Agenda and draft minutes

Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee - Thursday, 13 March 2025 10.00 am

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

Contact: Julie Armstrong, Scrutiny Officer

Media

Items
No.	Item
1/25	CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Share this item Additional documents: Webcast for 1/25 Minutes: The Chair noted the Committee’s disappointment that, given the Committee’s continuing interest in the experience of parents and children with SEND, it only learned of Surrey County Council’s submission to the House of Commons Education Select Committee’s investigation into Solving the SEND Crisis in an email from a resident.
2/25	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS Share this item View the background to item 2/25 To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutes. Additional documents: Webcast for 2/25 Minutes: Apologies were received from Mrs Julie Oldroyd and Cllr Frank Kelly.
3/25	MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS PDF 186 KB Share this item View the background to item 3/25 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: Webcast for 3/25 Minutes: The Committee AGREED the minutes from the 3 December 2024 meeting as a true and accurate record.
4/25	DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Share this item View the background to item 4/25 To receive any declarations of interest. All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter: 1. Any disclosable pecuniary interests; or 2. 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: Webcast for 4/25 Minutes: None received.
5/25	QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS PDF 157 KB Share this item View the background to item 5/25 To receive any questions or petitions. The public retain their right to submit questions for a 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. NOTES: a. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (Friday, 7 March 2025). b. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Thursday, 6 March 2025). c. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Additional documents: Member Questions, 13032025 Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee , item 5/25 PDF 444 KB Webcast for 5/25 Minutes: Questions were received from three members of the public and three Members. Questions and answers were provided in the First Supplementary Agenda circulated prior to the meeting.
5/25a	PUBLIC QUESTIONS Share this item Additional documents: Webcast for 5/25a Minutes: Amanda Lazenby requested additional time to provide a written supplemental question to the Committee. The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning agreed to respond in writing. Kathryn Adam asked a supplementary question regarding the allocation of only two places for the Cullum Centre for 2025/26 despite an increasing need for SEND places. The Cabinet Member would respond in writing.
5/25b	MEMBERS' QUESTIONS Share this item Additional documents: Webcast for 5/25b Minutes: Question 1. Councillor Catherine Powell expressed concerns about nearly 12% of children lacking a named school by the statutory deadline and conflicting information from two secondary schools about their ability to meet needs. She requested direct correspondence with the schools and tracking data for the September 2025 cohort to monitor attendance and absences. The Cabinet Member recommended addressing specific cases directly with the schools and forwarding them to the service and accountable officer. Question 2. Councillor Catherine Powell asked if the Cabinet Member could provide detailed information regarding how many pupils were allocated to each type of provision and how many pupils did not secure a placement for September 2024. The Cabinet Member agreed. Question 3. Cllr Powell asked if the Cabinet Member could provide detailed information regarding how many pupils were allocated to each type of provision and how many pupils did not secure a placement for September 2024. The Cabinet Member said that she would provide that information. Rachael Wardell, the Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, said that weekly updates were collected detailing key stage transfers, including the number of children without immediate school placements, categorised by type, and ongoing placement efforts, with a request for feedback to improve communication. The Chair requested that this information be distributed to the Committee. Question 4. Cllr Powell asked if the Service could regularly share information about the number of appeals lodged against allocations advised to parents on 15 February. The Cabinet Member said she had asked the Service about the number of families wanting to lodge appeals against the named placement in their child's EHCP. She said it was too early to have a full picture and would take a few more weeks. The Executive Director explained parents could appeal at any time and suggested monthly or quarterly updates for accurate representation. The Chair agreed monthly or quarterly updates would be helpful. Question 5. The Executive Director said she would provide a written response as to whether all 20 places at the Cullum Centre were Surrey County Council placements. Councillor Mark Sugden asked if, with no pupils ageing out and the number on roll being 20, Surrey County Council would make no placements for that academic year. He was told that if all places were allocated and no children left, no new allocations could be made unless alternative arrangements were negotiated. Question 6. Councillor Jonathan Essex asked if it was possible to provide a comparative table by type of provision and by borough and district area for the numbers in independent, non-maintained schools. Question 7. Cllr Essex asked if the comparative number for Surrey of pupils who were not in school, broken down by those not enrolled in any school, those receiving unregistered provision, and those enrolled at a school but not attending, could be provided. The Executive Director said she would review the report referenced in the original question and ensure that both Surrey and national data were provided where comparisons were possible, and clarify when ... view the full minutes text for item 5/25b
6/25	RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME PDF 314 KB Share this item To review the actions and recommendations tracker and forward work programme, making suggestions for additions or amendments as appropriate. Additional documents: 5.2.-Forward Work Plan, 27/02/2025, Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee , item 6/25 PDF 180 KB Webcast for 6/25 Minutes: A session to review the forward work plan was proposed for April. The additions of the impact of local government reorganisation and response to the current Ofsted inspection were suggested.
7/25	CABINET RESPONSE TO SELECT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PDF 142 KB Share this item Purpose: Note the Cabinet response to Budget and Alternative Provision recommendations made to Cabinet. Additional documents: 6.2.-Alternative Provision Recommendations, Cabinet Response, 25/02/2025, Cabinet , item 7/25 PDF 363 KB Webcast for 7/25 Minutes: The Chair noted progress in alternative provision, but said delays in implementing some recommendations were a concern. The need for a parent handbook and a list of approved providers was highlighted. The Cabinet Member assured updates on these would be provided soon.
8/25	MOTION REFERRED BY COUNCIL TO SELECT COMMITTEE PDF 115 KB Share this item Purpose: A motion has been referred by Council to the Committee for the purpose of consideration and making recommendations to Cabinet or Council for decision. Additional documents: Webcast for 8/25 Minutes: 1. The Chair invited Councillor Jonathan Essex to speak to his motion, entitled ‘Taking a broader preventative approach to Children's Services’, referred to Committee by Council on 10 December 2024 (Council minute 88/24). Councillor Essex proposed alternatively that the Select Committee might take the lead on reviewing the evidence base for prevention, with a view to helping inform the way Children’s Services are reformed in the unitary authorities following Local Government restructure. This was seconded by Councillor Liz Townsend. 2. The suggestion of a rapid review was warmly welcomed by the Cabinet Member and all Committee Members agreed to hold a day of scrutiny to interview subject matter experts from within Surrey and beyond. RESOLVED, That the Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Select Committee I. Reviews the evidence base for prevention in Children’s Services at a scrutiny-in-a-day session on a date to be determined.
9/25	INTENSIVE FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICE PDF 390 KB Share this item Purpose: Understand the role of the new IFSS service, how this service is different from other existing early help preventive family services, and how it interacts with and complements other services in the family early help area. Additional documents: Webcast for 9/25 Minutes: WITNESSES Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Rachael Wardell, Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Matt Ansell, Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience Adam Thomas, Head of Early Help and Family Support Sue Turton, Service Manager for Early Help Partnerships KEY POINTS MADE IN THE DISCUSSION The Chair asked whether a smaller team than proposed in the business case could support 900 families a year, and if this would affected the depth of support. The Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience said that the business case numbers had evolved, aiming for longer periods of support to prevent escalation, which impacted the number of families served. The Service would amalgamate with family safeguarding teams by April 2026, aligning with Government expectations for a family help model. The Head of Early Help and Family Support said that recruitment this year had been slower than forecasted, but they would as of April 2025 have 28 FTE staff, comprising 24 family support workers and eight senior staff. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was not making the Service more targeted but was blurring the lines between statutory and non-statutory services so that one key worker could stay with the young person throughout; however, they are currently separate because the legislation has not yet changed. He added the Council's investment in the Intensive Family Support Service safeguarded against uncertainties in Government funding. A Member asked if in the absence of the Intensive Family Support Service (IFSS), the 154 referrals made to it from C-SPA between April and December would have instead been escalated to statutory intervention. The Head of Early Help and Family Support affirmed that they most likely would have had a Child in Need Plan with a statutory team. He noted that the number of children under Child in Need Plans had decreased, tentatively suggesting a correlation with the introduction of IFSS. The Director added that operational teams now had an alternative for families, reducing the need for long-term safeguarding plans. He cautioned that Child in Need and Child Protection figures could also be influenced by demand changes. A Member asked what impact IFSS had on school attendance. The Head of Early Help and Family Support said that schools were integral to the team supporting families in early help services, with improvements in attendance monitored through the Supporting Families Framework. Of the 50 children identified with educational needs in IFSS in the first three quarters, 40 had their needs partially or fully met when finished. The Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning said that attendance improvements were measured by the proportion of school sessions attended, with successful outcomes varying based on individual circumstances. A Member asked if other neighbouring authorities were adopting similar approaches and whether Surrey County Council's IFSS team was more advanced compared to other local authorities. The Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning said that while Surrey County Council was not a pathfinder, it was observing and responding to models ... view the full minutes text for item 9/25
	[At 12.31pm, the meeting was suspended and Councillor Chris Townsend left the meeting.] [At 12.43pm, the meeting resumed.]
10/25	SURREY'S ADOLESCENT SERVICE PDF 326 KB Share this item Purpose: Receive overview of what the service introduced in 2024 does, what is different from prior provision, why it was changed, the benefits apparent so far and those expected. Additional documents: Restricted enclosure 13 View the reasons why document 10/25/2 is restricted Webcast for 10/25 Minutes: WITNESSES Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Rachael Wardell, Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Matt Ansell, Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience Jan Smith, Service Manager for Adolescent Central Missing & Risk KEY POINTS MADE IN THE DISCUSSION A Member enquired about potential weak points in the multi-agency service and whether issues existed with data interpretation and sharing. She asked about strategies to address such challenges and methods for measuring success. The Service Manager for Adolescent Central Missing & Risk said that the multi-agency environment involved safeguarding vulnerable adolescents and required identifying the right resources and services at the right time. The main challenge was ensuring continuity of relationships when personnel changed. Data sharing was supported by legislation, and success was measured by partner support for information sharing. A Member asked about the main objectives of the Adolescent Service, the availability of services in different quadrants of Surrey, and the anticipated staff numbers within those quadrants. The Service Manager said that the main objective was to keep children safe and supported in their own homes, through early intervention with the right practitioners and services. The Service aimed to reduce the need for child protection plans through this early intervention and support. It was organised into locality-based teams across districts and boroughs, with a good spread of staff and manageable vacancies. Recruitment and retention rates were positive, with passionate workers committed to helping young people. A Member asked how much more difficult it was to deliver services in a rural area compared to an urban environment, the Service Manager replied that the complexity of delivering services in rural areas lay in travel time, which was the main challenge in getting out and seeing young people. One-to-one work involved meeting young people in their location, which was easier if families were located on one estate. Teams managed this by focusing on specific areas to ensure efficient use of time. In addition, access to other resources, such as GP appointments or mental health professionals, was more challenging in rural areas. The Chair asked whether a lessons learned report had been produced prior to amalgamating services. The Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience said that a review led by Future Voices and conversations with North Yorkshire had informed the decision to adapt the model for Surrey. The resulting new service aimed to prevent emergency care placements and keep children in their homes. Feedback from families helped develop the responsive edge of care offer. The service was aligned with police divisions to reduce meeting burdens and improve relationships with partners. A Member asked about the level of seriousness of recruitment challenges in certain parts of the county, current staffing levels, and the composition of teams in terms of new recruits versus existing colleagues. The Service Manager said that since June last year, 24 new permanent starters had joined the Adolescent Service, making up 16% of the total workforce. The retention rate across CFL was around 10%. The service had 149 ... view the full minutes text for item 10/25
	[At 1.09pm, Councillor Rebecca Jennings-Evans left the meeting.]
11/25	CHILDREN'S HOMES - OFSTED REPORTS PUBLISHED SINCE THE LAST MEETING OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE PDF 121 KB Share this item To receive Ofsted reports on Surrey County Council-run Children’s Homes. Additional documents: 10.2.-SC370703, Report, Ofsted, 13/03/2025 , item 11/25 PDF 405 KB 10.3.-2784702, Report, Ofsted, 13/03/2025 , item 11/25 PDF 459 KB Webcast for 11/25 Minutes: WITNESSES Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Rachael Wardell, Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning KEY POINTS MADE IN THE DISCUSSION The Chair introduced the item, saying that one home inspected in October 2024 was rated Outstanding, up from good in February 2024. Another home opened in April 2024 was inspected in December 2024 and rated Requires improvement to be good. The Chair praised the outstanding home's staff. Members expressed concern about the new home's staff not finding education placements for young people and a young person being in hospital without staff support. The Executive Director assured Members that improvements had been made. The Committee NOTED the report.
	[At 1.47pm, Councillor Ashley Tilling left the meeting]
12/25	PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW PDF 112 KB Share this item To receive an overview of Children, Families and Lifelong Learning performance to help inform future Committee business. Additional documents: 11.2.-Children's social care Metrics collection Jan 25.Final , item 12/25 PDF 221 KB 11.3.-Additional needs metrics January 2025 , item 12/25 PDF 113 KB 11.4.-EHCP Recovery Plan February 2025 , item 12/25 PDF 34 KB 11.5.-SW Reporting Summary - Dec 2024 , item 12/25 PDF 481 KB 11.6.-Foster carers turnover for select committee Feb 2025.Final (RW) , item 12/25 PDF 160 KB 11.7.-External Assessments - January 2025 , item 12/25 PDF 273 KB Webcast for 12/25 Minutes: WITNESSES Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Rachael Wardell, Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Matt Ansell, Director for Safeguarding and Family Resilience KEY POINTS MADE IN THE DISCUSSION The Chair expressed concern over social workers' sickness rates and the impact on families. The Executive Director believed the overall absence level was low but needed verification. The Cabinet Member referenced average sickness rates for 2024, noting the short-term absence rate was typical for other regions. The Committee NOTED the report.
13/25	DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING Share this item View the background to item 13/25 To note the next public meeting of the Committee is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, 16 July 2025. Additional documents: Webcast for 13/25 Minutes: The Committee NOTED its next meeting is scheduled to be held on 16 July 2025.