Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 17
17
Government quickly needed to ensure that those shielding had reliable access to food, medicines and...
Conclusion
Government quickly needed to ensure that those shielding had reliable access to food, medicines and care. It chose a national system of support run by central government.36 MHCLG considered that a centralised offer was more likely to guarantee delivery of food boxes in every part of England at the start of the pandemic, when there was real concern about food shortages in supermarkets.37 MHCLG consulted with a small number of local 29 Letter from DHSC to the Committee 10 March 2021 30 Qq 27, 32, 46 31 Qq 25–26, 28, 47 32 Qq 29–30 33 Qq 25, 28 34 Qq 30, 31 35 Letter from DHSC to the Committee 10 March 2021 36 C&AG’s Report, para 1.5 37 Q 73 12 Covid 19: supporting the vulnerable during lockdown authorities as to the best way to support people shielding, but acknowledged that it had not done a full assessment of local authority capacity in the way it would for a business-as- usual programme, and had made a judgment based on the evidence available at the time.38 MHCLG told us that it engaged with local authorities, and some reported they would not have been able to provide the food delivery service in the early months of the pandemic.39 However, the NAO reported that some local authorities queried why government had chosen a centrally directed rather than a local system of support, particularly for food, and some authorities felt that they would have provided better quality support.40 MHCLG was confident that it had made the right decision to have a national system to provide food boxes, rather than a local one.41
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
4: PAC conclusion: Government chose a centrally-directed system to support clinically vulnerable people as it did not have confidence all local authorities and supermarkets could meet people’s needs, particularly for food. 4: PAC recommendation: MHCLG should ensure that local authorities will continue to have the capacity and resilience to support the needs of clinically extremely vulnerable people, particularly given the significant increase of people advised to shield in February 2021 – from 2.2 million to 3.9 million people. 4.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation Implemented 4.2 Whilst the government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation, it does not agree with the conclusion that a centrally directed system was chosen because of a lack of confidence in local authorities. Councils are crucial partners in delivery of shielding support to clinically extremely vulnerable individuals and since July 2020, councils and supermarkets have been supporting access to food. The shielding framework (co-designed with councils) includes a clear set of expectations regarding delivery of shielding support. From the autumn, the government provided councils with funding at a rate of £14.60 per CEV individual per four weeks whilst Shielding guidance was in place. 4.3 Outcomes data from councils in the most recent period of shielding demonstrated good performance in triaging and meeting requests for support from CEV individuals (including those added in February 2021 as a result of the QCovid® coronavirus risk prediction model). Councils’ confidence in their ability to meet requests for support consistently remained high. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) also tracked spend patterns, which will inform future review of funding. 4.4 Shielding was paused on 1 April 2021. As part of contingency planning, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has tested future delivery confidence with nearly all upper tier councils across England, finding that councils are confident in their ability to stand up shielding support rapidly in future. MHCLG continues to work closely with councils and to keep funding under review so councils can support those who need it, whilst providing value for money.