 14 of your agenda pack. If I can, and I'll turn firstly welcome Dan Watkins, cabinet member for adult social care and public health. Mr. Richard Smith, good morning to you, corporate director of adult social care and health, and any colleagues that you may have brought with you that you can call in, they're not names, so I won't call them out, offer any embarrassment. Dan, over to you, please, to make an introduction, and then to the committee for commentary and/or questions. Please.
• That's me, actually. I wasn't going to make an introduction. It was going to be Rory, so, as, you know, as... (laughs)
• That's what you get.
• Yeah, so that is what you get. So, I mean, perhaps we can sort of take it as red that everyone has read the topic here, which I suppose, broadly, we can discuss, as, well, describe as whether the safety valve agreement has ramifications on the adult social care programs of action and the costs of running the directorate, which, you know, surely it does, but the matter is, I suppose, where and to what extent. So, yeah, I would probably just welcome the, you know, given that everyone must have read the paper, it's not too long, that we just move on to questions.
• Thank you, Dan, and again, I didn't mean to put it on the spot. Members, we are asked, or the recommendation is that scrutiny committee is asked to discuss and note the content of the report, does anybody like to discuss it? Dr Sullivan.
• Thank you, just kind of on that. So, part three, which is do savings in one directorate, education, drive up cost pressures in another adult social care. And at the end of it, it says there's no evidence to suggest the activity here has driven up costs in adult social care. So can I just get a clarification from the cabinet member then? He believes that there will be costs incurred due to whatever's happening in the education directorate. Thank you.
• Well, I mean, specifically in regards to special educational needs children, you know, anything we do involving special educational needs children will ultimately have an impact as they sort of transition as children's from 18s then on to adults that are 24 years old as we set the boundary at the moment. Some of those changes might actually reduce the costs, so maybe to correct my earlier opening comment, it might be that the impact is to reduce costs, but sometimes they will increase costs, but I mean, I think we would all agree that, you know, clearly it's almost a kind of conveyor belt, isn't it? You know, people who are vulnerable in their youth will often, although not always, continue to be vulnerable and need support from us in their adulthood. And therefore, if we change the way that we support them in childhood, there is at least potential that will feed through later on. Yeah.
• Totally.
• Yes, please.
• Got a couple. So, I mean, the question is quite interesting. I think Richard for bringing some of these questions and putting it on the agenda. There are savings that have to be made under the SCND safety valve and it might be a case that we can ask some of the offices as well. If those savings and cutbacks in provision in younger years, will that have an impact on adult social services? And at the moment, this report says, no, there won't be any. And I would just like that verified with yourself with offices that note that's not gonna be the long-term implications for if we remove service for youngsters, it will not have an impact later on in life. Just like to get a little bit more information from there because it doesn't seem to be answering the questions full as I'd like.
• No, no, no, that's fine. We've got any other questions after that or you can turn. Yeah, cool, thank you. Dan, please.
• Yeah, well, I mean, the cabinet member's here now, so he can talk in more detail about the specific changes of safety valve, but my general observation in life and running organisations I have done before I let this council is that, actually, what matters most is how you provide services, it's not the exact pound amount you spend on them. I mean, you can give millions of pounds to a badly run directorate, and you'll get poor outcomes, and you can give small amounts of money to a very well run directorate, and you'll get good outcomes. So the fact that, see, if a lot of this paper just talks about the pound figure that's going in through the safety valve program, to me, isn't the be-all-it-end-all. We've seen governments of all political persuasion spend money wisely or unwisely in the past, and, as I say, it's more about the right targeted action delivered to the right people. So to your earlier point, I think, it's entirely possible that the change is that we are making with sent children through safety valve. It will have positive impacts, as well as potentially adverse impacts. It's more just down to how it's being delivered, frankly. And maybe that's where I'd invite my colleague, Rory Love, might want to make a few comments on that point.
• Mr Love, good morning, welcome.
• Good morning, Chairman, and can I repeat my apologies? I believe we've already been given to sitting on the M20 for 25 minutes, not moving, with no operation, Brock, either, extraordinary. I picked up on just the very final comments, questions there from Dr Sullivan, and forgive me if there was more to it. But my initial response would be that the safety valve is not about removing services, which are the words that she used. There are no services being removed as a result of the safety valve. There is, as my colleague, Mr Watkins has said, there is a determination to get the spending back in balance with the funding that is available for directing towards children with high needs. That's something that we have to do. If we don't do that, then we don't serve anybody at all. It's that simple. And my colleague has also outlined the importance of not just looking at money that's spent, but looking at how it's spent. That is absolutely right. But what the safety valve does is to give us 142 million pounds to kickstart that process, which we would have undertaken anyway to make sure that we are correctly identifying those who are in need of our help and support. And very clearly, for legacy reasons, that hasn't always been the case. That's why we and indeed other councils have found themselves unexpectedly spending more money on services which have not been as well targeted towards those who most need our support. And the safety valve corrects that. It enables us to correct that. As I say, it's what we would have been wanting to do anyway. And of my portfolio. But this gives us the means by which we can do it. And that's why we made that case to central government and it's why I think central government accepted our commitment to move in the direction that we're moving.
• Thank you, Mr. Love, Dr Sullivan, you okay? Yeah, yeah, cool, thank you. I've got Mr. Simon Webb, and then Chilina Prandigast, I've got you, Mr. Strett, the order one. I will come to you. So in that order, please.
• Yes, thank you. Can I ask you to look at page nine and statement four? Because I don't think we've had the question answered. What the question is asking in the early part of that statement is does a reduction in funding in early years lead to the council incurring greater costs over the person's lifetime? So the question is about early years. So I'm going to ask that question because it doesn't answer that none of the statements within 4.1 onwards actually answers that question. So does a reduction in funding in early years lead to the council incurring greater costs? And I'm assuming by council, you mean the council's schools and academies. Because with the reduction in or realignment of children's centres, it's quite clear that in my opinion, a reduction in alignment of the children's centre centres does have a significant impact with deprived wards and will have a significant impact on children achieving their early learning goals. So let's come back to the question, which was, does a reduction in funding in early years lead to the council incurring greater costs? So could I have a direct answer to that without going all the way around the houses, please?
• Mr Love.
• Children's Centre's funding is not in my portfolio, I'm not able to give that answer.
• I think the direct answer is 4.1, isn't it? We don't know that. This is, I would say, just a sort of general point on this whole paper, which is a really interesting question, but it's almost impossible to answer, because what you're saying is, if we do something, you know, an intervention to someone age, five years, for example, what does that mean for the next 80 years of their life through early learning centres, through schools, through college, through supported accommodation, potentially, through all the support we might give them, if they have mental health challenges through all the community services, which I'm very involved with, through then maybe to a care home later on, and so on and so forth. To model all of that is an incredibly hard thing to do, and I'd almost say, is it impossible? It might not be impossible, but it's extremely difficult to make any certainty to say what I'm doing with someone this year, what's that gonna look like in 2098? With all the changes that will happen to society and that person, and of course, what we do, the intervention we might make to a child, is only one bit, isn't it? What are the parents of that child? What impact do they have? When that child becomes an adult, they will have their own motivations and take some responsibility in and of themselves for what they want to make of their lives. And the wider society, an impact of an economy and a change society, will have huge impacts as well as to what happens, so it's a bit like the butterfly effect if you know that saying, it's just incredibly hard to say. So, in a way, I'm sort of giving a very long explanation for the answer in 4.1, which is it's not possible for us to give an answer with confidence on that question.
• Thank you for your honesty, Dan. Do you want to come in now, Sarah? Please.
• What's in a question is, and the words in a question can be interpreted in lots of different ways, and I'm just going to preface what I say by that. So, the funding of early years, be that early years provision or our family hub children's centre conversion estate is not linked to the safety valve. And I suppose, for us here today, it's what is the question that we're trying to answer, because those two things are not connected. In regards to the funding of early years provision, by that I mean settings, it is not reduced, it is increased, and in fact, it's been increased very significantly in the new offer, and we have passed ported over the maximum amount of money for early years provision that we've received from the government into those early years settings. So, I just want to separate out early years provision, more money than ever before, and everything that we are able to pass port over has gone. So, that's early is teaching. I think one of the things we have to ask ourselves is why, with our previous children's centre offer, did we still have the greatest number of EHCPs per head of population in the whole country? Way above the national average. So, I suppose in reference to what Mr. Watkins said, it is not necessarily always about how much money you spend, but where and how you spend it. I think we had understood this question to be more about a generalisation of what does early years, I mean, I.e. years of childhood before they become adults. I think that was our interpretation of this question, rather than necessarily specifically what's traditionally known as early years, which is not to rising five, because that funding is nothing to do with the safety valve. So, if that helps at all, that's how it's informed the way that we've tried to address these questions.
• Yeah, thank you for that clarification. I think it's important to make that statement at this point. Mr. Webb, you, the eye says it, thank you. I've now got Mrs. Perendegast, and then Mr Bond, and then Mrs. Binks, I've still got you, but I'll let the committee speak first, please. Mrs. Perendegast.
• Thank you, Chairman. My question really is a follow-up to what Mr. Webb has just come up with, except I'm not looking at early years, I'm looking at the wider education offer. And before we start, I fully understand what the safety valve is about and the implications if we haven't signed it. And I do feel that this paper somehow concentrates too much on the financial implications of not having gone with the safety valve, rather than actually answering the questions that this committee would want answers to. So, there's a reduction in funding. This savings in one day retro at education drive cost pressures in another, i.e. social care. Just a quick scoot around the internet, this morning and yesterday, there's a whole plethora of papers and evidence to suggest future scenarios. And I would have liked to have seen more of this contained in this paper, or some responses here from the cabinet members or the officers, just to know that they have actually considered what the future implications could be on other direct threats and how they will respond to them. It's not difficult to know that a lack of education or a poor education will have a huge impact on a child or an adult's life as they go through their living circumstances, their employment. And with SCN, we are talking about some of the most vulnerable members of our society. So, it's just some, what consideration has been given to this matter and how will we address it? Because the research is out there and that's what I'm interested to know. Thank you.
• Thank you, Mr. Prendigast. There wasn't a question there, or so.
• Just a walk of student.
• I'll consideration, yeah, cool. Mr. Love.
• I entirely agree with Mr. Prendigast that a lack of education or poor education will have a huge implication on the future of a child's life. And that's why this council is working with schools, with Academy Trusts on the improvement offer in education. That's why we continue to do that. What the safety valve is about is not affecting the quality of education. What the safety valve is doing is two things. One, ensuring that we continue to have funds to support those children who are the most vulnerable that Mr. Prendigast has talked about. And secondly, it's enabling us to move to the position where we're not doing what we've done in the past, which is to dramatically overspend money that we don't have. And quite clearly, what we need to do is to move to a sustainable position for the funding, which is built into the system nationwide. And the principle is that there is funding for education. We have a high needs block of funding as part of our dedicated schools grant. We're making sure that that money, which is available, is used for the very purposes that it's designed to be used for. Our problem is not that we're underspending, it's that we've been traditionally overspending, and that's simply unsustainable, and that affects the people who need our help the most, because they're the ones that will lose out on their life chances if they don't have the funding targeted towards their support.
• Thank you, Mr. Prendigast.
• Thank you, I may come back if I have further questions. Thank you.
• Cool, no worries. Dan, please.
• Actually, I like Mr. Prendigast's question there, 'cause I think rather than just being absolutely by the letter on what's in the paper, I think what she's getting out there is as a question which I might defer to my colleagues from adult social care behind me, because in a way, and partly the question almost suggests that if you have less EHCPs being given to children, the question is written as if that means that there'll be more adult social care costs incurred later on, but actually, I'm not sure that would be, and I can see a way in which that might happen, but I also, and this is a question I'll ask for my colleagues to address, wonder whether if we had less children with EHCP as they go through the transition years, which they will know much more about, because at the moment, I'll see that's a responsibility of Sue Chandler's directorate, but my colleagues will see engage with that team closely. I wonder if that means that we are less likely to pick up as many adults through that transition, or whether actually the EHCP is not necessarily, well, no, it's not the only determinant of that, but I'd be interested to just get some comments on that mechanism there and what that might mean, because I think that might be quite illuminating for the scrutiny committee.
• Yeah, Mark, if I can bring you in, firstly, for the wider audience and people that don't know, can you just introduce yourself and then contribute, please?
• Thank you, Chair, so my name's Mark Albus, and I'm director of operations adult social care. I was the chief author of the paper, but I did counsel widely with colleagues across both children's and adults, and I'll search for 151 officers acting, sorry. I think just on the research question, I do know that the paper can't answer the question today, but the kind of question can be interpreted both ways, and I think it is alluded in some of the questions, which is does lower or higher spend have a positive impact to a young person's life, and does either model reduce support in the future? So I think Dan starts about a range of factors that could almost kind of disregard the spend position in children's social care, because there's a number of factors that change in a young person, young adults' life, that could increase their chances, are likely to have needed curving support. So whilst I can't answer the question on research today, what we are proposing to do is through our academy, and which includes representation from local HEIs, is to bring back a kind of information that is based on research around the, what evidences they're out there, what interventions work in what circumstances. If I'm honest, I could read, and I've read all these papers, I am an adult learning disability social worker by trade. I lived in the world of sin from an adult perspective. Many, many years ago, in a different part of the country. But it is, it's that causal link about does one thing lead to another? Or does one thing not lead to another? And I can't answer that question in this paper, and it would be remiss if it suggests that I could bring an evidence based from research today, 'cause I think that's not my skill set. So I do apologise if I've interpreted the questions more from a financial perspective. So I'll apologise to the group for that. But we can bring back something that says, do we know, I can't give a timeline yet, because they do want to look at what research has already been done, what evidence is out there. Is there any meta research in this area, which is somebody who's looked at all of the research, looked at all of the arguments and brought it together into a higher form and a higher standard of research. So that's the bit I can bring back today, but obviously it's something that I would want us to bring back at a later point, 'cause that gives hopefully additional assurance. And this is about how the council works going forward. I would also say that when we're looking at the eligible needs of an adult under the care act, the eligibility for that is not linked to somebody having an EACP or not having an EACP. It's not listed as a criteria in the care act. It's around presenting need. There is a national eligibility criteria. So whether somebody has an EACP or doesn't have an EACP, that doesn't preclude our kind of guarantee somebody will receive adult social care. We do know from our early research that at the point of 25 where people are generally coming into the adult social care services, no-and-right arrangements. Very few people have an EACP planning place. And it's all around the eligibility of the care act, and the circumstances which includes, and I think Dan taught to this, the parents, their ability to continue to and willingness to provide care and support. So yeah, I think one of the challenges is we're talking about separately legal frameworks, different eligibility rights area at key points in young people's lives.
• That's really useful, Mark. Thank you for qualifying that. Obviously, the document we see before us has multiple chapters behind it, dipping into different portfolios, dipping into different matters and different issues. You'll gather from the history on scrutiny, predominantly of late. There is an appetite for this. There is a huge appetite for this. And of course, I'm confident that it will come back. I'm confident about that. Mr. Love, then I want to go back to Shaleen, please.
• Yeah, I mean, the spirit of sort of wider inquiry, which is absolutely right, I think, picking up on some of the points that previous speakers have just made. I think we should avoid being drawn into the sort of trap that the part of the implication of the safety valve is that there are likely to be fewer EHC plans, and we should avoid being drawn into the trap, but that means that those people are somehow being less well-served. Those people will be better served if those children who are not in need of an EHC plan, those who are not with the more complex needs, are encouraged through mainstream education to develop resilience, to develop their learning. What we do know is that children who are educated in mainstream schools have better life chances and better outcomes, and that actually sets them on a path of independence rather than the risk that they might be trapped in dependence, and that path of independence is very likely to mean that they do not become known to social services later on. So I think we, you know, if part of the questioning, part of the discussion is around whether there's a negative impact of applying the criteria of the SCND code of practice more strictly, absolutely not. The my view is that that can only be a positive impact for the life chances of those children and young people, particularly as they go on through life, with the life of independence, not everyone, will be in a position to have a life of independence, but the difficulty is that portion of children who can have a life of independence, who we place at the risk of being trapped into some kind of dependency.
• Thank you, Mr. Love. Shaleen, did you want to come back briefly?
• Just very briefly. I do understand what Mr. Love has just said, and there are some obviously clear merits to having a mainstream education. I fear I'm sort of in danger of straying into the next papers I'm trying to hold myself back, but I would like, and I'm sure other committee members would, like to take up the offer of something coming back in a different format that perhaps addresses these questions more than we have got here. I would certainly welcome that, and I'm sure others would.
• Yeah.
• So just that.
• I'm happy for that, Shaleen. Perhaps when we get very close to the end of this item, if there's a recommendation that comes in, I'm happy to look at that as well.
• Thank you, lovely.
• So, and that's not straying to the next papers, please.
• Thank you.
• Right, I've got Mr. Bond and then Mrs. Binks, and then with no others, I'll come to you Mr. Binks. Thank you for being patient.
• Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, I've moved slightly around, not by my choice. Yeah, I, we didn't even going back towards Mr. Webb said. We've got a paper before us. Okay, it makes financial sense to get us on a financially stable footing. And I hear what Mr. Watkin says, it's not, the level of says is not necessarily dependent on the amount of money, it's dependent on how you use it, how you spend it, et cetera. Yeah, I think that's all very valid. What I have a problem with here, and it relates to 4.1 as well, is, I can't see in this paper, anything to a, use the word qualify rather than quantify, 'cause it's difficult to put numbers to it, to qualify the social impact. At the present, I accept that it's very hard to put a figure and say, yes, by doing this, it's going to have X pounds additional costs to adult social care and I'll have Y to another area. But we should be able to qualify it and say that we believe that this may have an effect of V and W, on these departments, and it could be anywhere from this to this, depending on how we implement it. There's nothing in this paper at all about that. And now, normally when big decisions are made, there is a section on the social impact. And that's what's worrying me with this, because the worst scenario is that this area gets it all balanced right, and next thing, we've got the other areas and the council coming back saying, we're now, I hopelessly overspent, thanks to the implication of this decision. And I would like to have seen that because I think all decisions should not be taken in isolation. And just to say, yes, it may have some effect without qualifying it, is important because I know that my fellow Councillor who's coming as a guest is probably going to refer to his area in regard to one children's centre, and I could equally do the same with mine because everyone ducks for cover, because it'll actually cost more in my area and probably cost more in his area. But you've got to look at the global situation with childcare centres. But I just think it's lacking detail. We're just concentrating on the money side of it without actually putting in this paper. Look, the money's not relevant with what we're doing. We're going on a sound financial book, saving, and we're going to do steps that we'll, we believe, will only cause this, it's likely to cause this amount impact there, this amount of impact there. Because there will be impact with any decision that's going to be impact. And if it's minimal, then I'm certain everyone's going to be comfortable. But we just don't know. And it's outlined very clearly in 4.1, but we don't know. So I don't know whether they've got any comment about that, but certainly I'd like to see more information. I think, Mr Bond, that comes back to Marc's commentary that it's going to come back, and there's going to be an appetite, which we can tie up in, perhaps, a recommendation near the end. Mrs Binks, patient, please. No, I actually thought about not bothering, because there wasn't really a question there. I found it quite surprising how many people want to know the impossible. There are so many things that happen in life that it's almost arrogant to think that whatever decision we make here is going to have a definitive impact on a lot of people for the rest of their lives. It's also slightly discriminating to ordinary children. When I say ordinary, I mean those who do not have any particular favour or disfavor, and because one is looking at almost expecting that there will be a negative impact without the input of the council. And that is not the case. I'm sure there are several because we aren't so much over the numbers elsewhere. We already could probably look at what is happening elsewhere and see if there is any increase, because they are being not put to a fine point on it. They are not being quite so inclusive, clearly, as KCC is. So I think that's probably the only place you can look at the moment, as for what affects somebody for the rest of their life. I'm amazed. All sorts of things happen in a person's life. And you can blame it, if you wish to, on all sorts of things. But there comes a point where you can see a certain thing, and I say with education, as Mrs. Praneghast has said, education or lack of can have an effect. But you may have the education, but not be able to use that because you have not had the benefits of a mainstream education. So your education is almost worth nothing if you cannot utilize it in later life, in an active career, in an active life. So I think, yeah, I would welcome something at some point, but it's going to be very much finger in the air. I'm just amazed that people expect actual figures. For me, this is a fairly simple thing. We're already not in sync with everyone else, so we must be interpreting the criteria, the eligibility differently. Put us back in with a group so that we're not so out of sync. I think that's perfectly logical. It also ensures that we possibly get better value for money, that we are spending the money wisely on the right eligible children, and ensuring that they get the best, and not on what I assume is going to be some children who could handle mainstream and handle it well. And I think that, for me, it's quite clear we had to go for the safety valve. And any information we get, yes, I'd welcome. But I think to make that part and parcel of this, at this point in time, is frankly a wishing for the impossible, because you don't know. And who's to say what's going to happen to individuals that waste the life? The lives can be quite different. Whether without any impact from KCC. So I find it a little bit incredible, actually, that we're asking that sort of question. I'd like more information as it comes, but I suspect there's not much there, except comparing with others at the moment. So I'm sorry, Chairman. Thank you for indulging. Don't apologize, Ross. Thank you for your contribution. I will take you now, Mr Strepfield, and I've got Mr Strepfield, please. Thank you, Chair. The aim of the questions was to try and get some joined up thinking between education and adult social care. Because, and the reason I brought it was because I sit on the transformation board of the SEND, and I sit on the Adult Social Care Committee, and I can see the car crash beginning to happen. Because what we've got, I'm going to give you two analogies. First one is the magic trick of disappearing numbers. And in December this year, we were predicting by 2030, 21,299. So I think, as Mrs Strepfield said, the number is increasing for the EHCPs. But the previous December to ECYP, the number was 26,574. So 5,275 difference of EHCP. And I take Mr Watkins and Mr Love Point that having an EHCP is not a direct correlation to needing adult social care. But what it is a direct correlation to, and this is to the point Mrs Binks has just made, it is a health diagnosis. It is a diagnosis of severe and complex need. And it's the need that we need to focus on, not on the EHCP. Now, Mr Love says, and he's quite right, that we have a 4.5 or 4.75% of our children within the EHCP and the national average is 2.5%. But as Sarah Robson just pointed out to the committee, we don't know why that is the case. And even after, and this strays into the next thing you're going to look at next, but it is definitely in this paper, we don't know why that is. And so what we can see coming down the track is a potential for 5,000 severe and complex needs, not having any EHCP, and not either, Mr Love shaky his head, but there's no direct correlation, but we can see that in the numbers, that the county itself is predicting, has predicted for us. And if you take that number and put it over a lifetime, 5,275 times the 200 to 1,000 pounds that it takes per year to look after someone with a severe and complex need, and times it through 40 years of their adult life, because the average age of a person with send lifespan in Kent is 59, not 84, which is devastating in itself. You come out with a number that is 60 billion pounds, or sorry, 50 billion pounds. And that's the iceberg that's in front of us. It's a little iceberg that you can see this 5,000 figure that's just been magicked away from our own predictions in the space of a year as a result of the safety valve. And it could be that we're sailing the Titanic of the Good Ship Kent into a situation where that comes out as a 60 billion pound figure through life. And I'm not saying that's absolutely the case, but the promise of extra information and the requirement to get to the bottom of this is absolutely there, because you can't, in one year, predict 29,000, have the safety or 26,000, have the safety valve, and then predict 21,000 and think there's not going to be some kind of implication down the line. And I see that from both the transformation, send transformation work from the adult social care work and by being an expert by experience. The education through an AHRCP, through the statutory requirement to give those services is going to save the county money down the line. And it's absolutely vital that this committee takes more information and finds out what size that iceberg is. Is there a question, Mr Strickfield? Well, the question is, does the committee reassured by this paper that it has identified the size of the iceberg? Thank you. Mr Ho, please. Chairman, in terms of the action step that follows on from this committee, I think it's really clear that we need further, and this committee will want, I think, from the way the speech has been made, more investigation of this. And I was probably made a speech to speak by Mrs Binks. I think there was some cross-purposes about what other colleagues have asked for. We all know that an individual cannot necessarily be forecast in the future, but that's not what's being asked for. What we're asking to look for modelling and forecasting of is the cohort of people as a whole. And KTC and the authorities forecast all sorts of things. There are forecasts for how many babies will be born in 10 years. That's not to say, this woman or this woman or this woman will have a baby, but we know within Kent's population as a whole, evidence leads us to a conclusion for the population. We know that for how many people will get the bus tomorrow, how many children will pass their GCSEs next summer. And we really need to drill into this. I mean, Mr Love effectively says that taking all these people out of these EHCPs will benefit them because they'll benefit from being mainstream school. I mean, I think they're parents who would, of some of the children who do not yet have EHCPs or may lose their EHCPs, who will violently disagree with that. But the concern, I think, that numerous members of the committee and Mr Streffer as well have all voiced is that by reducing what we're doing for some children will pass on costs and effectively make their lives work so that they need more intervention at a later stage. Now, I'm sure the whole committee would be delighted to receive reassurance that that isn't going to happen, but at the moment, we don't have that reassurance because it appears it hasn't really been thought about and investigated. And the sort of things that will need to be investigated will be to drill into who are the people and in what circumstances do you propose to, quote, more strictly apply the EHCP code and not give support to in their childhood and adolescence. What forms of support offered hitherto will not be offered in future? And to then apply that to what problems could that create in adulthood? The bottom line is we just don't know at the moment. So I think, and this won't be necessarily a piece of work that can be done next week. Imagine it'll be quite a substantial piece of work that would take some time, but I really do think it's important that we have some investigation of that. So we will know what's coming down. People have talked about where children say we don't wear their lives, we'll be liking 50 years or 80 years. Okay, but some of these, some people require interventions, adults would need a care act assessment in their 20s. And I'll entirely take the point this made that in the EHCP is not a determinative factor in a care act assessment, but one steps back, one can easily imagine scenarios where someone has not had support that they could have been hit from in childhood. That means that when they come to have a care act assessment, let's say when they're 25, things are different for them, they might have been otherwise. So my recommendation, Chairman, is that we ask for some further analysis to be undertaken. Thank you, Mr Hook. I've got Richard first. Just pause one second, Richard. Mr Web, is this on this subject? Or is it another strand? Okay, I've got Rory as well. So I'll take Richard first. Then you, then Rory, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just trying to manage expectations around demands for the future about what the long-term impacts of safety value could be on adult social care, by definition, it's too early to tell. I think we have to be realistic about that. Now, I can be very clear on what does drive need for adult social care in many areas. There's been a clear direct linear increase in demand for services as a response to the pandemic in adults. People who have lost their, and would have access to the NHS, their GP services, either preventative services. We know there's a direct linear approach to that. We know that we've got an older population that is growing older, more and well with multiple care needs and multiple support needs. We also know there's young people coming through, and this is not through the HCP route, but who we're coming through, who are living very complicated lives. That's probably due to some level of neurodiversity or needing high levels of support. This is a completely different cohort of people that we're talking about now, and it's certainly a group of people that are my professional organisation, made as a consensus to be concerned about. I do know what helps as well. I know that older people are starting to think about their health much earlier on, some preventative work, some access to good recovery mental health services, the way that we work with our planners and districts, access to good care at the time and right places. I think when people come through our transition services, we know that good transition arrangements work really well, and where that comes from is inclusive education, access to good housing, access to good employment. I also know in transition what doesn't work really well, that some people who have had access to inappropriate non-inclusive opportunities and services that have spent all their time in services that haven't promoted inclusion. Safety Valve is my understanding, I'm certainly no expert. My corporate colleagues and Mr Beton on the call is that the whole principle around safety valve is to give people the right support at the right time and also to promote inclusion. This isn't about ruling people out, it's just making sure that people have access to the right educational and support through the HCP process, and in Kent for whatever reason, it is out of kilter, and it's probably trying to understand what those reasons are, I think that the work that's been done. So certainly from my perspective, I know what works, I know it doesn't work, and I know where the growth areas are. So I just wanted to manage expectations about if people are thinking about, there's a direct linear correlation between the decisions that are being made around safety valve and the future for adult social care, the legislation is different, characters underpinned by the well-being principles, and that could happen any time during somebody's life. Thank you, Richard. Right, note you don't want to. Rory, please. Thank you. It's obviously for this committee to choose whatever investigation it wants to undertake, but I think we need to be careful about the language we use. Nobody, as Mr Hook is suggesting, is losing their EHCPs. That is not happening. The only way that a child who has an EHC plan and then no longer has one later on in their childhood. The only way that that happens is through the statutory annual review process. That's, you know, if somebody has been able to achieve a degree of independence and resilience and their needs can now be met in a different way, that means they no longer require an education, health and care plan. That will be picked up in the annual review, and there's no change to that. The safety valve doesn't have any implications on changing the processes around annual reviews. I also want to pick up on this phrase, which Mr Hook used twice, not give support to children. There's absolutely no question that we are not going to be giving support to children. And that is, again, a separate issue from EHC plans, let alone from the safety valve. There is support for children whether or not they have an education, health and care plan. And we've kind of drifted into this notion that, you know, the only way you get support is if you have an EHC plan, not the case. We've done some, in fact, we're bringing forward a report to very shortly to children, young people in an education cabinet committee around a new locality model, to better target support for special educational needs, and not only for better targeting, but for greater empowerment of the people who know those children the most during the school day, the education system, the schools themselves. They will be more thoroughly involved with making those decisions about where resources are targeted. And that's completely irrespective of education, health and care plans. That is simply about the special educational needs support that we're able to give. So I think it's important to be clear about what it is that's investigated, because if the assumption is that the only support that's ever given is for children with an education, health and care plan, then the investigation will go off on a, on completely the wrong track. And it'll be trying to answer questions which, which, which don't exist in the first place. So you're going to be very careful about that. And if I can, and, and these two things are slightly related, actually, Mr. Stretfield's other question, I can't answer the question about the size of the iceberg. I might be able to answer that more if I understood it. But on the question, the other question that he did work in there is, is where are the missing numbers in the different forecasts of EHC planned numbers? Well, let me, let me illustrate where there are some numbers that should be giving us great concern. If you take the numbers of children in Kent, and the figure is actually 5.2% of the population, 5.2% of the child population are regarded as having the most complex needs that they require an education, health and care plan. That's one in 20. And growing, when new figures come out within the next month or so, we're almost certain to see that having increased further. If you compare that with the 4.3% that it's grown to nationally, the difference between those two figures is something just short of three and a half thousand. Now, that's, you know, that's a pretty large chunk of the discrepancy, the missing numbers that, to use Mr. Stretfield's words, it's certainly not my words. What we're saying is that there is nothing special about children in Kent. There is nothing unusual that differs from children across the country. This is a point that Mrs. Binks has picked up, not just on this occasion, but on previous occasions too, and all credit to her for continuing to raise this matter. There is nothing, you know, genetically different. There's nothing environmentally different about children in Kent than children in Sussex or Essex or Hertfordshire or Tyneside. Wherever you look in the country, there is something quite extraordinary when we are 21% over the national average. And that is, that is clearly down to the way we have been implementing the system in the past, historically. And we are now looking to get that back on track. And in fact, it's not just a distinction between what our numbers are and what the national average is. There is growing concern across the country and beyond that there has been what I've previously described as an over-diagnosis. It's what the Nuffield Foundation recently described as diagnosis creep, their words, not mine. It's like mission creep. There is a concern that the net has been spread far more widely and is now having the impact of drawing in more vast numbers of children, for whom we're not doing any favors. Because as I've already explained, the life chances, and there's statistical evidence on this, of children who are treated as though they have the most complex needs, and then go down a particular life pathway, they do not end up with the best outcomes. And that's something that we have to tackle. And finally, if I may, Chairman, I'm sorry, I'm trying to pick up two of your previous speakers on this. But finally, let me just again repeat that there is nothing in the safety valve that this Council, and certainly since I've been the Cabinet member, would not be wanting to do of its own accord. So part of our commitment under the safety valve is to implement a county-wide approach to inclusive education, to build capacity in mainstream schools, to support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. We've signed on the dotted line saying that's what we're proposing to do under the safety valve. We would have done it with or without the safety valve, except we would have been £140 million short on our ability to implement that, introducing a robust special educational needs offer for early years, reviewing the system of educational health and care plan assessments to get greater consistency in place, so that we're fair between different parents and families, so that we don't have the situation where one family comes back to us and says, well, they got one, why haven't I? That's clearly not fair, so that we get a fairness between the needs and the support that we we're able to target and the resources we're able to target towards those who need our support, and the Council taxpayer who funds this, because they also need to know they need to have confidence in the system and need to know that there is a fairness for them, because they're the people that pick up the price of not all of it, some of it is taxpayers funds centrally, still public funds, but a lot of the implications are then picked up by Council taxpayers as well, developing a robust post-16 offer across the county, one of our commitments under the safety valve, ensuring there's sufficient and consistent capacity to support children with severe and complex needs, these are the things that we want to do, and this is what we've committed to do under the safety valve agreement. Now, I could go on, but I'm conscious of the time, Chairman, but I hope that gives, again, some assurance that the things that we are doing under the safety valve are things which I very much doubt that there'll be too many members in this committee who'd say, Well, actually, I don't want you to do that. I don't want you to develop a school-led approach to SCN support. I don't want you to develop a county-wide approach to inclusive education. I very much doubt that I'll hear that. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr Love. Mr Hooke, you were mentioned, and Chairman, I'm pretty gassed at the long rambling speech we just heard that tried to divert onto a range of other subtopics, rather than what we're dealing with. I'm particularly a gas that the cabinet member says, No one's losing out. He has said in almost the same breath, his active intention is that KCC will issue fewer ECHPs. That means that tomorrow and in the future, children will not get EHCPs who would have got EHCPs. Those children have lost out and lost the EHCP they would have had, and we should not be in denial about that. He also implied that I suggested it's the only route of support. Of course it's not. There are many routes of support, but it is a route of support. I have to tell you, for the parents who write to me through local member casework, who are frustrated they cannot get in the EHCP, that their child has had to be sent home from their mainstream school yet again because their mainstream school is completely and utterly unsuitable for them. It is a really important source of support, one which they may not even have yet at the moment. So let's not pretend that we can say we'll get rid of them and not give you support under EHCP because there are other routes of support. I also think the administration is being quite blasey in these assertions, children and Kent are no different from anywhere else. It must purely be the work of our officers is not quite right. We don't know that children and Kent are the same as children in other places. Actually it was suggested that these issues are not genetic. They are sometimes neuro-diversity issues are frequently genetic. Autism spectrum disorder can have a genetic predisposition. Children with autism spectrum disorder are often the children of parents with autism spectrum disorder. Not in every case but in many cases and that's true for ADHD. It's true for bipolar. It's true for a number of conditions that can lead to educational difficulties, not in every case but in some cases. So as a matter of medical facts my understanding is they can sometimes be genetic. I don't know if we have more or less people in Kent with those genetic dispositions but we shouldn't assert that's not the case that hasn't been investigated. It's also documented I believe scientifically that pollution can have an impact on the neurological development of children. In my time in Kent the number of AQMA's has more than doubled. We don't know how our pollution levels compare to say Buckhamshire, East Sussex or every other county in the country. We know that diets we know that all sorts of factors can have impacts on the educational development of children. So I think it's wrong and dangerous to say this is purely a matter of what our officers are doing and our officers need to start doing things differently. They may do. There may be some scope for improvement in change. Another difference between Kent and the rest of the country is we have a selective school system which most of the country doesn't have. We don't know unless we investigate to what extent that has an impact on parental attitudes to educational support for their children in the early years. So I think it's dangerous to make assumptions that Kent is the same as ever else because two places rarely are the same as my experience. Thank you Mr Hooke. Mr Streptfield you were also mentioned. I'll be brief. It's about the ATP. It's about the need and Mr Hooke is exactly right in terms of we need to find out why Kent has more children who are in this category currently and were predicted to be in this category currently and we still don't don't know that. But I think the point that Mr Love makes about diagnosis is a really interesting one because over diagnosis can be advancements in diagnosis. There are more children in this county now who've survived from pre-30 week birth and a third of whom will have a special educational need and we would actually praise our medical services for bringing those lives into Kent. They're very valuable children to their parents but it does bring with it a huge demand in special educational need and this could be one of the reasons why we are seeing an increase but again I don't know but the point of this paper the point the reason for this is we can see some of these things happening but what we do not know is the lifetime costs that go into adult social care currently and we really need to know that because it represents an existential threat to the to the books and to the continuation of the county and I think we've heard across the across the board from the from officers and from members that we just don't know and that's the point of bringing this is that we do get the joined up thinking so we do know and then we can try and manage it down the track. Thank you right I'm going to bring this to a close soon so just those that want to make recommendations which I had Shulina and Mr Hook were thinking about it so I'm going to take Trudy Dean, Dot Sullivan and then Simon Webb and then I'm going to go back to Rory. Yep we know the game plan so please Mrs Dean. Thank you Chairman I'll be as brief as I can. Mr Webb and I both share the experience of having been taught having been trained as teachers and one of the few things that has not changed in teaching from as long as I can recall is that the first mantra is that one learns half of what one needs to to learn throughout life below the age of seven that was the original proposal the the received wisdom now is that one learns half of what one needs before one is three and therefore the whole founding basis of education has always been that prevention at early in the early years is what counts I'm not talking about EHCP here I'm talking about early education and therefore anything that can be done to improve that has to be good and for most parents whose feeding is that their child has any kind of special needs their concern is always for their child to get proper education as soon as they're eligible to do so so from two three onwards and their first port of call is the county council and their first access to any special support is in the HCP and that's why so much emphasis is being placed upon it we still have in this county a very large backlog in the HCPs and we still have a situation where the demand is increasing although it's increasing less fast it is still increasing and therefore it's not surprising that council members are concerned that the budget cut budget cut which is being imposed on the county council by the by the government's safety valve is still allowing us to encrypt to deal with the problems that we have within the council and not preventing us from doing so so many members have referred to the fact that it it the HCP is not of itself the the end um the HCP is is the gateway if you like to provision and a number of councillors have made the point that it's what you do with the money that is essential it's what you do with it how you use those funds which is more important than the HCP itself and that's why I'm surprised and disappointed frankly in this report that we have no financial analysis at all on the on paragraph 4.9 this is the list that Mr Love just went through about the things that we're going to be using this money on but it's not a single figure not a single financial figure to show us what money is going in on each of those headings and what the effect of them is going to be and Mr Love suggested that we are not reducing the support to children I don't know whether that's the case or not what I do know is that many of these proposals in this list notably that to make sure that mainstream scores are properly equipped to provide the extra support that they're going to need all of that requires a great deal of specialist training in staff who are currently not specialist to deliver it and I don't know how much money we're spending on that what's success we're having or effect it's having and it's that lack of data chairman hard data which we don't have in this report and which I hope will come at a future date thank you thank you charity and again always a pleasure to see you at screen right Dr Sullivan and then Mr Webb thank you Mr Chairman just falling on from Trudy's thing that I had there about was it budget letter as a child led and I think those are the kind of questions that we've always had circling here that I think it's a love I think you misspoke or perhaps were not intentionally misleading but when you were referring to you can still get support for children without a diagnosis or without a label for young people that is no longer the case there is no longer a universal provision provided because that was cut so you do need a target you do need a label to in order to access support so let's just be careful with our language there that was cut that was your choice in terms of the social impact and I think this is what's been raised by a number of people here we hope and we trust that the direction that we're going in that all the things that you've described here will be good in the long medium and short term but we don't know and I think this is the point that Trudy was making we hope it will well let's just see how it goes and I think there is a difference between causation and correlation which is being thrown about and we just we just want the to know why and what's what were we going on I think what we could probably all agree on though is that the system currently stands is broken and I think that is probably something that unites us all it is broken education system and how it all interacts with this it's broken it needs fundamental change but it's about how we help maybe we need to ask these questions in a different way and maybe does a reduction in funding in early years leads to the council and current greater costs full stop question mark that's though these are the wide ranging questions searching questions that we really want to get underneath of and the last point I would just like to make about the savings in one or actions maybe if it's was described as savings actions in one director it does that lead to cost pressures in another mark thank you for your intervention about the transition and the care act and how each of these don't lead into that again I'll be really interested to see how those things lead in and actually how we're not missing people and all of that sort of which I think it's under Sarah's team at the moment but those are the kind of questions and assurances that we really want to get under to know about so thank you that's all thank you dot Sullivan mr web please yes I would like to actually support what the cabinet member has already said in the chamber this morning in that the quality of the reviews which have happened since the last inspection are far more effective than they were in the past so therefore part of the reduction in the numbers of EHCPs are that the need for those individual pupils students has been met and therefore they do not necessarily need an EHCP going forward so in that sense it and I have to take issue with Dr Sullivan the system was not broken the system was not running effectively or efficiently and that's what the inspection reports have said if the system was broken you'd have been in special measures but actually you weren't you're in requires improvement and those well you don't laugh at me those are the facts and the requires improvement gives the authority time to make the systems more effective and efficient and certainly chair I've got a lot of questions in the next paper so I'm just going to unusually support the cabinet member for education on this particular point thank you thank you mr web I'm sure mr love is excited that prospect to further support mr love I've got no other request so can you do I sum up please before we go I simply wanted to pick up on two points first of all quite clearly in response to Dr Sullivan no I have not miss spoken at all SCN support is available in early years in schools in FE full stop where children actually it's children who go to early years to schools and young people who go to FE they're the people who get that support SCN support is continuing in all of those places absolutely I mean in terms of in terms of training over the last three years we we've invested three million pounds but so I haven't been spoken at all SCN support is available it does not depend on education health and care plans in terms of mr hooks point about how families in Kent are we don't know he said that families in Kent aren't different and children in Kent aren't different from anywhere else in the country they'll be you know one and a half million people across Kent who will be mulling over that particular prospect today that who are watching on the webcast and who will be wondering why it is that they never realized in the past that they are somehow different from the rest of the country but and furthermore they'll be wondering why it is that this difference has only come in since 2016 because up until 2016 EHCPs and before that statements we were absolutely in line with the national average it diverged in 2016 so unless there was some sort of natural disaster genetic mutation changed to the environment whatever pollution in Kent alone in 2016 unless that's happened I don't I'm I'm not sure why I'm not sure why he thinks that Kent is somehow different from the rest of the country because and I think it's right that the committee understand that this divergence took place from 2016 so you can work out how many generations that's included and how many year groups that would have included under mr hooks reasoning I don't I don't see that I think that the more likely explanation you know I often apply Occam's razor to these things I look for the most likely explanation before I start going on fishing expeditions for complex conspiracy theories or whatever and the most likely explanation is that we we took our eye off the ball in the county council and we diverted from the se and decoder practice and we didn't go right and what we're looking to do now is to put it back on track thank you jim thank you mr love mr strivel this has got to be really quick just just one area of divergence in 2016 for years and years and years the the average age the difference in average lifespan between our richest and poorest communities was four years between 2016 and today it's now seven years and there has been a considerable divergence in just how long people are living so there is something that that is is different and we need to find out what it is mr love asserts that it's to do with over diagnosis mr hooked asserts that it's to do potentially do with pollution I assert that it's to do with something else but we need to find out because that's going to have the impact on the money down the line thank you mr hook very briefly very briefly I don't assert that it is do those factors I say that it's scientifically established that those can be factors and you were wrong to say in the meeting that these are not genetic and there are parts of the united states such as silicon valley where it's very well recognized that there are concentrations of people with autism spectrum disorder and it it runs in in families and i particularly resent an objective the suggestion that i have put forward a conspiracy theory when all i've done is identify questions that you need to consider and i consider the term conspiracy theory pejorative and i will be making a complaint about it mr whatkins you were here and you opened up the dialogue you're going to have the last words before i go back to recommendations please thank thank you chair and yeah and actually i i think it's been a very good debate about um safety valve so so my i had two points i wanted to make we should be quite a good wrap up but but particularly for adults i do just want to make one initial point uh about this whole point the quite debate we've just had about whether there is something special about kent i will simply say that uh as um a member of the integrated care partnership an integrated care system which is now pretty critical to the way we're going to go forward in in addressing uh health outcomes and frankly social and economic outcomes as well um i'm actually going to a an i c s meeting this afternoon and i've been exposed to lots and lots of uh indicators about the wider determinants of health because in a way that is the whole strategy looking at how we bring that in and and help the people of kent and as much as we love kent and we're all cheerleaders for kent and when i look at the stats i have to say kent is quite average we are quite average on economic environmental and and health outcomes um and these metrics don't change dramatically in the course of you know five years uh you know uh one year certainly not five years decade possibly but kent hasn't really hasn't had a precipitous increase or decrease on the main metric so what i'd say is um someone needs to look at that but it doesn't bring that true to me that there's something going on in kent is very unusual maybe those we look into the the uh the the the the data a bit more maybe maybe you'll find something that's contributing but uh yeah we we are we are pretty typical um in terms of um kind of bit of a wrap up and the comments on uh adults and to give really your committee some some reassurance um first thing i do want to emphasize budgets in adults and indeed uh for for vulnerable children as well they're they're not being cut they're rising that's why the financial situation of this authority is so perilous they go up and up and up and when we talk about savings programs and transformations and efficiencies all we're actually doing is trying to slow the rate of increase to sustainable level but the actual spend is going up and and that's why frankly i do not believe the system is broken we're spending more and actually we're getting more scientific about all the work we do at adults and children's as we learn more as a society about how for instance to best help and to intervene uh uh children with um special educational needs so i don't recognize that that language at all and just finally on on the future costs again to reassure you and you know um mr syruffle has made some very interesting points today and he's talked about the iceberg of of of future costs to reassure you in a way i think that's maybe slightly the wrong way around if anything would be a kind of negative iceberg right because if if you believe that less eacps um uh will will um uh increase uh costs which you know as we said today i don't think is proven as a statement because some of what safety valve is doing is going to help generate better outcomes in in the future such as the the inclusive education program we're moving towards but as adults we only look two to three years ahead in the medium term financial plan indeed the whole the whole counts only look two to three years ahead now if we if if we're changing the rate of which eacps are given um for children it will be a it's a many years in the future till that kind of crystallizes into costs so as a point of reassurance there's no one in adults saying oh we can we can bank savings and change the our plans for the next two years because of safety valve the benefits of safety valve or even the dis benefits if if if if ever yeah if it's wrong but whatever they are right or wrong the costs that adults will incur are so far down the line so i don't want people to be thinking goodness this this iceberg is gonna is gonna hit us in 2025 and will be overwhelmed i mean far from it you know you're probably looking more like 2035 um and as i say we don't know whether the the cost ramifications are positive or negative so i wouldn't i wouldn't be um yeah i think you've got to keep everything in context here um because there's so much uncertainty about and it's very long term but thank you for the discussion today thank you mr whatkins um right members it was over a year ago that i sat here and made a comment related to what we've been speaking about and some of you laughed and chuckled and i refresh you i said what is it about Kent is it the water or the strawberries and here we are again discussing very similar items at my time of life and again that's not be critical and tiring of brushes and bits and pieces i freely admit i turn my mama jar round to the right way in the cupboard so let's not forget you know we're all on that spectrum right i had two initial indications for the recommendations i'll come to mrs prendigast first have you refined your recommendation mrs prendigast partly and i'm sure somebody will help me um it's been a really interesting debate chairman but i think we've strayed so far away from what i thought was the original intention of the paper we've covered a vast range of things and i think mr whatkins summing up there was uh was interesting um simply put to me in my mind choices are much much easier to make when you know what the likely when you have evidence or indications of what the likely effects of those choices are going to be and i really don't think that we have heard enough today to answer the questions that that have been put in the paper so my recommendation would be that something comes back that evidence is where the impacts on other direct threats are likely to come from and as i said right at the start that there is plenty of there are so many studies out there on the internet that could form the basis of uh uh some of these and i want to know what what is being done to address them right now i don't really care what format it comes back in whether it's a paper or a briefing but i think we need something more that answers some of the questions on that paper thank you cute and i think you've got most of that yep mr hook you intimated you now i before mrs prendigast proposal okay do you want to quickly just read that out and so we're all clear so mrs prendigast i haven't i haven't written down or read out exactly what you said but what i would suggest because i think this is what you're getting at is that the screening committee requires further review of the issues raised at the meeting regarding the social impact and the impact on a sc of safety valve the approach this will be considered by the agenda setting process which includes all the opposition group leaders uh and discussion with the relevant portfolio holders because we also need to consider you said the potential for the screening committee look at it member briefings and the role of the cabinet committees as well just says no overlap it's far more complicated than my wording but that sounds about right thank you very much thank you fabulous in the absence of anything else and we are the recommendation that on the paper is to discuss have we discussed have we noted it and there is one recommendation those in favor of the recommendation please show and the recommendation that mrs prendigast has just made yes we have to note the report but we've made a recommendation okay yes i am yeah there's a near reluctance mrs binks okay and you've discussed it those in favor please show that is the majority which i'll take thank you mr whatkins thank you very much indeed mr love thank you very much indeed and you're supporting staff and commentary thank you very much indeed right i'm going to take the next item then we're going to take a five minute break which is monitoring report item d finance update the most recent review and capital budget monitoring report which is december 23 24 q 3 was reported to cabinet at his last meeting on the 21st of march and mr oakford thank you for your time this morning i'll leave it to you to make an introduction and any statement you may find it appropriate for us this morning german thank you um as you quite rightly say the latest financial position that we have published is for quarter three which is the end of december we do not have any more up-to-date information than that at this moment in time the quarter three forecast out term position is um indicating an initial overspend of around 30 million pounds this year this is a reduction of around six million since the quarter two and two million since the last reported position at the end of november within the overall out term position there's a significant forecast overspend on adults of 31.3 million and children's and young people of 28.2 million whilst the forecast has reduced by two million since the last report this does provide some evidence that the spending controls that were put in place and the management action that was developed by the directorates is having some impact there continues to be movements in the forecast particularly in adults and children's the latest forecast impact of management actions in adults shows that the amounts from the actions have now been delivered and reflected in the revised forecast the amounts did expected to be achieved before the end of the year and the amount that is now shown as unachievable it is realistic to say that we will have to use reserves at the end of this financial year i don't think anybody's at any doubt of that built into the budget there was a risk contingency of 12 million pounds so that will considerably reduce the overspend but based on the 30 million that still leaves an 18 million overspend that we're looking at between well the end of the year is here is what we're looking at in our end of year numbers that's really where we are i have spoken to colleagues in finance to see whether or not we've got a more up-to-date position than that and we really don't because it would be pointless me sitting here and speculating because anybody that understands end of year finance will know that there's lots of adjustments were made at the end of the year people find invoices in their desk draws that have to be bought forward etc the only bit of hope that we do have is that the management action has been really tightened up the controls have been put in place those controls have been strengthened even the requisitions now are being reviewed before they are allowed to be placed so the work of cathode and the finance team have been huge in this area of getting involved in all of the director at spending and i know mr bet sits on some of the committees that are looking at spending each month within in each of the directorates and there have been a lot of controls put in place i hope to have some indication um before the end of june but that's the date we normally look at till we get the accounts that we can rely on and that we can speak openly on i think it would be very foolish of me to speculate that that 30 million has gone up to 40 or down to 20 at this stage because we really don't know thank you peter i appreciate you coming today i know you're a busy guy and you've got lots on so thank you for that we're all yeah we are particularly busy uh john you've been very patient is there anything you'd like to add to that before we move on thank you um sarah have some please thank you chairman um i hear what you say peter what i'm trying to establish obviously because we're now probably in our third set of financial accounts where we've had similar overspends from the two departments and it's a shame mr whatkins is left but how are those two departments not going to repeat what they've done for the last three years how are we getting the management to buy into the fact that we do not have the money um because year after year after year they spend more than we have thank you peter um if we are overspent um above the 12 million contingency it will be the second year not not not the third year the second year we that we've been overspent up until then we've always balanced our budget um an awful lot of controls have been put in place one could argue that they should have been there before um some of us have been but at the end of the day adults have got to find 50 million pounds worth of savings and uh push back on pressures that they're seeing coming through uh the contracts have to be renegotiated and we have to cut our cloth accordingly um at the same time we continue to lobby government and at the same time we have to look at areas where we can continue to reduce spend um there are reductions in our spending within both adults um and children's next year as as we look for for more efficiencies i've said it many times there is no golden ticket this year we do not have a contingency we do not have any money in our back pocket we have reserves at last year's level of overspent which will last about two more years so we don't have any other option we have to come in on budget and we have to make the cuts and as soon as we get an indication of the third uh first quarters results um if the trend is in the same direction then we will have to make very very drastic action that will have a huge impact on our staff and on the residents that we serve because we can't rely on government um we've been talking to i say the royal we obviously officers have been talking to uh civil servants and we're saying well if change of government can we expect to see more money coming through the answer we've been getting is no a change of government will not put any more money into local government at this stage i hope they're wrong um but we're not seeing any signs that more money is going to be made available so we have to continue on the path we are we're going to have to make far more difficult decisions this year than we've had to make in previous years and we've got to carry on government's answer of kicking the can down the road which all it is is special financial measures of letting you borrow money to capitalize it to pay your bills is like you or i go into a bank borrowing money to pay for our food and our mortgage um all it does is dig that hole a little bit deeper and and make the problem larger so we have to cut our cloth accordingly sherry do you want to come back i'll call you um it was it was three years it just we had reserves then to be able to to dip in and to negate the overspend so my my thing is obviously is that we can't keep thinking that the government might give us some money we have to assume we are not going to get any money and that's what we actually should have been doing for a number of years and and i find i find it quite frustrating obviously that departments other than adult social care and CYPE they are the ones that are losing out because those two departments have not been rigorous enough in putting checks and balances in place before now to make sure that they don't spend willy nearly um you know you know they're there are previous officers i'm aware that have just simply said just keep spending because the government will bail us out and the government didn't bail us out and this is why we are where we are now i'm afraid thank you german if i may um i think that's slightly unfair because i don't know anybody that spends willy nilly um and we have mrs haman with us and we're very lucky that she's still in the room because i know from what i've seen and i'm sure mrs haman can add to it our children services is one of the lower cost operations in the country um we deliver excellent children services and and for cost wise we're in the bottom quartile so i i think it's very difficult to say that that we're spending willy nilly there are always areas where we can resist bending but one only has to look and i wish i had time for the presentation up here and you show you some graphs um it's the cost that are going up the amounts of people that we support in adults and children's is not increasing the cost of supporting those people is increasing exponentially and that is the challenge that we have we have to push back on the providers and on the the the increases that that we're seeing in costs um that has been evident and remembering every local authorities in the same position as kent um i took part in an lga white paper meeting recently where we were looking at these areas and going back to government government were part of the meeting where where we were looking at the areas of adults and children and telling government it is not a local council problem this is a national problem it is a government problem and government needs to be involved in this you cannot keep taking money away from local authorities expecting them to meet the demands i've said it a million times in this chamber i exaggerate i've probably said it a few hundred times that um without proper funding of adults and children social care local authorities are in a death spiral and could well cease to exist apart from providing everything that's that that's that's that's that's statutory we are two years away from that in my mind as local authorities across the country not just kent this is us in our totality the question is being asked what is the role of local government and how do we continue to meet the role of local government with the funding that we have because in my mind it is just not possible at the moment thank you peter mr bond please thank you um i just i've always had difficulty here trying to understand how we run with our financial monitoring how we run so far behind and we say here we are we're talking about the end of quarter three which is the end of December and we're talking about us we're about to go into may and i think from a scrutiny point of view you know the horse is more than bolted out of the stable i'm just following up on the last comment because the point is if i've heard correctly that at the end of quarter one if we're going down the same track as before then we'll have to take drastic action but if we're not going to get the figures for quarter one until halfway into quarter three which would be the path for the course that's gone on for the last two years it's that much of a delay how can we then take drastic drastic action for the remaining four months of the year or possibly depending when it comes maybe even less than that three months of the year for what's been going on for the previous eight months it makes the pain even more severe um surely there's some way we can get some guide as to where we're out pretty close to the end of quarter one so at least we've got nine months to address the situation or understand things that we've got to do to address the situation but to wait till halfway through quarter three before we start doing it just seems to me a very long delay um mr bond i i i cannot do anything but agree i used to run a three billion dollar business and i had the numbers on the tenth work in day of the following month so action could be taken um but we will have and mr bets and i have been having a lot of conversations and all credit to john and the team they have committed to give us indication of numbers within i think it was 15 day working days at the end of the month of around 90 accuracy because of the way the council's finance work and what we go through i'm very happy to get 90 accuracy 15 working days into june for may and we'll then be able to look at that in more detail while we're waiting for the numbers to be verified and we get the hundred percent numbers but we will have a jolly good indication they will be approximated but it will be 90 accurate on the big spend areas what we're saying is i'm not worried about the environment where they only spend three million quid a year i'm worried about adult social care where they spend seven hundred million pounds a year and children's where they're spending four hundred million pounds a year so we can have that information and we can take action in those areas so coming back we will be able to give you more updated numbers on the proviso that everybody says they need to be fine tuned before they're published and they they're then reported as accurate mr bong mr ope has been doing this for a number of years i look i agree with them i've worked in businesses i get yeah within a week i that's why i've always had trouble but knowing that and hearing that are we able to get as we're 30 odd days into the financial year of the new financial year and we've got any indications or any proviso figures for the end because you said they weren't going to be available no what we're putting into new processes so we can get these approximated numbers for each month the end of the year is always different as you know because you have adjustment here adjustments there roll forwards and so i don't want to speculate on those numbers i am hoping they're going to improve but i certainly don't want to speculate at this stage i think that's a reasonable mr bond yeah uh sort of Sullivan thank you um so i was reading something else there um the why i had a question so looking at the section 12 on the kind of management action side of things there's um a section here about working collaboratively with NHS colleagues who are most appropriate and cost-effective pathways are in place and just sort of from your point of view how are those conversations the ICB going in terms of joint commissioning arrangements where actually there isn't duplication but actually all that sort of stuff so i'd like to if i can because you're just kind of feeling that the i've got another point about what you're saying about adults and it's the cost and you know inflation costs have been incredibly high in recent years um and that has been then passed on back to us um do you think on reflection that just solely relying on the market and perhaps the private sector um mainly for our at least shame actually Richard Smith has gone um it'd be interesting to know about that the sector the private sector for care and whether how much of that is non-for-profit organizations doing that do you think that maybe in reflection we could have had a mix or promoting more of that or just had some in-house services just a mix so we weren't quite so at the mercy of the private sector um in this space and uh the other thing i've written here is delay but i didn't finish my sentence so i may well come back to that if i remember if i remember what delay meant but thank you oh yes to back up the the points that you've just been raising there about the delay of information but you've you're getting those new systems in place so i look forward to seeing those thank you Peter anything to add to that i'm sure you are not looking forward to seeing those numbers every month as much as i am because it will help us a little bit get some more control on um NHS the NHS moves like a juggernaut doesn't it it's like turning an oil tanker that there are conversations going on i understand that they are useful conversations um but i'm not sure that they work at the same speed as we do now i i think we're going to get a lot of benefit out of it but the NHS overspend this year is astrolutely astronomical um it runs into tens and tens and tens of millions of pounds in Kent so they they have some of the same challenges the only difference is they just draw a line underneath it and the government turns up with a dumpload full of money and tips on their their doorstep and they start all over again unfortunately for us we don't have that um so i think there is some good work going on i think there will be some benefits but it's not the saviour that that we think it's going to be i don't think it's going to um completely change the way we do things regarding um should we have more in-house i think that's um a debate that you and i have had many times pardon and and and not non-profit and a lot of work was done and is still done by Clare Maynard and the team looking at in-house versus out-house whenever um contracts come up and that is a piece of work that we will continue to do um i'm not wedded either way what's ever cheapest and delivering the best service um we've got to make sure that the service is available um and we've got to make sure that that we can we can effectively pay for it i'm just looking at a chart before me which which again the the cost of social care spending in its totality in this country um has gone up from being 50 percent of a council's budget to 65 percent of council's budget um since 2016 and that just shows you the increases that we're seeing in the costs because we're not seeing the increase in demand it's not the people it's the cost base more far more than the demand pressures and what was the other one a delay thing could you say me that i'm not sure if i can because it was given to me confidentially nope it's outside of kct it's not a kct document so that's why i will ask the question any further questions members cool oh mrs binks yeah because much was made of relying on the private sector but isn't uh from what mr oakford's just said the biggest problem is uh the costs of uh frankly labor uh qualified labor and um it doesn't really matter whether it's private or public sector because you're going to have to pay the same sort of rates in order to get the quality get the same sort of staff so we have a problem which is a national problem um and that is a large part of as far as i can see a large part of the problem with the adult adult social care is the cost of the cost of care and much of that is labor and um if one wants to pass that back it becomes uh well people are getting more money for what they're doing what they were doing five six seven years ago uh at a at a lower rate and you can argue the toss forever but that is a major problem and we're not going to get around it plus by taking it in-house because as everyone knows you have to pay the market rate otherwise you don't get stuff no further comments uh members we are asked to note the update provided is that noted excellent thank you Peter for your time thank you john hanging on on the line um members uh we will reconvene back here at ten pass please thank you all for your agenda pack uh members will be very familiar with the reasoning behind why the subcommittee was set up i have a number of uh items i want to bring up and questions and commentary and i'm sure and i hope and the remainder of this scrutiny committee have as well but by way of introduction i'm going to ask uh Joel Cook if he can do the introduction i'll then pass to Ben Ben Watts and then uh mr perry cole as chairman of the subcommittee so in that order please Joel thank you chair so as the paper outlines uh the subcommittee was set up by the scrutiny committee just over a year ago directly in response to the offset findings and the uh the activity that was required to put in place improvements and the scrutiny committee was keen to ensure that there was a focused single forum uh to ensure that there was a single focused forum in which to consider the issues relating to send scrutiny committee considered the possible options around how to manage that process and in the end determined or agreed to set up the subcommittee with the terms of reference that effectively delegated the main scrutiny committee's functions in relation to send to the subcommittee and by that it meant it would be responsible for considering any items that fell within the scrutiny remit going to the subcommittee rather than the main committee it was not commissioned to undertake a detailed investigation and review in the manner of a select committee so the process and expected outcomes were slightly different and it was also noted at the time and this was supported by comments made at cabinet committee that it was important there was a focused area to avoid and minimize duplication of the investigation and activity both recognizing member time officer time and the need for the council to move at pace confirming what actions it was going to take to deliver the improvements the report sets out some of that background and highlights that the annual report considered by the subcommittee approved by the subcommittee is provided for information as well as some consideration by the subcommittee about its future as part of this introduction i just wanted to highlight to the committee that the setting up of a dedicated subcommittee of scrutiny to look at a particular service area is a new development for kent county council so this was a entirely new approach and that is why the scrutiny committee included this planned one year on review approach within the terms of reference to ensure that the scrutiny committee could take a view as to whether this was the best use of resource the best approach to managing that scrutiny function i'd like to ask Ben to thank you Joel uh Ben please thank you chair and thank you mr cook so um it obviously the committee today is going to consider the report that he's got in front of it and it then has an opportunity to consider what next and the steps that members wish to take as part of the scrutiny committee pursuant to the terms of reference to the both the scrutiny committee and the general purpose of having scrutiny um today you've got two officers um to go mrs ham and mr mckinis in in the room um from from an officer perspective we're very happy to support anything that members decide within the resources that we've got available so members will know that last year we took the resources that were available for short focused inquiries and we repurposed those to allow for this work to be done we're effectively in the committee's hands based on on on what you discuss today and i think it's important that whilst officers can also obviously answer questions around technical or technocratic matters the conversation today is really about what the members of the scrutiny committee would like to do next having received the paper and where you would like to go so with the greater respect i think it is important that officers don't play too large a part in that we're effectively in the circumstances we're here to support whatever the committee decides it wishes to do next and we would have a conversation about how we could do that um and and in those circumstances it may be that the committee feels that they do or don't need um the officers and indeed mr lovers the cabinet member to remain in the room for the conversation and that's something for the committee i would suggest to decide at the outset but from an officer perspective as i say um we're we're ready to support um if the committee decides that it wishes to do things but this is ultimately this is a political scrutiny conversation as to what you wish to do next um and we stand ready to advise and support due course uh thank you Ben uh always good advice and always taken most of the time thank you um what we are not here to do i just reiterate we are not here to grill christine and sera we are seriously not so let's be very respectful to that um we have the chairman of the subcommittee mr pericole and we have the vice chairman mr specky bruno um i will allow both of you to come in now if you want to uh but i'll start with mr cole um you've seen the report you uh you are chairman of of the subcommittee so if you want to make an introduction please do so uh if becky wants to speak then please do so as well i'll then open it up to members of the committee for any commentary or questions or observations that they hopefully have so mr cole please chair thank you i'm grateful um good afternoon uh assembled colleagues it is with mixed emotions that i present to you the end of year report for the send subcommittee on the one hand i am pleased at the end of year report whilst demonstrating the scale of the task that was set before us reflects both on the extent of the work achieved by the committee in such a relatively short time frame highlighting the dedication of those involved in the committee as well as the breadth and depth of subject areas to which the administration reported to focus scrutiny i am however disappointed the past events have led to a situation whereby the establishment of this committee was deemed necessary the send subcommittee haven't been established by a decision made at scrutiny committee in january 23 held its inaugural meeting in march the same year the reasons for its inception are well known and outlined within the report back before you today the role of the subcommittee was a new concept differing from that of select committees or short focus inquiries this focus was to scrutinize and review matters related to send provision across kent it was envisaged that the review would take place after one year to determine whether its role was still required or whether the continuance of any scrutiny function could or should return back to its parent committee i should like to thank all of the individuals and organizations that have contributed to the work undertaken by by the committee without whose help our job would have been made so made so much more difficult to those colleagues and external partners who volunteered to assist by sitting on the committee i think if you're tireless support advice ideas and recommendations throughout the process and above all that the children young persons and those who care for them were always at the heart of your thoughts and that as a committee you were only ever interested in ensuring that the best possible outcomes would be achieved by the changes proposed it would also be remiss of me not to express my thanks to those members of the administration who whilst undertaking a significant piece of work themselves in the preparation for and implementation of the accelerated performance plan still met the intensive demands of the subcommittee within this group of individuals i include both Joel from democratic services and gatano who acted as clocked to the committee who both provided invaluable legal and procedural advice as we progressed and i commend my report to the committee thank you chair thank you mr cole becky of course ken yeah wensley yeah no that's cool thank you um okay i'll start the ball rolling thank you mr mr cole um i have read the report a number of times and i'm a user of red pen so i've got quite a bit of red pen on it so i will let other members come in rest i'm going to steal the whole show which i don't want to do so page four these are majority are questions rather than recommendations or observations item four invite other persons to attend the meetings can you tell us the other persons that were invited to the meetings other than officers and members please just so we can get a handle on where you went the um the committee was uh open to um as we know packed now although packed sat on the committee um we the the terms the the terms of the committee uh indicated that if you were not a committee member that that you had no automatic right to speak but we were inclusive from the upset that members of packed would could come along and actually take an active part within the committee um a lot of the um other persons invited to attend um actually sort of promulgated itself into the external meetings that that we held which are term the informal meetings um some of the it was felt easier uh rather than inviting sort of groups of parents or or people traveling across Kent to come here for a meeting uh it was easier for the committee to actually go out and and visit people in their own locale um people felt more comfortable speaking in a less oppressive environment um we could have open discussions with people and then we could when necessary sanitize the information provided to us and then it bring it back in a format that could be presented uh in the form of questionings questioning or indeed to uh evaluate and next line of of inquiry for the following meeting so um the other persons would not just be limited to those that that were shown in the formal meetings um but it principally yeah it would be the informal meetings that would thank you Guy Tano you were the uh senior democratic services officer appointed to this group which we are really grateful for the time and effort you've put into it and you want to speak at this point uh good afternoon chairman good afternoon everybody yes i just wanted to provide you some additional information in addition to uh almost mr call just outlined so in terms of the i understand that you were asking about the the activity of the sensor committee and the people who were involved and maybe more information about uh the the topics in each of these uh sessions that were held i can provide you that information if you wish yeah um let's go back to before the uh before the subcommittee was set up um again for for clarity uh this issue was the most important issue that faced Kent County Council at the time there was a huge interest and appetite from the public from parents and guardians of said small people there was a big appetite from members of this council uh i made the statement at full council that it affected every single member in this chamber every single member and there was also an appetite from the officers the officers that dealt and deal with this on a day-to-day format so my question was it states there invite other persons to attend the meetings so we had a lot of parents and guardians that made representation um if you can expand upon that that would be really interesting please sure so um the sensor committee held uh seven formal meetings plus one where it uh finalized basically this report and in those meetings it essentially invited uh there could be a member for education and skills and the relevant directors from the syp director to provide regular information and evidence and updates to the committee in addition to that uh they were also required to provide a significant amount or written information in addition to those meetings that happened basically on a monthly basis additional evidence was gathered from a number of visits and virtual meetings for example a visit to the mouling school in east uh is mouling which is a specialist resource provision which is highly successful in terms of a specialist mainstream unit and there was also a virtual meeting with Hilary mike donald who was the Austin lived the inspector who carried out the sendary visiting camp in uh september 2022 visit to the tourniquet school trust which included a one-to-one meetings with parents and young people with send uh and visit to the we are being center which involved the representatives of father's club camp who uh so each which is a support group for uh father's or children with uh wheel autism um so in addition uh to that i can go through chairman the main topic that we're covered if you wish in each of the seven meetings i'm happy to do that as we go through those uh items guide time if that's okay but thank you for that i will carry on i will stop in a moment to so other people can do their part um i have a question on the number of meetings um mr cold do you believe that the frequency of the meetings was both sufficient and effective throughout the past year on reflection yes the the subcommittee was set up at a time of transition between the administration recognizing uh that we had to do something um there was a certain amount of pressure and work was proceeding with DFE to work towards the APP so we were in a situation where we could basically uh review the situation that led to us to be in where we were but we all knew that so realistically um with the APP being signed off i think in late july um we are only now really starting to pick up on on the the evidence it's been approved we're working to it um we did a lot of work in that in that space between inauguration and the APP being uh signed off in areas that that caused a lot of concern both to members and to parents to reassure ourselves that lessons would be learnt um from the past that whereas before we may have as an organization put put into place a plan that from the outset appeared to to tickle the boxes we needed to be assured that not only would this plan be be the right plan for Kent now and going forward but that the the necessary uh overview and oversight had been factored into that plan and then with the advent of the APP we can now start looking at the um you know how the um introduction of the plan is helping we know as a committee that not all of these will be short fixes that that some of these some of the timelines for actually achieving where we want to be um is um some distance i think september 25 is where we were initially aiming to um uh to be in place although i understand that through the hard work that that's that's been put in place at that that timeline maybe maybe coming forward so in a perfect world um could there have been um more meetings yes but i'm not entirely sure that more meetings necessarily would have would have been more productive or or would have actually gained more information than than the on average one monthly one meetings month that uh that we averaged thank you mr co sorry perhaps i'll be something that i thought you've got seven meetings of which one was sorry the first one was just an introduction and the last one was just looking at this report um i am concerned about that i think when we look back again some of the commentary that came from this committee was uh it's a very hot subject very hot to move subject and similar to this committee you know we're able to call an extraordinary meeting if we need to to drill down into a specific subject uh bearing in mind that you had a complete free reign of guitano respectfully um during that process okay i'm happy with with your answer that you believe it uh appropriate um i'll stop after this next question page seven um second body point it says direct engagement with schools and parents conducted by individual members supporting questioning and debate at the formal meetings um how is how is that uh engagement recorded because i can't see any of that within this document can you can elaborate on that for us please because that would be outside of the committee's formal meetings and it states individuals were doing that please um yeah so chair with um with the direct engagement um and that would be formally and members of the committee were invited to to carry out their own um was that and of course we all back our own our own sort of um experience locally into the mix um members were or those who attended the um meetings were invited to write back into guitano with a short report outlining the uh sort of the scope of the meeting that had taken place and the results or the findings um of those meetings okay i'll i'll submit for a bit i've got a sera hudson and becky brookner please thank you chairman um when we started the send subcommittee i thought that we would be examining the system from the perspective of the parents um to learn the issues that they face the time scales their frustrations that type of thing um i provided the names of um a few parents who i thought would actually be um useful to hear they were they were coherent they weren't too emotional um but they would give a good oversight of the the issues and frustrations that they had experienced in accessing um the system um i kept on asking when are we going to hear from these parents and i didn't really get a much of a response um and the actual meetings themselves we kept asking questions um only to be told that the answers weren't available they didn't realize we're we're going to be asking that particular question on that day and therefore they didn't have the data to sort us out but that would be provided at a later date i'm not actually sure if we've ever had that later date um it we almost seem to be having meetings um using the agenda from the meeting before that's how it felt it was very disjointed um the speakers that that came along to the meetings that that did take place um without being too disparaging there were yesterday's news i didn't want to hear how someone arrived at a report that we were all able to read and happened two years ago i want to know how we're going to change things um you know how we're going to improve it what can be done what are we doing to improve it um so i felt that an awful lot of that the meetings sadly were a waste of our time um and hence a year down the line we're still no further forward i believe in ascertaining exactly what the situations are what is um what is what is being achieved and what will still be achieved um from the parents perspective not from our perspective um you know how they can engage better um i had a situation only the other day where um the caseworker for one of my residents has been changed six times without my resident's knowledge and when she when she was asked who is the caseworker because i keep being told it's x but they say they're not anymore and the message came back saying well it should be joe blogs but actually she's leaving the service next friday so there's no point in giving her that name so these these are the situations that are still ongoing and they're the sort of things i thought through our send subcommittee we will be able to get to the bottom of and help improve the lot of kent's residents thank you thank you mrs sussan did you ask those questions at the at the committee meetings those questions were raised by all members in terms of what are we doing how are we going to achieve this blah blah blah and as i said a lot of the times you know the questions well i'm sorry we don't have that data here today we didn't realize you're going to be asking that question okay thank you um becky please thank you chairman um i'll have to uh my colleagues sarah juntin uh before i did um but i have to um agree with sarah on a couple of points um there was a lot of ramblings going on in in these meetings um figures were not given we were asked for figures we were asked for information the information wasn't forthcoming or it was told well we'd get it in three months or four months but we were always chasing we was chasing or running after the fact we couldn't actually have any facts in front of us um that goes with any charts that we were given it was always a tbc but no actual information filled in in these charts um we did ask numerous times for um parents to visit and give an explanation of exactly how did the process start from the minute they were given um an ehcp or actually wanted an assessment how did that work um i have to apologize i will apologize i know my uh my colleagues some of my colleagues know that i'm actually very um direct i was naive as a as a deputy chairman um but unfortunately i was not privy to any conversation between the chairman and the cabinet or portfolio order so unfortunately i didn't know what what was actually occurring through the year that we've done this and i apologize to the uh to the committee for that but there are so many more questions there are so many issues with send that is still going on i have parents who have gone through their life savings so that they could continue with their child's education while waiting for the ehcp and it's cost them so far 13 000 pounds so there are some serious issues here i think they haven't been answered um whether this goes back to scrutiny or it continues but something has to change so that the people in the committee can actually have the answers or the questions answered by the portfolio holders officers whoever it is but i think it um i i don't think the committee did what it should have done thank you thank you becky um jenny awkins please thank you chairman um i'd like to echo sort of some of the comments about maybe some of the information that we had it's quite difficult for me because i've i've come in late i came in late to it um but i did feel it was quite woolly sometime so it was like we were trying to get to the point that it was it was very difficult sometimes um so i'd also like to comment on um we visited the turner school um and which was packed with parents um and there was a lot of anger a lot of frustration um i actually made some points which i sent to mr colle um because he asked for them um and i think that one thing is that the parents did appreciate that we came in and we listened to them and we heard them um and they they also asked for a follow-up session um so that we can report back on changes that are being implemented so um partly for that reason i really think that the committee should continue or some some kind of scrutiny should continue because otherwise how we go into um how are we going to show parents you know regain trust in parents from parents that that we are actually listening if if we're not even kind of doing that simple thing that we promised that we would go back and report and listen to them again and find out how it's going from their perspective um so really for that reason i think it needs to continue thank you jenny um mr bond please thank you chairman um i bit like you i had to read it about three or four times in a selfless report because at the end of the day i'm not quite certain what was in the report um not that obviously there was typing and words in the report but there was nothing positive it i just read it as something that just said a bit of information that yeah there were some tasks that were being done on the officers were progressing through it no timeline no nothing and i was disappointed in fact i almost drew the conclusion that actually if we hadn't set this up nothing nothing's changed since we set it up but you know it achieved nothing um and i was there in january with yourself and everybody else and my understanding then rightly or wrongly was we were setting up a subcommittee to scrutinize send because there were so many issues and serious issues both with the counselors and with the parents etc that really needed addressing and it was more than just could be done by the scrutiny committee it was so important that we should have a subcommittee that could devote their time to addressing those issues you know addressing the things like the care plans you know the delay on their care plans what it was about to address the situation of um transport costs for send people how they were transported where they were sent because that was quite contentious with a lot of parents you know they wanted the best for their children and you know there's been to be a lot of confusion there um the case of care workers you know i've just heard one behind me the number of cases i've had where they're lucky if they get two visits from a care work from the same care worker you know it's nearly a change nearly every visit um so i don't feel that any of the real issues that we had at the time in january transposed onto this committee and what was meant to do now that could be because terms of reference changed i don't know why and probably the chairman and the officers can explain but i don't know why these key issues have not been addressed um and also i would have thought that if they were just collecting information on what's going on within the kcc um there might have even been some suggestions on how to improve the operation but there's no mention that i can see there of any positive and significant improvement in the delivery of what we're doing it's just information that we're doing it we're addressing the reports and progressing so i am very disappointed with it and particularly i'm a little bit biased because i obviously sit on the transport appeals board and that's not even included there's absolutely nothing there so um about transport and you know i've had cases where um you know the transport we've provided takes people past a school that's providing a very good service for education um to another school you know it's just ludicrous none of these things have been addressed um say looking at the future um i think i think the idea was good to set set it up because of the extent of what needs to be looked at but the fact the matter is the way it is now it doesn't work because the report really has done nothing so we only have two options we either bring it back into scrutiny and we have a whole lot more meetings and tackle each of these items one at a time you know like the consistency of a care worker and just have it as a separate subject or we change the format of this sub-committee and maybe the scrutiny here dictate or assist them don't like the word dictate but assist them or advise them to address at separate meetings each one of these individual items as to what's happening what's doing how can we improve it because and maybe they have to have two or three meetings just on that one item as you said call in the parents call in the counselors each one's got a different perspective um you know some of the EHCPs i think i had one the other day on the transfer it had been over 12 months they were still waiting for it and they couldn't move they couldn't move and these are the things i really expected to appear in this report and there's nothing absolutely nothing thank you mr bond i concur there are a number of areas of weakness that are identified in this document which pretty much go in line with the office ed observations um the comment was made earlier about requests for information and that not being forthcoming and mr col in your capacity did you receive all the information to questions that were asked there's no before you answer there's no throwing anybody under the bus here it's a straight question if there are questions that were asked um that were not answered or had not been answered in a timely fashion and when i say timely fashion i'm very aware of again the history and the appetite to get this dealt with from day one is there stuff still hanging out the bottom the the meetings were quite intense the the level of questioning the the number of questions put to the administration it was not a pleasant environment for members of the administration to be in and that's not in a combative sense but i i dare say that nobody looked forward to coming to the committee because they knew that they were going to be absolutely grilled um through through the depth of the uh the subject um there were occasions where um because possibly because of the timing of waiting for the reports to come through in the timing of the committee that there was a conflict so there was a disconnect i think i can say um with the benefit of not going through every single document um that that we created but in the main um answers were provided they may not have been the answers that committee members wanted at the time or or all that the um executive if they couldn't provide the information there and then there was always a willingness to to go away and bring back information uh at a later stage undoubtedly i i think it would be impossible for me to say that every single question was answered there were just too many too too many questions but but in the main uh in fact i would say overwhelmingly maybe not at at the meeting at the time but in a subsequent meeting the question would either be put again uh or documentation the evidence information requested would be provided okay thank you um i'll quickly come back to that um not one point did you come to me to say there was anything outstanding and if there was anything i could do to help ease that um did you go to the leader was the leader aware of that i'm just playing on that mystical because this is extremely important that we are here to scrutinize this part of of the proceeding and i come back to the reason for scrutiny is to ensure that the processes and procedures and matters relating to this are dealt with and the public and the people that have been affected by this um are reassured on the number of things which will come to near the end of this are reassured so if there is anything that was asked for and i'm sure it was all crucial to that investigation work that hasn't been answered then there's ways to escalate that if that helps um thank you there um as far as i was concerned that there was nothing um that was either i'm going to say delayed we're talking between one meeting to another there was no suggestion that the administration was trying to obstruct or be awkward or in fact refused to provide any information either to committee or to an individual member who requested that um information at the meeting or outside of the meeting um i i felt there was no need for me to to speak to the mr goff because i felt that the administration was was um in awkward or trying to undermine the um the purpose of the committee thank you um right i'll pause for a while mrs binks and then mrs strepfield please um we're a little confused on this because uh we're not confused a little bit disappointed uh it says quite plainly the focus was to scrutinize and review matters in relation to send provision it also says further on uh that this was exercising full scrutiny powers this committee would have including the whole to account function now there weren't meetings every months or months that were missed so and it was quite late starting as well um which i must admit i found quite disappointing because this was a very important it was very important judging by the number of views public views um interested parties also lost interest because the numbers declined quite rapidly from meeting to meeting um being near at a 500 at the beginning and going down to just over a hundred um and they obviously i would have i think it's obvious to assume that they also lost um a little bit of faith in in in in the committee um the report is interesting because there's no mention of actually what was an excellent report and quite hard-hitting not necessarily welcome but hard-hitting from the internal audit uh which i'm assuming was was useful in revealing some of the weaknesses uh within the organization um but no mention of that here um an awful lot of mention of what was generally known uh and a few actions that have obviously taken place i'm not sure that the committee had much to say about or or to do with that but um there is no overview of what happens next um most of these things are what's been put in place no mention of of how it's going is it successful has it improved um i'm pretty disappointed in this if you wish and my honest opinion is that this committee should be disbanded and that this full scrutiny should be coming back to scrutiny here because i think um a i i'm not very keen on one particular area of operations in kcc being singled out albeit it's a very important part but being singled out for special scrutiny on a on a continuous basis i feel that it should like all other areas that are of great importance too um it should come back into scrutiny and i i think in this case it would probably be better to do so thank you ros um mr strepfield please yeah i can't quite believe what i'm hearing because in another part of the parish there's a send transformation board which i sit on with it's across party board and i am completely assured that there's been an enormous amount of work done by officers that we've had access to information that's been timely that we can see the work on a monthly basis being being done and that the accelerated progress plan that has gone for assessment that was created and now has gone to assessment to the DFE is potentially going to transform special educational needs in the county and that's not to say that mr love and the officers present have and i haven't had considerable disagreement during that time but it it the information is out there and i think from what mrs bink said the fact the committee hasn't had access or doesn't feel that the access doesn't mean it's not there and it doesn't mean that things aren't happening because it it it is and i think it would send completely the wrong signal to disband the committee right now because we are at the point where we've done all the preparation for the transformation yes it has taken longer because as mrs hamland uh so hamland and royal other have often said there haven't been huge amounts of extra resources available to the county to be able to transform the the service but it is moving in the right direction finally not in the in the wrong direction and uh we do need to keep up the public as well as the the private view of of that process so yeah i find i find what evidence the committee seen today to be when i was reading the report i found it extraordinary because it clearly hasn't had access to the kind of information that the other members have had and i can tell you that i've raised cases and i've had senior officer time in order to be able to assure parents that their case is being being looked at that is not universal clearly and there are still many many issues but i've had the ability to have that kind of attention so it is it is going on so if the but if the committee were to take send scrutiny into backing to scrutiny now it would send completely the wrong signal because we are just about to see whether the DFE agrees that the accelerated progress plan is sufficient and set the course for the next stage and the reality of the transformation so yeah that's my contribution i find myself in an extraordinary position of support supporting what's what's gone on in another part of the parish thank you mr straightforward uh right i would like to be back because i i was completely misunderstood i was not talking about what has gone on as far as actions i have no doubt about that i was actually saying that the committee on this report did not reflect that so my criticism was not of the actions that are taking place at all i quite agree with a lot has been taking place it's not reflected very much here and that was my criticism and that was my only reason for saying that maybe it should they'll come back not anything to do with the action so i'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what i was trying to say um i just wish to make that clear no i i understand that ros i've got i've got ben waiving i will bring him in after i've heard from becky if i can then and i think what we what i don't want to do is to go down the kind of anecdotal route of yeah i've done this and i've done that for so and so and little timmy and little mary that's fine we understand that but this is the bigger picture this is kent and i understand what was said just now no and it was a complete misunderstanding of what i meant to say that is clear that if you looked at this you would not appear to have done very much and that is all i'm saying it's i'm completely in agreement with you on on what has happened thank you roster and again we need to acknowledge there is some really good work that's been taken so far becky then i'll bring ben in thank you jennie um i think we can all agree that there is an issue i think the issue that was in the sub scrutiny committee was that uh there was a frustration and annoyance that that figures and information was not forthcoming in a in a in a sufficient timely manner uh all seemed as if we were chasing the fact you know two three months down the line um i do believe that that the scope for the sub scrutiny committee might have been too big it was quite uh well it's a very big subject i do believe that if the if the screw if this sub scrutiny committee is continued i would go along with what mr bond has said is that there needs to be a change of format with it um for it to be successful so that we can come back with the report that actually is really substantive because at the moment it's not and this definitely doesn't take away from the amount of work that was done during that year and i i want to reiterate that it wasn't that nothing got done i do believe that there there was a lot of work that was done it just doesn't show in the report but it was also things like when we did ask questions i mean there were a couple of occasions i will say that at one point we were told that's not a question for this committee well of course it was because it was a scrutiny committee but but that was you know pushed aside so i do think that if this is going to be successful and it is continued it definitely needs to change the format thank you thank you Becky um babe thank you chairman and mr stratfield picked up some of the points i i was making i mean you started up the conversation by saying this isn't a conversation about what was being done and i think it's really important for members to look at at sort of coming to some of the comments mr and i just made there about actually how members go about and and there is perhaps it's not an easy conversation to have about how you would structure that going forwards in an open committee meeting like this but i think there is there is some detail to be done about how do members ask the questions because i think that would be a clear view that the questions that were asked there was a process that was followed the information was gathered those are provided those reports provided however members and and we do see this from time to time in all of our meetings across the council where a member asks a question about a particular fact or piece of information and and and tracking that fact and that response to that answer is sometimes difficult and you end up with lots of nebulous conversations about things that are going on so i think from an you know we're across the service we're implementing a range of technology i'm having a conversation with a few members who i think i've got some suggestions about how we might be able to do that differently but actually that same technology might be quite useful here in terms of how we track the questions that some of these got through to a conclusion to make sure that there is a you said we did bit and as mr strepfield touched on i've been in a number of other meetings where some of those conversations and it's suddenly some of those very difficult questions so i think mr mckenis would also say at sometimes i've asked her some very difficult questions in some of the offers of meetings we've we've been in but but the direction of travel is is in terms of the actual service that is going on nobody is turning around and saying that everything is is is as it could be or should be or ever everybody wants to be everybody's talking about the journey from where we where we were to where we want to be and the considerable improvements on that which mr strepfield very eruditely explained and i think it is important for the committee to focus in as best you can on you know what you would like them and how we might be able to do them if that's a if that's a effectively a working group that we put together to go out actually how do we answer those questions or how do we make sure such you're on a couple of points made by members the the public element of this the members the public seeing the work that's going on is a really important part of this and being able to understand the journey because there may be some people for whom their experiences and that and they might be looking and wanting to understand that there may be some some different experiences but i think how we have that conversation for you as members very happy for us to work through the detail of that and i come back to where i started the conversation earlier that from an officer perspective and i think that was the case from the officers both supporting the committee and the officers providing information to the committee everybody wanted to provide the answers those questions and sometimes in moments you're not necessarily able to have the answer to all of those questions so let's have a we can happily have a think about how we track those things because one or two of the comments that have come up have been about issues that seem to have you know i asked a question i didn't get an answer to it i think everybody probably everybody was trying to give those answers and sometimes it is difficult to remember you get asked to quite i don't myself i try to make a note of everything someone's asked me in a meeting you come out you forget some so how we track that i think is interesting and then for you as a committee whether you decide to keep it as a subcommittee whether you bring it back here i still think the same challenge will pervade which is how do you actually substantively narrow the issues that you want answers on and then effectively scrutinize those so that the people coming in the room know the questions that they're being asked and are able to give you the best possible information to answer it and fundamentally the purpose of scrutiny is to make things better so then how do we round that off with how do things get better at the end of this and as i say chairman i'm sure i speak on behalf of all officers in the room that we're very happy to support whatever it is that the committee decides going forward thank you ben i've still got another five speakers i've also got online uh my vice chairman mr paul barrington king paul i know you're you've been particularly poorly hopefully you're feeling a little better today is there anything you want to add at this point yeah thank you very much and good debate and uh it's it's good to hear these dispatches from different now this was always a difficult subject the it's the advanced limit sorry this was always a difficult subject and the chairman was given a task i tried to take care of which i think many of us would have actually kind of bought at it but it was necessary to be done in the eyes of the public my main issue with this is the fact that when we undertook this journey that many parents would have had expectations about great you know cases here listening and they're doing something and i think for members today what's important to bring this into you know that's my dog in the background to bring this into cognition is the fact that they will be saying well you know where is it where is it where are the outcomes that uh you know we were expected so a difficult one but i think becky's uh miss burrow's proposal that you know to perhaps there there is some i think energy and the fact that we can perhaps look at the constitution of the committee and carry on the good work et cetera certainly the formative work that they've done and uh we can uh perhaps put in a program of some extra meetings to see what we can come up with to answer the concerns of the expectations of the parents uh so that's as my main driver chairman is is that uh for us at a listening council i i do think we we need to look at if we just paint this one now uh and let's say well there there there you are we've we've done it on i'm sure there's a lot of parents out there might not agree with with the outcomes but i do have reservations about whether we bring it back to scrutiny uh in peace mill or in total whatever uh we've already got a huge program uh work program here i realize that the officers in democratic services certainly with miss taylor et cetera is admirable in dealing with our work program but whether we might just be taking a bit too much a delegation process as we use uh very profitably uh and certainly productively uh for looking at certain areas i shared short-focused inquiries uh knife crime and home school transport etc so that's the whole idea of actually delegating this type of work so i do have some reservations about whether we bring it back to the parent committee thank you very much chairman thank you poll uh commentary you always welcome harry i know you've got a scarper um please thank you thank you chairman i'm not a member of your committee uh i i am a member of the uh subcommittee of the send subcommittee it was me that moved the motion uh that the subcommittee should be uh disbanded in my view uh the send subcommittee has not been successful it has not been successful uh it found difficulty in obtaining the answers that it wanted when it wanted them secondly i think it suffered uh from um the one of the advantages with the scrutiny committee is that you are the chairman you have a a good experience a long experience of uh chairing scrutiny committee not only here but your own district council uh as well and in these circumstances um the the the uh the committee members of the scrutiny committee have been well advantaged as a result of that i would just draw one uh particular point to your attention and uh because the decision as to whether the subcommittee continues or not and by the way i will not be a member of it if it does continue um is that uh it the chairman consistently ruled that i could not raise issues of send transport he simply made the view consistently meeting after meeting after meeting that i could not question anything in connection with send transport and as a result of that for me it completely undermined the situation why because for me one of the the fastest rising cost of it as of a significant budget issue in kcc is the send transport in fact home to school transport across the ball but send transport in particular the the rise of the unit costs relating to that and frankly uh i i the one of the reasons i joined the subcommittee was specifically to to try to get answers to questions in connection with that and i wasn't even allowed to put the questions it was uh and when you look at the terms of reference there is nothing to support what the chairman said it it does not say and transportation of same shall be excluded it says any decisions in connection with send and as far as i'm concerned the transportation thereof forms part part of it and i feel that the narrowness with which the chairman interpreted uh the terms of reference uh has gone uh some considerable distance uh to making this uh subcommittee uh much less successful than it could have been chairman i'm going to leave it there but i thank you for your time and as i say i'm not a member of committee and i will not vote in in connection with it because i'm away now thank you thank you mr ryaner and i have to come back to your opening comment and i'm particularly humbled by that so thank you for that and yeah it's close on 20 years worth of scrutiny experience so thank you and i'm very aware of that meeting where you raise and you've got to go i'm very aware of that meeting where that proposal was tabled it was seconded and it was voted upon and the vote was to return it to scrutiny that was the vote of the committee on that on that meeting so i'm very conscious of that i still have a number of speakers um mr love as the portfolio holder um i'll let you step in because you've just waved at me before i bring in um shillina and Leslie please chairman i thank you um for letting me both attend and speak um i don't want to get involved with the decision of this committee about whether to continue with its subcommittee or not that is a matter for this committee it's not a matter for me it's not a matter for me to attempt to influence and i will from the political administration's point of view i will echo some of the words that mr what's has already used regarding officers um we will also make the time and the give the attendance uh to serve the scrutiny process wherever that is that is for the committee to decide i will be available to answer its questions and that is a view shared across the the administration and and that's why i wanted just to comment because there have been suggestions that information hasn't been made available or requests for information haven't been supplied or answers haven't been given i'm not aware of any answers that have been left any questions have been left unanswered i'm not aware of any information that hasn't been given and i would be extremely concerned had at any stage during the last year uh i'd been made aware that that there was a feeling that that was happening where information has been available it has been supplied where information in the uh in the format that the committee has requested hasn't been available then officer resource has been um allocated to put that information forward now quite clearly there's always going to be a balance um i i you know off the top of my head right now i can't recall every single request for information and there is always a possibility of information without notice is is asked at a committee uh then it's going to take some time just just to get hold of that information and make it available and so it's always helpful to understand exactly what the committee subcommittee um wants before a meeting uh and the kind of catch all we want everything is not awfully helpful what what i am acutely aware of is that producing data uh can be quite resource intensive and i've been particularly aware that i want the officers working within my portfolio to be doing the job that we need to do um as required under the improvement notice and as required because that's what we want to do rather than diverting attention from that to producing vast amounts of information which which may not always be required so we've got to be quite focused about that um and i would as i said i would be quite concerned if um there's a sort of diversion from doing the job in hand now having said that i don't think that's i don't think that's ever been a problem and i'm quite surprised to hear one or two of the comments uh this morning that um this is afternoon that um that uh that the information wasn't forthcoming that surprises me um certainly i've attempted to answer every question that i've been asked and you know i sort of stick my hand up here if any member who's yet to speak things that i haven't asked answered questions i guess i'm more or less inviting that to be flagged up but certainly my intention has been to answer every question i might also just add i don't recognize the description of the subcommittee uh that the chair has has made that it wasn't a very pleasant environment for members of the administration i don't recognize that i i it's as any scrutiny committee it's going to be challenging that's the scrutiny committee or subcommittee's job but i've i certainly don't believe it's been unpleasant i think it's been um very helpful there have been times when i've i've wondered what is going to come out of a particular line of debate but that's not for me to to ask us for the subcommittee um and and and for the chair to to manage um but certainly i don't i'd you know having having put it on the public record i just wanted to put my view that it has been a very civil and very inquiring um discussion and it's for the committee members to decide at what stage they think that very special treatment of a separate subcommittee um is is no longer required when it becomes business as usual but that's that's that's your business but i just wanted to set a couple of records straight there gentlemen thank you thank you mr love uh and uh acknowledge again that i don't think it's a case of it was an unpleasant situation an unpleasant meeting i subbed on two of those meetings um and i find them really engaging and quite lively through mr cole's chairing so yeah i've got no issue with that um i'm working down shalina and then Leslie please thank you chairman um i was appointed to the subcommittee just a few weeks ago and here we are before i've had a single meeting as an official member we're talking about its future but i have dipped into one or two meetings uh in the past because i have a huge interest in this area and i know how important it is to the council to all of us as you've pointed out earlier um i've always understood the scope of of the subcommittee to be uh to to uh look at the inspection findings and the APP the recommendations that are made and the and the processes that we're going to be putting into place so uh miss hawkins mentioned um the meeting at the turn of school i was there and i heard first hand uh the ongoing frustrations that so many parents have with the system as it still remains uh i made a note of those and passed them all on to the chairman and to the clerk to to the subcommittee um i'm sure all of us in this chamber are talking to parents who are still expressing frustration at the lack of comedic uh miss miss mrs binks is nodding her head and i know we've had similar experiences so um that still remains an ongoing problem i think it's become far more difficult for members to advocate for residents uh at the moment again i don't know what the reason behind this is but just just just to sum up uh from what i have read and what i have understood there is a lot of work that's gone into putting processes together i am really outcome focused and what i think we need to be looking at as a subcommittee is how is what the outcomes are going to look like not just the processes that have been put in place we need to see that this is actually working for children and young people and their families so if there is a recommendation to be made to continue this subcommittee in maybe in a different format in a strengthened format i think it's going to need some thought behind it because obviously there's been some frustration expressed in this chamber about how it has worked to date i think it has a place and if there is a recommendation to be made i would fully support that thank you thank you shalina uh Leslie please uh thank you um i've come into this really late because i wasn't even a member of scrutiny until a few months ago um but looking at this and listening to everybody i agree with what shalina's just said Trevor and Ross i agree with you all and i do wonder what the actual purpose was i say i wasn't here in the beginning what the actual purpose of setting up this subcommittee was when i read this yes there are the processes as shalina said i didn't realize all the actions of actually taking things have been taken place i know nothing about that so if i was a parent and i was seeing this it wouldn't mean much to me at all and what really worries me is this is the reputation of not the subcommittee it's the reputation of scrutiny and i don't think this holds us up very well thank you thank you Leslie uh mr. Simon Webb please and then mr. Anthony who's gone thank you chair um i came into the chamber with a certain view about um this part of scrutiny um and i've now changed completely i welcome the debate i think it's been a really strong debate i have great sympathies for the chair of the committee i've got great sympathies for Joel who wrote the committee report because i think in the first place there's the the range of um objectives given to the committee was too broad and too wide and i think there was too much of a scattergun approach to try to achieve everything in a very short period of time and that's not been critical that's just an observation on that and i think because of that the report that was written was not full enough in detail to be able to give me the confidence to be able to say yes we don't need uh to continue with the subcommittee uh there's not enough information not enough data in there to show that progress has been made now there's a conflict in itself isn't there because where does this data go where does the outcomes go go goes to CYP obviously and i'm sure they do uh stupendous job there it comes to scrutiny does it come to scrutiny or does it go to a subcommittee um my view currently is it must remain within scrutiny and it must remain within scrutiny on a much more refined and defined set of criteria so that we can use the experience of the scrutiny committee to challenge um statements that are being made about the focus and direction of SCND going forward now i'm happy for that to be completely ignored but i think we do need a redefined focus to reflect the great work that's being done by officers in CYP to affect the changes that have already happened but members must have the data behind those changes to be able to feel confident in the way that this progress is being made thank you thank you simon um right i have mr hook mrs dean uh jenny and then lauren please in that order thank you chairman i'm sorry to leave the room uh to deal with the matter for ten minutes i'll say um i don't actually this is a really interesting discussion to listen to and particularly interesting for me as someone who wasn't on the subcommittee to hear from the um from the chair and various people who were on it it in from the report it seems to me there's still a big job of work to do and i noticed on page it's 42 2.11 six there's a list of effectively outstanding questions which sound would read like very important questions and they need to be addressed and the the question it seems to me for us is scrutiny committee right now is where and how should they be addressed at my recollection of when the scrutiny decided that the subcommittee was effectively to to create an extra space an extra venue in which there'd be room to do this very important work i mean it's not the only important work i don't think anyone thinks it's the only important work but we we had this um troubling offstead report over a year ago and it was decided that it needed special attention and i i thought and still think that creating the subcommittee was a sensible step it seems to me if we bought it into the main scrutiny committee to give it the attention it deserves there would be a risk that would squeeze out other work that the scrutiny might do or it would get squeezed by that work because with the better in the world there are only so many hours in the day and so creating the extra subcommittee with a different set of people on had an advantage and i think actually some local councils have more than one scrutiny committee indeed to to have that bigger capacity and the other issue i've been told is that within syp cabinet committee where the agendas are huge um almost every meeting is there is a risk of send being squeezed and not as addressed there as fully as it could be at this subcommittee it sounds like people who've been on the subcommittee feel this scope for it to do better and let's do that let's let's draw together the concerns that people have had um and if they say perhaps adjust its terms of reference or make clearer um the basis on which is meant to operate i mean i was uh mrs bruno mentioned that she asked the question was told something like that's not a matter for this committee i don't like hearing things like that to be on i don't know what the question was but to the extent our name is is bruno i've got confidence that it would have been a reasonably relevant question and it's for people on committee to decide what's relevant um so i think that's something that that shouldn't be heard um and perhaps if we necessarily need to adjust the basis on which the committee is set up to make it clear that it's got the same powers as the main scrutiny committee to ask any question that it wants to but where i am at the moment the basis of everything i've heard is i think the subcommittee should continue perhaps with some adjustment to it to refine it and to improve it what i haven't heard is an alternative for what's going to happen next if we don't do that thank you mr hook i think there is a little qualification on that um sorry um when the subcommittee was set up if i'm not mistaken they have exactly the same powers that this committee has i'm looking for a nod yep so so that they could have done the things that we've amplified this more this afternoon i'll let it continue i'm toying with a couple of things i've got mrs dean miss Hawkins miss Hawkins and Dr Sullivan please thank you chairman um in your opening remarks you you said quite rightly that the um creation of this committee reflected the concerns um in this council um about the issues that council has had with special education needs and the issues more importantly that parents were expressing as a result of the the service delivery that we were providing um and also remembering that this is the single biggest risk factor on the county council's risk register um and that putting all of those three together this was clearly an issue of urgency and an issue which engaged a huge number of parents in Kent whom we represented and we felt were not being whose views we felt were not being reflected anywhere else um and the um practicalities of raising all of those issues through the false group in the committee your committee were proving overwhelming and that we agreed and now we had a number of conversations you and i chairman about the urgency of the issue and the importance of the issue and so um i was pleased that the agreement was to set it up i was extraordinarily disappointed that it took several months for the first committee meeting to be held and that there were not in my view there was not enough urgency um put behind the issue to reflect what we believed at the time um the committee did not have the best beginning we had a lot of adverse publicity i remember in the first few meetings however it is the only place chairman where parents get to hear the detail or could get to hear the detail of what's going on mr stripefield has quite rightly pointed out that all of this information that's being requested is going to the assurance board but that's not public and it is not webcast which is the case here in the opening meetings we did have quite a number of parents here um and as mr but the recalled um there was a larger number of people who listened to the program to the to the program the meeting um in terms of engaging parents i'd be the first to accept that the committee has not been working efficiently in that way um however it is the only vehicle that we have got which does any of that any of the engaging of parents and and there are still parents who watch and the when the um resolution was made to call this meet this committee to an end and your report says that was in march it wasn't actually it was in february and the when the that proposal was made the the lady on the the send committee who represents packed told me at the last meeting that she was inundated on her computer which she was watching on social media at the time with parents protesting what on earth is the county council thinking about withdrawing the only way in which we can listen to what the county council is doing why are they doing this why having said that the county council has a commitment to reviewing and getting involved much more and supporting parents are you now cutting out the only mechanism that parents have to listen to those arguments so there was a lot of adverse parental comment at that proposal even though they they their view at the same time and i agree with it is that the committee was not having sufficient impact the other issue is not only would with this um action to end the committee have that effect on parental views about what we were doing it would also arguably have an effect on offstead and what view would offstead take of the county council was which was going to stand down or stand back from the only mechanism it had for engaging members and parents um so there's an engagement issue my only issue chairman with the involvement with all of this issue coming back to main scrutiny is that is is the sheer capacity of time that you have as mr hooders rep has has pointed out your committee covers the entire gamut of the county council services what we agreed was originally that this issue was so important that it needed more time than that and that is still the case in my view so i i would really like to know how the mechanism could be developed to overcome that third point i would make chairman is that the job of this committee is far from finished the report that you have we have to in front of us today talks about the comments made to offstead in the in the assurance board and and elsewhere that although they are happy in many respects with the actions that the assurance board is taking they are still not convinced on a large number of those issues and have demanded more detail and more evidence about the outcomes of the actions proposed that's that's evidence that we've been asking for on the same committee um but which we still feel is lacking um just as one example the information that we were given in the report in february where the proposal was to stand down the committee itself records that the one-year review on children who already have an ehcp still has a backlog of over 800 children and that it will not be cleared until september 25 so there are many issues like just like that which have a long way to run and it is accepted by everybody and including officers here um that influencing um getting a change in the parental perception the parental experience or what kenties doing is not changing quickly enough or indeed in some places at all so chairman i i am very disappointed that the committee has not fulfilled more of what our original intention was but i think very seriously that it would be the wrong action to take to dissolve it i think it's the only thing we've got frankly and what we should be doing is building on it making it better making it more fit for purpose and and we need to work harder at doing that otherwise i think the reputation of the county council will suffer uh in all of those areas i've described thank you thank you mrs steene i'd never come back at one point before i move on to to jenny um the comment about the frequency of meetings the comment about can we sustain it as a scrutiny committee should we get to that point later um since march last year this committee has met 11 times the sense of committee has met five times six times in that period um and to add to that some of the dissection of cabinet decisions and obligations to this committee have been dispatched thoroughly and i think we've never been left waiting longer than a couple of weeks and for any additional information so we have dealt with that and i reiterate we do have that power as the center committee does to call an extraordinary meeting as they wish jenny please before you do i know mr love and his team uh do need to move what what what's your latest Rory two minutes okay jenny please okay thank you chairman i won't speak for too long um i agree with much of what uh mrs steene has said um and in addition i think what's what's really good and what's been really valuable in the committee is is those outside physics and listening to the parents um which is something separate than from what what kind of happens at scrutiny um so i think that's really valuable and i think it would be really good moving forward perhaps if we could um you know track those comments that were made and then you know continue to to have that engagement um those outside visits really until until we see things are improving through the eyes of the parents and i do think that's really valuable so i think we need to continue with it for that reason thank you very much i have two more dr solven and then mrs streckfield agree we need a public scrutiny we need uh that transparency i think we we do need that special space so that's our subcommittee i think it probably does need a bit of reform and focus um and the specifically the visits out the visits out to the institutes uh the schools has also been really good but it's about the yeah a refresh of what are the terms references um and i agree with everything that true d um i said thank you laurin mrs streckfield very briefly i just want to agree with mr steene on how that should proceed but i do want to make the committee aware of one area that has completely transformed so the send newsletter used to go out to 400 people and was opened by about a third of them the send newsletter now goes out to 16 000 people and is opened by 60 percent of them and anybody involved in politics knows that a 60 percent open rate on a on a email newsletter means there is incredibly high engagement with that community so i think just that one piece of information gives you some idea of of a little bit of the transformation that has already happened and if the rest of it follows admittedly we are all looking for a faster better quicker process but where the gap is is in the mechanism of the of the committee not in the actual stuff that's been done and i would thoroughly recommend the continuation of it as a separate item or a separate committee and to reconstitute it to make it effective thank you mr streckford always like statistics i think this committee's currently we're at 98 percent attendance um right i've got ros and then i've got becky please can i just say that uh my comment about disbanding it was based on the fact that it was a committee as it is if there is talk about it being strengthened in the ways that have been suggested then i think it makes sense to keep it but my my comment is totally was that the committee as it is was not um pulling its weight so i would i would support any effort to continue it if it is strengthened thank you uh becky please thank you chairman i think after the last two speakers i think uh they they've covered what i want to say but i also because i agree with them as well the way that it was the the format of the of of the committee wasn't working and i think that's what led with the frustration of the actual vote in the end to send it back to scrutiny was because of that rather than the discussions that were going on but i also think that this is such a big subject that i also don't think once a month is sufficient and i think it should be every couple of weeks um that's how important the uh the the the uh the subject is if it comes back to uh the sub scrutiny committee thanks thank you ben please um and i i think we perhaps and there's how you take this forward and the conversation we need to take place needs to look at the resourcing that's available because i think there is a reality of how things are reported and there are things that are being reported in other places as well that perhaps we could bring the same information through to the as again coming back to what mr Stravfield said earlier that would reduce the impact because otherwise we're going to end up in a situation where everybody is writing reports rather than making some of the improvements that need to be made and i think it's about clarity of the question and clarity of the ask so that people can come ready to answer the questions that have got meaningfully and i think there's some work to be done outside of here perhaps before your next meeting chairman as to how we achieve that best um i and i think then a timetable of activity that supports that that sometimes might meet more often and sometimes might be meet less and also probably a commitment from those members that are on that so to say that group because i think there will be an awful lot of papers that are created and will you know there's an intensity and mrs binks is here um and there's a number of members of this committee who also members of governance and audit or past members and will know the sort of intensity of the paperwork that's going to be involved i think the sense of sub committee is going to move into a similar space where members the sort of the ask of those members and we perhaps just need to think about the time that's needed for everybody to be able to do those things meaningfully so that you get the outcomes that all of the members this morning have talked about and we make sure that the progress isn't um is is appropriately reported on appropriately scrutinized um and everything's done in a proportional way thank you Ben okay Becky you want to come back briefly thank you Rory thank you Christine thank you Sarah thank you chairman um i wonder i mean i'm i'm speaking out loud as such as all my thoughts are is that if we have meetings maybe we have a the subscription committee once a month like we would agree but maybe have a meeting where we can meet outside of the public arena to find out exactly what we're doing so it's more intense we can actually look at the uh particular questions or something that we can bring up in the monthly meeting and maybe even give the officers um the heads up on on give it getting the information for that month that we're going to be in the public arena it's an idea thank you um hang on we we've got a whole plethora of hands now we need to we need to get some direction on this what i'm going to say the subcommittee took a vote on the seventh of february of this year to bring the actions of that committee back to this committee okay so that committee voted on that and that vote was one to bring it back here so we need to consider whether this committee takes that on so that is the proposal from me that this committee takes on the sense of committee task within the scrutiny banner through this committee at a frequency of meetings that we consider appropriate i've already said that we've met 11 times since the inception of the sense of committee that is the proposal yes when you say to frequency acceptable are you saying for just this issue or are you saying the whole committee would need to meet if there was an agenda generated that required it by this additional information this additional issue if this committee takes on the matter this committee will meet as a committee appropriately to deal with that in addition to our normal workload correct mr strepfield you're speaking to that proposal i am chair the assurance board has met monthly and for three hours every month in order to get to the level of assurance that we have that is incomplete but is as i mentioned we feel confident with is that regularity and quantity of work within the capability of this committee my answer is it has to be because at this moment in time the same subcommittee has the full resource of a senior democratic services officer so we have to have that facility that's your answer please mr web i think in terms of efficiencies it should remain i'd like to support what you're saying i think it should remain within scrutiny but the length of the scrutiny meetings are extended to the full day and that a portion of that day itself focuses on ICND okay Ben please um there's a political direction of travel which is fine could we i would like to have the conversation about how we structure and do the administration of it if you like outside this room because there are a range of commitments and the range of different things that we've got to manage absolutely hear the challenge which is one about how do you slot all of those things into the agendas and the and the timetable i think the question is members do you want to do this yes or no and then let us go away and work out how and perhaps as i said earlier an informal meeting to discuss the my new shy of that for anyone who's interested to come along and we can we can sort that out and then we can bring the firm proposal back as to how it will be done so do you want to do it yes or no then once you decide what you want to do we can come back with the sort of the administrative detail as to how that's achieved otherwise i think members you'll be here all afternoon discussing and we can make sure that everybody who has a view on what those things need to be can be involved in that embrace that Ben i know there's a whole plethora of behind the scenes activities that we need to kind of choreograph mr webby you happy to second that then yes yeah right so all those in favor of the center committee um matter coming back to this committee formally those please show right i need to count one and me those against that is the minority so that is then carried so the proposal is that it comes back to this committee um what we will do is again in coordination with what Ben has just said we will arrange a separate informal meeting to agree yes um to agree the format of that and how it's going to correlate into our business as usual you call ros um i mean we're expanding the dashboard which will help scrutiny as well yes the dashboard of actions and so on at the moment gna from from governance an audit perspective we've got a dashboard that we're trialling yes in relation to the governance recommendation improvement plan um and that's part of i think the conversation about how we manage and track the things that members want to see here i think that there is i think there's a lot to talk about in that informal meeting and and probably best i leave it there so i think we we can we can go into that in detail so anybody who is interested in in how we as a council and how you as a scrutiny committee and you know so whether it is in the subcommittee or whether it's in you it's still done through the auspices of scrutiny so it is how we go about doing that i think there are as you say mrs binks there are lots of options that we've got around how we can use some of the technology to track requests and responses and so on and so forth but there is the the capacity that i have got for this is effectively guide i know and and Anna as the clerk to this committee and it it's how we how we spread that across the all of the activities that members wish to scrutinize and there are lots of ways we can do that differently to how it's been number four um and happy to have that conversation with you and then i think it would be sensible not least for the public scrutiny perspective and knowing as i do a number of um residents who've written to me in the past about um the publicity of this i think it's important that whatever it is that is then firmly and finally decided pursuant to your decision says then brought publicly and transparently to your next meeting so that everybody can see this is what has been decided and and and able to be able to move forward from that uh yeah perfect thank you Ben i think something else i've mentioned at previous meetings you know this council is in an extraordinarily difficult time extraordinary difficult and if that means this committee has won needs to meet more frequently to ensure that this counts always here tomorrow that's what we will do okay so there's no qualms about that dot Sullivan brilliant thank you um can i just have it recorded in the minutes that i voted against the recommendation thank you Anna thank you right members uh again thank you mr cole thank you gartano appreciate your time today and appreciate the work that's gone on to date which has been a good foundation for moving forward so thank you and mr cook for your opening comments thank you members agenda item e1 this is the work program page 43 to 46 of your agenda pack the recommendation is that we consider and note the report is that considered and noted dot Sullivan hang one second dot Sullivan thank you the on the work program the homeless connect decision back for last year um there were concerns raised that that would cause a impact on our adult social services budget and it was long promise that there would be a review of that decision and whether or not it has meant that there's been an increased demand and need and all that sort of stuff so i'd be very keen to see that coming um on the at a some point so a next meeting or the one in july so i'd be grateful for that thank you that's cool and that moves nicely on to e2 future meeting dates so we'll either see that on the fifth or fifth of june or the tenth of julya members happy with the meeting dates Anna is there anything you wish to add members that's been really constructive thank you very much indeed um some good work done which i echo again and and applaud let's move forward we've got some very busy activity coming up in the next year and we are here to ensure that this council is here tomorrow um have a great reminder of your day take care and close the meeting at five to two thank you [BLANK_AUDIO]