Agenda item

The Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader or the appropriate Member of the Cabinet or the chairman of a committee to answer any questions on any matter relating to the powers and duties of the County Council, or which affects the county.

(Note: Notice of questions in respect of the above item on the agenda must be given in writing, preferably by e-mail, to Democratic Services by 12 noon on Wednesday 14 May 2025).

Questions:

Notice of six questions had been received.

The questions and replies were published in the second supplementary agenda (item 17) on 19 May 2025.

A number of supplementary questions were asked and a summary of the main points is set out below:

(Q1) Robert Evans OBE asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree that staff working in a hybrid way - from home and the office - was positive and the Council should welcome the approximate savings of £2 million.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources agreed.

(Q2) Eber Kington asked whether the Leader would agree that because too many parents were still finding difficulty in accessing or understanding Children’s Services processes and decision-making, it was more important that Members and MPs do not have communication barriers that exclude them from supporting families. For it to be ensured that no parent be denied support from their chosen representative.

Will Forster asked whether the Cabinet Member thinks that informing MPs that the Council would no longer provide a written response to individual cases regarding SEND, Home to School Transport and school places, aligns with the leave no one behind ambition.

Fiona Davidson noted that the local area SEND inspection in 2023 identified the need to improve communication from case officers and practitioners to parents and carers, the Department for Education’s March 2025 review identified that most families were yet to see benefits and it would take more than fifteen months for an impact to be felt.She asked the Cabinet Member whether there was a contradiction regarding the view that SEND issues were historic and the latest evidence.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning responded to Eber Kington and Will Forster, reiterating the vital role MPs play for their constituents and the need for a strong and constructive relationship with MPs who can advocate for residents. She clarified that she did not want to close off communications with MPs, but that she reminded MPs that in some cases where a final decision was made, the appropriate route for families to follow was to use the formal appeals panel. The Cabinet Member responded to Fiona Davidson, stressing that the Council was working hard to improve services for children with Additional Needs, it was redoubling its efforts to improve effective, timely and appropriate communications with families.

(Q3) Catherine Powell asked the Cabinet Member to confirm whether it was the case that the existing plans would leave a shortfall of more than 150 Key Stage Transfer places in September. She was aware of two children in Farnham without specialist places for September and asked whether she could urgently provide a summary of the maintained specialist schools that have places so Members could understand the gap, a map to be provided where extensions to provision was being explored, and a map highlighting where children without places live. She asked whether she could write to Surrey’s MPs regarding the unfulfilled commitment to fund three new Special Free Schools.

Jonathan Essex referred to part c) of the response that where provision is not available, the Council would use non-maintained independent (NMI) places, yet it was the case that families were stuck in continuing alternative provision which was unacceptable. He asked the Cabinet Member to outline the extent to which NMI places were being found as a priority over alternative provision. To give the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee the ability to distinguish between the long-term approach to ensure that the Capital Programme is investing in SEND places needed in the right parts of Surrey and what the Council was doing as an urgent priority to ensure that all children have access to schooling.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning would liaise with Catherine Powell on the information requested, which was available. She noted that the Council had found it difficult to address the challenge to find school places for all children with Additional Needs in September, due to the long delay and potential withdrawal of the Government’s offer to build three new Special Free Schools - the Council was unable to open new schools itself. In response to Jonathan Essex, she clarified that alternative provision was not a replacement for a school placement, identifying places for September was a priority and she was happy to speak to the Member about the work underway.

(Q4) Robert Evans OBE asked the Cabinet Member what her role was regarding the review underway.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning noted that she could not comment on the matter, the issues were being fully and extensively covered by the external and independent Local Child Safeguarding (LCSPR) Practice Review.

(Q5)Catherine Powell asked whether the Cabinet Member could provide access to the Foster Carer Finance Document as she understood that the day rate was equivalent to the minimum wage. She asked whether she could advise how it was being explored with Foster Carers that their insurance was adequate for daycare. As Foster Carers were being asked to provide daycare for children not normally in their care including transport, she asked whether she could confirm that in line with the Fostering Network’s recommendation, a mini matching process was being undertaken and risk assessments would be provided.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning noted that she would provide a written response.

Robert Evans OBE left the meeting at 12.10 pm.

(Q6) Catherine Powell noted that Foster Carers in Surrey would not be adopting the Fostering Network’s ‘Allegations in Foster Carer Toolkit’, she noted that it was concerning that a survey to Foster Carers in August only had a 2% return rate. She asked whether the Cabinet Member would consider a collaborative approach to engage service users and support an anonymous survey or a drop box at the summer event to share experiences and to suggest changes - to be reviewed by the Corporate Parenting Board. She asked whether she had consulted with Foster Carers in creating appointed paid position(s) for Foster Carers on key boards.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning noted that she would take up the issues raised via the Corporate Parenting Board and with Foster Carers. She noted the work underway to review the Fostering service via the transformation and communications teams looking at how to better engage with Foster Carers.