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.
1.The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm
four working days before the meeting (26 September
2023).
2.The deadline for public questions is seven days
before the meeting(25 September 2023).
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 was one public
question, two Member’s questions and no
petitions.
Amy Rieley asked a supplementary question on private
Educational Psychologists (EP) assessments. The Assistant Director
for Inclusion and Additional Needs answered that the acceptance of
private EPs had been updated on the Council’s website on 22
September 2023 and all staff were informed on 25 September
2023.
The Chair queried
when the website was updated with the latest information on
extended acceptance of private EPs. The Assistant Director for
Inclusion and Additional needs noted that the website was updated
on the 25 July.
It was further updated on the 13 of September which made
information on imbursement clearer to parents.
The Chair noted that
the update in July 2023 was not clear to parents and stressed the
importance of communicating to parents effectively.
A Member noted that
the information on reimbursements was difficult to find following
the previous public Select Committee meeting in July 2023. The
Member said that not everyone could afford to pay for the private
assessments and could be disadvantaged as a result.
A Member asked a
question on high suspension rates, a school absence multi agency
network and improving school absences for girls with autism
spectrum disorder (ASD). The Director for Education and Lifelong
Learning to respond to the question as an action.
Actions/requests for further information:
Director for Education and Lifelong
Learning will provide a written response to CatherinePowell’s
question on the school absence multi-agency network and school
absences for girls with ASD.
Director for Education and Lifelong Learning tosend the
High Sheriff’s report to the Committee.
To show the position with
regard to EHCP timeliness at the end of August 2023, receive data
on and better understand the part the NHS plays in the EHCP
process, review the assumptions underpinning targets and timescales
in the Council’s second phase recovery plan, and receive the
external consultancy’s assessment of the delivery
plan.
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong
Learning
Rachael Wardell, Executive Director – Children, Families
and Learning
Liz
Mills, Director – Education and Lifelong Learning
Tracey Sanders, Assistant Director – Inclusion &
Additional Needs SW
Harriet Derrett-Smith, Associate
Director – Children’s Commissioning
Leanne Henderson, Family Voice Surrey Participation Manager
– remote
Key points
made in the discussion:
The Family Voice
Surrey Participation Manager noted that the effects of improvements
would take time to realise but expressed support for the increase
in Educational Psychologists (EP) at the Council. She welcomed the
extension of the acceptance of private EP assessments.
A Member noted that
the forecast on timeliness showed large increases in 2024 and asked
about the service’s commitment and potential obstacles. The
Cabinet Member for Children and Families said that the recovery
plan was based on detailed planning and was confident in this plan
being achievable. The Cabinet Member noted that potential risks
could be a significant increase of requests for new plans or
significant reductions in the number of staff. The Cabinet Member
stressed that responses from partners such as schools were also
vital to the plan’s success. The Member requested that if any
negative impacts occurred, the Chair of the Committee be informed
immediately. The Cabinet Member emphasised that the plan was being
monitored closely and was ready to respond to a changing
landscape.
A Member asked if the
projected model of EP assessment timeliness was accurate. The
Executive Director for Children, Families and Learning noted that
the projected model was accurate, improvement would appear to
surge, and visibility of performance would be good.
A Member asked about
support for early intervention and asked for a breakdown of the
budget allocation for providing support to schools, health partners
and transport and how much needed to be carried into the next year.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Families noted that health
partners and schools did not receive funding from the Council for
extra support. The Assistant Director for Inclusion &
Additional Needs SW noted that of the £15 million funding,
40% was earmarked for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
(SEND) case officers, 30% for EP contracts and enhanced early
intervention support in 2023. For 2024-2025, 30% was for SEND case
officers and 2025-2026, 45% was for EP contracts and 25% for early
intervention. This would be monitored and was subject to
change.
A Member asked what
changes parents could expect over the next few months due to the
plan. The Director for Education and Lifelong Learning answered
that specialist teachers for inclusive practice would target work
for children currently on the waiting list. They were supported
through enhanced funding that schools could access for support for
SEND plans. Schools receiving specialist teachers had been targeted
based on the level of need. The Director confirmed that this was in
place currently.
The Chair asked if
the plan addressed the backlog of children needing EPs. The
Director for Education and Lifelong Learning answered that the team
targeted children with ...
view the full minutes text for item 40/23
Review the
commissioning process and desired outcomes, including how demand
for each service is identified and monitored before contracts are
awarded and while in operation, selection criteria for providers
and how delivery performance is monitored,what the commissioning strategy means for family centres and
family support programmes and how it contributes to ‘Getting
to Good’.
Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Children and
Families
Rachael Wardell, Executive Director – Children, Families
and Learning
Lucy Clements, Interim Director of Integrated Childrens
Commissioning
Matt Ansell, Director for Family Resilience and
Safeguarding
Eamonn Gilbert, Assistant Director –
Commissioning
Sue
Turton, Service Manager Early Help Partnerships
Key points
made in the discussion:
The Chair noted that
Children’s Services accounted for a quarter of the
Council’s £1.1 billion revenue budget. The Chair asked
of the £250 million spent by Children’s
Services, what percentage was spent on third party
contractors.The Interim Director of
Integrated Children’s Commissioning offered to provide a
written response.
The Interim Director
of Integrated Childrens Commissioning gave a summary of the paper
and stressed the importance of understanding the needs of the
population. This understanding informed the service model and
commissioning model. The Interim Director noted that financial
constraints and increasing complex needs post Covid had been
challenging for the service. The report also focused on family
centres and family resilience 1-1 family support models that worked
together with local services. The Interim Director shared positive
verbal feedback from inspectors from the SEND inspection in
September 2023.
A Member asked
following the award of a contract, was it sensible that past
performance was not considered when commissioning The Interim
Director explained that the procurement process must be fair to all
bidders. As part of the quality questions, providers could input
their positive past performance to demonstrate their
knowledge.
A Member asked the
Interim Director what the realities and challenges of delivering
commissioning services were. The Interim Director noted that
commissioning collaborated with operational teams who had a good
grasp of operating models and challenges. She discussed the
community research and outreach on early help, co-designed
community sessions, partnership forums, market engagement events
which shared the proposed commissioning model - all ways the
commissioning team continued to meet the needs of Surrey
residents.
A Member asked how
challenges with commissioning were being addressed. The Assistant
Director of Commissioning noted that now was the opportunity for
innovation. Mainstream schools’ new funding systems had been
introduced to allow schools the flexibility to deliver based on
individual student’s needs. The Assistant Director emphasised
that the private market was used and there must be a balance
between what the service wanted and needed and what providers
wanted and needed.
A Member noted that
many charities providing Short Breaks would not agree that
children’s needs were being met. The Interim Director agreed
that Commissioning must meet the needs of residents and noted the
Member’s frustration. The Chair noted that she has received
similar feedback from charities as well and hoped that
collaboration could be improved going forward.
A Member asked how
barriers faced by smaller partners like local charities were
tackled so that they were not disadvantaged. The Assistant Director
of Commissioning answered that there was an effort to not create
artificial thresholds, but the quality of providers was the biggest
consideration. The voluntary sector usually had a good local
footprint, ...
view the full minutes text for item 41/23
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.
A Member expressed
concern at delays in 45 day targets for assessments, Childrens
Protection Conference and children with Protection Plans not being
seen promptly. The Chair echoed this view and expressed concern
over the deteriorating trend in sufficiency.
Actions/requests for further information:
Executive Director –
Children, Families and Learning to provide response on why 45-day
targets for assessment, Child Protection conferences and children
on Children Protection plans were not being met
PDF 178 KB