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 (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clare Curran, Cabinet Member
for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning
Tina Benjamin, Director –
Corporate Parenting
Key
points of discussion:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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