On the specific subject matter of this, yet again, excellent article, I would say (from my own experience of three decades in the Civil Service) that public bodies do not turn down invoices from other public bodies at all lightly. There will be a very good (and fully documented) set of reasons for having done so, most likely that payment of these invoices would not pass external audit. It reflects very poorly on both bodies that no further information on this matter has been placed in the public domain. The evasive response provided to Sarah, and recounted here, is inadequate and, as well, deeply disrespectful, ultimately to the public who, as taxpayers local and national, ultimately have to pay the bill. It would, incidentally, be interesting to know what the situation is on similar invoices and payments in the current year.
More broadly, the public impression of the situation with the Children's Trust is appalling. Again, this is, in significant part, due to the concealment of information by the Trust and by the two councils. But the fact is that the Trust IS spending an anomalously large amount of money. It IS looking after a surprisingly large number of children. It IS conducting its operations inefficiently. It IS doing very badly in most assessments of the quality of the services that it provides. And the processes of scrutiny of the Trust, including the quality of the people representing the public through the councils in doing this, ARE deeply inadequate. Overall, therefore, the public of Northamptonshire ARE receiving extremely poor value through the current arrangements.
Cllr Larratt (whom I do not know and for whom I hold no candle) was quite correct to say, effectively, that the other vital functions of the councils are being undermined by the enormous sums being paid to the Trust. To suggest that he was "blaming the children" was deeply and knowingly disingenuous, to the point where one questions the motivations of the individual who made that remark. The whole issue of the sums expended by local taxpayers on the Trust, and the quality of service provided, needs as much public airing as possible. To try to shut down the subject in order to make a cheap political point was and is deeply reprehensible.
There is, to my mind, no solution to the problems of, and caused by, the Trust (that I listed above) that can or will be found through the mechanisms currently in place. Yet, if nothing is done, both the councils and the services to children themselves will collapse. The only way ahead is through external intervention by the relevant Government department, which is the DLUHC. Our local MPs, and, as well, the candidates who wish to take their places, should be calling for this, yet they are not. Why?
My own experience of having to deal with the system providing supported accomodation for those on Section3 is that some of these "hostels " and flats are set up by unscrupulous people who are there to milk the system by not providing proper, and in some cases any, support for the individuals under their "care". There are islands of good practise but the odds of finding available ones is very low.
Those monitoring that system are always changing jobs and it is too easy to put one over on them - hence the vast somes being expended to no good outcome.
Surely looked after children should be brought back “in house”. These private companies are ripping off the taxpayer, and provide a totally unacceptable environment for these vulnerable children. These massive sums of money could be spent renting (initially) homes in the county and paying for real caring staff. Shipping these poor children off to far away areas is not going to help them. I realise a small minority do need to move away for a time, as they are at risk from former associates involved in County Lines organisations, but these should come back as soon as it’s safe.
On the specific subject matter of this, yet again, excellent article, I would say (from my own experience of three decades in the Civil Service) that public bodies do not turn down invoices from other public bodies at all lightly. There will be a very good (and fully documented) set of reasons for having done so, most likely that payment of these invoices would not pass external audit. It reflects very poorly on both bodies that no further information on this matter has been placed in the public domain. The evasive response provided to Sarah, and recounted here, is inadequate and, as well, deeply disrespectful, ultimately to the public who, as taxpayers local and national, ultimately have to pay the bill. It would, incidentally, be interesting to know what the situation is on similar invoices and payments in the current year.
More broadly, the public impression of the situation with the Children's Trust is appalling. Again, this is, in significant part, due to the concealment of information by the Trust and by the two councils. But the fact is that the Trust IS spending an anomalously large amount of money. It IS looking after a surprisingly large number of children. It IS conducting its operations inefficiently. It IS doing very badly in most assessments of the quality of the services that it provides. And the processes of scrutiny of the Trust, including the quality of the people representing the public through the councils in doing this, ARE deeply inadequate. Overall, therefore, the public of Northamptonshire ARE receiving extremely poor value through the current arrangements.
Cllr Larratt (whom I do not know and for whom I hold no candle) was quite correct to say, effectively, that the other vital functions of the councils are being undermined by the enormous sums being paid to the Trust. To suggest that he was "blaming the children" was deeply and knowingly disingenuous, to the point where one questions the motivations of the individual who made that remark. The whole issue of the sums expended by local taxpayers on the Trust, and the quality of service provided, needs as much public airing as possible. To try to shut down the subject in order to make a cheap political point was and is deeply reprehensible.
There is, to my mind, no solution to the problems of, and caused by, the Trust (that I listed above) that can or will be found through the mechanisms currently in place. Yet, if nothing is done, both the councils and the services to children themselves will collapse. The only way ahead is through external intervention by the relevant Government department, which is the DLUHC. Our local MPs, and, as well, the candidates who wish to take their places, should be calling for this, yet they are not. Why?
My own experience of having to deal with the system providing supported accomodation for those on Section3 is that some of these "hostels " and flats are set up by unscrupulous people who are there to milk the system by not providing proper, and in some cases any, support for the individuals under their "care". There are islands of good practise but the odds of finding available ones is very low.
Those monitoring that system are always changing jobs and it is too easy to put one over on them - hence the vast somes being expended to no good outcome.
Surely looked after children should be brought back “in house”. These private companies are ripping off the taxpayer, and provide a totally unacceptable environment for these vulnerable children. These massive sums of money could be spent renting (initially) homes in the county and paying for real caring staff. Shipping these poor children off to far away areas is not going to help them. I realise a small minority do need to move away for a time, as they are at risk from former associates involved in County Lines organisations, but these should come back as soon as it’s safe.