This Council notes that Oxfordshire's High Needs Block deficit is estimated to be £21.3 million for 2023/24, while across England the deficit totals £3.16 billion. The statutory override currently in place allows local authorities to temporarily hold this debt off their balance sheets but this measure only delays addressing a growing financial crisis.
The reasons behind the High Needs Block deficit are complex and reflect deep, systemic issues within the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system. It is unrealistic to expect local authorities to manage such significant deficits in a short time frame without reform of the SEND system and baseline funding increases.
Current SEND funding is based on outdated need due to an inadequate funding formula. Education Health Care Plans have risen from 3000 in 2014 to more than 7000 in 2024. Without reform, if the statutory override were to be removed, a quarter of local authorities would be insolvent within one year and another quarter within three years.
This Council requests that the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for Education to seek urgent clarity on the government’s long-term plan for addressing the High Needs Block deficit. Council recommends that the letter should call for reform of the SEND system to ensure it is fit for purpose and provide appropriate baseline funding to ensure local authorities can sustainably manage their financial responsibilities without resorting to temporary fixes.
Minutes:
Councillor Hanna raised a point of order under Council Procedure Rules 15.6.1 stating that she believed the amendment proposed to this motion introduced a substantially different proposal in that it effectively removed the Council as a stakeholder in the issue.
The Monitoring Officer responded that the amendment still involved writing a letter and the question of what was included in that letter was a matter for Council. If Members disagreed with the amendment, her advice was that they could vote against it.
The motion was proposed by Councillor Hanna and seconded by Councillor Levy.
The following amendment was proposed by Councillor Baines and seconded by Councillor Brighouse.
“This Council notes that Oxfordshire's High Needs Block deficit is estimated to be £21.3 million for 2023/24, while across England the deficit totals £3.16 billion. The statutory override currently in place allows local authorities to temporarily hold this debt off their balance sheets but this measure only delays addressing a growing financial crisis.
The reasons behind the High
Needs Block deficit are complex and reflect deep, systemic issues
within the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)
system. These issues were exacerbated by moves to increase
eligibility for statutory support without additional financial
assistance following the Coalition’s Children and Families
Act 2014. It is unrealistic to expect local authorities to
manage such significant deficits in a short time frame without
reform of the SEND system and baseline funding
increases.
This Council believes that the current SEND system has lost the confidence of families.
This Council welcomes the new Government’s commitment to regaining parents’ confidence and commitment to whole-system reform. Council recognises these reforms will take time to develop and implement and welcomes the independent insight provided by the recent National Audit Office report.
Current SEND funding is
based on outdated need due to an inadequate funding formula.
Education Health Care Plans have risen from 3000 in 2014 to more
than 7000 in 2024. Without reform, if the statutory override
were to be removed, a quarter of local authorities would be
insolvent within one year and another quarter within three
years.
Following debate, a motion was proposed to put the question of the amendment, proposed by Councillor Bartholomew and seconded by Councillor Reeves.
The motion was carried with 29 votes in favour, 11 against and 0 abstentions.
Following the summing up by the mover, the amendment was lost with 13 votes in favour, 29 against and 0 abstentions.
Following further debate on the motion, it was carried with 28 votes in favour, 14 against and no abstentions.