Kent County Council refuse scrutiny of Childrens Improvement Plan
April 11, 2011 12:21 PM
The Lib Dem Leader of the opposition at Kent County Council (KCC) has reacted angrily against KCC refusal to allow councillors to question its Action Plan for improving services to Children at risk.
The County's Cabinet Scrutiny Committee indicated that it wished to discuss the Improvement Plan as soon as it was available, and was due to discuss it at Wednesday's meeting after it was published this week.
But on Thursday Chairman Trudy Dean received a message from officers to say that the report must not be discussed until KCC's Cabinet have first considered it in May.
Trudy said:
"Twenty four hours after Paul Carter told the Council that KCC would be open and transparent about these serious failings, I have been told that we are not to be allowed to question councillors and officers. I regard this as an attempt to keep this report out of the public eye until after May's local elections, which is outrageous."
"These children are the most vulnerable in our communities; they may have no parents, or have parents who cannot care for them properly, or worse, abuse them physically or through neglect. KCC must explain how their services failed these children so miserably and what they are intending to do about it.Sweeping it under the carpet just makes people think there is even more KCC incompetence to hide.
In October an unannounced inspection of KCC Childrens Services found them to be inadequate, exposing children to serious risk of harm as a result. Further investigations showed 2,700 children at risk had no allocated case worker. Five months later KCC has published its action plan to improve services this week.
Last Wednesday KCC admitted in answer to Trudy that 327 children had gone missing from Care in Kent and that KCC records were inadequate to account for these incidents.
Labour Group Leader Les Christie has backed Trudy's statement. Les, Leader of the 3 strong Labour group on Kent County Council, commented:
"This issue has been badly handled. Up until now I have been ready to believe the Leader when he talked of openess. This decision makes me think again. Nine months since the Ofsted and no Member Group has had the chance to have an input into an Improvement Plan which is now described 'as formally approved and not capable of further revision'. This despite promises from the previous most senior Officer and the then appropriate Cabinet Member.
"It serioiusly calls into question, in my mind, the purpose or point of Scrutiny. Even the offer of a discussion at the next full Council Meeting means little if the Plan is 'not capable of further revision'.