All
Members present are required to declare, at this point in the
meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:
I.Any disclosable
pecuniary interests and / or
II.Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting
NOTES:
·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest
·As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)
·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
Cllr Essex declared that he sits on the Facilities Environment
Committee of the YMCA. Cllr O’Reilly declared he is a Trustee
to the Hersham Youth Trust.
1.The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm
four working days before the meeting (11 April
2024).
2.The deadline for public questions is seven days
before the meeting(10 April 2024).
3.The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the
meeting, and no petitions have been received.
The
public retain their right to submit questions for written response,
with such answers recorded in the minutes of the meeting;
questioners may participate in meetings to ask a supplementary
question. Petitioners may address the Committee on their petition
for up to three minutes Guidance will be made available to any
member of the public wishing to speak at a meeting.
There were no
questions from the public. Responses to the four Member Questions
have been attached to these minutes.
As a supplementary to
her Member Question, Cllr Davidson asked if Mindworks would be
willing to investigate the experiences of parents she refers to
them who are having difficulty accessing Foetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorder expertise.
Cllr Essex followed
up his question on Betchwood Vale Academy by asking if it was a
change in Government policy that meant the Council was unable to
intervene, as the school would be built by a third party. A written
answer would be provided to him.
In relation to his
question on the Reigate Valley College relocation, Cllr Essex asked
why the fire station site in Reigate was excluded and why split
site solutions had been discounted on financial grounds. A written
answer would be provided to him.
Cllr Essex asked if
the Council would seek to recoup what it had appeared to continue
to pay to two special schools following their off-rolling of two
children. The Director for Education responded there could be a
number of reasons for that situation and she was happy to look into
both cases.
The Select Committee planned to scrutinise the
topic of Children Missing Education in September 2024. The Chair
commented children not in education required a great deal more
attention from both Surrey County Council and schools, noting that
between September 2023-February 2024, 2,942 children in maintained
schools in Surrey had been absent for more than 15 days, of whom
3.8% received Alternative Provision.
The Chair added that Members did not feel
reassured by the Service’s response to the Committee’s
recommendations on Alternative Provision (AP). The Committee was
concerned about how the Service would monitor the education being
provided to those 42% of young people who had been absent from
school for more than 15 days and were not enrolled in a PRU/AP
Academy. For those pupils in receipt of AP, the Chair hoped to see
an improvement in the proportion receiving 15 or more hours a week,
currently at 15 per cent, and looked forward to reviewing tracking
reports on all children receiving AP at a future
Committee.
Following
recommendations made on the recruitment and retention of foster
carers, the Chair looked forward to welcoming back the Surrey
County Foster Carer Association in the future to update the
Committee. She remarked it would be interesting to have an
independent review of Surrey’s foster care recruitment and
retention strategy of the sort undertaken by King’s College
on Hampshire.
To detail the additional budget to be provided
in 2024/25 to support prevention work within CFLL. To provide a
service response to Cllr Catherine Powell’s proposed budget
amendments relating to Children’s Services.
Julia Katherine, Director – Education and
Lifelong Learning
Chris Tisdall,Head of Commissioning – Corporate
Parenting
Kay Goodacre, Strategic Finance
Business Partner for CFL
Key points
made in the discussion:
The Chair summarised the areas where opinion differed on how to
allocate the additional Children, Families and Lifelong Learning
budget coming fromSurrey’s share of
the £600m additional allocation announced by the Department
of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) in January 2024:
(a) the Service wants to develop inclusive play
rather than continue to support play and leisure breaks for
children with additional needs and disabilities suggested by Cllr
Powell; (b) the Service supports the need for additional support in
schools for neurodiverse children but does not support targeting
areas of high deprivation suggested by Cllr Powell; and (c) the
Select Committee questions the value of international social worker
recruitment proposed by the Service.
A
Member asked the Service to explain the inclusive play it espouses
and the evidence base for its outcomes. The Head of Commissioning – Corporate Parenting
explained it would make the mainstream more inclusive, for example
allow children with additional needs to access sports clubs in
their community. Surrey could learn from other local authorities
already doing this, for instance Hampshire and Wandsworth. It had
been discussed with 30 parents so far in a co-production programme.
He assured the Committee that inclusive play would not undermine
the current £370,000 play and leisure offer. A Member said
they would like to get rid of thedeficit in the current SEND play and leisure offer,
i.e. address the waiting list in this area, before introducing
another scheme. The Head of
Commissioning – Corporate Parenting noted that, unlike some
other local authorities,Surrey
County Council(SCC) did not have
an eligibility threshold and this open approach made it hard to
give an answer on how many eligible children were waiting. The
Cabinet Member thought this open approach might have to
change.
Asked how many play and leisure places for children
with additional needs and disabilities (AND) were available versus
how many were needed,the Head of Commissioning – Corporate Parenting
responded that about 1,400
children accessed 140,000 hours of play and leisure breaks each
year and about 350 children and young people were on a waiting
list. Access was at the discretion of SCC, whose statutory duty was
to provide overnight short breaks, rather than enabling every child
with an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for example to access
a play and leisure scheme.
The Cabinet Member said SCC was not obliged by statute to
provide play and leisure but it was highly valued by families of
children with additional needs, many of whom had difficulty in
finding childcare, and should be seen in the context of preparation
for adulthood and promoting independence. She ...
view the full minutes text for item 16/
Review the provision of youth work and
outcomes for all young people at county and district levels and
outcomes for service users since a decision in 2020 to replace
universal youth work with targeted youth work; compare and contrast
data from new provision with that of previous provision and seek
assurance of the adequacy and impact of current provision.
Cllr Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families,
Lifelong Learning
Cllr Maureen Attewell, Deputy Cabinet Member Children and
Families, Lifelong Learning
Jackie Clementson, Assistant Director – Early
Help, Youth Justice & Adolescent Service
Dave McLean, Service Manager – Early Help,
Youth Justice & Adolescent Service
Elaina Phillips, Commissioning Officer –
Early Help, Youth Justice & Adolescent Service
Judith
Brooks, Head
of Children & Young People and Deputy CEO - YMCA East Surrey
Stuart
Kingsley, Family Services and Youth Work Manager - YMCA East
Surrey
Melissa
Salisbury, Hale Community Centre Manager
Jo Goodhew,
Hale Youth Centre Team Leader
Key points
made in the discussion:
The HaleYouth Centre
Team Leader informed that the centre serves 45-50 young people aged
11-19 in eight sessions a week, providing a safe space in which
they can talk to a trusted adult. The building is leased for free
from Surrey County Council (SCC) who maintain it. They could not
run without volunteers. There are also paid staff employed to
secure funding, which comes from National Lottery and Waverley
Borough Council. Aside from SCC’s holiday activity camps for
those on free school meals, the centre runs term-time only, due to
funding rather than staff availability, which can lead to distress
in the summer holidays when young people feel deserted.
The YMCA
Surrey’s Youth Work Manager told the Committee they deliver
20 sessions a week in Reigate and Banstead, with SCC offering a
peppercorn rent and paying for utilities. They had secured Safer
Streets and National Lottery funding, would not be able to do their
work without the building, and report back quarterly to SCC.
Recruiting was a barrier.
Asked how
provision differed from before a reorganisation of youth work four
years ago, theService Manager
reassured Members that none of their 27 buildings were being closed
or knocked down; the Council was looking to enhance the work of the
third sector and not throw them out. A couple of buildings were
currently closed for repairs.The
Commissioning Officer explained that 14 of the 27 buildings had
been leased to interested community organisations or third sector
providers. The other 13, described as retained youth centres, had
no interested hosts and still sat with SCC; they were fully
utilised by police and health partners and managed by a business
property support team. Some of the leaseholders had struggled to
deliver their contractual terms in the financial landscape, meaning
ten of the 14 buildings being leased
out were standing empty much of the time, apart from perhaps one or
two evenings a week. Meanwhile, SCC paid for the utilities and had
statutory services like family centres that needed places to go,
but the Service Level Agreements (SLA) meant they were not allowed
to use their buildings. Leaseholders were able to generate
rental income to invest in support for local families, though in
many cases were not doing so.
Cllr Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families,
Lifelong Learning
Cllr Matt Furniss,Cabinet
Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth
Julia Katherine,Director
– Education and Lifelong Learning
Francis Lawlor, Surrey Adult Learning Service
Manager
Luke McCarthy, Economy Lead, Strategic Lead -
Policy & Strategy
Key points
made in the discussion:
The Task Group
Chairman remarked that he thought it was a mistake to have paused
work on a centralised online database of all available training in
Surrey, recommended by the task group.Surrey Adult Learning (SAL) Service Managersaid following the recommendation he had sought to
gain information from colleges. However, National Careers Service
had since developed their own national database of courses that
lead to qualifications, which Surrey Adult Learning and colleges in
Surrey feed into. The Member asked if this included community
learning opportunities and if it was promoted by SAL. The Service
Manager said he was confident it included all courses but they did
not question the outside body to check its accuracy or
completeness. They did market the facility but did not test to see
if residents utilised it. The Service Manager added that when,
under the County Deal, Surrey County Council (SCC) had a greater
strategic oversight and leadership role for adult learning and its
funding, it should then provide its own database and not go through
the National Careers Service.
A Member asked for
more information on how SCC’s approach to adult learning
would change following the introduction of the County Deal and
devolution of the Adult Education Budget (AEB) from 2026/27. The
Service Manager said it would allow the Council to ensure it has a
far greater understanding of adult learning across the whole
county. Rather than just being a deliverer, it would receive about
£11.5m and will be able to set out its priorities in terms of
the skills agenda, community, health and wellbeing, make decisions
on what it is spent on and who it funds, and set expectations for
the providers it commissions. Currently SCC cannot determine how
money is spent; the Department for Education (DfE) and Education
and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) allocate money to providers, who
spend it in accordance with the National Funding Allocation Method.
The Economy Lead added this would enable the Council to target
provision in line with skills gaps flagged by local businesses, and
to focus on particular demographics most in need.
The Cabinet Member
leading on Adult Learning added that community learning courses
were highly valued and should not be forgotten when the AEB is
devolved, with the disparity between West and East availability in
this area highlighted by the task group. A Member sought clarity on
what the Council planned to do to address the postcode lottery from
2026/27 onwards. The Service Manager said a programme board would
be set up to discuss how they want to influence the balance of
provision when the County Deal is introduced in September 2026. A
Skills Strategic Plan would be developed to determine
...
view the full minutes text for item 18/
To review new Ofsted reports on Surrey County
Council-run Children’s Homes, received as part of the
communications plan in Children’s Services agreed in
2022.
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong
Learning
Tina Benjamin, Director – Corporate Parenting
Key points
made in the discussion:
The Chair said the
Outstanding Ofsted grade of a children’s home in January was
testament to the staff’s hard work and dedication and
excellent management, and she would write to the registered manager
and staff to congratulate them. She also acknowledged progress made
in the two other homes inspected.
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong
Learning
Patricia Denney, Director – Quality and
Performance
Key points
made in the discussion:
The Chair said she
was reassured to see a clear improvement trend in the social care
metrics. She noted she wanted to see more up-to-date data submitted
for additional needs and disabilities.
PDF 179 KB