Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 57 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Andrew Spragg or Rianna Hanford ,
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Cecile White and Colin Kemp, Simon Parr acted as a substitute for Cecile White. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 27 NOVEMBER 2014
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: The minutes from the previous meeting were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: Robert Evans asked that it be noted that he lectures at Royal Holloway, Surrey. This was a non-pecuniary interest.
|
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (Tuesday 20 January 2015). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Monday 19 January 2015). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: No questions or petitions were received.
|
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
On 27 November 2014 the Committee made a series of recommendations concerning the Surrey Safeguarding Children’s Board, The Schools and Safeguarding Update and the School Governance Task Group. These recommendations were considered by the Cabinet on 16 December 2014 and a response is attached. Additional documents: Minutes: Witness: Mary Angell, Cabinet Member for Children and Families
Key points raised during this discussion:
1. The Committee agreed to defer consideration of item 5Biii for discussion alongside item 9 of the agenda.
2. Under Item 5Bi the Committee emphasized the need to raise awareness of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) amongst Surrey's districts and boroughs authorities and communities, at both a strategic and operational level, in order to protect children and young people from the risk of harm. The Committee was of the view that whilst the response from the Cabinet Member for Children and Families covered operational aspects, it did not address the strategic aspects of the Council’s work with districts and boroughs authorities.
3. Members also noted the response did not address the second recommendation made in connection with CSE.
4. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families drew the Committee’s attention to the thematic report on CSE, The Sexual Exploitation of Children: It Couldn’t Happen Here, Could It? (Ofsted, November 2014). It was highlighted that it was an area where all local authorities faced challenges, and that the report had set out a number of key recommendations for tackling CSE. The Committee was informed that the Corporate Parenting Board had requested a report on CSE in Surrey; this would be used to identify possible patterns and trends, in order to agree further actions.
5. Following discussion, the Committee agreed that the recommendations concerning CSE would be referred back to the Cabinet Member for Children and Families for a more detailed response.
6. Under Item 5Bii the Committee noted the response from Cabinet in relation to Schools and Safeguarding. There were no further comments.
Recommendations:
a) That Surrey County Council actively engages with District and Borough councils and Surrey Police to consider how the risk of Child Sexual Exploitation can be reduced through regulatory licensing, in particular taxi licensing and in respect of activities described as "Licensable Activities" by the Licensing Act 2003.
b) That, given the crucial work of the Youth Support Service and Children’s Services in supporting young people and children at risk of CSE and in reducing the risk of CSE, any future strategy and financial planning by Cabinet ensures that both services are suitably resourced to address CSE and safeguarding in Surrey.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: None
Key points raised during this discussion:
1. The Committee was informed that the Performance and Finance Sub-group had met on three occasions. The summary of the Sub-Group’s discussions would be presented to the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee (COSC), alongside those of other Select Committee Performance and Finance Sub-Groups. The Committee was informed that COSC would collate these findings and produce a final set of recommendations to Cabinet on 3 February 2015, to be considered alongside the Medium Term Financial Plan 2015-2020.
2.
Members requested that the item Re-commissioning of
Services for Young People
Recommendations:
None.
|
|
|
SCHOOL PLACE PLANNING AND EXPANSION PROGRAMME
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Keith Brown, Schools & Programme Manager, Property; Business Services Julie Stockdale, Head of Commissioning and Admissions, Schools and Learning Dominic Forbes, Planning and Development Group Manager, EIA Peter-John Wilkinson, Assistant Director for Schools and Learning
Key points raised during this discussion: 1. Officers outlined how the demand for school places will be met over the next year as set out within the School Place Planning and Expansion Programme. The Committee was informed that processes had been reviewed and improvements made. Officers were questioned over statistics regarding the importation and exportation of school places between Surrey and neighbouring counties. The Committee was informed that approximately 5,000 places were exported and 8,000 imported during 2014 and that both numbers have shown a downward trend since 2010.
2. The Committee questioned how the Council monitored the impact on local areas where existing schools were being expanded. Officers commented that mitigation measures were put in place as part of the planned expansion where appropriate, but following any expansion work it was the school’s responsibility to monitor the impact on the local community. Members questioned whether school head teachers should be expected to take responsibility in this area. Some members expressed the view that the impact of expansion was a school issue that should be resolved within the community and that Local Committees should play a role since they offer a forum where local residents can raise concerns.
3. The Committee commended officers on the success of delivering the school expansion programme within budget during difficult financial times.
4. The Committee was informed that in relation to the School Travel Plan positive steps have been taken in bringing the process in-house with a dedicated School Travel Plan Team. A new officer role had been created in relation to compliance and planning applications. Officers added that the different teams involved within the school planning process were working together in a bid to unify future projects through improved communication and a more holistic approach. 5. The Committee was informed that there is a challenge in creating school places in the Key Stage 2 (KS2) bracket as most infant schools’ sites were small and lacked the scope for expansion.
6. The Committee questioned how best they could understand the risks related to the School Expansion Programme and critical points for scrutiny. Officers stated that future reports would include a risk register; the focus would mostly be around central government funding for school places. It was also highlighted that most sites with the potential for expansion had already been developed and there was therefore a future risk due to the higher cost for new developments.
7. The Committee drew attention to the fact that local authorities have no control over the provision of free schools and questioned officers on the potential impact this may have. The Committee was informed that the Council was supportive of free schools where it addressed a need for school places.
8. Officers highlighted the School Travel Plan Team’s role in monitoring all travel plans ... view the full minutes text for item 7/15 |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Zarah Lowe, Provision and Partnership Development Manager Peter-John Wilkinson, Assistant Director for Schools and Learning
Adrienne Knight, Headteacher, Woodlands School Anne Breaks, Guildford and Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group Andrea Collings, Family Voice
Key points raised during this discussion:
1. Officers outlined the realignment of commissioning responsibilities detailed in the proposed joint commissioning strategy. The Committee was informed that Speech and Language Therapy was mainly identified as an educational need rather than a health one in Surrey, and that the current service required improvement due to a disjointed relationship between education services and clinical practice.
2. The Committee was informed that the joint commissioning approach would mean that both health and education provisions would have a single service specification, rather than the two separate specifications in place. The Committee was informed that the joint commissioning strategy would potentially see an increase in cost to the High Needs Block in the short-term, but would improve outcomes for children and families. It was clarified that the speech and language budget quoted in the report included provision to Special Schools.
3. The Committee highlighted that the strategy could mirror that of the Services for Young People, by developing a “hub and spoke” model to share knowledge and training. The view was expressed by some Members that more training for early years teachers was necessary.
4. Witnesses informed the Committee that speech and language therapy across the county is often focussed on delivering support for the individual student, when it would be more beneficial to adopt a whole school approach. The Committee was told that teachers and Learning Support Assistants would need training from qualified practitioners in order to help deliver the support. Witnesses supported the concept of a county-wide, uniform approach which included a “hub and spoke” model. It was further highlighted that it was important that families were involved in the training process.
5. The Committee commented that it would like to see a number of performance indicators linked to the outcomes outlined in the report, in order to measure the impact of the joint commissioning strategy. 6. The Committee was informed that there was a need to improve transition planning between stages of education. Officers highlighted this was particularly the case when moving from school onto college, where it was important to encourage a move away from one-to-one support in order to develop the student’s independence.
Recommendations:
The Committee endorses and commends the general principles of the Joint Commissioning Strategy. It asks that officers note the following recommendations:
a) That a consistent universal offer of speech and language therapy is developed across all Surrey early years settings, education settings and schools through training for staff and carers. It is suggested that a “hub and spoke” model is implemented as part of this, in order to allow schools and therapists to share good practice.
b) That the strategy outlines how it will support children and young people who transition between stages of education.
c) That the strategy expands on how it ... view the full minutes text for item 8/15 |
|
|
SCHOOL GOVERNANCE TASK GROUP
Purpose of Report: Policy Development
This report sets out the final findings of the School Governance Task Group. It is intended to be read as a follow on from the interim report of the Task Group, which was presented to the Committee on 27 November 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: P-J Wilkinson, Assistant Director for Schools and Learning Linda Kemeny, Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Under Item 5Biii the Chairman informed the Committee that the task group interim report went to Cabinet on 27 November 2014 and that she had attended the Cabinet meeting. The Chairman had put forward suggestions to Cabinet as to how the local Member could participate in the nomination panel.
2. The Committee discussed the role of Local Authority (LA) governors. Members commented that they were concerned Local Authority governors felt isolated and that a forum for communication and information is important. The Committee was advised that the Department for Education (DfE) set out in guidance that the LA must not attempt to influence an LA governor. Members discussed the potential risk associated with the perception of LA governors as representatives of the LA. The Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning highlighted the need to engage with and support all Surrey governors and stressed she was happy to meet with all school governors to discuss the Council’s priorities. The Committee agreed with the Cabinet response as shown in Item 5Biii.
3. The role of the Clerk to Governors was mentioned by the Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning, in relation to key training offered to clerks and their important role in disseminating support information to governing bodies.
4. The Committee supported engagement with all governors through Local Committees. Recommendations:
a) That the Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning engages with local economic and enterprise partners, Phase Council representatives and SGOSS to consider how the Council can best encourage individuals in the business sector to serve as school governors.
b) That the Cabinet Member and Assistant Director for Schools and Learning use the Council’s internal communication network to actively promote the school governor role to all local government staff.
c) That the Directorate for Children, Schools and Families work with its professional governance partners to develop and strengthen peer to peer support between school governing bodies, and relevant professional associations.
d) That the Internal Audit Team update the Committee on any themes emerging from the financial audits in schools following the conclusion of the 2015/16 audit plan.
e) That the Council’s Education Finance Team and Internal Audit Team are invited to attend a future meeting of all Surrey governors in order to highlight the skills and expertise of the Internal Audit Team and discuss the role of governing bodies in financial and risk management.
f) That the Assistant Director for Schools and Learning considers how to involve the Internal Audit Team in future governor training on financial and risk management.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10.00am on Thursday 26 March. Minutes: The Committee noted its next meeting would be Thursday 26 March 2015 at 10am. |