Agenda and minutes

Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee - Tuesday, 30 July 2024 10.00 am

Venue: Council Chamber, Surrey County Council, 11 Cockshot Hill, Woodhatch, Reigate, RH2 8EF

Contact: Julie Armstrong, Scrutiny Officer 

Media

Items
No. Item

22/24

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    To receive any apologies for absence and substitutions.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Apologies for absence were received from Councillor John O’Reilly. Councillor Becky Rush was in attendance as a substitute.

     

23/24

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 17 APRIL 2024 pdf icon PDF 465 KB

    To agree the minutes of the previous meeting of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee AGREED the minutes from the previous meeting were a true and accurate record of the meeting.

     

24/24

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    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.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest were received.

     

25/24

QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS pdf icon PDF 95 KB

    To receive any questions or petitions.

    Notes:

    1.    The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (24 July 2024).

     

    2.    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting(23 July 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.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    One question was received from a member of the public. The question and response were published as a supplementary to the agenda.

     

    In reply to a supplementary question from Amanda Lazenby on whether a commitment could be made to monitor appeals against issued Educational, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs), assess the quality of those plans and publish the findings, the Cabinet Member said they monitored the monthly issuance of plans and number of appeals submitted. They also tracked the number of plans rated as Good or Outstanding and expressed a commitment to the suggestion.

     

26/24

CABINET RESPONSE TO SELECT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS pdf icon PDF 148 KB

    • Share this item

    To note the responses to recommendations submitted by the Select Committee to Cabinet on 25 June 2024:

    ·         Children, Families And Lifelong Learning (CFLL) Additional Budget Allocation

    ·         Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision (AP) Capital Programmes and Specialist Sufficiency to 2031/32.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Key points made in the discussion:

     

    1. Regarding the Children, Families and Lifelong Learning (CFLL) Additional Budget Allocation, the Chair said that the Committee hoped the report on the play and leisure short breaks research would address all the criteria outlined in the recommendations. It was essential to understand the impact of the new strategy compared to the current one, the specifics of how integrated play would be delivered, and how the transition would be managed. Additionally, if the needs were not being met, it was important to clarify how those needs would be fulfilled.

     

    1. The Chair further said that all schemes should be funded to ensure they had equivalent capacity in 2024–2025 as they did in 2022–2023. They were satisfied that the Cabinet had agreed to the Service’s proposed estimate of £370,000. However, it was later discovered that this estimate had significantly underestimated the restoration costs by 70% and the total cost of restoration was in fact approximately £630,000. The Cabinet was requested to reconsider and address this funding gap. A Member said that the reason for the 70% cost underestimation should be investigated and hoped that the Cabinet would support the request for the new amount.

     

    1. Regarding the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision (AP) Capital Programmes and Specialist Sufficiency to 2031–2032, the Chair noted that the Cabinet's response did not provide the Committee with confidence that the needs of children and young people, both present and projected, would be addressed by local resources. Furthermore, they pointed out that the data used to compare needs and provisions used different categories, preventing the Committee from making reasonable comparisons. The Chair further said that the priority was ensuring appropriate school places in suitable locations rather than just the quantity and raised concerns about whether current specialist provisions could meet complex needs.

     

    1. The Cabinet Member noted that the current programme was agreed upon and launched in 2019 and significant issues with inflation in the construction industry now made it unaffordable, leading to necessary cutbacks to adhere to the budget agreement. As a result, six projects were cancelled.

     

    The Committee NOTED the response.

     

    Actions/requests for further information:

     

    1. Additional Needs & Disabilities Transformation Consultant: To answer why it was decided not to go ahead with new SEND provision at a school and what evidence was used to determine that this decision was the best way forward.

     

    1. Assistant Director - Strategy & Operations: To answer how a maintenance backlog was allowed to build up, and what impact it had on additional school places planned.

     

    1. Assistant Director - Inclusion & Additional Needs: To answer if the quality of EHCP assessments commissioned should be determined to be below standard, is there a mechanism for the Council to claim its money back.

     

27/24

ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PLAN pdf icon PDF 197 KB

    • Share this item

    To review the actions and recommendations tracker and forward work programme, making suggestions for additions of amendments as appropriate.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chair proposed establishing a Task and Finish Group to assess the availability of suitable special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) school places, a suggestion welcomed by the Cabinet Member. While the Chair acknowledged they could not reverse the Cabinet's decision on the capital programme, they aimed to assure the public that the best possible solution had been found considering the complexities of the situation.

     

28/24

HOME TO SCHOOL TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (H2STA) UPDATE pdf icon PDF 2 MB

    To receive an update on progress made against the Select Committee’s December 2023 recommendations, the latest position on KPIs, impact of EHCP Recovery Plan to date and how the service sees the future for H2STA.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning

    Patricia Denney, Director – Quality and Performance

    Suzanne Smith, Director of Commissioning – Transformation

    Gerry Hughes, Assistant Director – Business Support & H2STA

    Chris McShee, Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison

    Matthew Winnett, Travel and Assessment Team Manager – Transport Delivery

    Matt Marsden, Strategic Finance Business Partner – Strategy & Innovation

     

    Key points of discussion:

     

    1. The Chair said that, while huge progress had been made and the team should be proud of the improvements, challenges remained in providing a clear roadmap for families from application for a school to delivery of transport, and in improving collaboration among responsible teams. The issue of collaboration has significant implications and needs to be prioritised for attention. Parents may unwittingly choose a school, or have a school identified for them, which entails a very long journey for their children. They noted that in the 2023–2024 fiscal year, £65 million had been spent, including a £7.4 million overspend and £45 million on taxis alone. Rising costs highlighted the need to place children in suitable schools, based on their needs and locality.

     

    1. A Member asked about how the Council compared to neighbouring councils regarding transport assistance. In reply, the Travel and Assessment Team Manager - Stakeholder Liaison said that it was important to focus on different cohorts. They noted that understanding the information and that of different authorities was as necessary to understand how these factors varied across the counties. The Chair said that it would be useful to have a breakdown of the data in relation to the population size and that of each cohort, allowing the Committee to better understand the proportionality involved.

     

    1. A Member asked why the decision to disallow the transport of children under five years old was enforced without clear communication to families prior to finalising placements, and what percentage of appeals from families with children under five had been successful. The Assistant Director – Business Support & H2STA said that the Council's policy stated children under five were ineligible for transport, though exceptions had become common over the past two years. Previous communications led to misunderstandings, as families were informed they might receive transport. Ultimately, 28 of 59 appeals were approved, while 31 were declined.

     

    1. The Chair said that when implementing online services, there should be consideration of the specific circumstances of parents and carers in the event they cannot use online services. The Assistant Director replied that there were ongoing efforts to enhance the automation of forms and to educate colleagues about possible improvements to the service. Additionally, much work had been put into the development of easy-read guides for parents, which highlighted the importance of both parents’ understanding and effective communication with the team.

     

    1. A Member asked if the support service would participate in the customer transformation programme. The Assistant Director said the support service was very involved and participating.

     

    1. A Member asked about the approach and policy concerning dual placements, the policy for alternative provision (AP) and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28/24

29/24

CORPORATE PARENTING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT 2023/24 & PERFORMANCE REPORT IN RELATION TO LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN FOR 2022/23 pdf icon PDF 163 KB

    • Share this item

    To receive an annual report for the last financial year on the delivery of Corporate Parenting within Surrey County Council. To review key performance data on Looked After Children for year ending March 2023, as compared with statistical neighbours and nationally.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning

    Tina Benjamin, Director – Corporate Parenting

     

    Key points of discussion:

     

    1. The Chair said that, after reviewing all the data, there seemed to be steady progress, which was encouraging; however, there were some areas of concern. The Cabinet Member said that they were aware the data included in the report was historic and that the Corporate Parenting Board reviewed more current information. They noted an effort to examine the board's impact, and the progress made in individual areas, which served as the driving theme of the Corporate Parenting Board.

     

    1. A Member asked about the significance of the decrease in developmental checks for looked-after children under five years old and for those who had been continuously looked after for 12 months or more, what were the original number of checks, the extent of the decrease, and the reasons behind it. The Director – Corporate Parenting said any decrease was likely related to the availability of NHS appointments or the ability of foster carers to transport children to those appointments. Asked whose responsibility it was for initial health assessments, the Director said an NHS response depended on where the child was placed.

     

    1. The Chair said that, while reviewing the new contract for children's Community Health Care, one significant risk identified by the team was the availability of developmental paediatricians. It was believed that this issue needed further attention.

     

    1. A Member asked about those looked after children who had a strength and difficulties questionnaire completed and the reason for the significant decrease from 95% in 2022 to 67% in 2023. The Director said that there had been problems with the IT system and submissions from parents and believed the issue had been resolved. They had focused considerable attention on it that year, and the completion rate of the questionnaire had improved.

     

    1. A Member asked if the pathway plan training surgeries should be regarded as essential training. The Director said not all social workers had a looked after child and after one year the record of training becomes outdated and skills forgotten. A Member suggested that since the training was essential only for social workers with a pathway plan, it should be emphasised that it was exclusively for those individuals.

     

    1. Asked why Surrey County Council’s foster carer sufficiency programme was stuck at its current level, the Director said that while the number of foster carers had decreased by 1%, the decline among statistical neighbours was even greater. Contributing factors for this decline included the rising cost of living and changes in family living arrangements. Additionally, the emotional and caregiving complexities associated with foster care had impacted the overall number of carers.

     

    The Committee NOTED the report.

     

    Jonathan Essex left the meeting at 1.03pm.

    Becky Rush left the meeting at 1.05pm.

     

30/24

PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW pdf icon PDF 115 KB

    • Share this item

    To apprise the Committee of the latest Children, Families and Lifelong Learning performance information.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning

    Patricia Denney, Director – Quality & Performance

    Tracey Sanders, Assistant Director – Inclusion & Additional Needs

     

    Key points of discussion:

     

    1. The Chair remarked that after a period of improving performance, there was a decline—or at least progress has stopped—in some areas of performance.

     

    1. The Chair noted the number of working days from the first appointment in the MindWorks neurodiversity pathway had reached 248 days and continued to rise. This indicated that the extended closure of the assessment pathway, intended to improve first appointment performance, had not been effective, leaving this pathway a matter of concern. This topic had been raised at the Joint Adult and Children's Select Committee meeting in May, and they had not been reassured MindWorks was equipped to handle the demand.

     

    1. The Chair further said that Surrey County Council had returned to the 2022 performance level for EHCP timeliness, achieving 61% within 20 weeks. However, an audit conducted as part of the EHCP Recovery Plan indicated that only 22% of the EHCPs were rated as good or outstanding, and that 45% of annual reviews had been completed. This suggested that while the focus was on reducing numbers as part of the Recovery Plan, the quality of the EHCPs had suffered. The Chair further remarked that an incomplete or inaccurate EHCP is nearly as bad as not having one, and a late annual review can have a similar detrimental impact on a child or young person.

     

    1. The Assistant Director – Inclusion & Additional Needs acknowledged that it was difficult managing the backlog of overdue EHCP needs assessments while ensuring quality and that recent EHCPs did not tell the child’s story as fully as before. There were also concerns about how health and social care provisions were recorded. To produce high-quality plans, collaboration with partner colleagues providing advice in the EHCP process was necessary. They further said that the voice of the child was not adequately represented and noted that it reflected the speed at which the plans had been issued. A workshop was planned to help SEND colleagues better promote the voice of the child. Nevertheless, they remarked that the components describing educational needs, provision, and outcomes were strong overall. They further said that concerns about a plan's quality could prompt an early annual review for revisions. Concluding, they said that the team had improved the completion rate of annual reviews from 25% to 59% by the end of July 2023. They aimed to reach 75% by December 2024 and had prioritized vulnerable children's reviews, with 78% as of today and a target of 100% by Christmas 2024. The Chair responded that despite some reassurance in critical areas, it was hoped these issues would prompt the implementation of a quality control process or improved management of the reports.

     

    1. The Chair said social work retention and recruitment stability was a concern, noting the permanent establishment of social workers was at 55%, while the target ranged between 80% and 85%, while Ofsted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30/24

31/24

DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING

    The next public meeting of the committee will be held on Thursday, 12 September 2024.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee NOTED its next public meeting would be held on Thursday, 12 September 2024.