Agenda item

JC referred to the two papers for this item in the agenda pack

NB began by referring to the current financial position.  The outcome position is much better than it has been in previous years. A projected overspend in the high needs block is partly offset by an underspend in the schools block because of the growth fund. Budget management reports for this year mean that the high needs spend is being tightly monitored in much more detail than previously. The Q1 position is still to be confirmed but the direction of travel on the spend side appears to be going in the right direction.  The LA is required to have to have a balanced overall DSG in order to have the £25.5 million cumulative historic deficit written off by the DfE.

NH noted that there were still likely spending commitments, with a backlog of SEND cases in the system that the LA should be paying for. The LA is currently getting EP advice for a large number of cases which will then translate into EHC plans with funding attached, and possibly with special school placements involved.  Once these were confirmed, the level of commitment should be clear and the level of EHC plans known.  NH asked Forum members to note that the Safety Valve programme was predicated on built on previous rates of EHC plan increases and what we are now seeing is three times that level year on year.  Most LAs on the Safety Valve programme are finding they are struggling to hit targets.  Slough is in a relatively good position at the moment.

VH asked what were the potential consequences of not meeting the targets for the Safety Valve programme. What action would the DfE take?

NH responded by explaining that the DfE have confirmed  that the detail of the DSG management plan which underpins the Safety Value programme can be re-negotiated, so that's where we are at the moment. However, the bottom line is that the LA still has to break even in 2025-26.  NH acknowledged that given the pressures coming through on the High Needs Block, this would appear difficult to achieve;  the Safety Valve programme doesn’t reflect the very different national position compared to 12 months ago.

JC referring to VH’s question about “what happens if you don't meet the targets” and asked for confirmation that the output from the safety valve programme is the writing off of the of the cumulative deficit, through some mechanism which relieves the council of that burden.

NH confirmed this is correct.  Targets are set for each year, with ‘chunks’ of funding received if those targets are met.  The largest  amount was has already given in year one. What is at risk is the next chunk of the funding.  NH also stated his belief that the LA could have pushed harder on some of the other support available, for example in relation to capital funding, and that this would be revisited in the renegotiation. 

NH confirmed that previously the safety valve plans were  brought to Schools Forum as a final document. Under the renegotiation, changes in one area may need to be offset with changes somewhere else. Schools Forum direction on these principles which should underpin these decisions will therefore be very welcome, rather than the LA coming to Forum with final decisions made on schools’  behalf. 

JC thanked NH and confirmed that this was helpful clarification and a welcome declaration of commitment to collaborative working, which is something that Forum members have always valued. JC referred back to Forum’s repeated requests for impact assessments and linked this to a sense amongst Forum members of this being ‘done to’ rather than ‘working with. NH advised that his assumption was that Forum would have been made aware of the potential impact of participation in the programme before the LA committed to it. 

JC requested clarification from NB on how many people remained in Slough who were involved in the negotiation of the original safety valve deal, as it were; NB confirmed it was just him.  JC noted that that this gave some perspective in that the DfE appear to be being more flexible about how the program operates and with people now in position who largely weren't involved when it was originally embarked on, the whole situation could be looked at with largely fresh eyes.

NH reflected that this was helpful. However, it did not mean that the safety valve plans were being redrawn. In his view the biggest change was not that somebody different was looking at the safety valve, but rather what was happening nationally in SEND in terms of the pressures coming through.

GD asked about the timescale for any negotiation and whether this would affect next year? NH confirmed that the next meeting with DfE was the following week, but that the detailed scrutiny would happen over the summer with a view to having an idea by September of where we stand.

GD asked NH if he had any sense of the scale of the SEND backlog and whether it would push us back into a major high needs block deficit. NH confirmed that at present they understood how many applications for EHCPs were in the backlog and how many were likely to need a special school place. He reiterated that this was a national issue and anticipated that the DfE would end up putting more funding in to high needs support at a national level – although there were a lot of politics associated with this. n.

PC commented on the complexity of balancing the decisions being made in schools with the DSG priorities. LAs need to make sure the safety valve works out properly, but if schools don't make the right decisions, things could go wrong. It was essential to use the Education Partnership Board as the local mechanism for ensuring that decision making at school and at LA level was mutually beneficial and not disadvantageous to each other. The reality is that schools are not necessarily working in alignment harmony with the Safety Valve objective, because there isn't a shared understanding of how the programme might be changing, and what that will mean for everybody.

NH commented that the way the safety valve programme is set up must reflect the decisions schools are making. The Code of Practice means that certain things have to be done for young people with SEND. If schools have a young person with a need, they are statutorily responsible for delivering with support from the High Needs Block.

MW asked about the Central School Services block and whether the outstanding issue around an apparent underfunding in the CSSB had been addressed. NB responded that he was aware that there was some funding coming out of the CSSB which should be funded from the Council’s general fund.  This was highlighted as part of the Safety Valve, and in discussions with the DfE.  Since then the LA has actually transferred about £250k out of the CSB and in to the general fund. That burden is no longer on the DSG but is part of the Slough deficit.  It is mainly related to the virtual school, which will still be funded. There was also some funding of staff costs that weren’t actually support costs for the DSG but were costs that should be funded from the general fund. They have been transferred out. At the moment the Central School Services block is in a balanced position.

MW asked if the DfE may provide additional protection because there was an historical error where we have had to transfer money every year from school to the CSSB. NB confirmed that historical spend on the CSSB is being reduced by 20% year on year down to zero; an opportunity for Slough to put in a disapplication about 3 years ago for it to be protected was, unfortunately, missed.  However, the burden on the CSSB isn't significant, amounting to around £30k. NB hoped this could be managed within the overall allocation without going back to the DfE; as the error responsibility for missing the opportunity was missed lay with Slough, it probably couldn’t be reopened.