1.1. The Local Government Association (LGA) is the national voice of local government. We are a politically led, cross-party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales.
1.2. Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems.
2.1. Councils have shown leadership and supported their communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Local authorities and their essential workforce have worked hard to protect the most vulnerable within their communities, they have supported businesses and convened the voluntary sector to bring together communities, as well as continuing to deliver key services.
2.2. Local government’s delivery of important public services during this critical time highlights the value of place-based leadership. It has demonstrated how national polices are best achieved with local flexibilities and councils as democratically elected leaders should be free to shape priorities locally as they work best in their communities. With the upcoming English Devolution White Paper and this year’s Spending Review, the Government has a unique opportunity to reset our communities’ relationship with their Government and, in doing so, level up the inequalities faced by our communities.
2.3. The response to COVID-19 demonstrates that centralised design and control of public services from Whitehall does not work as well as an approach that enables councils to innovate, and create services that are tailored to their communities and localities, with government departments supporting councils instead of looking to them as delivery agents. The issues with taking a command and control approach can be seen, for example, around PPE provision and support to the shielded cohort, where involving councils in the design and implementation of national policy at an earlier stage would have avoided several of the problems local authorities encountered. Early engagement with councils on these points would also have resulted in greater effectiveness of the systems put in place.
2.4. Moreover, the results of public polling commissioned by the LGA,[i] shows that resident satisfaction with local government’s response to COVID-19 is high and councils are trusted to support communities in this national crisis. It is essential that this is a key lesson that shapes national policy-making in the future.
2.5. The impact of the pandemic on local economies has been huge and councils have been integral in ensuring that essential local businesses have been able to continue to function. Councils have been given responsibility for paying out the Small Business Grant and the Retail Hospitality and Leisure Grants. Together these amount to £12.3 billion of support to businesses. As of 14 June 2020, local government has paid out £10.37 billion or 84 per cent of the funding. The fund may need to be increased in the future and any unallocated grant should be reinvested back to communities through councils.
2.6. As the economy is being re-opened, businesses that were forced to close have looked to local government for guidance and support about how they can reopen safely. An effective and sustainable stimulus can only be carried out locally. Local economic decisions can only be taken by empowered councils who will know what resources they can expect for the long term, including from the UKSPF, and the flexibility to use them in a way that makes sense locally. It is vital that councils have the flexibility to use different policy levers as they support the economic recovery over the coming months and years.
2.7. LGA analysis indicates that the financial challenge councils are dealing with is nearly £11 billion in 2020/21. Of this, the Government has so far met £3.2 billion with welcome grant funding and CCGs have contributed nearly £300 million from their budgets. Under the principles of the business rates retention system, Government will also absorb half of business rates losses of some councils – but not until next year. We want to work with Government to ensure a package of measures are put in place to address this challenge. These measures will need to provide a bespoke solution to address losses in local taxation, meet all additional costs councils are incurring as a result of the pandemic and provide a guarantee for all lost income from fees and charges and other sources. Councils have a legal duty to balance their budgets each year and these measures are vital if councils are to avoid taking steps, such as in-year cuts to local services.[ii]
2.8. The contribution of health and care staff has rightly been recognised during the pandemic. It has demonstrated the importance of having a highly skilled, well equipped, and supported care workforce, which has been lacking in the main, with high vacancy rates across the NHS and social care. Adult social care workers are beginning to get the recognition they deserve, and we are moving closer to the social care workforce getting parity of esteem to the NHS, although it is still some distance away. This needs to continue and translate into tangible improvements in the pay and status of the adult social care workforce, investment in workplace development and prioritisation of a commitment to address the recruitment challenges throughout social care. There also needs to be strong role for place-based leadership – through health and wellbeing boards – in the local implementation of the NHS Long Term Plan. The response to the pandemic has proved beyond all doubt that health, social care and public health services are all vital components of local systems.
2.9. Data sharing between public services has been essential to support the most vulnerable in our communities. However, the data flows from national to local government have not always worked well, and conversations between Whitehall and councils about these flows has too often focused on processes rather than outcomes, as well as what restrictions need to be placed on sharing data, rather than thinking how we can better use data collectively while meeting data protection requirements. While councils have been a key element of the national system of support to those people who are extremely clinically vulnerable to COVID-19, there have been instances of inconsistent, poor quality and duplicated data along with other issues of delays in providing updates. As a result, councils have spent a lot of time cleansing data and trying to identify means of contacting individuals which could be avoided via improvements. Similarly, the efforts of health and care to support people on discharge from hospital and the care home population has been hampered by a lack of consistently shared data and intelligence.
2.10. Local government has been at the forefront of public service innovation and councils promptly accelerated changes in the use of technology in the early stages of the pandemic. Councils have re-designed how they pay grants and how they administer business rates relief to help businesses who need support. This crisis has shown the major advantages of working digitally and has encouraged all parts of the public sector to embrace it as many have looked to innovations such as remove consultations, remove meetings and digital information transfer. This learning should be embedded and accelerated to ensure more effective public service delivery in the future.
2.11. The LGA has worked to support local government by calling for councils to be able to meet virtually to make sure they can still function. We worked to secure an amendment to the Coronavirus Act to include powers around council meetings and launched a remote council meetings hub alongside partners. Through the LGAs highly valued Sector-Led Improvement offer, our Digital Inclusion programme has provided councils with grants of up to £20,000 each to improve access to digital services. The LGA and councils have also highlighted the importance of maintaining broadband and mobile networks at this vital time, not only for residents working from home or parents home-schooling their children, but for council staff and other local partners providing services to communities. It is vital that the Government continues to work to ensure all areas have good levels of broadband connectivity.
2.12. Councils worked quickly to identify the needs of their vulnerable residents. Children’s services departments moved swiftly to implement new ways of working to ensure they were able to support vulnerable children and young people. We worked with Social Work England and Government to set up a Social Work Together campaign to bring back experienced social workers to help vulnerable children and adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there are numerous examples of local recruitment drives across social care. Social workers and others working across children’s services should be commended for their determination to keep children safe and healthy throughout the crisis. Councils have also supported a wide range of vulnerable adults, including the clinically extremely vulnerable, other non-shielded vulnerable people, older people and other users of adult social care services. In addition, they have provided support for those needing mental health services and councils’ public health teams are prioritising loneliness as part of their COVID-19 responses, with the LGA producing guidance to support them.
2.13. Local government public health teams have worked hard to continue to deliver essential support throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and other business as usual activities, especially in substance misuse and sexual health services and through the Healthy Child programme (0-19 services). The delivery of effective early intervention and specialised public health services is crucial to supporting and protecting acute NHS services at a time of crisis. There is evidence which suggests that some of the social determinants of health, including obesity, poor mental health, and socio-economic status are contributing to higher levels of COVID-19 deaths. This is concerning and underlines the importance of having adequately resourced public health teams.
2.14. It has been great to see so many people come forward to respond to the request for help to support the NHS and their communities. The LGA has worked with NHS England and Improvement and the Government to ensure that there is alignment and coordination between national and local volunteering schemes to support vulnerable people. There was initial concern that the dominance of the national campaign for NHS Volunteer Responders might overshadow and detract from local volunteer recruitment campaigns, but this has not happened. In fact, in almost all areas, the number of people volunteering has greatly outweighed those asking for help. We have consistently highlighted how councils have collaborated effectively with their local voluntary and community sector (VCS) in supporting local vulnerable people, and that work at a national level must complement this.
General
3.1. Councils have led their local communities at this time of national crisis. They have continued to provide an exceptional level of public service to ensure their residents needs are met. Councils have worked tirelessly and continue to do so to protect lives, livelihoods and support the most vulnerable in our communities. For example, councils have delivered food parcels to vulnerable residents and those shielding, created new services to support vulnerable people, ensured schools are kept open for vulnerable children and those of critical workers, helped most rough sleepers off the streets and into safe accommodation, and ensured almost all kerbside waste and recycling collections continued as usual. The response by councils has shown the speed, agility and adaptability with which they can respond to a crisis and highlighted the advantages that locally based design and delivery of services have over centralised control from Whitehall.
3.2. Even at the height of the pandemic, councils have ensured that our most important public services continued. They provided adult social care and support, and children’s services moved swiftly to implement new ways of working to ensure they were able to support vulnerable children and young people.
3.3. The situation has, of course, brought a variety of challenges. Local authorities are facing increased cost and demand pressures, while at the same time seeing a significant drop in income. This is unsustainable and councils need assurance from the Government that all additional costs and losses incurred as a direct result of COVID-19 will be funded.
3.4. Councils also welcomed the Enhanced Discharge Arrangements, which are built on the evidence that going home is the best place for most people after a spell in hospital. The implementation of the guidance, however, in prioritising the NHS’ capacity has had a significant effect on individuals in the care sector, most particularly with the increased flow of discharges to care homes without an adequate testing regime in place.
3.5. Access to PPE and testing have continued to be a concern to the sector and need to be addressed by national government. It is essential that councils’ insight and expertise is utilised by the Government, particularly in testing and tracing. Councils have a unique understanding of their communities and are ideally placed with the skills, knowledge and experience on the ground to help ramp up the level of testing and contact tracing necessary to defeat this disease. Local government will also have a key role to play in developing Local Outbreak Plans.
3.6. The Care Home Support Plans submitted on 29 May 2020 also demonstrate the leadership of councils, with their NHS partners, in promptly establishing effective wrap-around support to the care sector, including across the provision of infection control, PPE and testing kits. The administration of the planning process, however, was chaotic, piecemeal and late, with councils given two weeks to respond to this Government consultation. Similarly, the £600 million fund for infection control has been welcomed as much-needed investment. Providers and councils, however, are frustrated at the overly narrow access criteria. We are calling on Government to work with councils and care providers on national support that is well-planned and co-ordinated, something that has not happened in this instance.
4.1. The LGA ran a public poll on resident satisfaction with local government’s response to COVID-19[iii] (it followed a similar format to the LGA’s regular resident satisfaction polling, which has been conducted every three to four months since 2012).[iv] Our national polling aims to complement local intelligence collected by councils on the ways in which they are supporting residents during the coronavirus pandemic. By looking at residents’ satisfaction with the support offered to them, their families and their communities, alongside their confidence in the messages they are receiving from local and central government, and their views on post-lockdown recovery, the LGA aims to provide valuable information on how councils are serving their local communities.
4.2. Headline findings from our research include:
4.2.1. Seven out of ten people polled (70 per cent) are ‘very satisfied’ or ‘fairly satisfied’ with the way their local council is supporting them and their household during the coronavirus pandemic.
4.2.2. Nine out of ten people polled (90 per cent) said their council is managing ‘very well’ or ‘fairly well’ to keep its services running normally during the coronavirus lockdown – and 10 per cent said their council is not managing well.
4.2.3. Local NHS Trusts are said to be managing the coronavirus pandemic particularly well, with 90 per cent of those polled saying Trusts are managing their response ‘very well’ or ‘fairly well’ – 88 per cent said the same about their local community. The response of local councils, and local businesses, is being well-managed according to 77 per cent of people polled – and 74 per cent said the same about charities and local support groups. The response of the UK Government is viewed less favourably, although still most of the feedback received is positive.
4.3. The results show that councils are trusted to support communities in this national crisis and this needs to be a key lesson that shapes national policymaking in the future.
4.4. Our regular resident satisfaction polling (mentioned above) asks 1,000 adults about their satisfaction with local government. The latest polling from June 2020 reinforces the trust held in councils and their delivery of services. It shows that:
4.4.1. 87 per cent of respondents are satisfied with their local area as a place to live. This is the highest level of satisfaction recorded in this series of public polling (significantly higher than 21 of our previous 25 rounds of polling).
4.4.2. 75 per cent of respondents are satisfied with the way their local council runs things. Again, this is the highest level recorded in this series of public polling (significantly higher than 21 of the previous polling results). The rolling average is 67 per cent.
4.4.3. 71 per cent of respondents trust their local council. This result has increased by 12 percentage points since the last round of polling in February. Trust in one’s council has not previously reached the 70 per cent mark in this series of polling.
4.4.4. 68 per cent of respondents think their councils acts on the concerns of residents (significantly higher than 23 of the 25 previous rounds).
4.4.5. 69 per cent of respondents said their council keeps residents informed about the services and benefits it provides. This is the highest proportion observed for this indicator.
Resource, efficiency and workforce
5.1. The COVID-19 pandemic has shone an important light on the vital work of our invaluable local government and social care workforce who are providing care, support and a myriad of services to all who need it. They are doing an exceptional job in the most challenging of circumstances. This emergency has begun to highlight the essential value of social care to the wider public and this debate needs to be harnessed in thinking about the future of care and support.
5.2. Adult social care services were stretched before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Many years of significant underfunding coupled with rising demand and costs for care and support, have combined to push adult social care services to breaking point. LGA analysis completed before the COVID-19 pandemic estimated that adult social care faces a funding gap of £810 million in 2020/21, rising to £3.9 billion in 2024/25.[v]
5.3. Government funding and liquidity measures to support councils during the COVID-19 pandemic have been welcome, as local government is facing significant extra costs from the demands created by COVID-19 as well as a significant loss of income. Whilst the new money is of course positive, it is not enough. In relation to adult social care, councils have sought to support and protect care providers’ financial resilience in the face of significant additional costs posed by COVID-19. Recent new analysis jointly commissioned by LGA and ADASS suggests that providers will face additional cost pressures of more than £6.6 billion between April and September 2020. The bulk of this stems from PPE and workforce pressures[vi].
5.4. The crisis has shown the importance of involving councils in the design of policies and giving them the freedom to adapt these for their local areas. From the point that those most vulnerable to COVID-19 were advised to self-isolate, councils have worked at pace to rapidly establish distribution networks to support those who were unable to access food because they were unable to shop or were in food insecurity. This has involved working closely with their local voluntary and community groups, as well as local businesses and suppliers, so that the new services reflect the needs of the local communities’ councils serve. In contrast, while councils have been involved in the development of the programme to support those individuals who have been advised they need to be shielded from COVID-19, the top down nature of the system that has been implemented has meant the approach has been less efficient than it would have been if it had been co-designed with councils. Delays in passing local authorities data or keeping them informed in a timely way of changes in policy and the inability of councils to report delivery failures or requests to cancel food parcels, have meant councils have expended considerable resources and time to resolve issues that could have been addressed had they been more closely involved in designing the shielding programme. In addition, data requests of councils have been too often focused from local authorities’ perspective on having the information to fill forms instead of delivering better outcomes for individuals and communities.
5.5. Councils responded efficiently and effectively to enhance crisis and safety net support to people facing financial hardship or economic vulnerability, with many of them reconfiguring services and partnerships with local partners within days to set up emergency food and financial support. Government acted quickly to put some additional funding in place through the ‘hardship fund’.[vii] While councils welcomed the opportunity to support some low-income households with reductions in their council tax liability, most identified that the funding was not sufficient to provide additional discretionary support. The LGA worked closely with a range of councils and colleagues in Defra and MHCLG to evidence the vital work that councils do in providing a local safety net. Based on this evidence, Defra have since agreed to provide an additional £63 million for councils to provide short-term support to those who are struggling to afford essentials. As identified above, in some cases councils’ local efforts have been complicated by a lack of clarity around the extent and remit of national initiatives - for example food parcels and inefficient data-sharing. The impacts on many low income or economically vulnerable households are likely to be felt for some time to come. The LGA has long called-for the local safety net to be properly recognised and adequately resourced. Short-term funding is helpful, but it is vital that this is put on a more sustainable footing. Councils are best placed to recognise and respond to the complex challenges’ households face as we move towards recovery.
5.6. Overall local authorities have proved remarkably resilient in terms of workforce capacity. Staff have been redeployed and, in many areas, new staff have been recruited but this should not obscure the issues local authorities face due to shortages of some key professions. The LGA has been able to develop support for councils needing more social workers in the immediate present to address existing need but there are concerns about the shortages of environmental health and related specialists who are heavily called upon during a public health emergency. The prolonged nature of the COVID-19 situation has exacerbated this issue as it fundamentally tests the resilience of staff in key areas.
6.1. The Skills for Care ‘State of the Adult Social Care Sector and Workforce’ report[viii] provides a comprehensive analysis of the adult social care workforce in England. A summary of its key findings from October 2019 show:
6.1.1. The estimated turnover rate of directly employed staff working in the adult social care sector was 30.8 per cent, equivalent to approximately 440,000 leavers over the year.
6.1.2. It is estimated that 7.8 per cent of the roles in adult social care are vacant, equal to approximately 122,000 vacancies at any time.
6.1.3. Around a quarter of the workforce (24 per cent) were on a zero-hours contract (370,000 jobs). 43 per cent of the whole domiciliary care workforce (including registered nurses) were on zero-hours contracts. This proportion was even higher for the lowest grade of care workers in domiciliary care services (58 per cent).
6.1.4. The average number of sickness days was 4.8, this equates to approximately 6.94 million days lost to sickness in the past 12 months.
6.2. These shortfalls and issues are equally mirrored in the health sector, which, when combined, have put health and care services under extreme pressure both before the pandemic and throughout it.
6.3. The social care sector has faced significant challenges in being able to respond to the pandemic. Primary among these is workforce, with sickness reducing capacity as well as the need to ‘cohort’ staff and patients (separating them into self-contained groups) to manage COVID-19 infection control. We have welcomed the national and local recruitment campaigns for adult social care staff, but we recognise that they must be supported with adequate remuneration to support retention and staff wellbeing.
6.4. The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly shown how important it is to have a highly skilled, well equipped, and supported care workforce. Adult social care workers are beginning to get the recognition they deserve, and we are moving closer to the social care workforce getting parity of esteem to NHS colleagues. This needs to continue and translate into tangible improvements in the pay of the adult social care workforce and investment in workplace development.
6.5. To monitor some of the key data relating to the local government workforce, the LGA has undertaken fortnightly surveys across the sector to gather data about how local authorities have responded (in relation to workforce issues) during COVID-19[ix].
6.6. By way of example, some of the key findings from 2 June 2020 report in which over 200 councils in England and Wales participated were:
6.6.1. Some 25 per cent of councils reported recruiting additional staff (of any type including casual, agency, contingent, etc) in the week ending 15 May 2020. In total 988 additional staff had been recruited.
6.6.2. A third of councils (73) recorded deaths in service since lockdown.
6.6.3. Twenty-one per cent of councils reported that they had furloughed at least one member of staff. In total there were 5,328 staff furloughed in the week ending 15 May 2020, which was one per cent of the current workforce.
6.6.4. More than nine out of ten councils (91 per cent) reported that they had at least one member of staff unavailable for work.
6.6.5. When asked to assess the council overall, in terms of whether there are enough staff to run services normally or not, just under a quarter (23 per cent) of councils reported moderate or severe disruption.
6.7. COVID-19 was a shock to the workplace and local authorities had little time to plan for lockdown, a scenario few might have imagined possible in advance. The ability of many staff to work from home undoubtedly made the situation significantly easier. However, with so many roles being essential frontline services, there has been significant pressure on local authorities to maintain the necessary staff to deliver those services. Self-isolation has been the biggest challenge to workforce availability reported by councils, with nearly two fifths of staff being unavailable for work through self-isolation, an issue that local authority employers are concerned will intensify as a result of track and trace.
6.8. The LGA workforce survey found that more than a third of councils (37 per cent) reported having enough staff for services to be operating normally overall. There have been issues in some services, notably schools and adults and children’s social care, where around a third of councils reported services running normally as a result of staff shortages. In addition, the regional picture has varied with greater demands in London, for example, for bereavement services than in other parts of the country.
6.9. The LGA also collaborated with the Department for Health and Social Care, the Cabinet Office and other partners to ensure that consistent human resources and employment advice was provided to employers across public sector and independent social care employers throughout the pandemic wherever possible.
7.1. The efforts of councils and their health partners to enable the rapid discharge of people from hospital has resulted in thousands of beds becoming available for the anticipated surge in COVID-19 patients. It was the effort of councils and the care sector which supported the NHS to achieve the increase in capacity. The NHS alone could not have achieved this.
7.2. A key factor has been the suspension for the emergency period of the legal requirements to assess for eligibility for adult social care and continuing healthcare, and patient choice policies. The corresponding funding to cover the cost of all care and support on discharge is facilitating more timely discharge also. A lesson to take forward has been the increased level of joint working across health and care, with joint funding for re-ablement and intermediate care most typically commissioned by the council on behalf of the system.
7.3. Another example is hospital-based therapists, which have moved into community settings, GPs and allied health professional are working with residential and domiciliary care services to set up virtual clinics, provide support around infection control and acute outreach to manage increased needs. We must ensure that these positive ways of working are maintained once the lockdown is eased.
7.4. Prioritising the increase in NHS capacity has had significant consequences on the social care sector. The National Audit Office reports that[x]: “Between 17 March and 15 April, around 25,000 people were discharged from hospitals into care homes, compared to around 35,000 over this period in 2019. It is not known how many had COVID-19 at the point of discharge.” In the crucial first half of March 2020, NHS England and Improvement data shows discharges to care homes were much higher than the same period in 2019.
7.5. The issue – as a result of Government guidance – of care home residents being admitted from hospital without a test is well-known and warrants examination as part of learning for a potential second wave. Councils and their provider partners have worked together to try and keep people safe at all times, such as by using ‘alternative accommodation’ (for example hotel capacity), isolating COVID-19-positive residents, or restricting staff movement. The emphasis on ‘home first’, in which people’s immediate needs are assessed promptly outside of the hospital setting after discharge (and longer-term care needs are assessed when there is a clearer picture of those needs) predates COVID-19. The response to the pandemic, in respect of hospital discharge, has built on this model. Combined with flexibilities such as the Care Act easements, which include allowing councils to not undertake financial assessments or needs assessments for people, councils and health partners have been able to speed up discharge and free up hospital beds. However, as above, this cannot be seen in isolation from the issue of testing upon discharge.
Technology, data and innovation
8.1. Local government has adapted many services as a result of coronavirus, working innovatively to continue to support communities. The culture sector provides many helpful examples of public services adapting during lockdown. Despite their closure, council culture and leisure services including libraries, museums, theatres and leisure centres have changed rapidly to meet the needs of their communities.
8.2. Library services saw an average increase of membership of 600 per cent[xi] and have shifted to providing a full programme of activities from the expanded provision of e-books and online book groups, to children’s Lego clubs and baby activities. Kingston Libraries have reached over 10,000 viewers with their online Rhyme Time sessions.
8.3. Museum services have also embraced digital solutions to service provision. Barnsley Council’s Cooper Gallery has connected people from across the globe to its daily digital jigsaw challenge based on images from its collection.
8.4. Leisure centres are providing popular online workouts via their websites to support physical and mental wellbeing under lockdown. For example, Active Tameside have produced a dedicated web page, YouTube channel, and mobile app which include information, updates and free support for their local community. This has included workout videos and programmes, Live Active workout cards for their GP referral scheme, quizzes, challenges for children and regular blogs.
8.5. Innovation has not been all online. Manchester City Libraries have been using the 3D printer in their Business and Intellectual Property Centre to print PPE for the local health sector. Kirklees Library staff undertook an initiative to ring 17,000 Library borrowers over 70 to check on their welfare (as well as helping them to access online resources). Council funded Slung Low Theatre Company in Leeds used lockdown to call for contributions of artwork from local people, which they displayed on lampposts around the city. B Arts in Stoke are delivering bread to local families along with art activities and stories for children.
8.6. New audiences have been reached through new methods of delivery and lessons will be learned as the sector aims to keep these audiences engaged. It is however important to note that online access is not universal and more traditional delivery will remain essential to avoid inequality of provision.
8.7. The rapid innovation in these service areas also demonstrates how adaptable council staff can be and how transferrable their skills are. As well as their continuing provision of cultural services, library and museum teams’ experience in providing customer service and public information has been invaluable in fronting community hubs, bereavement support services and helplines, for example. Events specialists have applied their project management skills to coordinating volunteers and organising teams to shield vulnerable groups.
9.1 Local government has had a key role in supporting people with a range of vulnerabilities to continue to access food during the pandemic. This included assisting with the delivery of the national system of doorstep food deliveries to those people who are extremely clinically vulnerable to COVID-19 and need to be shielded, and to people outside this group who are unable to access food or have issues affording it.
9.2 The Government moved promptly to try to ensure that the most medically vulnerable ‘shielded’ group were given priority within a nationally organised food-parcel scheme. This group was also seen as a priority group for NHS volunteers to support.
9.3 Whilst there has been considerable success with ensuring the most vulnerable have access to food, there have been notable issues relating to data sharing on individuals considered clinically vulnerable. This has included restrictions being placed on the ability on councils to share data both within authorities and between the different tiers of local government, and particularly counties ability to share data with district and parish and town councils.
9.4 Four sets of data have been provided to councils:
9.4.1 a one-off provision of the full list of people in the shielded group in each councils’ area;
9.4.2 daily updates of the details of those who have registered online or by phone, whether or not they want to receive a service;
9.4.3 regular updates on shielded individuals the national arrangements have not been able to contact, or it is not clear what their support needs are, or they did not complete the registration process; and
9.4.4 food deliveries feedback data from food suppliers.
9.5 Instances of inconsistent, poor quality and duplicated data along with delays in providing updates means councils are spending amount of significant time cleansing data and trying to identify means of contacting individuals which could be avoided via improvements. Work is being undertaken in government to resolve the reported problems (with a new system expected to be in place in the autumn) which have included:
9.5.1 Delays in accessing the list or issues with access (for example, having been sent the wrong passwords).
9.5.2 Government data not necessarily matching the data coming from GPs and clinical commissioning groups and vice-a-versa.
9.5.3 Duplication of data or changes to it, which require daily data quality exercises to remove duplicates or monitor change.
9.5.4 Flows of information outside the daily delivery of data to councils, such as names of people in the shielded group being sent through to local authority call centres.
9.5.5 The footprints covered by the data which have been based on GP surgeries and not local authority footprints, which has led to the inclusion of names from neighbouring authorities or cross border issues.
9.5.6 Lack of unique identifiers related to individuals in some instances, such as the absence of the person’s NHS number which has required councils to conduct manual searches of the data to identify individuals.
9.5.7 Lack of information being relayed to councils in relation to food deliveries including who requested a food package, who needed help carrying their box into the house and when a delivery has been made.
9.5.8 Understandable restrictions on how the data can be used are in place but also affected the ability of principal authorities to work more effectively with parish, town and community councils who have organised support to vulnerable people in their communities, and have a particularly important role in more isolated communities.
9.5.9 A lack of means by which the data can be updated after local authorities have been in contact with shielded individuals, where provision of a contact number or email for the Government’s Shielded Team would have enabled this to happen.
9.5.10 Delays in updating the full list of people in the shielded group provided to councils to include individuals subsequently identified by GPs and reviews of NHS data.
9.6 The LGA has worked with Government on additional guidance and FAQs for councils on how the support to the shielded group works. Unfortunately, these have become rapidly out of date in some instances, leaving councils without one place in which they can find all the relevant information they need.
9.7 As Government designs the new data system to support the shielding programme over the summer, consideration needs to be given to how data sharing between central and local government can be improved to remove the difficulties councils have experienced, and whether, for example, the development of data sharing protocols jointly with councils will assist.
10.1. Local government has been at the forefront of public service innovation and councils have worked creatively to continue to deliver vital frontline services. They stepped up and accelerated changes that were already happening, including remote and flexible working, video conferencing, and the digitisation of communications.
10.2. Councils have also re-designed how they pay grants and how they administer business rates relief to help businesses who need our support. By 14 June 2020, councils had paid out grants to 88 per cent of the properties they had identified as entitled to the Small Business and Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grants, giving out 84 per cent of the initial £12.3 billion allocated by the Government.[xii]
10.3. The LGA has worked to support local government. We called for councils to be given the powers to meet virtually to make sure they can still function. Having worked to secure an amendment to the Coronavirus Act so that the legislation included the powers around council meetings, we launched a remote council meetings hub alongside partners including the national government. The hub brings together the guidance, legislation and peer to peer support for councils to run their meetings remotely. Since the launch, the webpage has received more than 25,000-page views and visited by more than 18,000 people. The hub is one of the most popular sections on our website and demonstrates the importance of providing a central digital space where all councils can access guidance to help shape decisions. [xiii]
10.4. There are many positive examples of councils working digitally to adapt to changing circumstances. An exemplar case study from Birmingham City Council involved a full council meeting where over 100 participants attended, with audio and video. The meeting was livestreamed, recorded and subsequently uploaded to the council website. Microsoft was consulted and the discussions resulted in testing a hybrid Teams Meeting and Live Event solution. The council’s webcasting contractor, Civico, used the Live Event stream and played it through its website, ensuring that members of the public could access meetings and sustain participation in local democracy.
10.5. Whilst the pandemic has made innovation an urgent necessity, the use of digital technology is something the LGA, through its highly valued Sector-Led Improvement programme, has supported for years. Our Digital Inclusion programme has provided councils with grants of up to £20,000 each to improve access to digital services. Independent analysis estimated that full digital uptake could add £63 billion to the UK economy – for local economies and for their resident’s wellbeing.
10.6. Another example where councils have been providing digital support to residents is through their library services. In usual times, council libraries provide a vital service for residents, acting as community hubs, providing free access to Wi-Fi, surgery appointments and access to books.
10.7. Libraries were closed following the introduction of social distancing measures. As a result, there has been a boom in new digital users with councils experiencing an average increase of membership of 600 per cent. Council-owned libraries continue to provide people with access to e-books and audiobooks, alongside running reading clubs for young children.
10.8. Many council-owned libraries are limited in the number of licences and copies of e-books and audiobooks they can provide. We therefore called for the Government to provide an extra £5 billion funding so councils can meet the demand. Working alongside partners, it was positive to see Arts Council England offer every library in England £1,000 to help deal with demand pressures.
10.9. Another area of digital innovation was demonstrated at Sutton Council who launched an online booking system for a waste management centre reopened in line with the easing of lockdown and transition into recovery. This digital tool allowed the staff to control traffic flow and demand while maintaining safe social distancing in line with government regulations. The system was set up to allow 20 visitors per hour and the onsite team reduced the parking bay capacity from 12 to 5 to ensure safety of residents and colleagues.
10.10. Oldham Council created the ‘Thriving Communities Index’ alongside partners to reflect geographic localities. The index is made up of 30 socio-economic indicators for each neighbourhood so the council and partners who use it can understand the different needs across the borough. By cross-referencing the data from the COVID-19 call database and overlaying the data, the council were able to identify unmet needs in areas and truly understand the needs of residents across all socio-economic backgrounds. This allowed the council to support 3,522 people with urgent food, medication and personal items, £72,000 raised locally by the coronavirus fund and over 189,000 visits to the coronavirus council website.
10.11. Dorset County Council have worked with local judges and internal stakeholders to embed a digital solution to enable Family Courts to continue despite the lockdown restrictions. Children still need to be safeguarded and this solution ensured that they did not fall behind.
10.12. The LGA and councils have also highlighted the importance of maintaining broadband and mobile networks at this vital time, not only for residents working from home or parents home-schooling their children, but for council staff and other local partners providing services to communities. Councils have been working with broadband and mobile providers to help facilitate access to roads and council-owned sites to conduct essential maintenance and emergency repairs to digital infrastructure where necessary, in a safe way.
10.13. In another example of supporting council innovation, the LGA’s Behavioural Insights programme has helped 26 councils to improve a wide variety of service areas, including public health, adult social care, tackling domestic violence, housing and recycling.
10.14. Behavioural insights are based on the idea that interventions aimed at encouraging people to make better choices for themselves and society will be more successful if they are based on improved understanding of how people behave. We have been working closely with North Yorkshire County Council on two COVID-19 behavioural insights projects which will support the wellbeing of their staff as they adjust to working from home and to mobilise citizens living in North Yorkshire to support their local community during this pandemic. The LGA is also working with the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council to nudge residents towards taking up the flu vaccine. This will be particularly important should COVID-19 still be in the community later this year.
10.15. In summary, this crisis has shown the major advantages of working digitally and encouraged all parts of the public sector to embrace new approaches as many organisations have looked to innovations such as remote consultations, remote meetings and digital information transfer. This should be embedded and accelerated to ensure more effective public service delivery in the future, whilst also ensuring that we continue to support those residents who do not have access to digital technologies.
Inequalities:
11.1. Children’s services moved swiftly to implement new ways of working to ensure they were able to support vulnerable children and young people. Social workers and others working across children’s services should be commended for their determination to keep children safe and well throughout the crisis.
11.2. There has been an outstanding response from those caring for looked-after children. Foster carers have worked hard to reassure foster children and continued to provide loving homes, while we have heard excellent examples from the children’s residential sector such as staff moving into children’s homes full time to provide support where cases of coronavirus were suspected.
11.3. Support from Ofsted was also welcome in helping to ensure that children’s social care had the capacity to support children at this time, including suspending routine inspections and providing additional social work capacity.
11.4. The ability of those working in children’s social care to support vulnerable children has, however, been hampered by poor access to PPE. Not only has this put staff at risk, but we are concerned that it has made staff feel undervalued in a sector that already rarely gets recognition for its work in keeping children safe.
11.5. Children with social workers are more likely to experience poor educational outcomes than their peers. The Department for Education’s (DfE) Children in Need review in 2019 identified that ‘children who have needed a social worker have poorer educational outcomes at every stage of education than those who have not, and taking account of other factors associated with attainment, are up to 50 per cent less likely to achieve a strong pass in English and maths GCSEs’[xiv].
11.6. National data[xv] indicates that as of 11 June 2020, only around one in five vulnerable children are attending school. Schools and social workers have been working closely with families to encourage attendance at school but have reported that there are significant challenges, particularly in trying to persuade families that there was no risk in sending children to school particularly during the previous national “stay at home, save lives” message. There have also been concerns from children and families about being identified as having a social worker. Children in need have higher overall absence rates than all children or looked-after children, with 32 per cent classed as persistent absentees in 2019 compared to 10.9 per cent of all children and looked-after children[xvi]. Encouraging these children to attend school during a time when national messaging was to stay at home, and most children are not expected to attend, clearly has presented further challenges.
11.7. Councils have been working with schools to try to support children in need who are not attending, both to limit the impact on their education and to ensure that they are safe. In terms of education, councils have raised concerns that many children in need do not have good access to a computer or other device for online learning (for example, in households with one computer for the family), or to an internet connection. Work by the DfE to provide vulnerable children with devices to enable online learning is welcome, however putting in place a national procurement programme clearly takes time, and by 14 June 2020, more than two months after most children stopped attending school, little more than half of the devices had been delivered.[xvii] This is a significant amount of time for children to have only very limited access to learning. We believe a more localised solution, with councils procuring devices and being reimbursed by the Government, would have been a quicker and more effective solution.
11.8. Library and museums services were quick to develop online educational activities and to provide curated advice to parents about the best resources available. The Libraries from Home resources have subsequently featured in DfE’s Hungry Little Minds Campaign[xviii]. However, cultural services also rapidly identified digital inequalities and responded in a variety of ways, from calling every member of the library services to check on the customer and their levels of support or need, to delivering creative packs to children in Reading that have been identified with an Education Health Care Plan or other significant needs. The LGA has collected some of the best examples of this practice in our online hub[xix] for councils. Leisure services have also identified digital inequalities as an issue but have found it more challenging to deliver a response during the lockdown period, although it is a focus for planning of services after reopening. In the meantime, they have developed a strong digital offer aimed at engaging whole families.
11.9. We are concerned about additional vulnerabilities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes more families living in poverty; mental health issues amongst both children and parents; increasing domestic abuse; and increasing substance misuse issues. Councils are particularly concerned that falling referrals to children’s social care following the partial closure of schools means that children are experiencing ‘hidden harm’, which may only come to light as we move into recovery and children return to school and other services. Work is taking place locally to try to ensure that partners and communities are engaged in identifying children at risk, however councils are also planning for a spike in referrals when all children return to school.
11.10. It is likely that the impacts of these issues on children will be far-reaching, lasting far beyond the recovery period for some, resulting in ongoing pressures for children’s services after other areas may have recovered. It is vital that the Government considers this in its recovery planning, ensuring that the right services are available to provide children and their families with support to come to terms with any trauma suffered during the pandemic, and to go on to live happy, healthy lives.
Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND)
11.11. Councils have been working to continue to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND during the lockdown, in many areas using new and innovative practise, including the delivery of ‘virtual’ therapy services and the use of virtual groups and gatherings for young carers. The Government’s on-going review of the SEND system should consider this innovative practise and must ensure that councils have the funding and powers to hold partners to account for their work to support children and young people with SEND.
11.12. Despite their best efforts, one of the first issues that councils raised with the LGA was the pressure that they and partners in the NHS and schools were facing in continuing to meet all Children and Families Act duties. This included councils being threatened with legal action by parents, carers and their solicitors.
11.13. This was accompanied by feedback that some clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) were also considering how best to bolster their front-line clinical capacity in order to deal with the pandemic. While this was clearly the right response in order to support the NHS, it resulted in delays in statutory assessments of children and young people around their SEND needs, which meant the timeliness of producing Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) became increasingly difficult and left councils open to unnecessary challenge.
11.14. We therefore welcome the Department’s decision to use provisions set out in the Coronavirus Act 2020 to relax the duty on councils and their partners to secure special educational provision and health care provision in accordance with an EHC Plan. Under these new arrangements councils and their partners must use their ‘reasonable endeavours’ to secure the provision set out in an EHCP, meaning that a child or young person’s provision as delivered may differ temporarily from what is set out in their EHCP.
11.15. It is however disappointing that the DfE was unable to apply this change retrospectively to start on the 20 March 2020, the date on which the Prime Minister announced that schools would be closed. This has resulted in some councils, and their partners, becoming the subject of legal action for not being able to deliver the support set out in EHCPs as a result of staff sickness and the redeployment of staff within the NHS.
11.16. Further legal challenges on what constitutes ‘reasonable endeavours’ are inevitable, and it is therefore vital that the Department for Education discusses the implications of the updated legislation with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and publicly clarify their expectations of what councils, schools and the NHS can deliver during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that expectations of parents, carers and families can be managed.
11.17. Significant extra pressure has been placed on council’s SEND teams to support children and young people due to COVID-19, due to an increased volume of work. Specifically, this has included increased contact with parents and families, the creation of new and extension of existing services and; the re-design of delivery models. This is in addition to co-ordinating risk assessments, making home arrangements for the most vulnerable; and fielding increased parental enquiries. We are concerned that many children with SEND whose needs have not been entirely met while they have been away from school, will require additional support when they return, for example additional support from Educational Psychologists, and this will place additional requirements on already stretched high needs budgets.
11.18. As plans to open schools to more pupils on the 1st and 15th June for primary and secondary pupils respectively developed, councils highlighted their concerns about their ability to deliver home-to-school transport services. Specific issues include the capacity of providers to supply sufficient numbers of buses and other vehicles that allow for social distancing, increasing costs (particularly in terms of home-to-school transport for children with SEND), the safety of the workforce providing these services and; persuading parents that it is safe for their children to use public transport to travel to school when wider messaging has been to use only when absolutely necessary.
Protected Characteristic – Age – Children and young people
12.1. The Coronavirus Act gave the Secretary of State for Education the power to require the temporarily closure of education providers, including schools, 16 to 19 academies, higher education and childcare providers, and to determine the conditions of that closure, including continuing to be open for vulnerable children, those with Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and key workers. This will have a profound immediate and longer-term impact on children and young people.
12.2. Keeping vulnerable children safe is a priority for councils and we welcomed Government plans to ensure that these children can still attend childcare and education, along with the children of key workers who are carrying out their vital roles.
12.3. Government data[xx] indicates very low attendance at school by vulnerable children after schools partially closed. Many councils and schools have been working together to ensure information on the attendance of vulnerable children at schools is shared with social services so that this can be followed up on and contact can be maintained with vulnerable children. Government has now issued local authority guidance to help encourage vulnerable children to attend school[xxi]. The LGA has been working with DfE and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services to share best practice and advice on encouraging the take up of school places kept open for vulnerable pupils.
12.4. Councils have also raised concerns about vulnerable children who do not have a social worker, or children who may become vulnerable as a result of social distancing, increased financial hardship and domestic abuse. Whilst most schools are keeping in touch with their pupils, it is difficult for them to be able to identify this vulnerability and subsequent risk remotely without additional training and without being able to observe behaviour. Some councils reported that referrals to children’s social care fell by more than half following lockdown, and work is being undertaken with partners and communities to try to ensure children are kept safe. Given the reduction of referrals to social care, it is important that agencies work together to ensure vulnerable children are seen. With an expected spike in referrals as more children return to school, councils should have access to more appropriate funding so they can provide support to potentially vulnerable children, young people and families, including kinship carers, those facing financial hardship, and care leavers. Additional funding should also support placement capacity for looked after children.
12.5. Councils are experiencing pressures around support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, including finding suitable placements. Work is being carried out to improve capacity and to ensure that these children and young people get the support they need.
12.6. Many children and their families also need access to the Specialist Community and Public Health nursing workforce. Councils and providers responded promptly to calls to increase the capacity in those acute settings dealing with COVID-19. This led to health visitors and school nurses being redeployed outside of the Healthy Child Programme. We are working with partners to understand the scale of the issue and its possible impacts.
12.7. The focus on school meals availability for vulnerable children is another issue that has highlighted the importance of school settings to provide a range of support for children. The creation of food vouchers for children who would be entitled to free school meals was a positive intervention, but coordination at a local level would have allowed councils, with their understanding of the local food retail structure, to ensure the vouchers could be used.
12.8. In addition, children and young people who live in rural areas may have poor access to the internet and therefore access to online learning and the means to communicate with friends and family will be limited. This may also affect the ability of schools to be able to communicate with the children and young people and raise any concerns. Mental health providers have noted this as a challenge where remote counselling and support is being offered, particularly where children and young people may not have access to a mobile phone or social media connected device and have limited internet access and mobile phone connectivity.
12.9. We are concerned about the financial viability of early years providers, many of whom have been operating at a loss in order to provide vital childcare for our critical workers and most vulnerable children. Despite helpful flexibility in the use of early entitlement funding, the overarching issue remains that there is not enough money to both support providers who remain open, and make sure those who have closed can survive. We have called on the Government to provide additional funding to make sure that no provider loses out financially for staying open, and to make sure we have all of the childcare places we need going forward to support children and make sure people can get back to work.
12.10. Children and young people’s mental health is an ongoing priority for councils because of the impact that poor mental health at a young age can have on life chances. Young people with existing mental health conditions will be of heightened vulnerability during this crisis as their links to trusted adults through schools, colleges, universities, youth centres, mental health hubs, etc, are restricted. We understand from NHS England that referrals to Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) have dropped by at least 40 per cent. This is most likely because schools and trusted adults are no longer referring as they are not meeting with the children and young people. In response, NHS England are moving to delivering most sessions online, which will not be appropriate for all those who need support, although we understand that some with certain conditions are finding the online sessions beneficial. It will also be difficult to provide diagnosis and support to young children, who are unlikely to be able to adequately use the online environment and often require observation of behaviour.
12.11. In addition to those in treatment for mental health conditions, before the crisis just over a third of children and young people referred to CAMHS were being turned away[xxii] and around 75 per cent felt the wait for treatment.[xxiii] This cohort is likely to be particularly vulnerable as they often rely on informal services, the voluntary and community sector and trusted adults in schools.
12.12. The LGA has been highlighting to Government our concern that, whilst children may not be the direct victims of some of the social impacts of the measures to curb the coronavirus, some children may be living in households with working-aged adults who, as a result of their own difficulties and needs, are putting children at risk.
12.13. As social distancing measures continue and families deal with isolation, financial hardship and a reduction in access to many universal services, councils will need their professional workforce to ensure those that are most at risk are identified early and get the support and help they need to avoid problems escalating.
Protected Characteristic – Age – Older people
12.14. Older people and those with underlying health conditions have been identified as having heightened vulnerability to COVID-19, and as such have been strongly advised to undertake social distancing precautions. A specific group with clinical conditions that make them very susceptible to the virus, which includes a number of older people, have been identified as needing to be ‘shielded’ from COVID-19.
12.15. Councils have been working with Government to put in place measures to support shielded individuals. This has included supporting those in this group with emergency supplies of food ahead of the national doorstep delivery arrangements being put fully in place. In addition, councils support shielded individuals with social care and social contact needs.
12.16. Whilst meeting the essential medical and food needs of self-isolating older people with underlying health conditions and other vulnerabilities will continue to be a priority, local partners are also supporting older people in general to still maintain social contact. The numbers of older people experiencing loneliness will likely increase due to the reduction in face-to-face contact with family and friends and opportunities to take part in physical activity and everyday cultural and faith experiences.
12.17. While there are positive benefits from the community spirit generated by responding to a national emergency, the epidemic will likely have a detrimental effect on the short, medium and long-term physical and mental health of some older residents. This includes not seeking medical attention for health issues that may require early intervention, such as cancers. In turn, this may reduce older people’s resilience and their ability to cope.
12.18. Older people are more likely to have a combination of the risk factors associated with poor mental health, such as bereavement, loneliness, anxiety as a result of dependence on services and their own vulnerability to the virus, being a carer or having a health condition. Longer term impacts in terms of trauma, grief and distress may exacerbate the burden of mental ill-health in the community long after recovery. Despite these issues, older people are less likely to access mainstream mental health support services.
12.19. Communities are already self-organising and there are many imaginative responses, such as virtual pubs, choirs and concerts. These are helping to keep people of all ages connected. Whilst digital technology is an option for some older people, not all older people want to, or have the digital skills or kit to use social media or the internet. Broadband access in some places, especially rural communities, is a further challenge. Councils’ public health teams are also prioritising loneliness as part of their COVID-19 responses, and the LGA is producing guidance to support them.
12.20. As a society we will need to find different and safe ways to enable older people to stay connected as the capacity of the voluntary and charity sector, which delivers most loneliness initiatives, is also affected. As we move to the recovery phase, it will be essential to tackle loneliness issues now. Failure to do this will increase demand on services as people are likely to develop stress or anxiety issues. It will also help with the recovery phase and/or preparing for a possible second wave of infections.
Protected Characteristic - Disability
12.22. Social distancing measures to help tackle the spread of the virus and ‘shield’ the most vulnerable from infection will have an obvious impact on social cohesion and are likely to particularly affect elderly and disabled people. As we have indicated councils are working hard to support the Government’s arrangement to support shielded vulnerable community members, as well as help coordinate local efforts to help those who might be feeling particularly isolated. Some examples of local schemes are published on the LGA website.[xxiv][xxv]
12.23. Most children and adults with learning disabilities or autism live in the community. Councils have specific statutory responsibilities for those with learning disabilities and autism through the Care Act, the Autism Act and the Children and Families Act. COVID-19 means that there are restrictions on many of their regular activities and routines. This includes employment, education, short breaks and leisure. It is important that people with learning disabilities and autism can fully participate in the community as far as possible and are kept informed about the situation. This may require using different methods of communication and approaches from councils, carers and professionals.
12.24. People with a learning disability and autism may also require additional help to understand the need for personal hygiene and social distancing, and for some this understanding is not possible. This requires additional safeguarding and health and safety measures and would require extra support should they or a carer fall ill from the virus.
12.25. Many people may be vulnerable because of an existing disability but not meet the vulnerability requirements as outlined in the Government’s shielded list. For instance, people with visual impairments or physical disabilities. Councils are being proactive in reaching out and identifying potentially vulnerable people, particularly in collaboration with local voluntary agencies, but there may be people who are not known to any agency. The LGA has produced a briefing on vulnerable people for councils[xxvi]. It will also assist the NHS, community and voluntary sector and other partner agencies to understand the role and contribution of local government in supporting vulnerable people.
Protected Characteristic - Race
12.26. Councils have reported concerns about hate crimes related to the outbreak. For example, Chinese and South East Asian communities have been targeted for abuse, particularly at the start of the pandemic.
12.27. We are supporting councils in their efforts to counter extremism through the local authority-led Special Interest Group on Countering Extremism (SIGCE). The SIGCE is building a national picture of emerging issues relating to the pandemic and looking at how best to develop and support local authorities’ responses to these challenges.
12.28. There is also an increased risk to people from different Black and Ethnic Minority Groups (BAME) groups of being infected and dying from COVID-19 and there are many factors involved in this. Some of these are long-term, fundamental issues around health and society which need to be addressed, including housing and occupation.
12.29. Councils recognise the anger and dismay from those who have been most affected by the effects of this virus and will look carefully at the recommendations from Public Health England’s report ‘COVID-19: understanding the impact on BAME communities’ and at what more can be done to make sure the lessons of this report are learnt from and acted upon.
Protected Characteristic – Religion or Belief
12.30. Councils are having to balance the wishes for the holding of funerals, burials and cremations in line with religious or personal beliefs, with the public health imperative to maintain social distancing, practically manage the increase in deaths and the need to maintain social distancing requirements for the safety of celebrants, mourners and staff. They are working to guidance from Public Health England[xxvii] on managing a funeral and the message that funerals should not be delayed.
12.31. Government guidance [xxviii]sets out that only members of the deceased’s household and close family members should attend the funeral. A modest number of close friends may attend if the deceased had no household or family members able to attend. Any mourner who is unwell with symptoms of COVID-19 should not attend and those attending must always observe social distancing measures.
12.32. Councils are working to ensure that mourners can attend funerals in line with government guidance. However, in order to ensure social distancing councils have restricted the numbers of mourners able to attend funerals. This is a decision made at a local level and will depend on a range of factors, including the size of the venue and health and safety considerations.
12.33. We welcome the Government’s messaging that funerals should not be delayed, and that this will be in place for the foreseeable future.
Protected Characteristic - Sex
12.34. At the outset of the crisis the LGA was concerned that the social-distancing measures required to prevent the spread of coronavirus would have a serious effect on domestic abuse victims and perpetrators, with the isolation of families exacerbating domestic abuse as victims of abuse were required to remain in the home with perpetrators. The LGA has produced guidance on supporting domestic abuse victims during the COVID-19 outbreak[xxix].
12.35. Internationally many countries dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak have reported an increase in domestic abuse cases. Regrettably this has been borne out in the UK too, with the UK National Helpline reporting a 25 per cent uplift in people calling the helpline since lockdown measures began[xxx].
12.36. Some domestic abuse victims may feel it is not safe to reach out for support, for example by calling the National Domestic Abuse Helpline, as they are living with the perpetrator in the home. This is demonstrated by the fact that alongside the uplift in calls to the helpline, domestic abuse services have seen a significant uplift in the use of their online services and web forum support services.
12.37. There will also be an impact on refuges and emergency accommodation, due to those having to social distance/self-isolate if they are presenting symptoms. Government guidance has been provided to help refuges continue to remain open for domestic abuse victims, but the sector has highlighted the need for additional resource.
12.38. One in 8 adults are carers (approximately 6.5 million people) and of these 58 per cent are women[xxxi]. Councils have statutory responsibilities for carers as a result of the Care Act 2014. It is important that councils are adequately resourced to support carers so they can maintain their own wellbeing.
Areas of deprivation
12.39. Public libraries account for the largest proportion of publicly available computers and are used extensively by those with limited or no digital access of their own. These computers are used to submit benefit applications, access online training courses, and maintain connections with family and friends. The closure of libraries during this period therefore left a significant part of the population without access to the services that most people have turned to during the lockdown.
12.40. We have outlined in earlier sections how council cultural services have attempted to overcome some of this isolation. However, we expect deprived communities with limited access to an online offer to experience worsened mental and physical health, as a result of being unable to access free online cultural and physical activity offers. These residents will be most in need of accessing the subsidised public leisure offer when it again becomes available. However, leisure facilities in many deprived areas are ageing, in need of repair, and may not reopen. Swim England estimates that as many as 500 swimming pools may not reopen, many in the most deprived communities in the country[xxxii].
13.1. Fairness, equality and social justice flows through everything local government does and councils are wholly committed to ensuring that no one in their community is left behind or cannot be supported to combat the effects of this dreadful disease.
13.2. There is clearly an increased risk to people from different BAME groups of being infected and dying from COVID-19 and there are many factors involved in this. Some of these are long-term, fundamental issues around health and society which need to be addressed, including housing and occupation.
13.3. Specific actions which can be taken in the short term include improving public messaging around the risk of acquiring COVID-19; improving messaging about health-seeking behaviour, such as encouraging people from Black British heritage to go into hospital if they need to; and greater consideration of underlying risks once a person is in hospital. This includes important questions around the care for individuals and whether different treatments are needed to reflect these underlying risks.
13.4. Councils recognise the anger and dismay from those who have been most affected by the effects of this virus and will look carefully at the recommendations from Public Health England’s recent report ‘COVID-19: understanding the impact on BAME communities’ and at what more can be done to make sure the lessons of this report are learnt from and acted upon.
13.5. We also know from Sport England data that women and groups from ethnic minorities are less likely to be active, and therefore at higher risk from the illnesses that being active prevents. At the same time, early data from the lockdown period indicates that previously inactive individuals have taken the opportunity to do more activity, which is a positive development that needs to be maintained. Families have found benefits in exercising together, embedding healthy lifestyles in an early age. Others have felt confident in trialling new activities in online classes, when previously they were uncomfortable about attending in person.
13.6. This has significant implications for the programming of physical activity programmes in the future. The new online offer that many leisure centres are providing will need to continue to be developed, expanded, and refined, while family friendly programming in studios and outdoor facilities needs to be introduced. However, this also carries implications for the financial viability of leisure services, as these activities tend to be of lower financial value to councils. As leisure services have traditionally been an income generation source for councils, and reinvested in providing other public services, there are implications to be thought through for council budgets generally as a result of this shift in consumer behaviour.
Integration of services
14.1. We do not believe that silos at a local government level limited the ability of public services to respond to people’s needs. Councils and their partners have continued to work at pace to protect lives, livelihoods and the most vulnerable in our communities. They have ensured that our most important public services keep running successfully.
14.2. Across the country, local government continues to show the nation that councils are delivering for communities in the times of greatest need. At the heart of the public health response have been directors of public health and their teams. They have had to step in to ensure supplies of personal protective equipment get through to care homes, provided advice to schools, carried out vital modelling work for hospitals and helped redeploy staff and reconfigure teams to keep vital council services running.
14.3. Public health teams in local government are trained in containing infectious disease, understanding and interpreting data, recognising risk factors, understanding the evidence base and what motivates behaviour change and helping develop policy interventions.
14.4. In terms of health and social care collaboration, this crisis has proved beyond doubt that all components of the system – the NHS, local government, private providers, the voluntary and community sector, carers, family, friends and neighbours – are all crucial to an effective response to COVID-19.
14.5. In general, joint working across health and care has been strengthened through responding to the pandemic. This shared purpose has helped to galvanise partnership working, with more nimble and timely decision-making, and increased levels of joint working, commissioning, funding and service delivery.
14.6. This has been shown by the work to help manage capacity in the NHS, for example in social care and health partners working to implement enhanced discharge arrangements. These were instrumental in getting many people home in a timelier way, and in supporting the NHS to have capacity to treat very ill patients with COVID-19.
14.7. Early findings from the care home support plans, which every local authority submitted to government on 29 May 2020, also show the strong place-based working to support care homes, led by councils and their health partners. Examples of joint working and leadership include:
14.7.1. Haringey has integrated brokerage for all client groups, and this has improved alignment in market pricing and funding strategies. It has well-established joint funding mechanisms between the CCG and the council which supports provider cashflow. New commissioning models link increased investment levels to outcomes across the care sector.
14.7.2. The Buckinghamshire Integrated Care System Workforce Group was set up primarily to support care providers and facilitate staffing levels. For example, the group co-ordinated support from the Buckinghamshire Health Trust, which shared their key staffing agencies thereby providing care homes with access to a wider cohort of staff.
14.7.3. In relation to testing, Windsor and Maidenhead Council and partners developed a local testing system for keyworkers and their families. This was delivered by Frimley ICS, based at Ascot Racecourse, and administered by a local school’s admission team. Local providers arranged tests online for the next day, and some 98 per cent of tests arranged have been for social care staff.
14.8. These plans also show the continuing challenges care homes are facing. The most common issues raised are difficulty accessing test kits and their results, and accessing ongoing supplies of PPE for care homes, where councils continue to step into the gap, providing supplies at no additional cost to care homes. These examples show where decision-making and service delivery are still not as integrated as they could be, meaning that social care’s needs have frequently taken second place to the NHS’ needs. This is particularly the case when it is considered that care homes are one, small, section of adult social care, and – to date – there is little support or priority forthcoming for providers of, for example, supported living services, extra care, domiciliary care or those with personal assistants.
14.9. Councils have shown resilience and innovation to develop local schemes to mitigate the gaps in national programmes. For example, in Hammersmith and Fulham all care home residents, symptomatic and asymptomatic alike, were swabbed for coronavirus by 24 April 2020 via the community health team. Since 15 May 2020 there has been a further four-week testing cycle for all nursing home residents and staff in place. This programme is overseen by a team drawn together by the council’s Director of Public Health, and including doctors, nurses and academics from Imperial College Hospital Trust, and Public Health England.
14.10. Another example is the West London Alliance, hosted by Ealing Council, which created a supply chain for north west London to provide emergency PPE stock to all care home and home care providers, supplemented by local resilience and CCG supplies. It invested in bulk buying supplies and stored at a council-owned warehouse, with 90 per cent of requests fulfilled on the same day that they were made, and 90 per cent of homes are supported by Ealing Council. The programme has been so successful that it is now being rolled out across London.
14.11. There have also been questions raised about whether people were discharged to care homes when COVID-positive. Figures released by NHS England show that 25,060 patients were moved from hospitals to care homes between 17 March and 16 April[xxxiii], when testing was still not widespread. This happened amid warnings about the social care sector’s lack of preparedness, including shortages of protective equipment for staff. NHS Providers has strenuously denied the claim that hospitals wilfully discharged COVID-positive patients to care homes; the issue is more that the COVID-19 status would not have been known.
14.12. Councils need to be able to respond immediately, whilst also monitoring the horizon so they are preparing for future challenges. We already know about some of the wider consequence of coronavirus on mental health. We do not however understand yet what the long-term health and care needs will be from people who’ve made it through COVID-19, particularly people who have been on ventilators for a long time, but these will be significant.
14.13. The key lesson is that our national policy and funding decisions need to ensure social care services and providers are given the priority they deserve rather than prioritising the NHS. Government should be providing adequate support for all parts of the system and that there is parity of esteem and recognition between the NHS, public health and social care, between statutory and voluntary services and between treatment and prevention services.
15.1. It is fair to say that those with more mature partnerships and established integrated arrangements were able to respond quickly and decisively. However, some councils and partners have reported that the need for an emergency response accelerated integrated developments, with changes happening in days rather than months or years.
15.2. One example of a mature partnership is that of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland councils. These three councils have a history of strong working relationships across system partners at sustainability and transformation partnership (STP) level. As a result, Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland councils established a care home cell at the start of pandemic to ensure a joined up and coordinated approach between the three local authorities, the CCG and the local Community Health Trust.
15.3. Enhanced discharge funding and the suspension of some assessment requirements removed the most common barriers to timely discharge and enabled partners to “get on with delivery”. This funding should continue.
15.4. If we are to maintain some of the benefits from the greater integration between health and social care seen during the pandemic, there needs to be local flexibility through maximum discretion within the NHS long term plan (LTP) and national contracts. The extent to which the LTP is fit for purpose needs to be reviewed, with consideration given to whether we need a more flexible and locally led approach with a stronger emphasis on partnership and place-based leadership. Within this strengthening Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) will be important. HWBs, not STPs and ICSs, should lead local transformation and sustainability plans. These must be for the whole of health, social care and public health – not just the NHS.
15.5. In addition, as we move forward with the NHS LTP, we need a new emphasis on place and neighbourhood. System-wide plans need to build on and knit together place-based plans and neighbourhood delivery. The principle of subsidiarity is crucial as decision-making should be taken at the most locally appropriate level. The NHS needs to work closely with local government to ensure this.
16.1. There are many examples of services collaborating in new and effective ways. As is evident from the Care Home Support Plans, all localities have developed support hubs or teams, with daily monitoring of data, issues and requests from care homes; increasingly data is shared to enable a single, unified response. This has minimised duplication of contact and enables more proactive early identification of issues. These hubs are available to provide advice and address issues, such as PPE shortages, on request. Many councils, such as the Isle of Wight, have a dedicated team which responds on the same day to any ‘red alert’ by a care home.
16.2. Further evidence of successful collaboration includes:
16.2.1. Home has become the default for discharge destinations, with the new model promoting 95 per cent of people over 65 going home, with half of these needing no ongoing support.
16.2.2. All assessment for care needs have moved out of hospital in a ‘discharge to assess’ model – this is generally now being undertaken by one professional in a trusted assessment model.
16.2.3. Many localities have established workforce hubs, which have enabled the redeployment of staff across partners. For example, several councils have upskilled staff to be deployed to care providers where needed. Many have run effective local recruitment campaigns such as North Central London’s ‘Proud to Care’. Cambridge and Peterborough, meanwhile, have trained and matched volunteers to homes according to need.
16.2.4. North Tyneside has set up a market resource team to support providers to secure additional capacity, mutual aid and redeployed staff from the council. Another example is Bradford’s rapid recruitment which, within three weeks, had a training programme approved by Skills 4 Care for entry level care workers. The programme targeted furloughed hospitality staff, offering fast track DBS and one week’s paid induction. This has enabled the system to build up its own bank staff resource, reduce staffing costs and minimise movement of staff between services.
17.1. Whilst the response to the pandemic has led to some positive changes, there is still more to be done. As an example, the push to send people home under the Home First model is good, but the emphasis on “Protect the NHS” has arguably led to some people being discharge in an unsafe way.
17.2. We are also hearing how the thoughts of people with lived experience has been ignored, perhaps more so than usual, and this could bring with it safeguarding issues. We know of increased death rates among vulnerable groups, not necessarily caused by having COVID-19, but from its impact – such as higher death rates in people with learning difficulties, care home residents refusing food, greater numbers of people dying at home, and people not going to A+E when gravely ill, or people with mental health issues not going to appointments.
17.3. Moreover, the possibility of councils operating under Care Act easements generated anxiety and uncertainty about what the impact would be on people who use services and carers. In total, only eight councils ever operated under easements, and in some cases only one service was 'eased’. As of 16 June 2020, only one council continues to operate under the easements. People in receipt of direct payments, particularly those who use this to employ a Personal Assistant (PA), were particularly worried about accessing the necessary PPE, testing and advice about furloughing and paying staff who were unable to work due to COVID-19. Feedback from the ADASS Rapid Survey suggests that councils have put a wide range of measures in place to support people with Direct Payments and Personal Assistants.
The relationship between central Government and local government, and national and local services
18.1. We have given an update on these points in our response to question nine.
19.1. As highlighted in response to question nine, councils have had a key role in delivering food parcels to residents who are extremely clinically vulnerable to COVID-19 and need to be shielded, and to people outside this group who are unable to access food or have issues affording it. Most of this support has been developed at pace and in several instances in response to a swiftly changing national response to the pandemic.
19.2. While there have been several challenges for local government, including issues with data which are highlighted earlier in the submission, the distribution of food parcels is also an example of how local government has worked effectively with the local community during the pandemic.
19.3. Once government advised the approximately 2.2 million people who are clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 that they needed to stay at home and avoid face to face contact until the end of June, a process was developed to ensure that those who were unable to obtain food in other ways received essential groceries. This has included the establishment of a national doorstop delivery system, where those shielded individuals who have registered that they need support receive a weekly food parcel.
19.4. It took several weeks to put in place a system to deliver food parcels to all those people who have asked for it and councils have provided emergency food drops throughout the crisis to tide people over until they receive their weekly parcel. The food for these emergency deliveries has either been provided by councils themselves or from the one-off bulk delivery of food (equivalent to 10,000 parcels) that was made available to those councils that wished to have it at the start of the shielding process.
19.5. In addition to providing emergency supplies of food councils have used the data on the shielded group provided by the NHS alongside their own records to identify those in the shielded group who might be the most vulnerable so they can contact them and offer support. Councils have also provided social care and/or contact to those people in the shielded group who have requested assistance through the national call centre or website.
19.6. The support to the shielded group continues to evolve at pace, and the LGA and councils are in dialogue with relevant government departments – particularly the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and Defra – about how the system could improve.
19.7. Although there were issues with the food provided through the initial one-off bulk delivery of food drops to councils, we are not aware of concerns being raised about the content of the food deliveries now in place to individual households, although there were initial concerns that the contents did not represent a healthy diet or address specific dietary requirements.
19.8. As the process for supporting the shielded group has developed, councils have raised several issues that need to be resolved. In relation to food deliveries these have included:
19.8.1. A process for those who originally received a food delivery to cancel the deliveries where they have subsequently been able to access food through a supermarket delivery or other means.
19.8.2. Clarity on how individuals can transition on and off the deliveries list over a period of time.
19.8.3. Details on how those people receiving food parcels are prioritised for supermarket deliveries so they have access to a wider range of food, where they can pay for it.
19.8.4. Instances where shielded individuals received a delivery but were then missed off the delivery list the following week, and instances where the shielded individual was not the only person in the household, and it was not clear how the other members of the household would be supported.
19.9. Some of these points have been addressed by guidance from Government, such as that issued by MHCLG on 24 April 2020 for councils and Local Resilience Forums along with a set of frequently asked questions.
19.10. Councils are not only supporting people in the shielded group. They are already assisting vulnerable people outside the shielded group, who are struggling to access food, despite being able to afford it, due to the need to self-isolate or because they are at greater risk because of pre-existing health conditions and need to implement enhanced social distancing. For instance, Suffolk Libraries have just made their 6,000th ‘checking in’ phone call to isolated, older and more vulnerable library members. One isolated and vulnerable member wanted a book not available in digital form, so library staff grouped together and read it out loud for them.
19.11. As councils have already developed their own mechanisms, often working with the VCS and local communities to scale up existing arrangements, it is the view of the LGA and councils that any further support to vulnerable people outside the shielded group should be locally-led and managed, with Government supporting councils in their endeavours.
20.1. The NHS Long Term Plan recognises that the NHS needs to change its model of care and support to achieve the objective of improving health and care.
20.2. If the Government is serious about making the next ten years ‘the decade of prevention’ then we need a rebalancing of our approach. Part of this must include an honest conversation about what changes the NHS could and should make to both alleviate pressures on social care and contribute more meaningfully to the wellbeing and prevention agenda, including recognition that prevention is more than simply preventing people from needing inpatient hospital treatment.
20.3. Local government services are health services. It is no exaggeration to say that without local government, adults and children would die sooner, would live in worse conditions, would lead lives that made them ill more often and would experience less emotional, mental and physical wellbeing than they do now.
20.4. Councils finding innovative ways to do things differently. Both working on their own and in partnership with other councils and organisations, councils have again and again demonstrated their ability to do things differently, save money and improve the services that our residents rely on. Local government has been working with their partners – both public and private – to innovate and pilot new ways of working. Crucially, technology allows us to gather evidence and data in new, different and more comprehensive ways.
20.5. Local government teams have worked hard to continue to deliver essential support throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in substance misuse and sexual health services and through the Healthy Child programme (0-19 services). The delivery of effective early intervention and specialised public health services is crucial to supporting and protecting acute NHS services at a time of crisis.
20.6. Specialist Community and Public Health Nurses have understandably been redeployed to acute or care sector positions in some areas. Local decisions, at CCG or STP level should directly involve Directors of Public Health to ensure full risk assessments are completed for reducing Healthy Child Programme capacity. Decisions should consider the increased demand for health visiting and school nursing services (including additional advice being requested due to difficulties in accessing GP advice, supporting vulnerable families, domestic abuse, safeguarding and mental health conditions) in addition to the standard delivery of prioritised contacts.
20.7. There is evidence which suggests that some of the social determinants of health, including obesity, poor mental health, and socio-economic status are contributing to higher levels of COVID-19 deaths. This is worrying and underlines the importance of having adequately resourced public health teams.
20.8. Since the transfer of public health to local government, councils across England have seized new opportunities to make health everybody’s business. They have done this despite public health grant funding being reduced by over £700 million in real terms between 2015/16 and 2019/20. The ability for local authorities to innovate and increase efficiency is nearing its end. Investment in public health must be increased. Reductions to public health budgets must be reversed and public health needs to be put on a sustainable footing. This will help avert the onset of disease and reduce the burden on NHS and social care.
20.9. Council services like libraries, museums and leisure centres are already delivering health programmes and preventative work, whether through books on prescription, gym referrals, or as facilities for community groups to use. These have a proven record of improving health and saving the NHS money, and we hope the National Centre for Social Prescribing will further develop this evidence base. However, as largely discretionary services, the ongoing contribution of these services is at risk if councils are not effectively resourced to deliver public services. Their loss would worsen the mental and physical wellbeing of the nation.
Role of the private sector, charities, volunteers and community groups
21.1. One of the most positive and impressive consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the huge upsurge in the numbers of people volunteering to support vulnerable people who may not have family or friends to rely on. They have signed up in their many thousands to different national and local initiatives. This brings enormous opportunities to harness and maximise this asset but also some challenges in ensuring that voluntary capacity is used effectively and safely. In normal circumstances, the voluntary and community sector (VCS) is a vital partner in providing a wide range care and support to enable vulnerable people to live fulfilling and independent lives, and to maintain their health and wellbeing so they do not require the support of statutory health and adult social care services. In responding to COVID-19, the contribution of the VCS and of volunteers is even more crucial.
21.2. Most councils have collaborated with their own VCS in local volunteer recruitment campaigns. For example, in Leeds, Voluntary Action Leeds has recruited 8,000 volunteers to support vulnerable and isolated people. Twenty-five Leeds City Council staff have been redeployed to be volunteer co-ordinators, linking volunteers to the people who have called in on the welfare line. So far, Leeds Older People's Forum have trained over 200 volunteers to have meaningful conversations with people who may have no other contact with people. There are countless examples across the country like this.
21.3. As well as local recruitment campaigns, there have been national initiatives, most notably the NHS Volunteer Responders (NHSVR), which recruited, checked and trained almost 600,000 volunteers to undertake basic support tasks. The NHSVR uses GoodSam app to match requests for help with volunteers available to provide support. When it was first launched, even though it was intended for use by the NHS and social care, it was generally seen as a resource for the NHS. Since then, the LGA has worked with NHSE to introduce improvements to ensure this can be accessed by the VCS, care providers, councils, and directly by vulnerable people who need support.
21.4. The NHSVR programme has been an important back-up to councils’ existing and new local volunteering initiatives which are all helping communities during this crisis. It was never intended to be the primary source of voluntary support for vulnerable people or to replace any local provision. The LGA has worked with NHS England and the Government to ensure to maximise the alignment and coordination between national and local volunteering schemes to support vulnerable people.
21.5. The overwhelming majority of councils have organised volunteer support locally. For example, Leicestershire County Council has invited the voluntary and community sector and social enterprise organisations to apply for a share of £1 million to help them through the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Malvern Hills District Council and Manchester City Council have set up hubs across their areas, run by local community organisations, who connect volunteer support with people who need help. Plymouth City Council has helped community groups and charities gain access to resources they need - including buildings, fleet services and volunteers - through the Plymouth Good Neighbours Scheme.
21.6. Going forward, there is a need for measures to improve alignment, coordination and interoperability between national and local volunteering schemes. This will be particularly important in supporting the shielded group and non-shielded groups that need help as a consequence of COVID-19.
21.7. The LGA has consistently highlighted how councils continue to work with the local VCS in supporting local vulnerable people, and that work at a national level must complement this. There is however a concern that the profile of some national initiatives have detracted from existing local voluntary and community support.
21.8. Alongside the use of individual volunteers, there is equally a need to consider the resilience and capacity of the sector at organisational level, with a need for additional funding to support VCS infrastructure and coordinating functions to ensure effective deployment of local volunteers.
Support to the private sector
22.1. The impact of the pandemic on local economies has been huge and councils have been integral in ensuring that essential local businesses have been able to continue functioning. As the economy is being re-opened, businesses that were forced to close have looked to local government for guidance and support about how they can reopen safely.
22.2. The response to COVID-19 has shown that some jobs and skills challenges require granular interventions. Local authorities should be recognised for their ability to mobilise and deliver given they hold the contacts, knowledge, relationships with residents, JCP, local businesses, colleges, providers and third sector. Recent examples highlighting how councils have supported local economies include:
22.2.1. Staffordshire County Council established – at its own initiative – redundancy taskforces bringing together their local chambers, LEP, careers provide, colleges with their districts. In addition, they have developed business grant schemes for those who are ineligible for the national scheme, and business start-up scheme.
22.2.2. At the start of lockdown, Nottingham City Council established within two days a triage / support line though its Nottingham Job partnership for residents who needed employment related support, linked to wider employment and support initiatives. The National Careers Service were embedded within this. It dealt with 3500 enquiries. They promoted crucial Health and Social Care jobs, securing 700 applications, with 80 starting work in care roles. Over 100 employers were engaged to secure vacancies and to offer redundancy support (linked to DWP and NCS). A similar triage service set up by the LEP was set up across the rest of the D2N2 area, through the National Careers Service, but only supported around 300 individuals and placed single numbers into work.
22.2.3. In response to the pandemic, Elmbridge Borough Council expanded its pre-existing improvement fund for local businesses to provide funding to business to get them ready for when high streets would reopen but require social distancing measures. The funding allows small high street businesses to purchase equipment, like hand sanitiser stations, or signage up to £250, to better protect customers and staff. A simple application means as of June 2020 over 60 businesses have accessed the funding.
22.3. Meanwhile national government has provided £100 billion in grants and reliefs to support businesses and individuals through the current crisis. Councils have been given responsibility for paying out the Small Business Grant and the Retail Hospitality and Leisure Grants. Together these amount to £12.3 billion of support to businesses. As of 14 June 2020, they have paid out £10.37 billion or 84 per cent of the funding. It is vital that the public messaging by Government about the payment of these grants should seek to support councils in delivering this function.
22.4. There are still gaps in support for individuals and some businesses including those who are newly self-employed and cannot access the self-employed income support scheme. The introduction of the discretionary grant scheme for small businesses that are not eligible for existing grants is welcome.
22.5. Whilst the grants are positive, we remain concerned that the size of the fund, £617 million, will be insufficient to meet demand, for example from businesses that are in shared office space or in council or privately-owned business parks, where businesses are not individually rated and where business rates are rolled into rent payments. Evidence from just one council, Plymouth, shows that there are 400 of these businesses in that area, accounting for over 3000 employees. The LGA believes that the Government should redistribute any unspent resources from this scheme, including any clawed back, to councils to be spent on local efforts to help further support businesses and reboot local economies as we move into the next phase of this crisis.
22.6. We are concerned about the future of our partner organisations delivering public leisure services, particularly leisure trusts, who are charities, societies or community interest companies (with a public benefit asset lock) and as such do not distribute profits. Their margins are extremely tight and they are reliant on income from customers to operate. They have been unable to access support packages, other than the Jobs Retention Scheme. This is especially true of leisure trusts, due to their legal requirement to invest profits back into local authority services. We have written directly to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to highlight this issue.
22.7. The Job Retention Scheme has been extended to the end of July in its current form and then to the end of October 2020 with increased payments from employers. The scheme will need to be kept under review to ensure that the productive capacity and skills across a range of sectors that remain closed, including tourism, are maintained. Guidance on the use of the scheme is still inconsistent, posing difficulties to councils both as users of the scheme and as sources of information for other employers. The pre-July restrictions on furloughed employees’ ability to do anything for their employer also limits the responsiveness of businesses throughout the supply chain who may not want to call people back to work during a three-week furlough period and risk losing the scheme’s financial support.
The recovery
22.8. Councils are now turning to longer term recovery issues, reviewing the opportunities offered by the green economy and digital innovation and supporting local businesses. They are already working with their communities and businesses on their own local recovery plans. It will be vital to ensure there is a genuine partnership with national government using the expertise of local government to collectively develop service provision to meet the needs of local communities. As we have co-designed the emergency response, we will need to co-design the ‘new normal’ and the support our communities will need to move towards reopening society and towards economic recovery.
22.9. Locally-led action will be key to ensuring that the economy recovers in a way that addresses the long-term inequalities we have seen across the country. Local economies are different and will need different things to stimulate them. Some require greater connectivity, some need to transition to new industries and others are short of affordable housing. Councils will therefore need flexibility in the use of a range of levers to support the economic recovery as the emergency measures are lifted.
22.10. An effective and sustainable stimulus can only be carried out locally. In turn these decisions can only be taken by empowered local decision-makers who know what resources they can expect for the long term, including from the UKSPF, and the flexibility to use them in a way that makes sense locally.
22.11. In the Budget which preceded the COVID-19 crisis, the Government announced a review of HM Treasury’s Green Book process, the way in which investment projects are evaluated and compared, mixing return on investment with other measures. The crisis has served to underpin that economic improvement across the country is a vital part of the nation’s wellbeing.
22.12. The Government should recognise councils as empowered local decision-makers. The only way to level up the economy is to let council’s act. Central decision-making will deliver the same results it has for decades, with unequal growth across the country. If councils are empowered in this way, local government can get local economies started again and deliver a pipeline of long-term investment that will revive the economy and deliver economic, social and environmental transformation. The policy levers councils need to do this include:
22.12.1. Local Industrial Strategies: recalibrated with an explicit focus on economic recovery (Local Economic Recovery Strategies) with councils as the preeminent partners in developing and implementing local responses.
22.12.2. UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF): Proposals for the UKSPF need to be brought forward at pace and underpin local efforts to drive economic recovery in the medium-long term. Councils and combined authorities should be responsible for the design, prioritisation, commissioning and oversight of the UKSPF, which should be allocated in line with local need and support the move towards a single pot for growth funding.
22.12.3. State Aid: Government should explore how the new regime could provide councils with greater flexibilities to support non-profit-making activities or local social enterprises who reinvest surplus back into the local community.
22.12.4. English Devolution: the proposed White Paper on English devolution should be brought forward and focused on providing an English devolution baseline with a package of powers over employment and skills, planning, housing and transport made available to councils everywhere.
22.12.5. Skills: a multi-agency approach is required, led by councils and combined authorities. This should be based on Local Labour Market Agreements / Work Local model. Significant national investment will be needed in all training and back to work support. Local Labour Market Intelligence based careers advice and guidance will help prioritise increased levels of funding. Targeted support for specific groups vulnerable to COVID-19 related job loss but also those low skilled / unemployed even before COVID-19.
22.12.6. Inclusive recovery: Government must place inclusiveness at the core of its recovery strategy. Councils to shape more inclusive local economies and create and maintain wealth within local areas through public sector procurement, supporting social enterprises, community asset transfers and providing more affordable transport, housing and improved connectivity.
22.12.7. Sector Led Improvement: the LGA will develop a support offer in relation to supporting councils on local economic recovery and we will continue to engage with councils to ensure that this support reflects the challenges that councils face in that phase.
22.12.8. European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF): involve councils in the review of the current project pipeline so programmes can concentrate on COVID-19 issues and be assured that their running costs will be continued to be met, as far as possible. Remaining funds should support those businesses / residents most in need within the ESIF framework.
22.13. The Government has agreed to establish a Task Force between the LGA and MHCLG ministers to address economic recovery. The Task Force brings together economic and social partners to ensure a common purpose in driving and coordinating recovery at both a national and local level. It will be important for the Economic Recovery Task Force to influence the direction of national fiscal policy in the recovery period as well as the practical measures that can be put in place at the national, regional and local level.
22.14. As we look to the future, the Government has an opportunity to reset the relationship between local and national through the upcoming English Devolution White Paper and this year’s Spending Review. It is vital that measures are bought forward so that local leaders can bring government departments and agencies together to deliver locally determined and accountable outcomes that go beyond the institutional boundaries of most of our local and national agencies. The Devolution White Paper needs to offer the broadest vision possible. One which addresses the biggest public service issues such as social care, health, skills and employment. The vision must be bold and invite devolution deals which are shaped by the needs of local areas in order to help to level up inequalities between our communities and our regions.
29 June 2020
[i] https://www.local.gov.uk/resident-satisfaction-councils-response-covid-19-may-2020
[ii] https://www.local.gov.uk/coronavirus-certainty-needed-over-ongoing-covid-19-funding-vital-local-services
[iii] https://www.local.gov.uk/resident-satisfaction-councils-response-covid-19-may-2020
[iv] https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/research/research-publications/residents-satisfaction-surveys
[v]https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/29.17%20The%20future%20of%20care%20and%20support_03.2%20-%20Final.pdf
[vi] https://local.gov.uk/lga-social-care-providers-face-more-ps6bn-extra-covid-19-costs
[vii] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/council-tax-covid-19-hardship-fund-2020-to-2021-guidance
[viii] https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/adult-social-care-workforce-data/Workforce-intelligence/publications/national-information/The-state-of-the-adult-social-care-sector-and-workforce-in-England.aspx
[ix] https://www.local.gov.uk/covid-19-workforce-survey-research-reports
[x] https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Readying-the-NHS-and-adult-social-care-in-England-for-COVID-19.pdf
[xi] https://local.gov.uk/lga-600-percent-boom-online-library-memberships-some-areas-coronavirus-lockdown
[xii] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-grant-funding-local-authority-payments-to-small-and-medium-businesses
[xiii] You can find the various examples or our website:
https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/coronavirus-information-councils/covid-19-good-council-practice
https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/guidance-and-resources/remote-council-meetings
[xiv] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-children-in-need/review-of-children-in-need#key-findings-from-our-data-and-analysis
[xv] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-attendance-in-education-and-early-years-settings
[xvi]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875529/CLA_Outcomes_Main_Text_2019.pdf
[xvii]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/892510/Devices_and_4G_wireless_routers_data_ad_hoc_stats.pdf
[xviii] https://hungrylittleminds.campaign.gov.uk/
[xix] https://local.gov.uk/our-support/coronavirus-information-councils/covid-19-good-council-practice
[xx] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-attendance-in-education-and-early-years-settings
[xxi] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-on-vulnerable-children-and-young-people/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-on-vulnerable-children-and-young-people
[xxii] https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/childrens-mental-health-briefing-nov-2018.pdf
[xxiii] https://youngminds.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/three-quarters-of-young-people-seeking-mental-health-support-become-more-unwell-during-wait-for-treatment/
[xxiv] https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/guidance-and-resources/comms-hub-communications-support/coronavirus-communications-1
[xxv] https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/guidance-and-resources/comms-hub-communications-support/coronavirus-communications-0
[xxvi] https://www.local.gov.uk/protecting-vulnerable-people-during-covid-19-outbreak
[xxvii] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-for-managing-a-funeral-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic/covid-19-guidance-for-managing-a-funeral-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic
[xxviii] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-for-the-bereaved
[xxix] https://www.local.gov.uk/tackling-domestic-abuse-during-covid-19-pandemic
[xxx] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52157620
[xxxi] https://www.carersuk.org/images/Facts_about_Carers_2019.pdf
[xxxii] https://www.swimming.org/swimengland/government-letter-support-pools/
[xxxiii] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-care-homes-nhs-hospital-discharges-deaths-a9544671.html