To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
The deadline for the submission of public questions is 3 clear working days before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday the working day before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.
Minutes:
The following three questions and statement were received from Mr Sofianos:
Question 1:
As we know, there’s currently a statutory override in effect for Dedicated Schools Grant deficits. The override has been ringfencing that accumulating deficit, and keeping it off the main balance sheet.
Paragraph 38 of Appendix 1 suggests that if the override is not extended this year, then the Council would need to issue a Section 114 notice in December.
But the override is not currently due to expire until 31st March 2026. So, can Council just confirm, and explain in more detail, its view on when any such notice would need to be issued?
Cllr Richard Burton, Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People, provided an answer as follows:
The statutory override falls away on the 31 March 2026. This means in setting the budget for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 it will need to recognise that the override will not exist at the end of that period and therefore would not be able to set a legally balanced budget for that financial year as at the end of the period it will have a negative reserve position. Consideration in respect of a s114 report will be needed, as a minimum, in late 2024 if the matter has not been resolved before then.
Question 2:
The scenarios set out in Appendix 1 do not include the Government contributions which would be expected under any Safety Valve contract. Agreed contracts would be published in April 2024, but right now these figures are essential to understanding what an overall Safety Valve package would look like.
Can the Council confirm what Safety Valve contributions have been proposed, by Council and Government? And have any such contributions been included in calculations for the Council’s forthcoming budget, and how much if so?
Cllr Richard Burton, Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People, provided an answer as follows:
The proposal has been submitted to DfE. During January we will receive feedback from DfE with regards to the next steps and any Government contributions relating to the Safety Valve proposal. Until this work has been completed there have been no changes to the Council’s budget in this regard.
Question 3:
Paragraph 44 is entitled: “Summary of equality implications”. Yet this simply states: “The purpose of the DSG management plan is to address the financial sustainability of support for pupils with additional needs.”
Obviously this is not in fact an equality statement. But has the Council conducted an equality impact assessment in relation to the Safety Valve scenarios here, and if so, what were its conclusions?
Cllr Richard Burton, Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People, provided an answer as follows:
This work would be completed when a proposal or agreement would be reached.
Statement:
The scenarios provided for future
services are alarming. Even the best-case version shows
numerous reductions in services and spend – based not on
need, but on quota. And the papers raise concerns about
legality, deliverability, cost of appeals, impact on reputation,
and above all, the impact on children.
Yet even this scenario leaves in-year
deficits at almost the same level as now.
This is a disturbing insight into Safety Valve, which confirms so many fears about this project. And it fails to address the background to this situation: lack of adequate funding, lack of coherent national schools policy, and a refusal to confront the ticking timebomb of the statutory override.
Other approaches are possible – which prioritise the experience and well-being of our children. And a more sustainable national policy is surely inevitable. I therefore ask the Committee to consider a motion to oppose this approach, and reject Safety Valve.