Better Children’s Services: the Education Select Committee

This is going back a few days (it’s been a busy week); on Tuesday I gave evidence to the House of Commons Education Select Committee on aspects of the government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I was there in my role as Children’s Services spokesperson for the County Councils Network (CCN), although I also made reference to experiences in Kent, and was alongside representatives from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the National Network for the Education of Care Leavers and the charity Kinship.

This was to some degree a repeat of the evidence that I gave to the same Committee (albeit with entirely different membership) in March last year. As before, this covered the problems of cost and service availability in children’s services. This was the subject of the well-regarded Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, chaired by Josh MacAlister (now a Labour MP), followed by a White Paper and a number of initiatives under the previous government. The difference this time is that there is now legislation under consideration, and that the evidence session focused on the Bill’s provisions in relation to management of the market, the development of Regional Care Cooperatives, kinship care, the expanding role of Virtual Schools and care leavers.

While I am critical of some of the education provisions of the Bill (some of which the government has had to row back on), the approach to children’s services is sensible and a welcome example of continuity between governments and across parties. In particular, the problems in the provision of children’s social care (highlighted in a report by the CMA some years ago) are best addressed through strengthening local authority commissioning and increasing the supply of places, as argued in a report (The Way We Care) commissioned by CCN last year. The bill gives the Secretary of State powers to introduce a profit cap, but it is very much a reserve power if other measures fail. That is a right and pragmatic approach; a cap now, without the introduction of other measures, could simply reduce the available provision.

At the end of the session, I highlighted “the elephant in the room”: the £2.5 billion in funding that Josh MacAlister highlighted as necessary to deliver the reforms that the Independent Review advocated. The previous government’s White Paper, Stable Homes, Built on Love was well-received but did not commit to this funding. In the autumn budget and subsequent local government financial settlement, the government established a £270 million Children’s Social Care Prevention Grant. I urged that this should be viewed as a down payment on the funding needed to deliver a comprehensive programme of reform.

You can find the evidence session on the parliamentary TV channel here.

Care Home Support: Kent's submission

On 14 May, the Care Minister Helen Whately wrote to Council Leaders (including me) setting out the government's plans for supporting care homes in tackling the impacts of Covid-19, including a £600 million Infection Control Fund. It also has a significant role for local authorities.

The Infection Control Fund (Kent's share of which is almost £19 million) will be channelled through local authorities, although three quarters of it will be allocated to care homes on a sum per bed formula.  However, local authorities will have a role in assuring that the money is spent on infection control, as well as drawing up, along with local NHS leaders, a Care Home Support Plan. This is incorporated in a letter setting out both the financial (and other) support that the local authority is providing to the sector and the mechanisms of monitoring and support to the sector in tackling infection. The letter is accompanied by a completed template profiling the situation of the care sector in terms of infection control.

As the County Councils Network pointed out, this is a significant extension of the role of local authorities in social care, both in terms of taking us into a more regulatory role and in building connections with the many care homes with whom we do not have a direct relationship (since they support only 'self-funders' rather than those supported by KCC). Although it raises legal, capacity and other challenges for local authorities, it is in my view (and that of KCC0 overall a welcome and certainly important step.

Care Home Support Plans were required to be submitted on Friday, 29 May. You can find Kent's letter and completed template via this page of the KCC website.

PPE: progress but always precarious

There has been huge, and justified national attention on the issue of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during the Covid-19 crisis. Pressures are felt at the levels of national and global supply chains, but Kent County Council, working through the Kent Resilience Forum and our commercial company, Kent Commercial Services, has undertaken extensive work to deliver PPE within the county. 

This is separate from, and additional to the several drops of supplies from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), which I and other senior Members and officers have consistently lobbied for. All this was done from a starting point where KCC held only modest stocks of PPE for the use of our own staff,  while care providers sourced their own supplies. 

At close of business on 23 April, we had supplied over 1.4 million pieces of PPE in over 700 separate deliveries since the 3 April.  The table below provides details of the equipment delivered – all of it essential to support the safe provision of services to the most vulnerable. 

Items	Total
Type IIR Masks (or equivalent)	258,400
Respirator masks (or equivalent)	10,660
Extra-large gloves	10,260
Large gloves	251,420
Medium gloves	380,300
Small gloves	155,400
Aprons	319,200
Protective Goggles	14,307
Sanitiser 100ml	4,825
Sanitiser 500ml	120
Sanitiser 5L	112
Clinical waste bags.	16,000

Deliveries have happened every day, with the exception of Easter Sunday, and even that day was covered by our daily out of hours service.  The weekend of 18 and 19 April saw 170 separate deliveries.

All PPE and deliveries have been made free of charge.  By working closely with our partners in the Kent Resilience Forum our supply chain, which includes Kent based suppliers, has got and continues to get more robust.  We now have more substantial stocks of some key items including over 600,000 of the Type IIR Surgical Mask with more on the way, which were in very short supply only a few weeks ago. 

None of this is plain sailing and some items, such as Respirator Masks, are still quite scarce, albeit we have now sourced a reliable supply.  Demand for equipment and deliveries from KCC continues to rise.  The average daily delivery of Type IIR Masks over the last 21 days has been 12,300.  On 23^rd April 25,000 were despatched with over 29,000 already ordered for delivery on the 24^th April.  Forecasting demand has been and continues to be very difficult, exacerbated by the evolving national guidance on the correct use of PPE which has been a challenge both in terms of supply but also for our own services and provides in their provision of clear guidance to front line carers and staff.

There have been recent reports that a national online portal allowing primary and social care providers to order supplies of PPE will not be fully operational for another five weeks.  This acts as a reminder that even with the huge amount of work described here, the situation will always remain fragile, reflecting the rapid use of the equipment, changes in national guidance and fluctuations in deliveries from the centre.  Given these extreme difficulties that are widely acknowledged to exist in this area, it is right to be proud of the excellent work that has been done by KCC and the KRF. But the situation continues to evolve and remains precarious.