Agenda item

The Leader to make a statement.

There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions and/or make comments.

The Leader of the Council made a detailed statement. A copy of the statement is attached as Appendix A.

Members raised the following topics:

·         Congratulated the Leader on receiving the Leader of the Year award and for leading the way as the Chair of the County Councils Network in flagging to Government the inadequate local government funding.

·         Noted that limiting the funding for non-statutory services had led to the increase in the need for statutory services’ use and cost, exemplified by the Cabinet’s release of the £20 million risk contingency.

·         Welcomed the increase in Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) places in Surrey with nearly £230 million allocated over the next five years, but noted concerns in the programme’s delivery. 

·         Noted that due to the Government’s formula the Council received inadequate funding for highways, the draft capital budget outlined that the Council would need £300 million in borrowing over the next five years.

·         Asked whether there was a plan to close the Your Fund Surrey (YFS) scheme with a stop to large applications and reduction of the budget.

·         Highlighted that people were being left behind and the voluntary sector had to fill the gaps in early intervention, short breaks and respite, with waiting lists growing or services closed.

·         Noted the increase in safeguarding activity in the draft budget, more children were presenting at a later stage to social services with greater need.

·         Questioned whether the Council had the right balance of revenue choices in the draft budget concerning No One Left Behind, noting the investment in capital budget of new SEND provision, children’s homes, extra care housing.

·         Noted that to prevent escalating need, stressed that it was no longer a choice to not provide early intervention for vulnerable children and young people, Autism Spectrum Disorder and Speech and Language Therapy assessments were needed.

·         Regarding the Ofsted inspection on SEND services, the inspectors found the allocation of additional funding and other measures were not yet making a real difference, the Council needed to make improvements more quickly so it does not leave SEND children behind.

·         Noted the disastrous implementation of the new IT system from June 2023, having been delayed from its launch date of December 2021, asked whether the Leader was sorry that there was a £10 million overspend.

·         Noted that the draft budget contained £55 million in efficiencies but with a further £13.5 million savings to find, asked whether the Council would need to target more service reductions to balance its finances.

·         Noted concern in three of the proposed efficiencies: review of older people in-house services, stopping the fire cadet service, cuts to grants to the voluntary sector; leading to a disproportionate effect on vulnerable people.

·         Asked the Leader to explain how he felt the changes around the County Deal and the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) would benefit residents.

·         Noted that the Local Government Association was inviting contributions to a Local Government White Paper and asked what the Leader had in mind for the next stage of local government reorganisation.

·         Noted that the inspectors reported in their SEND inspection review examples of families feeling that there were not being listened to or involved in decisions, asked whether the Leader had full confidence in those charged with delivering those changes, taking parents on that process.

·         Noted that the Council would continue to rely on expensive places at non-maintained independent schools, the Safety Valve Agreement had not bridged that gap and had forced the Council to take £8 million annually from schools’ budgets, schools therefore could not afford teaching assistants unless SEND children had Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs).

·         Noted that EHCPs provided that additional funding to schools yet there was a backlog and the Council’s target of 20% reduction for EHCPs would further reduce schools’ funding, welcomed the £15 million over three years to address that, yet the Council was reliant on inadequate NHS support.

·         Asked what the Council would do to address SEND underfunding and fix Adult Social Care before autumn’s budget.

·         Noted that the Government’s climate change research found that local climate action would achieve net zero by 2050 at half the cost of a national approach, delivering three times the financial and wider benefits.

·         Asked what response the Leader had from the joint letter sent on 19 October to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero calling for a national climate action framework to provide councils with adequate funding to lead decarbonisation and to ensure that the Government’s policies and funding decisions lead to local climate action.

·         Regarding the delivery of the County Deal, sought reassurance that the devolved powers from Government would be properly funded.

·         Asked the Leader for detail around the NHS representative’s answer at yesterday’s special Cabinet meeting on the SEND inspection where they would provide a follow up response regarding SEND funding.

·         Asked whether the Leader was aware of a joint visit to the Amber Foundation’s opening of a new teams unit jointly funded by a YFS small grant which made an improvement to young people’s lives.

·         Welcomed the YFS success stories, noted a recent example of the old Woking Community Centre where the £1 million grant transformed the building into a multifunctional and green space; thanks to a partnership agreement Woking College’s Performing Arts department was located there.

·         Noted that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund would be under the Council’s sole control and asked whether the Leader would continue to collaborate with the district and borough councils to ensure money would be spent county-wide.  

·         Noted that the briefing information shared with Members on the draft budget showed the heavy reliance on the hope to make large savings across the board, however historically such savings had not been fully delivered.

·         Noted that the Council had a sizeable property investment portfolio yet due to market trends it was likely that the return on those would be less, noted caution that the Council’s finances were not as robust as stated to be.

·         Noted the unprecedented volume of parents with issues concerning children with SEND and noted frustration that they had not received responses from the Council; yesterday’s special Cabinet meeting was dominated by senior officers, yet what was needed was more people on the frontline.

·         Noted an example of a young child who developed meningitis and become dependent requiring an EHCP and that EHCP had been delayed therefore the child could not choose the right school.