红桃影视

A cash-strapped council has warned it will be 鈥渄isadvantaged鈥� if the government鈥檚 SEND deficits write-off grant does not reimburse its contributions to the controversial 鈥渟afety valve鈥� programme.

Ministers , which will wipe out 90 per cent of SEND deficits accrued as of the end of March. In return, councils will need to take steps to implement the government鈥檚 SEND reforms.

The previous government鈥檚 safety valve (SV) scheme, which saw deficit-riddled councils handed extra government funding in exchange for measures to reduce costs, came to an end in March.

As part of the agreements, some councils had to dip into their general fund, which does not ordinarily fund schools, to shore up their dedicated schools grant (DSG) budgets.

拢3.6m contributed

While other safety valve councils have welcomed the write off, North Tyneside council has claimed the current approach would leave it at a 鈥渄isadvantage鈥� compared to non-safety valve councils because it had paid 拢3.6 million from its general fund into its agreement before it ended in March.

The council, which has a 拢12.4 million deficit, said it had asked for its contribution to 鈥渇orm part of the high needs stability grant calculation鈥�. In practice, this would mean 拢3.25 million, or 90 per cent of the council鈥檚 contribution, being repaid, it said.

North Tyneside said its request was made 鈥渙n the basis that without these contributions the deficit would have been significantly higher than the current position鈥�.

The request also reflected 鈥渢he principle that councils with a safety valve agreement will be treated equitably with other councils and will not be disadvantaged by their participation in the safety valve programme鈥�.

North Tyneside said the government 鈥渉as suggested that general fund costs will not be taken into account in the calculation of the high needs stability grant.

鈥淗owever, we remain in discussions on this point as we feel this approach means that the council is disadvantaged as a result of its participation in the safety valve programme, having made significant direct contributions from its general fund to reduce the DSG deficit, which contradicts the earlier principle and intention.”

However, Department for Education (DfE) guidance for the high needs stability grant insists the write off is 鈥渕ore generous than the support most local authorities would have received鈥�, and that no town hall 鈥渨ill be disadvantaged by its participation鈥� in the SV scheme.

Worse off?

Rachel Filmer, co-founder of Save Our Children鈥檚 Rights campaign, said: 鈥淐ouncils continue to argue over financial fairness, but children and families have paid the price for safety valve, whether their council joined the scheme or not.

鈥淚t is impossible to state whether LAs would be better or worse off had they not joined the scheme, given the impact of targets and DfE payments.

鈥淚t does seem likely that councils who had contributions from general funds, and then had payments halted, will find themselves worse off for having signed an agreement.鈥�

North Tyneside has already taken money out of its schools budget to prop up its SEND black hole.

The council transferred 0.5 per cent of the schools budget 鈥� amounting to 拢800,000 鈥� into its high needs block this financial year. It then applied to breach minimum funding rules to level out the cash lost by schools.

Councils had to send their draft local SEND reform plans on May 18, with final drafts due in June. If approved, they will receive the deficit write-off.

Schools Week revealed in March that the government will give top marks to councils with 鈥渓ittle to no鈥� plans to increase special school or alternative provision capacity.

But Filmer warned that the local plans 鈥渞isk becoming a national version of the safety valve, tied to financial conditions rather than children鈥檚 needs鈥�.