Transcript

Oeddeu, Familiad naturell a Gy ledrwydd, さ SCAD Mae'r hyn hwn under dialogue games yn y cyfle i ymhellu cyflymau drosylen achos, erioedol roedden next艰au o mhen-ylch Ш marcheidd clorol Effects archaeology Flafeап士 Llywodraeth ap cr温 O Gabrielle & R реhwys a It ves同 i'r לאץ只ont panedog epilepsy yn y car park sy'n cymryd i unrhyw rhan o'r tîm gweithredu. Mae'r gweithredu yn cael ei gwybod i chi i'r gweithredu ymlaen. Mae'n fwyaf yn siŵr bod ffonau mobl yn ddaethu'r gweithredu neu'n cael ei gwybod yn sylw. Yn ystod ein gwaith am gweithredu ymlaen i'r cymdeithasol, rwy'n hapio i unrhyw un sy'n mynd i'w cymdeithasol, ychwanegol ymlaen i'r cymdeithasol, os yw hyn yn ddaethu'r cymdeithasol. Mae'r gweithredu hwn yn cael ei gweithredu i'r cymdeithasol ac unrhyw un sy'n cael ei gweithredu ymlaen nesaf. Rwy'n hefyd eisiau ddatblygu bod y gweithredu ymlaen yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol mewn cymdeithasol Microsoft, ac rhai o'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. I'r cymdeithasol sy'n cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, os yw'r gweithredu cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu, nid yw'r gweithredu. Mae'r cymdeithasol sy'n cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, ac rwy'n meddwl bod hynny'n cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol ymlaen. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Pan oedd yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, ac yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Rwy'n meddwl bod hynny'n cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, ac yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol cymdeithasol cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Os un o'r cymdeithasol yma'n mynd o'r lles, mae'n rhaid i'w gysylltu, ond nid yw'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, ond nid yw'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, ond nid yw'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, ond nid yw'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, ond nid yw'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, ond nid yw'r cymdeithasol yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol, Rachel. Yn ogystal â hynny, mae'n rhaid i'w gysylltu'ch cwestiynau chi'n fawr iawn, ond rydw i eisiau gysylltu'n fawr iawn i'r cymdeithasol yng Nghymdeithasol, a hefyd mae'n gallu i ni ddysgu'r gwestiynau y gallwn ni'n cael ymddygiad hwn yma, a'r hyn sy'n ddweud y byddai y gallai problemau gyda'r gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol sy'n cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Yn ogystal â hynny, mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau a'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau hwn yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Rydw i'n meddwl bod hynny'n bwysig iawn iawn. Mae hynny'n bwysig iawn, felly diolch i chi. Diolch i Liz a Tracey. Yn ogystal â gwestiynau cymdeithasol, mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau a'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau a'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Mae hynny'n bwysig y byddai'r gwestiynau yn y ffordd fôn i ni gwerthu, er mw ddweud boυnaeth, y ffordd y byddai'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Iawn, mae'n rhaid i ni ddweud y byddai'r gwestiynau yn cael ei gweithredu mewn cymdeithasol. Rhaid i ni bryd i ni os yw hynny'n bryd iawn yn dda chercher Nova piedarn. Rydyn ni hefyd yn cael y cwestiwn o'r Llywodraeth Cymru. Les, oes gennych chi unrhyw ddiwylliannau? Ie, diolch. Rydw i'n dechrau rhywfaint o ddiwylliannau. Diolch, Jer. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau o'r cwestiwn o'r Llywodraeth Cymru hefyd, am y gysylltiadau a'r cwestiwn. Er enghraifft, mae'r ffusol i gysylltu o'r 22, 23, 23, 24 wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi cael ei ddwylliannau. Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Tracey Sanders Mae'r economiad ddiogel o'r ddiogel, nid yn fath. Mae'r economiad ddiogel o'r ddiog uniquefo am ymddydiadau – ac ro'n i dysgu mewn gyvaliaf, ganuttaf yr e-mail a gydag un academic sy'w eu hylf yn whisau sut y gysyr tra y gysyr' normally ac os bai syugiff yr holl ddau o'r gydia實au a gael ðnoddau â hynny ac bethedd y gysyr ac atelau 말annu ac am路lion a bobl changes. Roeddennwyd nad yw ymddiried而已bes!!!! ac y gw acordddun pan oeddai hyfforddiad fitness wedi'i gwneud yn ymwneud â'r gwasanaethau casol gyda'r gwasanaethau sydd wedi'i gwneud yn ymwneud â'r gwasanaethau casol ac mae'n gobeithio â'r grwp i sicrhau bod y gwasanaeth casol yw'n hollol, oherwydd roedden nhw'n dweud y byddai'n hollol, nid hollol, hynny. Felly, ymlaen i'r gwasanaeth ymwneud â'r gwasanaeth. Felly, diolch, Fiona. Rwy'n gwybod. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau. Can I just clarify? Is there a plan to bring a business case forward for those additional staff to move from a permanent establishment of 81 to 135? Or are they part of the general discussions in Cabinet about the funding for the directorate? Because I think there's an important distinction there actually. So if you could clarify that, that would be helpful. So the way we bring a budget case, particularly at the moment, because we are going through the budget round, is as part of that budget round. But could I also say that, of course, Cabinet made additional funds available to ensure that we could fund the recovery plan and the additional investment in early intervention and prevention work. So we do have that extra money from Cabinet, the extra £15 million over three years, which is supporting the additional staff that we have on roll for the next two years. Can I just clarify? So I know that we have temporary staff courtesy of the additional £15 million, and that was over three years. How much of that funding is left? Is it sufficient for the next couple of years, or has the bulk of it been used? Because it's providing temporary staff. We know that the outcomes associated with the agency staff isn't generally as good as the outcomes associated with permanent. Because there may be less continuity there in terms of case officers. So I just wondered for how much longer there would be funding from that £15 million. So the funding is in place, and as you say in the answer, the funding is still in place until the end of the financial year 2026. And it has been very carefully planned over that period to ensure that staffing levels will be appropriate. Tracey, did you want to add anything? So your question was how much we spent. We spent about half the budget, we're about halfway through the three-year period. We've got the funding until the end of March 2026. That does enable us to continue with our agency staffing levels if we need to. And I just think it's really helpful to clarify around the agency staff who work in the recovery team. They're not like the agency staff who work in the quadrant teams who come and go according to vacancies. They're a stable team provided by an external provider managed by a single manager. So they act as if they are a permanent staffing team. In the business case, when we develop it, and depending on the outcome, as Claire has mentioned, will enable us to move from agency to permanent staff potentially before that if we know we've got long-term funding. But I just wanted to assure members that being agency in this particular instance isn't the issue that it might be in other circumstances. Thanks. It's good to know that it's a stable team and there isn't the kind of the coming and going that happens in the quadrant. So thank you for that. What I want to do now is hand over to Rachel and then to John. Once again, I find myself drawing some threads together from answers that have already been given. So I think you've had some assurances about the position of staffing now, which is that the costs are covered by the additional funding in the recovery fund. And I suppose it would be helpful to clarify that because that was given outside the ordinary budget round, we did have to make a separate business case for that in order to secure those positions. When we build posts into the establishment, as we might well need to do in future when this funding comes to an end, that would be built in during the ordinary budget round, as the cabinet member has alluded to. And I think Councillor Webster's remarks speak to some of our hopes and intentions in this recovery work, which is that if we have implemented fully the end-to-end review and the recovery work is complete, we might find that the eventual number of establishment posts is not as high as the worst-case scenario, even though it's highly likely to be higher than now. And that's what we would build into the future budget rounds. I kind of deduce from this that actually you probably won't look for additional funding in this budget round because you'll be covered until April 26. But that's my interpretation of what I've heard. Claire. I just also wanted to remind the committee that in the budget the Government did announce that there was additional money available, particularly for SEND. We have no idea yet of how that will be dispersed or what this Council's share of that money may be, how it will reach us. I understand and I think I could predict that it's probably not going to be as generous as all of us would like. John. Thank you, Claire. And I appreciate that neither Claire nor Rachel can go much beyond what they have already said at this meeting. I accept that. But politics is about priorities. And the leader of the Council has on two or three occasions at full Council apologised for performance in this area. So my appeal, and I'm sure the committee's appeal, is that during this budget process, and we'll see the colour of your money presumably in December when we consider the budget, as to whether the case for increased numbers of staff to address what has been a running sore for this authority for too long has been accepted and promises of improved performance will be forthcoming, which I believe both Claire and from Tim Oliver. So the question is, as you continue these discussions, listen to what the residents are saying, listen to what this committee is, and I hope, I'm not going to prejudge as possibly Fiona has done, retain an open mind, but expect an interesting conversation on this subject maybe in a month's time. I'll just leave it at that. So everyone is now anticipating our budget discussions with interest. Thank you, John, because generally budget discussions are not that interesting, so that's a plus. Claire. I don't think I can overestimate the commitment that I and the leader have to improvement in our services for children with additional needs. And as you say, the leader has stood up in council many times, and I know I have been in this committee and in public, said that this is, for me, the greatest priority that we have across the directorate. But I'm also conscious, and I think Mrs Lazenby's question earlier went really to the heart of the matter, that some of the improvement that we need to make to the services that we provide for children and for families are not dependent upon more money. They are dependent on, to put it finally, doing a better job. It does not necessarily need more money to do that. However, I recognise that to take on more staff is costly. Please be assured that I am making every case with my Cabinet colleagues for an increase in the budget for our directorate. The increase that we had last year was very significant, and over above that, Cabinet were generous in awarding an additional £15 million. However, much of the budget that goes towards services for children with additional needs does come through the High Needs Block, which is Government funding. And unless that increases very significantly, the money, for instance, that we are able to pass on to schools through Government funding will not be greater. And that is often the point of the biggest sticking, that there is just not enough money for schools to be able to offer the support that parents want. Thanks, Claire. Oh, I'm sorry. It was a very short question, Liz. I don't want to get too held up on this particular question, because we have many other questions. No, it was just something for Claire that she had just mentioned that I just wanted to clarify. Obviously, you mentioned the end-to-end review, and we obviously mentioned it quite a few times, which started in May 2023. Within the report, there is a list on page 44 of some of the items that have been worked on and improved. And then there is also a comment saying that these changes, and there's mention of many changes and additional improvements and exceptions throughout the report, but it does say that they're not yet reflected in external perceptions. And yet, the full reviews and the structure and everything is meant to be completed by March 2022, and the to-do list, sorry, 2025, sorry, not reading my own writing, apologies. And I just wondered, the to-do list seems huge still, and how realistic is that? And when do you think people will start seeing a real change, because it's definitely not coming through at the moment in some of the inquiries, or the inquiries that I'm getting anyway? I think I also have to endorse what Liz has said. It's just not coming through. I mean, I understand the perspective on the inside may be different, but it really isn't coming through yet. So, yes, please, if you could address that question, but if you could keep it reasonably short, because we have so many other questions to go through. It's a very big question, but I'll do my best. So, Members are absolutely correct. The end-to-end review has been ongoing since 2023. During that period of time, we have been implementing a number of changes. Those changes obviously have helped us to secure our position with timeliness, the position that we have improved quality, and we also significantly improved around annual reviews. And so, in that respect, there has been improvement, and whilst I can see that there continues to be concerns from parents around sometimes the decisions that we make, and additionally sometimes the provision that their children receive in school or not, depending on whether they're able to attend school, that level of concern is still there, but it's not necessarily about the same things. And I think in that respect, hopefully, you are seeing some of the impact of the end-to-end review. You're absolutely right. It's a very large to-do list still, even though we've done a lot so far. And some of that does rely on us having a changed structure, because our structure at the moment is that we have four separate quadrant teams, and they're all managed by a separate service manager who then reports to a separate assistant director. And for us to really drive forward the changes we want in a consistent way, we really need that to change. We need single leadership and a single way to manage the service. And in that respect, a lot of the things that we're doing now won't be fully embedded until we're into that place, and we're anticipating being in that place from the beginning of March next year. Thank you. Let's move on. Sorry, Jonathan. I'm sorry, we need to... No, Jonathan, sorry. No, we are moving on to the next question. I'm sorry, we could stick on this topic quite a long time. Bob. Thank you, Chair. Because we've had assurances and a long discussion about staffing, I won't ask that bit about it. But we all recognise what AI can deliver for services, and indeed the council is putting a lot of effort and money into looking at what a co-pilot can do for us. But obviously, every SEN case is different and it's complicated. That doesn't mean that AI can't cope with that necessarily. So are officers working with the IT team on those projects? And the second part of the question is, are you looking at colleagues in other local authorities about what they are doing and any advances or problems they're looking at? Thank you. So yes and yes is the short answer. The longer answer is absolutely. We've got a team of subject matter experts from across the partnership working with our IT team in looking at the development of the AI tools. And we absolutely appreciate the challenge of every case being individual, and so we've got some really strong measures in relation to whether the AI is meeting what we need it to do to be of the quality we need to be able to use it. And I want to offer some reassurance that there are no plans for us to use AI as a decision making tool. We're looking at the use of AI technology to support the work of officers in the service. And there are two distinct strands. One is around the summarisation of reports by professionals into the summary of assessment. And the reason to look at that is it will reduce the administrative work that case officers are having to do in compiling that report, allowing the case officers then to use the information for more co-productive work with families. The second element that we're looking at is mapping then that summary of assessment against the various banding frameworks that exist. So, ordinarily available provision, the banding frameworks in relation to mainstream and also specialist school placements to give indicative information to support decision makers in panel to help us again with that consistency question. So that we're providing additional information for the decision maker in the panel and the advisors in the panel to come to their decisions in a consistent way. But again, there is no suggestion that the AI will be making the decision, because exactly as you say, there are often unique circumstances that we need to be able to address. And that requires a person, not an AI, to be able to respond to that. This is quite new technology in terms of its specific use in SEND across local authorities. So, alongside looking at our own development, we're also working with a number of organisations that are also looking to develop, including our current quality, the tool that provides our quality measurements. So, we're also engaged in the broader development in other places, which is pulling in expertise from Surrey, but also from other local authorities. And additionally, we're sharing and collaborating with the SE19, so the south-east region local authorities in relation to where we are, where any of they are in relation to this, so that we're working together. In fact, I've got a meeting next week with East Sussex specifically to talk about the ways we're each looking at that particular plan. So, absolutely. And we won't be moving forward with any of this if it doesn't meet our standards in terms of the proof of concept. So, we need to be confident that this is supporting the process, so it has to deliver the right quality. Thank you very much. I'll just make three. We're grateful for the answer. I think that's a lot of reassurance in there. I'll just make, I think, three small points. This will all be coming to the Resources and Performance Committee, and so it's very useful to know what this division is doing in that respect. Secondly, I'll put this very politely. You're not aimed at anybody, but one of the things I know Co-Pilot can do is to do praises of long reports. I think every officer perhaps needs to have a look at that and see whether a praise can be done on some of the rather long reports we get sometimes. I'm not aiming at this division. There's one committee where the last meeting I was at with the bundle was 500 pages, and let's say it's important. And the last thing I want to say is that I was talking to an AI developer on Friday, and he assured me that, oh, don't worry about what you're looking at now. He said that we will be completely different in six months' time. I'm not sure how reassuring that is, but thank you for the answers. It's really short, honestly. I just wondered, with the AI tool, who owns the data? Is it still all owned by us? Thank you. Yes, and none of it has ever left our domain in terms of where it's held. So although we're working with Microsoft in development, none of it has left Surrey County Council, and everything is anonymised and redacted. That's helpful. Thank you. Chris, you've got a question. Just to follow up briefly on that, at the members' meeting about a month or so ago at lunchtime, I actually spoke to one of the AI guys, and I must say he gave me a lot of confidence alongside, but he didn't say it might change in six months' time. But the response he gave to me, and I had quite a long discussion with him about it, I was really impressed with what was trying to be done there and how positive he was about the help he can provide to this area, and I think it's really important to say. Moving on, we're now going to talk about induction. We talked about various things. I'm happy to note that the lived experience of families will be included in a revised training programme, but can you explain how the service plan to train case officers in particular in understanding the lived experience of parents? I mean, that sounds a very terrible thing to say, because you think, well, they must know that. But I'm not sure that's absolutely true, and we're talking about not just parents, but the carers and the families as well. And how that need for ongoing training in parent-centred communication, that's what we're talking about, communication as well, will be implemented. Just a little bit of meat on the bone, if you could. Thank you. Sorry Liz, before I ask Liz and Tracy to ask this, I just wanted to say that yesterday I was at the Health and Wellbeing Board, and Atlas, a group of young people, made a presentation to the Health and Wellbeing Board about some of the work that young people have been doing around emotionally based school non-attendance, the impact on them as young people, but also putting forward really practical solutions for teams, for staff, as to what could be done to help them. It was a remarkable presentation and so helpful, I think, for everybody listening. And that kind of presentation and co-production and work with young people can be more powerful than anything else. I just wanted to say that first before I hand over to the officers. Thank you, and I'm going to segway into that, because actually we have a task and finish group with Family Voice Surrey, but also with Atlas, to look specifically at those lived experiences. So what we want to understand is, directly from families and directly from young people, what skills is it that they need the case officers to be bringing? Because we think we've got a pretty good idea, but we actually need to engage much more closely to understand, from the point of view of our most important users, what it is they want. And we're going to be incorporating that into our recruitment processes, so looking at how we can ask questions, how we can draw out the skills and experience that staff joining us already have. We're looking at the development of video resources that we can use that seek to explain and share some of those experiences, so that we can use them both with new staff, but also ongoing and with staff in the service. And we're also looking at how we can make sure that when we go out and advertise and we look to recruit new staff, we're being really clear around the priority expectation in terms of that relational working. We're not wanting people to join SEND thinking they're going to be undertaking a purely administrative role. Actually, this is much more about that relational working with families. We've already got ongoing work that has begun across all of additional reason disabilities in relation to relational working. We have all engaged in some really positive training from a provider supporting us in looking at practical ways of embedding, because it's one thing to say we want to be relational, but actually then it's understanding how you put that into place. And how can we have sometimes those challenging conversations with families in a really positive solution focused way, where it's supportive and the outcomes can be achieved that are understood by everybody. So that is continuing and there's a member of staff within our team who is leading on that across the whole service as well. So all of these things combined are really leading to a much deeper understanding that this is actually a significant priority, I would say the significant priority in terms of moving our work forward positively. Thank you. I think that's really positive. Obviously, that staff you already have, not just the new staff coming in, but those staff already here. I look forward to hear how a hand family voice are involved. I'm sure family voice will keep us up to date with how they're involved in it. Thank you very much. Before I bring in Councillor Essex, can I just check something, because I think there is nothing really substitute for the visceral experience of hearing how it is from a parent, dealing with a very demanding, very frustrated child and how it is to deal with a very complex, almost anti-deluvian process that is the SEND process. So what I'm interested in is how are you capturing and enabling that visceral experience, because that's what really makes a difference. Hearing it second hand doesn't necessarily have quite the same impact. So is there a way of embedding that in the training and the education for SEND officers? Please. I think it's probably really important to note that whilst we don't have communication exactly where we want it to be, our case officers on a daily basis do talk to families and they talk to schools. They hear the stories of families and schools directly. Actually, when those case officers come to panel, they're incredibly strong advocates for the family and the child. They've really listened and really understood that pathway. So whilst it's really important for us to develop a training package, I don't want to underestimate the extent to which our case officers have day-to-day contact with families and schools and do hear these stories, as we all do. We all hear that. So I think it's a two-pronged approach really to embedding it. Can I just add to that as well? So we are committed to continuing to work with Family Voice and Atlas, as we have done over a long period of time. So they are working with us on a whole range of things, including looking specifically at communication and how we can improve that, but also looking at ways in which we can hear the lived experience firsthand from families in a range of different ways. We've also introduced things like our annual surveys of both parents and young people, which will continue to inform changes that we need to make. As well as that annual survey, we're also looking at in-the-moment surveys at various touch points in the process so we can find out exactly how is it feeling from a family directly at that point in time. And all of that will continue to inform our practice moving forward. Thank you. Jonathan, you wanted to ask a question? Thank you. Before I jump in with the question, I've just got two points about communication. Firstly, a number of meetings ago we were challenged as officers to make sure, as councillors, to make sure when we discussed officers we were able to get their name right. However, if I switch to—if I stop this again, you can see my name on the screen. But this morning, rather than seeing the officer's name, which is in little things in front of each of them, we just have the word officer. And as councillors, because we've got a room format which is very long and thin, unless you put it on the screen, we can't see who we're speaking to. We don't know your name. I think it's really important to put the names of officers and their titles on the screen because we're a public meeting so everyone can see who's in the discussion, the conversation. And then just following on in terms of communication, it was a pleasure to be part of Jeremy's task group looking at this in detail, although at times it was very humbling and very heart rendering. But communication came out as a big theme and the response we received, the Cabinet response, I felt that the tone of that communication wasn't exemplifying the sort of tone that we want to be encouraging with the service. It felt like it was quite defensive. It felt like it was written in the framing of no because rather than yes and. In many cases, the answer said, well, we're not going to endorse your recommendation because we're doing it already. It's past the end review. What you could have said is yes, we will endorse it because we're already doing it. It would have been exactly the same content, but framed in a positive glass half full rather than the glass half empty manner. I think that would have been productive and it also would have enabled us to more clearly see where we go through, how these two processes of member scrutiny and officer internal review are working together and aren't different, disparate things. So I really hope that we can maybe consider the ones where you say accept, but then we won't take this on to be considered actually recommendations that are accepted rather than rejected. And therefore, hopefully, when the interim view is completed, most of this work in January, February, March is reported. Maybe we can come back and see how the protests have happened at all the recommendations, including those which are currently accepted but then rejected, let's say. My question, though, is about one point where the wording is clear in the response and it's about training. It's noted that staff will be offered the appropriate legal training pathway. But what we were hoping is for all staff to receive training. And the question really is, what happens if you're offered training and it isn't accepted? Is it then going to be mandated? And will that be both for training of staff that already in post maybe haven't had the full suite of training that you would expect, but also will you mandate at least certain portions of training at the induction stage? Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So the reason the word offered was used as opposed to, I don't know what we do, compelled, was because of our need to assess the current skills that staff bring to make sure the training that's offered is appropriate in offering them improvement where it is needed. So where, for example, where we have new staff joining us as case officers, often they're joining us and they have the Ipsi training qualification that was mentioned in the report already. And so we wouldn't then be looking to put them on that same training again. What we want to do then is look at their training programme, building on their current knowledge and supporting areas for development for them. So to offer a level of reassurance, yes, we want to make sure that everybody who needs it has the appropriate level of training and qualification. But what we don't want to do is to put people on training that they've already had and therefore don't need. We'd be needing to look then at how they engage in the refresher training and keeping up to date rather than repeating the same training again. So hopefully that's reassuring in terms of the reason that language was used. Thank you very briefly then. I don't think the language compel is a good alternative to offer. And certainly we weren't ever suggesting that as a task group, but my feeling is offer is a little too weak. So I wonder if it's possible to note and agree that you will ensure that all staff are appropriately trained both through the induction process and on an ongoing basis, which the point being not that we compel rather than offer, but if the offer is not accepted and the training is needed, that we will ensure that all our officers are fully trained and that that includes quick training, appropriate training in terms of its timing in the first month during induction. Thank you. Thanks Jonathan. Claire, if you want to speak. I just wanted to pick up very quickly on the comment that Jonathan had raised about the wording of the recommendations. And actually was something I think that we all felt when we were drafting the response to know how do we word this. And I want to try and get away from this kind of adversarial approach and be more relational. But it is difficult. It is difficult. You know, this is the recommendation we make. Do we accept it? Do we not accept it? And I will try harder in future to be more glass half full than glass half empty. I think, unfortunately, the way in which you've responded has made it more adversarial rather than reduced. So I wonder if you might reflect on that. And then in terms of what you're saying going forward, I hope it might apply to this set of recommendations too, that all of the cases where you've said accept, but we're doing it already, we treat those recommendations as agreed rather than disagreed. Because otherwise we've done a lot of work and the way it's framed at the moment is you've disagreed with virtually all of the recommendations, but at the same time you said you accepted most of them. Which sounds a bit duplicitous, I think. And I think that is creating division. We want to be a critical friend. And I add the word friend at the end. And I know we're really grateful if that feeling is mutually reciprocated. Thank you. Yes, of course, Jeremy. Please come in. No, I mean, you know, be brutal with you, open with you. I didn't like what I got, OK? And what I felt initially was that actually in your response to us, you're actually mirroring intentionally or unintentionally how you respond to parents. And that was the cruel thought that I first had. Then I calmed down and then we looked at it. But I think, you know, you need to understand that, you know, if we're going to mirror excellent behaviour towards parents and carers, then maybe this is a starting point. So I thank you for what you said, Claire. I would just like to endorse exactly what Jeremy said, because when I read the response, I have to admit, I did feel like many parents must feel, as in, dismissed. So I'm sure that wasn't the intention. I'm absolutely sure it wasn't. But actually, you know, I think for the task group to have done all of this work, I think it was unfortunate just the way the recommendations were. The phrasing of the response, I think, was just a bit unfortunate. And so I absolutely endorse what Jeremy's just said. And, you know, it is good to hear that, you know, that's something that you will consider in future, because that would be really helpful. Rachael. So I regret that I'm going to unsettle this consensus slightly, but I feel that I must. And so I will be candid and I will be brutal. And I won't assume to speak for the Cabinet, but I will tell you what it is like for my officers to work incredibly hard, to engage with very high numbers of parents, carers and other stakeholders, to develop and to deliver a significant improvement plan, and to have this select committee recommend, as though they were new ideas, actions and activities that are already significantly under way and in place as though the efforts that those officers have been making have not been seen, not been understood and not been believed. And while I accept that we have to work hard on our communication with parents and carers, I do not accept that we need to respond to this select committee as though it were a group of parents who are working with us and their children. I think that in order to engage in a critical, friendly relationship, there needs to be a robustness of communication that makes some of these things clear. So I hear how this has landed, and I also hear you say, Chair, that you think this was not our intention, but I have to say that as an officer I felt supported by Cabinet's response because I understood that Cabinet recognised the work that had already taken place in a way that the select committee recommendations had not. So I acknowledge the strength of feeling in this room, and I really hope that we are all able to respond to each other differently going forward, but I couldn't leave that unsaid. No, and I understand why you said that. I think I'd like to hand over to Jeremy and then to Jonathan, because I think there is something that we probably need to say to that, but absolutely accepting what you have said, Rachel. No, I accept what you say. That was not the intention of our recommendation. That was not the intention. We pursued what we had to do. We were well aware of what the end-to-end review was saying. We were reflecting what was said to us by parents and case officers and others. That was what we were doing. That was not meant to be a slap in the face or, you know, we're ignoring everything. That's the last thing, and I think you know me well enough now to know that it's not my style. My style is collaborative, but I still felt that when we had that Cabinet paper, it was a bit of a slap in the face. However, as I said to you, I got over it. We all have to get over it and we move forward, and I trust these people to deliver the to-do list that we need, but that was certainly not what I wanted. I don't know if anyone else wants to add to what I've just said. I think it's appropriate for Jonathan to come in as another member of the task group. Yes, very briefly. I mean, I respect and understand your position. I'd say seat 34, but I know you've got a name as well, and I hope we've rectified that at some point. I don't think we ever considered that we in any way dismissed things as not being believed or heard, but we heard some things and we didn't hear others. We've received more details about the working of the EHCP end-to-end review in your response to our recommendations. We didn't see this as something presented alternative and in parallel to it, because we hadn't been briefed on it. The information that you share and your answers, if we knew it in advance, we could have reflected it in our recommendations, but as we had not been shared it as councillors, we couldn't. So because we were acting in parallel to you, these processes were in parallel, so it felt a little bit, let's say, overly robust, may I say, to be implied criticism to us in not reflecting what had not been shared or told to us. So I accept that these were happening in parallel. I think it was excellent news that the findings of the EHCP view and our findings so closely chimed with each other, but to highlight them as different and distinct rather than singing from the same or, let's say, similar hymn sheets, albeit one hymn sheet, coming from the outside in and one going from the inside out, felt a bit harsh, I would say harsh, rather than robust. Thank you. I think we should probably just leave the discussion there, actually, because I think we will potentially be able to move on collaboratively, having had that discussion. It's one of those things that's always helpful to have and then to move on from. The next question is from Liz. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So we've mentioned lots of times about the priority for communication, to improve communication, both in the select committee and obviously officers as well have mentioned that. Given that the planned new centralised telephone number and group email box system will not be available for over 12 months, can anything be done in the meantime to monitor the timeliness of responses to parents' communications? And also just another little bit to add on to that, we did ask as a select committee about the out-of-office, especially when case officers aren't there or when case officers move on, and I'm still getting notification from parents that they're not getting that. When they email a case officer that's left, they're not getting that information about who's taking over or whatever. So just wondered if we could tag that onto that answer as well. Thank you. I'll hand over to Liz and Tracy. This is an area of real significant concern to me, obviously, and I'm monitoring very closely the number of complaints and concerns that come in that relate to poor communication. So I am aware it is still an issue, and I have asked that it is focused on in the meantime. So I'll ask Tracy and Liz to say what's being done. I'll come in first of all about the out-of-office responses because you're absolutely right. IAC also have done a survey recently personally for one quadrant and found that around about 70% to 80% of out-of-offices were correctly worded, but we still have officers that aren't using the correct word. We've reissued the correct word in which has been agreed with Family Voice Surrey, and I've asked each of the quadrant teams to do a mystery shopping exercise for the out-of-offices. We have got really clear procedures about what that should contain and also how to inform parents when we've got a change of case officer, and they should be being followed. I know no organisation gets it 100% right, but we need to be getting it better than we are at the moment, so absolutely take that point and we're working on it. Liz will talk about the other developments around how we're monitoring email and telephone communications between now and us getting the IT. Oh, I don't need to change, it's on already. So in terms of phone calls coming in, so we're not looking at 12 months actually to change the systems. We're looking for an April 2025 change, which will enable that much closer monitoring. Between now and then, we do have regular feedback from LSPA in relation to the calls that come in to the LSPA number, and that, as you know, is the recommendation. If anyone isn't able to make contact, that they call the LSPA number, and we are tracking and recording calls that are made and responses made to those calls through the LSPA system. In terms of emails, it's part of regular conversations within send teams, but also we are having a particular oversight of the number of times that lack of communication is mentioned in any complaint or other communication that we receive, so that we can look to see that there's an improvement in those rates. And again, the change to system that's planned, which we're working on with Family Voice, sorry, we're aiming for the April 2025 date for the new system to be in. So short-term measures are in place, and we're moving as quickly as we can to a more sustainable model so that it can be measured more accurately moving forward. Gosh, I've got the next question. This won't come as a surprise, but why does Surrey have more parents resorting to tribunals than any other local authority in England? Why is that? Please, Julia. Thank you. So obviously, not a simple answer. We are a very large authority, and we do have a very high number of children requiring AHCPs, so the volumes are large in Surrey. When you look at it as a percentage, Surrey is eighth, so we don't have the highest percentage, but clearly it is higher than average. And I think we've talked earlier today in this meeting around the difference between a tribunal, which is around a disagreement with a decision that's been made, which is not about the quality of an AHCP. Those are two very separate things, so I won't reverse the conversation we've already had. So, yes, it is higher than national, and we are both concerned about that and also seeking to work with parents at the earliest opportunity through mediation, through this relational approach, to even where an appeal has been lodged with the tribunal, and that's the figures that we record, to look at whether there's a way of finding a solution that is acceptable to everybody to move it forward, so through informal mediation, so not even getting to the point of that formal mediation. So we've had this trial that's been running now for less than a year with our mediation and dispute resolution officers, and we've had a 57% success rate in resolving those disagreements without it needing to go to a tribunal hearing. So we are confident, given that that's been a pilot specifically, to look at the impact of that work, and it's not yet been running for a year, when we evaluate the full year's impact of that and when we then take the learning from that and roll it out across the whole service, which is what we want to do, is embed it in how all of the SEN teams work, that over time that will reduce the number of appeals to the tribunal. I guess the other thing to mention is that, because nationally there's been such a rise in tribunal appeals, there's a big delay in the system. So the appeals that are coming to hearing now are from decisions that were disagreed with a year ago or more. Yeah, I guess it's just that, you know, if I look at the performance information, I think the number of appeals has doubled in the last 12 months. And I'm just wondering why. I mean, what's your gut feeling for, you know, why that's happening? I'm very conscious, actually. I've had some recent correspondence suggesting that, because parents haven't been able to engage with the mediation process, because no one's responded to them, you know, they then automatically go to appeal. But I just wondered, you know, they gave up on the mediation because, you know, they couldn't, for some reason, get in touch with the people they needed to. So I'm just wondering if, you know, why is it happening? Do you think? Oh, sorry, Rachel. Do you want to come in first, and then I'll come back to you, Tracy. I'm happy for colleagues to respond on that particular question. I wanted to make another point about some of the other ways in which sorry is an outlier. So if colleagues wish to give any answer to your question first, before I do, I'm happy with that. So I think we talked earlier, didn't we, about the key reasons why parents go to tribunal, which was the refusal to assess. And we explained previously the fact that that was because we had a high level of request to assess without very clear criteria, which we have now. And so there was a confusion at that point. The other aspect is around provision. And I think there is something around sorry being a significantly high user of non-maintained independent schools. And I think that parents will often, when they're either not able to secure a place because we haven't got sufficient provision or they're not confident in the provision we're applying for, do go to tribunal and look for that type of resource. And I think that does feed into the tribunal process and sorry. Having worked in other local authorities that don't have such a high use of non-maintained independent sector schools, we don't have those same pressures. That's interesting actually. I haven't really thought about that. It's interesting. I know that Rachel wanted to come in. Interestingly, Tracy's remarks speak to the point that I was wishing to make, which is it might be easy for this select committee to hypothesise that we find ourselves in many tribunals because we are refusing things that other local authorities permit. And what I wanted to make clear was that isn't the case. We are an outlier in our use of non-maintained independent provision. More sorry children attend that type of provision than typically do in other local authorities. Similarly, we have more children in specialist provision that in other local authorities would have their needs met in mainstream. So we're not refusing things or making decisions that are out of line with other local authorities in restricting access to these forms of education. On the contrary, more of our children are in this kind of provision. In a sense, the decisions that are being contested to tribunal are largely about decisions which are more in line with what I would describe as more usual decision-making elsewhere. There is a context, and Tracy's alluded to it, which is that in Surrey more than 20% of our children are educated in the independent sector generally against a national average of 7%. So we are describing a place which is already very untypical for its children's education before we consider the SEND provision here. I wouldn't want the select committee to be unaware of that. Thank you. I guess the corollary of that is that maybe we are building places in the maintained sector, but it seems to me that we started off with not having invested in the maintained sector in past years, and that's probably contributing to the problem as well. I would like to come to, if it's, sorry Claire, please do come in. Yes, and with an eye to developments on the national stage, the impending introduction of VAT on school fees in the independent sector is already playing out with higher appeals across the board being submitted that relate to children who are in independent settings. That is a risk for us because that can easily lead to higher rates of tribunals as well. Thank you. Well, I'm very happy to take a question as long as it's a very short one because we need to move on and I need also to come to Ashley's question. Thank you, Chair. It is very brief. The other authorities with high numbers of tribunal cases, if Surrey is very atypical with independent SEND, why are other councils even worse than us if we're atypical? So what are the similarities? What can we learn but what we don't need to pursue? So I know you've said are we eighth, which is bad, but how could it be even worse elsewhere when those authorities are probably more typical than us? So we work really closely with other authorities through the south-east SE19 network, so that's 19 authorities in the south-east of England, and we do make sure that we learn. So one of the reasons that we put the pilot in place with the mediation and dispute resolution officers was that we were looking at best practice in terms of getting in, working with parents and mediating informally before a case needed to go to hearing and actually even before it perhaps needed to go to the formal mediation stage, which has been mentioned, and obviously formal mediation is through an external provider, so at that point the mediation process is managed. So interestingly, where we are eighth in terms of the percentage of tribunals, we are actually the highest percentage user in terms of our independent non-maintained specialist school provision, which is the challenge alluded to earlier. So I think all of these things have contributed to the actions that we've put in place to try and address that, which include the SCN capital programme to increase specialist school provision within the county and within the maintained sector, as well as the other things that we've talked about today. Thank you, Joan. It sounds like us being an independent user isn't the key problem, and that's what I wanted to explore. It's not as simple as we've got a lot of tribunals because we're independent. Do you know, well, we could debate this for quite a long time. So forgive me if I move on, but I absolutely see your point. You know, there is another argument. I think Rachel would say that there is possibly an expectation, a greater expectation, that the local authority will provide places in the independent sector. I think we've got the issue that we perhaps didn't provide enough places in the maintained sector, and I'm sure you could bring in some other factors as well. So forgive me if I move on because I'm conscious that it could get into quite a significant debate. Liz, you had a short question, because I feel Ashley is sitting there waiting to ask his question. Thank you, Chair, thank you for indulging me, and thank you to Rachel for outlining that backdrop. Just my thought on it, I just wanted to speak to what Claire said about the independent sector of fees. I mean, there seems to have been, obviously, the status quo is that we do refer some children to independent school, and I think obviously there will naturally be a demand by parents to maintain that status quo, because that has been perhaps the system that we've had in place. But the fees in independent schools, regardless of VAT, and we could talk about the VAT and reclaim that on capital projects that's now open to independent schools, but the VAT, there has been quite significant increases in independent school fees even before the VAT has come about. And so we have probably seen an increase, a rise anyway, in obviously what we have had to pay within that sector anyway. So that has obviously increased our budget, which has made things much more difficult. But any data on that, you know, that parents are coming to us because of the VAT increase rather than the overall fee increase, that would be useful to know, you know, to say how many children are coming forward rather than just saying that we've seen an increase. It would be really useful to be able to see some of that data so that we're not talking about anecdotal, because there has been an increase in fees anyway within that sector. Thank you. And it's an increase that's been going on for at least the last five, ten years. I mean, disproportionate increases in fees. Ashley. Thank you, Chair. What may be the final question on the Cabinet response? Yeah, it's again to do with the increase in the number of tribunals, and it refers to this item 6 on the agenda pack dispute resolution. The figures we've got are an increase of 24%, albeit in 22, 23 figures. I'm a little bit surprised that that baseline is a bit out of date and not based on 23, 24 figures. But my question is that given that significant increase in the number of tribunals, whether there are any common issues or issues to be learned from those tribunal cases over the last, say, 12 months, which could reduce the number of EHCPs being referred to tribunals? Thank you. Julia. Thank you. So I think some of the issues have come out in the conversation we've just had, but looking at the key themes and the learning from that, I think there's a really key theme around having sufficient specialist placements, as we've just been discussing, and making sure that we've got those specialist placements within the county so that we can place children. So we've seen an increase in disagreements with decisions that come through the key stage transfer process, for example, where we are looking to place children in new provision. And as I mentioned, our SEM capital programme, which is looking at, on completion, doubling the number of specialist education placements within the county. And currently we've seen an increase of 35%, because we're well into that programme, but by the end of it a doubling in capacity. That will really help to enable us to place children, and for parents then to feel confident in that placement that it will meet children's needs. And I think the other theme that I would want to highlight in terms of the learning is around parental confidence in mainstream schools to meet children's needs. So we are currently working with mainstream schools to review our ordinary variable provision guidance, which was published a couple of years ago now, so it's ready for review, and working with mainstream schools to look at how we can build parental confidence in the support that can be provided, and so that we can strengthen our early intervention and prevention offer to support schools in that endeavour as well. Yeah, thank you very much. So can I just clarify something? So I think what I hear you saying is that we don't have enough specialist places, and parents are sceptical that mainstream schools can meet the needs of their children. Are there any other reasons? Those seem to be quite stark reasons. I mean, are there any other lessons coming through from the tribunals that we're engaged in? Because we have a very large body of information there. Sorry, yes. I just want to think back to the last time we were in committee, and we had the headteacher here from a secondary school who spoke about the parental expectation that she thought in some cases was misplaced about what an education health plan could give to their children, for their children. And I think that there may be something in that. They know that some parents may be still pushing for a plan in the expectation that it would give them something that it wouldn't necessarily do so. And I remember that particularly from the evidence of the headteacher. Could I come in briefly, sir? I mean, schools in my division are two or three, and two of them definitely had issues concerning children that need special needs, and they haven't got equality teachers dealing with those children. I think one actually you responded to, if I remember rightly, and I'm not sure it was absolutely resolved, but I think the headteacher is happy about it. But they're the sort of things we're talking about. I guess the head made the point. They talk to one another, parents, and therefore you get a situation where, well, that school hasn't got the requirement, they haven't got the team. I mean, I think one of the instances I'm talking about, they had actually an assistant teacher dealing with four children, and there was a physical element to what was going on from the children. So those are the things that get passed around amongst parents, and the schools do their best, and I agree with you. My concern is going forward, have we got the training and the staff coming through to actually deal with those children as and when we do put them in mainstream schools? And that's the $64,000 grant. I'm not even going to ask Julie to answer that. I think that would be an almost, you know, how would you know? I think we'll stop the topic there, but thank you, everyone. I think that was a very useful and insightful session, so thank you. We now move on to Jonathan. Before we move on, I wonder whether it would be possible to have some kind of briefing. It might not be a full agenda item. Maybe, I'm just looking at this, and a lot of the items which were noted as being carried out already through the EHCPN to end review say that progress will be made in December, January, March, March, April, maybe in about six months' time when all of those hopefully are then dates to pass and those have been bedded down. It might be worth having this on the agenda for the early part of the next financial year to come back to see where we've got to. I just wonder if it's worth just suggesting that. I think it's an excellent suggestion, and actually it can only really be accommodated at the earliest in July, but let's come back to it in July. Absolutely. I think it would be very good to hear, you know, what progress you've made and where you think we are at that point. Excellent suggestion. Thank you. We now move on to item seven, which is preparing for adulthood. We're looking at pages—ooh, I'm not quite sure what pages we're looking at. I think it's probably 59 to 78 in the agenda pack. So the purpose of our scrutiny is to review how well Surrey is doing against the ambitions and the standards set out in the Preparing for Adulthood programme. I think many of us are aware that the transition to adulthood and adult services can be a very difficult time, not just for the young people we send, but perhaps especially for their parents and carers. The legal framework within which Surrey operates to provide services represents a huge change from the legal framework for under-18s. To help young people and their families negotiate the transition from care as children to care as adults, the Preparing for Adulthood programme was set up, and that's really the programme that we're looking at today. I understand that in any one month there are potentially 1,500 open transition cases, and that's a very significant workload. One other point I should make, though, is we are looking at this from the perspective of children's services. We're not looking at the adult side of the equation. We're looking at the preparation whilst children are actually being looked after by children's services. An internal audit report, produced in July this year, confirmed the experience of many families who contact their counsellors, which is that the Preparing for Adulthood programme hasn't really delivered what it was set up to deliver, despite some very committed people and good intentions. There appear to have been numerous problems working across organisational boundaries, and some of these have resulted in audit actions that are being taken forward. A new 16-25 service to replace the programme is planned, and we want to understand whether the future support for children and young people who do transition will improve. The report tells us Surrey performs well on vocational pathways, and our key stage 4 results for young people with an EHCP in a mainstream school fall into the top half of performance when compared with nine statistical neighbours. However, that same table, which is in Appendix 8 in the report, really demonstrates the challenge that we have as a society, because although the comparison is not in the Appendix 8 table, the difference between the achievements of non-SEND children at key stage 4 and SEND children at key stage 4 should really concern us all, particularly in Surrey, where our key stage 4 results are really quite exceptional. But actually, the key stage 4 results of our SEND children in mainstream is sadly not exceptional. But I think it's a societal problem and a national issue as well as an issue in Surrey. Before I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves, we have some feedback from Family Voice Surrey. Unfortunately, no-one was able to be with us, but we asked them for some feedback from families on their experiences with transition to adulthood. So could we please put that up on the screens? If we could put it in slide mode, that would be great. I'll just give everyone a few minutes to really take these key things on board. I don't think any of these things will come as a surprise to any counsellors or anyone who has any experience in this arena, because it's really helpful to have those things so well articulated. This is always going to be a complex area, and parents experience a pretty significant transition themselves when they experience the difference in services between children's services and adult services, but it is interesting just to understand what the key themes reported to Family Voice Surrey are. So can I please ask those witnesses who haven't previously introduced themselves, but who are speaking in this session, to please introduce themselves. Maybe we can start with you, Jenny. Hi, my name is Jenny Brichel, and I'm the Assistant Director for Children with Disabilities. Thank you, Suzanne. Hello, Suzanne Smith, Director of Commissioning for Transformation. Good morning, Matt Ansell, Director of Family Resilience and Safeguarding. I think this might have been the first time you've come to the committee, Siobhan, so welcome. After today, it'll probably be your last. I'm going to avoid that committee like the plague, but welcome. Jodie, I do apologise. That's okay. Thank you. Hi, everyone. I'm Jodie Emery, Service Manager in Commissioning for Send Schools, and I'm the Assistant Director for Children with Disabilities. Thank you. Hi, everyone. I'm Jodie Emery, Service Manager in Commissioning for Send Schools, and I'm preparing for adulthood. I think it's your first time as well, isn't it? What can I say? First person with the question is John O'Reilly. Thank you very much. This is more of a sort of scene-setting question. It goes back almost to kind of first principles. In paragraph 3, the audit that the Chairman has just mentioned highlighted key strengths of the in-service. I think we've all read the audit report, and I don't want to get too hung up on the audit report, but it did me quite serious reading in the sense of that the report identified two areas of good progress, namely working younger project and then the form of LALCS to enable referrals, et cetera, et cetera, but then went on immediately to say we were disappointed that these were not carried through. So the result of reading the audit report was to have a degree of, if not alarm, then concern. So the question relating to that is, notwithstanding what you've said, are the strengths of the service, which I'm more than happy to believe, what is it that the audit report specifically and its contents and its conclusions, only recently, it was only July I think, enable the service to take very seriously greater reform and greater efficiency to meet the concerns that Family Voice have expressed and no doubt colleagues in this committee will also express. So as you point out, the audit did highlight a couple of areas of strength, and one of those was the area of working younger, which was the pilot that was done where the adult transition team were able to engage earlier with children and young people coming up to transition. So one of the key things, partly on the back of the audit, but that we've been working on and we've now got to a point of having concrete proposals about is developing either a 0 to 25 or a 16 to 25 pathway, and that is a complete recognition of the need for us to be able to engage earlier with adult colleagues, with young people who are approaching transition. And in terms of the proposals that we've developed, we're looking at starting that with the children who are eligible for the Children with Disabilities Service, and all of those young people go on to need adult social care. So the proposal is that we start to do a piece of work focusing on that population and that we then look at the pathway for children who sit outside of the Children with Disabilities Service. So I think one of the things that the audit report highlighted as an area of concern was the referrals into adult social care. And I know there was concern around the fact that referrals weren't being done as early as 14 and 16. And as you said at the outset, we haven't got adult services, and that's not the remit of this committee. But I think we do need to say that, certainly for children with disabilities, from 16 plus, 100% of our children are referred into the transition team. But in terms of the capacity of the transition team, i.e. the 18 onwards, the 18 to 25, to get involved with a young person, i.e. referrals that they receive, they're not able due to their own capacity. And I won't say too much, because obviously that's another service that's not represented here. They're not able to get involved. The earliest they can get involved is 17 and a half. So I think the remit of the audit was very much about early, one of the main criticisms was about that early referral. And I suppose, in reality, the adult services are not able to engage before a young person is 17 and a half. And what we're really trying to strengthen, and this is why we're looking at the pathway, from the 0 to 25, 16 to 25, is how we get a workforce that is equipped to work across children's legislation, adults' legislation, and can respond to those needs through holding responsibility for that cohort. John, do you want to come back? Yes, thank you for the answer. Can I really say black and white? Is there sort of real blockage here at our end, at the children's end, or is it the adults where we don't really have, quite reasonably, it's not within our remit? There is something clearly not happening that should be happening, but with whom does that prime responsibility lie? Well, at the moment, how we have things organised is that children's services have responsibility for 0 to 18 in terms of social care planning. Obviously, we have a wider remit for care leavers and the education, health and care plan process, but in terms of social care planning for children with disabilities, that currently is held within children's services 0 to 18, and then the responsibility for that as things stand now is transferred to adult social care. So one of our responses, in part to the audit report, but we were already looking at this before the audit was finalised, is to develop a pathway that goes across. So begins earlier and goes into adult services, and I think from children's services and adult services, and both I can say confidently that the director for adult social care disabilities director and I and other colleagues are fully joined up in our view that this is the direction that we need to take in terms of addressing that pathway that needs to work more smoothly for children, young people and their parents. Thank you. If I may, Chair, unless other colleagues want to hone in on the specific, it actually moves on quite sensibly to question two, which is also in my name. I would ask the question and then we'll come back, actually, because there are a couple of points that I would like to enquire further into. No, please ask your other question. Technically question two, but we won't let that hold us back. What was interesting to me, go to paragraphs 20, 21 and 22, quite reasonably, you're talking about 16, 25, but paragraph 20 says it's national good practice that transition planning should begin at 14, year 9, but analysis indicates referrals to the transition term, which goes 16 and 17. 21 goes on to say the damaging or the negative consequences of delayed from 14 to 16, and then 22 goes even further and says, this is underpinned by poor integration, et cetera, et cetera. So the first question I have is, what is preventing the service from beginning to activate itself at 14 to 16, because if we start at 14, hopefully you get a better outcome further down the line, and then putting it into a more horrible word, granular detail. So that's the principle. The first question I asked is the general principle. The second is, in the sense of what is actually happening now, what percentage of referrals to the transition team in AWHP are initiated by age 14, and therefore what is being done to increase the numbers where transition planning begins at this age and help the transition team to engage earlier? So the first is more the principle. The second is actually what is happening now. So the principle of preparing young people for adulthood and what they need as adult citizens and what their needs are going to be in adulthood, that's something that we aim to start thinking about from the earliest possible opportunity. So that's something that we really are embedding within the service. So within children's services, we're not thinking about what they need in adult services. We're constantly thinking about what we need to put in place to maximise independence, think about what they're going to need going forward, think about what their parent carers are going to need. So one of our very key responsibilities is thinking about issues that relate to their mental capacity, deprivation of liberty, which is key issues that we have to start really thinking about from 16 onwards. So the fact that they're not held in adult services doesn't mean that we're not very focused on what they need as adults. And we have a monthly meeting or six-weekly meeting where we track all the young people that are going through to adult social care. So that's when adult services come and we look at the whole population of children and young people who are going to go into adult services. And we have a weekly meeting for children and young people where there are issues around their transition that we think are becoming problematic, and that starts from 16 plus. And that's a weekly meeting where we have colleagues from adult transition team come so that we can problem solve. In reality, we are not referring children into adult social care before they're 16, because there isn't any... I don't mean to sound negative about adult services, but there isn't any point in the sense that they won't start engaging with a 14-year-old. But that doesn't mean that in children's services we're not expecting our social workers and family support workers to really be thinking about what does this child-young person need as an approaching adult. Sorry to hear. Does that make a note? Let's quote, and you may be saying, we are doing this. What is this? Quirt 20 says, well, the national good practice indicates that transition planning should begin at ages 14. Is that actually happening? That's a simple question. Yeah, in their annual review, the Education, Health and Care Plan, the expectation is that that annual review needs to start thinking about their needs going into adulthood. And that is a national expectation, and my understanding is that is happening. That's good. But then can you quantify the second part of my question about at the ages, say, between 14 and 16, are there sort of numbers that indicate that, what is happening, you're saying, that it's being thought about, but is anything actually happening on the ground between 14 and 16? I don't want to be obsessive about it, because it's in the report itself. Do you mean specifically in relation, are we referring those children to adult services? There's no specific question. What is happening between the ages of 14 and 16? I repeat, I'm only mentioning it because there are three paragraphs in the report that refer exclusively to that issue and the problems that surround it. Well, in relation to children's social care, any young person that's open to us, we're regularly reviewing their needs. So if it's a child in need, we meet every three months, we review the plan around that child. If it's a looked-after child, we review the looked-after plan. If it's a child who's subject to child protection, we review the child protection plan. And as part of that, we're thinking about that person's needs, both in the short term, but in the longer term. So we're always thinking about what that person needs in terms of planning for their future. And we're really trying to embed in the service this sense of our responsibility to think about adulthood at the earliest opportunity. So there's a lot of planning, and as I say, we meet and track all the young people from 16, and that's when we get into the detailed discussions with adult services about what their needs are going to be. But we don't refer, I know you're not just specifically asking this, but we don't refer into adults at 14. I have to admit, I get a sense of a real disconnect here across an organisational boundary. I hear what you say, absolutely, you are beginning to prepare, but actually you're preparing within the context of children's services, preparing those young people from age 14, because adult services will only accept a referral at age 16 and a half, I think you said, something like that. So it almost feels as though there's work going on here, but the bridge isn't well in place, would that be unfair? I'm not saying adult services won't accept a referral, but I'm saying in terms of practice, they can't meaningfully get involved in terms of their capacity until a young person is older, 17 and a half is our usual experience. But in terms of the bridge, I think we know that we want to, our proposal is that we develop a 16 to 25, which would address the bridge, but in terms of the bridges that exist at the moment, we meet six weekly with the service managers in CWD, the team managers and the managers from the transition, and we meet and we talk about the population that are coming into adult services. We have shared training events with the transition team and the children with disabilities. So there are various ways in which, and there are really good relationships between the two parts of the system, and there's a real working together around the challenges of which I don't want to go into too much detail because it wouldn't be helpful, but the Mental Capacity Act and our responsibilities, and I think there is a reality that in adult services they obviously work to the Care Act, and in children's services we work to the Children's Act, and the Mental Capacity Act starts applying from 16 plus. And so there are various ways in which we are working really well together, but I really, as I've said earlier, I think we collectively, i.e. adults and childrens, believe that there does need to be a more meaningful change to get the pathway to work more effectively. But we have got to get workers that can work across the Children's Act and the Care Act, and we know from consultations we've had with other local authorities that's challenging because typically you have workers who work in children's work, and with children with disabilities that can't work as well. You do need a workforce that's skilled across both areas. Can I, before I hand over to some of the questions, can I just challenge what you said about the Working Younger project, because that was for early engagement from age 16. And the Orbis report says that that pilot was a really, really helpful and useful thing to do, but the positive outcomes have not materialised because they weren't implemented as expected. Why is that? I could presume, but please tell me why you think that is. Well, at the time of the pilot, it was about three years ago, the pilot, and there were very significant workforce issues at the time in children with disabilities, which have significantly improved. And adult services at that time were able to identify capacity for their workers to get involved with children with disabilities at a younger age, and that was found to be very positive. But the work and the feedback and the learning from that Working Younger project has absolutely been embedded by the joint recommendation that we have a 16 to 25 pathway. I'm saying 16 to 25. I think there's also a potential further exploration around the 0 to 25. So I think the Working Younger project lessons feedback has absolutely been realised, and we would have no resistance to adult services getting involved with children with disabilities younger, but without speaking for them, they do not have the capacity, is my understanding, to do that. Thanks very much, Jenny. I understand. The next question is from Chris Tynesend. Yeah, thank you, Jenny. You talked about the integration between children and families, and that means what's been done to integrate the case management systems of both to get effective data sharing and enable the transition team, which is very, very important, to access the relevant young person's information, having a full picture of that. So what is being done to promote and integrate those two systems? Thank you. So both workers in children and workers in adults have read-only access, so they can read what's on each other's databases, and we do have a transition referral for Portal now, so referrals can be made into adult social care. It's not currently on the LCS system, but that's the next stage, but there is an effective way in which children can refer in. The issue around a joint database or having the LCS, which is children's, and LAS, which is adults, working as one, is a complex, I'm advised, costly project that was considered some time ago, the principles of having a joint, yes, and it was at that time deemed not appropriate from a governance point of view, that that wasn't accepted. So we've had some initial conversations with our project lead, our systems lead, who's advised it's complex and costly, and we've begun some discussions with other local authorities in terms of how they've addressed this issue. And I must admit, in terms of two that I've worked quite closely with, what they've had to live with is a kind of workaround, but it's not over yet, and I think it's an integral part of the 16 to 25 piece of work that we're currently looking at. It's not a cost, I mean, you mentioned the money, which fundamentally underpins everything here. I mean, presumably that's a factor, because I would expect it to be quite expensive, and you've suggested that elsewhere they've not really done a single entity. Well, I'm thinking of two local authorities that I've spoken a lot with about this whole pathway, that have got a 0 to 25 pathway, and they've found a work, in other words, they haven't been able to achieve. But they're just the two that I've worked most closely with. We don't know of any other authority that actually has got a single. Well, I think as part of the 16 to 25, we intend to scope that further. I think Suzanne wants to. I can just offer a little bit of insight, because I've had to write the business case and other local authority as to why you don't have an integrated system. So it's a really great idea for those children that are in the transitions process. But if you look at the overall numbers of records that each of those individual systems are storing, that cohort is a really, really small percentage. So in the business case that I looked at before, it was less than 1% of the records that you were talking about then spending several hundred thousand pounds moving electronically from one place to the other. So when you get into that scenario, I think that's why local authorities tend to find workarounds, because it is a relatively small cohort where that information is really critical to sit in both systems. I don't think you're inhibited by the workaround. You feel the workaround is... I use the word good enough, but I don't mean it that way. But you know what I mean. You're comfortable that that data is consistently there for your needs. Being honest, I think operationally workers would say it would be a big improvement if they could have access. But I think that the workaround is not the major barrier. I don't think it's a major barrier to us being able to develop this, and it wouldn't stop us, and it shouldn't, is my view. Thank you. I think the 1% is an interesting comment as well. I guess the downside of not having an effective IT system is that people have to put... The officers have to put in a hell of a lot more work to produce productivity. From a productivity perspective, it must be a real dream on productivity, actually not having a single system. That's how systems were first cost justified in most organisations, but I take the point about the 1%. The question I have is about the information in the report in Appendix 6, which shows NEET and activity not known rate for 16 to 18-year-olds. There was a steep drop, both in Surrey and nationally, between September 2023 and March 2024, and I'm just wondering what the reason for that was. Thanks, Jodie. Thanks, Chair. The figure reported in the report is a combined total of that of NEET and activity not known, and the activity status of all young people in full-time education requires complete information at the start of each academic year. That's done through data tracking conversations with young people themselves, destination data from colleges, vocational pathway providers, etc. That's why that number in September even nationally looks a lot higher, and then as those destinations are confirmed, and if young people have moved into employment as an example, then that number then drops down and then, as the report shows, kind of stays relatively subtle then across the academic year, but goes up again the following September. Thank you. That's really helpful, because there didn't seem to be any logical explanation for it, so thank you for that. I'm very conscious, Liz, that I didn't give you the opportunity to ask a question earlier on. I meant to. Please ask it now. I'm really sorry I'm going back slightly over old ground, because you mentioned the work in Younger and obviously the comments in the audit report about the positive outcomes not materialising, and obviously that report was June 2024, and I just wondered, and it might be something you want to come back on perhaps later, just how is that being taken forward now, because it wasn't very long ago, and the report said that nothing had materialised, the implications are, so I just wondered how that was being taken forward now, that we can have some assurance that that is taken forward. I understand the complexities about the age 14 up to age 16 and the different silos that are there across the services, but there was something within the report that there would be a target for January 2025 for age 14 referrals, and obviously we're very near that date. We've got all the stuff to do with the end-to-end review on the ascend, and there's other recommendations within this report, and I just wondered, are we working towards some kind of scheme that will bring forward that sort of referral system, and I understand the complexities between the two services, but the recommendation was that it would be at age 14, so I'm just wondering how we're moving forward with that. Well, in terms of the working Younger, as I said earlier, just to sort of strengthen that, we are very much taking account of the findings of the working Younger by the fact that we've worked closely on these proposals to have a 16 to 25 service, so we recognise completely the value of having adult services working and engaging, workers who are equipped to respond meaningfully about adult services capacity and availability, being involved with young people at an earlier age, and we think that a 16 to 25 pathway in terms of having a workforce that could work across children's services and adults is a way to respond, and that was what the working Younger project was all about, so although the audit report is obviously really valuable, I don't know whether that's made clear enough in terms of, you know, we really have taken on board the findings of that piece of work, and there is no obstacle at all in children's services to adult transition team getting involved. We would love them to be able to do that, but we know that they haven't got the capacity to do that, and so what we're trying to do is to get our workers, our social workers and family support, really knowledgeable around their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act, the Deprivation of Liberty, so that we can really ensure that when we do refer children over, that we've done everything that we need to do in terms of addressing their adult needs, because that's one of the key things that the work we have to do around assessing mental capacity, and that's really about, you know, the shift in how you have to work with a young person as they approach adulthood, but in terms of the earlier referral, if I'm honest, there isn't any current intention in children with disabilities to refer children younger at 14, because we could, there's no reason, there wouldn't be any action from adult social care at 14, they wouldn't do anything. What we are doing in children's services is working with that young person, and thinking all the time about their adult needs, and preparing them for adulthood, so, yeah. I think that's a whole topic there, probably a whole discussion around the how, which probably we're not quite aware of perhaps at the moment, so I recognise that you see the value in that, the 16 to 25, and that stuff is going on, but I suppose that the how would be a whole, maybe for a whole meeting discussing around that, so just perhaps it's something that we would look at later on about how that is actually implemented, and how things have changed. Sorry, did you mean the how of the, how we set, develop the 16 to 25 service? Because we're, if we're talking about 16 to 25 service, we do have a question about that, so maybe we should let that rest for now. But the next question is yours, Les, anyway. Slightly different topic. Thank you. So the report mentions a gap in resource at paragraph 17, and it says that the market would benefit from additional providers in the 16 to 25 space, where there are gaps in services or identified unmet needs, and I was wondering what is being done to fill those gaps, and identify in particular what those gaps are. Thank you. Thank you. So from a CFL lens, the additional needs and disabilities commissioning team have developed an alternative provision dynamic purchasing system recently, and there is a specific post-16 lot within that DPS for children and young people with an EHCP to access, which does sit alongside some of the other commission services, such as training ships, apprenticeships, and life skills programmes, et cetera. The DPS is focused on increasing that number of providers within that lot. We awarded 16 services through the first process, so we have got 16 services already being put through for children to access, and the further eight services were awarded through round two of the provider recruitment, and they are currently going through provider mobilisation to be ready for use from January. We are planning further market engagement events with providers where we know that we do have gaps, so there will be a focus around post-16 and understanding where those gaps are, and the market engagement events to encourage those providers to submit to be on the DPS. So that is where we are with that. As noted, adults do have a separate DPS system. I don't know, Suzanne, if you wanted to come in and think around adults. Yes, so that kind of talks to education provision or kind of vocational pathways for young people. Obviously, for those young people who might have complex needs and are more likely to be open to Jenny's service, we might be talking more about care packages, and one of the challenges in this space there is around registration. So obviously, from an adult's perspective, you are looking for CQC registration. From a children's perspective, we are looking for Ofsted registration, and historically, there has been a kind of reluctance from the market to have dual registration, because there is a real overhead to that for them. Within the adults DPS, there is a lot that is about that joint area, and although in the work that they have done to get that framework up and running, there hasn't been capacity as yet to really drive at that. It is an area of the market we need to develop, but we had a really helpful meeting actually only last week around the work that we would need to start to build that market, and it is important to note that that is not going to happen overnight. That will take months. But it is also an area that Ofsted are interested in and are trying to encourage. So there is kind of a groundswell, and now it feels like a really good time to pick up and drive that work together across adults and children's commissioning. And just quickly, if I could come back to some of those vocational pathways and the growing demand, is there particular sectors, or are there particular gaps in particular areas that you are aware of, or is it just generally? Thank you. I do think it is more in general, although we do have providers that are specific for particular areas, as I said, like traineeships or supported internships. So I think we are looking at that general area of what needs to be increased to have more available provision. Next question is from Ashley. Yes, thank you, Cher. I think some of this was probably pre-empted by Lizzie's earlier question. But I stopped you just in time. But I will ask it anyway. Yes, and what is interesting is that you have mentioned that you want to transition more from 16 to 18 to 16 to 25 to address that bridge between childhood and adulthood and to link the two services together. But you have also made reference a couple of times to adult services possibly not having the capacity to move towards that yet. So it is just to tease out a little bit more what you think the barriers are to moving towards 16 to 25, how they could be overcome, and what sort of timescale do you think we are talking about until you have actually transitioned to that 16 to 25 model that you have already proposed? So currently we have got an options appraisal in place of the 16 to 25 or the 0 to 25. So we have done a joint piece of work with adult services and come to a joint position that we want to, at the very least, work towards a 16 to 25. What we are planning to do next is work up some detailed costings. That is one of the main areas of work in terms of what would be the implications of this. There is a plan to take a proposal to our children's senior leadership team in January and February of what the implications would be in terms of the management, what would need to be in place, what the cost would be and what that would need to look like in some detail. So that has not been finalised and has not been agreed, the detail of what that would need to be. But there isn't a barrier in terms of a joint position from children and adults that this is what we need to achieve. And in theory the resources to achieve it are already in place in the sense that we are already working with this group of children and young people but we just work with them not in the same system as such. So the detail of the cost and the structure and where the service is cited, children's or adult, that hasn't been finalised but there is a date and plan to take papers in January and February with those specifics outlined. So will those costs and the business case behind those costs be presented early enough to feature in next year's budget? Or are we talking about a much longer timescale? No, we would have to factor it in obviously for next year's budget. Thank you. Rachel, you answered a question. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to qualify something because we constantly talk about 16 to 25s. Am I not correct in thinking that if education and everything has finished prior to 25 then it would stop? It's just that when we're always talking about that group it gives the impression that 25 is the cut-off date. But don't we have young people that because of their education finishing and everything that they may not be with us until they're 25? I think it would be good to have that point clarified. Yes, Rachel? Just to say that we have different duties depending on which acts our duties are engaged under. So children and young adults can have an education, health and care plan up to the age of 25 but if they finish their education sooner that plan would cease. Some of our children may be children looked after by the local authority and our duties to them as care leavers continue to the age of 25 come what may although those duties do change after the age of 21. So I don't want to generalise but I would say that 25 is the last cut-off point and then there are sooner end points depending on the circumstances of an individual young adult. Thank you very much for that. Thanks, Rachel. The next question is with Liz. Thank you. I know within the executive summary you acknowledge that it's a very challenging time for parents and carers and families and it can cause additional anxiety and within the Family Voice summary within their themes there's a recognition that there's a lack of awareness and understanding for parents about the process. I just wondered and I looked through the report and there isn't really any mention other than that acknowledgement of the anxiety, there isn't any challenges, there isn't really any mention of what we're doing to involve parents and carers in the transition process and also to remove any barriers there are for parents to secure a safe and long-term environment for their children and I just wondered what we are doing to improve that. Sorry, I'm looking down, I'm not sure who's going to answer that one, apologies. Within children's social care when we're working with a child or young person through this period then we would work very closely with parents and carers and they would be fully involved obviously in all our assessments, meetings, visits because the children we're working with are the more complex disabled young people. So I would like to hope and be reasonably confident, well I'd be confident that we're definitely communicating directly with parents about the work we're doing in terms of preparing the child and young person for adult services and the process in terms of referring in etc. I do think sometimes it can be more difficult for children who sit outside of children with disabilities who may, for example, be in a residential school and so they haven't got identified social care needs and then as they're approaching adulthood the need for social care support once education starts to no longer be the primary structure in that young person's life can be quite challenging and because in some situations those children and families are not known to children's social care sometimes I think communication can be more challenging and engagement with parent carers. So I think that's something we need to work further on and as I said earlier, if I didn't, apologies, when we've talked about the options around the 16 to 25, the 0 to 20 that we're currently looking at we recognise that the first cohort of young people we want to focus on are the children with complex and severe disabilities but that we then want to look at pathways for children who are not in that group because to some extent the pathway as much as it's got its issues is in some respects, I don't want to use the word easier, but more straightforward because we know that they need adult services, they're children with lifelong disabilities and so we're very focused on that and I think sometimes for children who are not in that group of complex and severe disabilities the issues around how their adulthood is prepared for can sometimes be more challenging for them, their parents and for the professional system around them. I think there's evidence for that in the Family Voice Surrey feedback. I think that comes through loud and clear actually. For children with severe disabilities things may work effectively but then there's a whole cohort that you've just described. I think for whom things are really very unclear. Just to respond to that, we do have regular engagement events with Family Voice and we've had two and we've got another one coming up and that's open to all families and that represents the whole cohort of children with additional needs and disabilities and so what we're doing increasingly is engaging our early help colleagues, our social work colleagues from family safeguarding, health colleagues etc. so that we can provide a forum where parents and carers can bring those questions and we can as a system try and respond recognising that the issues for children outside of the Children with Disabilities Service can sometimes be more challenging so I think we're doing something to try and provide somewhere where parents can come to raise issues. Thanks Jenny. The next question is, I apologise. Very quickly, I was just going to say obviously working very closely, the social workers are working very closely with the family but we can't get away from the fact that within the Family Voice Surrey there is a specific theme that they feel that there is, you know, parent carers find a lack of awareness and understanding of the young person needs and the need for their continued involvement as parents and carers and that's the kind of, you know, there are obviously some bits to work on there and obviously the parents themselves feel that there's barriers that are put in place for their continued involvement with their children so there is something still to, you know, that I haven't had an answer to that perhaps and it might be again, you know, that you want to come back later but it would be helpful to perhaps address what's coming through from Family Voice. I do think where that might be or what might be contributing to that is the reality that when a young person goes into adult social care there is a shift and that's something about how we prepare our parent carers and young people because adult services very much have to work more directly with the young person, they have to assess, as do we from 16, but have they got mental capacity, can they make their own decisions, can they run their own budget, so that's, I think, can be quite difficult for parent carers but we have to work to that legislation so from 16 plus we're having to very much think differently ourselves and it's been quite a steep learning curve for our workforce so I think that will be improved by the virtue of the way in which we're having to work differently from 16 plus but I do think that the different legislation in adult services would be impactful for parent carers and also I do think the level of oversight that is able to be provided in adult services, there's a difference, the Children's Act requires a much more significant level of oversight duties on a local authority in terms of what we have to do by law, in terms of how often we need to visit, review and the Care Act is different so there is, I can see that those things would contribute but I understand your concern. I think it is a concern that comes through from the Family Voice feedback and I do understand the situation of parents who have been so engaged with their children up to the age of 18 and suddenly they're into the Mental Capacity Act but I think also perhaps there isn't sufficient opportunity for preparation of parents being taken there but we can come back to that another time. Jonathan, your question. Oh, sorry Chris. Yes, sorry, I was just going to pick up one other point which follows on from that to some extent with Family Voice reporting that families are talking about inconsistent experiences of annual reviews in Year 9 in relation to this preparation. Interestingly, particularly in mainstream schools, which I think is an interesting comment is made, I mean from what you've said I think it's something you maybe do recognise and what do you think the reason is for this because it specifically mentions mainstream schools? So far the discussion has been very much around the pathway, hasn't it, for young people into care. Preparation for adulthood is obviously broader than that, it's about young people understanding their education pathways as well and the annual review in Year 9 is the beginning of that discussion. So most schools for all their children will be starting to talk about options around GCSEs at that point in time, what the career pathways might be and what the onward journey for that young person will be and they'll be talking about that with the young person and with the parents. And that information is recorded for children with EHCPs in the Year 9 annual review and we have in the SEND team specific teams dedicated to casework for children from Year 9 onwards, so we call them the post 14 team. And they look at that annual review information and they determine what sort of journey does the family need support with, is it a child who will need support from the transitions team, are they already known to children with disabilities, is that work being progressed that way or does the team need to take on some work in terms of engaging transitions outside of the children with disabilities team. The case officers are required to attend the Year 10 annual reviews because that is when the young person and the parents express their preference around where the young person is going to go on to past school age. And then they may have a range of pathways, they might be a vocational pathway, it might be further education or indeed sometimes it's specialist provision, but that's all discussed in the Year 10 annual review. And then the plan is amended and issued in time for 31 March in Year 11 so that the young person can then have the appropriate education provision. That's the process, the actual attendance at Year 10 annual reviews is inconsistent and it is our intention moving forward as a result in terms of the annual review attendance of the case officers. So the meetings happen, the discussions take place, but the case officers themselves aren't always present. They will receive the information and they will take action as a result of that information, but they are not always in attendance for all the reasons we've discussed. Why would that be? Is that to do with numbers? Capacity. So it's all to do with the things that we've identified in the end-to-end review. I understand then parents being a bit miffed, I think there's also this concern about different case officers as well and presumably that's a factor as well. They're dealing with one case officer, suddenly they don't get another one, they can get another one. So is that part of the inconsistent experience they're having at this particular juncture because it's a very vital point in the transition process? All right, so the inconsistency is about the attendance of the case officer at the annual review. We are consistent in taking actions as a result of the annual review, so that's a really critical bit. There isn't an inconsistency around the case officer. We specifically design a post-14 team so that they really understand from the age of 14 what the pathways for children would be and so that they can help to support that decision making. So yes, there is a switch of case officer pre-14 to post-14, but the reason we have specialist post-14 case officers is because they know their business about where children can go. Is that explained to the parents? Yes, it'll be in our local offer and they will know. Sorry, you can say it's in the local offer, but do the parents understand that change? I understand what you've said, but do the parents understand, oh, hang on, we've got something different here, what's going on? They are written to and it is explained, but it's interesting, yes, your perception is that there might not be that. Liz, did you want to say anything more about that? Not particularly in that I think there's a hand over, but I think the question about attendance at that particular annual review is one that we are currently looking at because we need to make sure that we've got appropriate attendance from the local authority at those priority annual reviews. And what we need to reflect on is where is it the case officer that needs to attend or where is it actually more appropriate that somebody else from the local authority is attending in terms of those annual reviews. So that's something we're looking at in relation to the end-to-end review. I'm fully committed to having attendance at priority annual reviews, but it's not always the case officer that's necessarily the most appropriate person to be there. Julia, do comment. Just to add a little bit to that, so I completely agree and it's normal practice to look at a range of different professionals attending on behalf of the local authority. And also just to clarify the difference between the annual review meeting, which of course is convened by the school or the setting. And it's really important that the Senco for the school, for example, is skilled and confident in running those meetings and covering all of the issues and discussions that they are required to do under the code of practice. And then the actions following the annual review meeting, which is what we then do as a local authority. So that's looking at the recommendations from the discussion and then agreeing or not with those recommendations. I think sometimes we talk about the annual review as if it's the meeting and the follow up actions, but actually they're two separate things. And it's the school that's responsible for the meeting. Is Senco giving advice to the parent and the child? Yeah, OK. And they've got to be there because they're fundamental to that particular process. It's the school or setting's responsibility to convene the meeting and there's all sorts of actions they need to take regarding running the meeting. I'm confident with what Liz was saying. You understand there is an issue there and you're looking at the situation. OK, thank you. Jonathan, you wanted to come in? Yeah, thank you very much. Is it possible just to put the six slides from Family Voice back up on the screen? Better to look at than my face anyway. So just looking at the six points from Family Voice. I think we've covered the ones on the right hand side more. We certainly talked about the collaboration from an IT point of view, but maybe there's a wider question about responsibility and how that does tell. Chris has just touched on annual reviews and Liz has done the middle bottom, if you like, if I'm allowed to say that. But on the other side, on the left hand side at the bottom, there's the question about eligibility, which we haven't really touched on so much. But I'm drawn to the top line. Struggles to find appropriate further education provision for young people. And then I wondered how that relates to these transport changes that we no longer provide the statutory. We no longer provide the post 16 and see that discretionary relevant statutory now. And how does that all play out together? So I thought, OK, well, how, if I was Family Voice here today and I was being a witness because clearly they're not here, what would I say and what would I ask? And I'd ask, to what extent does the report address that issue of transport? I can't see it addressing that issue of transport really. And then what about the sufficiency of provision? Well, there's a section in the report about sufficiency and increased demand, and that talks about in paragraph 31 about a gap in demand. But then it responds talking about meeting that demand in terms of independent living and housing and then provision of adult social care. So it looks very much more about the demand of the residential provision rather than the demand of the educational provision. So I just really would like to ask what the service thinks of those Family Voice themes, particularly the ones which we haven't really touched on yet around eligibility, sufficiency of education placements and the impact on transport changes. So, for example, we've talked a bit about vocational provision. If we lack vocational provision, then does that mean, for example, that the vocational provision offered is potentially further away from someone's home because there aren't as many providers around as we'd like? If we lack educational provision, are more of our post-16 SCND young people travelling further than they might expect to travel at a younger age, for example? And what's the implication there on the families? So I wonder if you might provide an outline, then I may come back if I may. Just to remind everyone that we did earlier, Jodie talked to us about the dynamic purchasing system, which is the vehicle by which you encourage providers of alternative provision to make education available. I guess Jonathan's point, if I understand it, is more around the vocational education post-16. And certainly, I think some of us as councillors have become very aware that it's patchy, and it's patchy in certain areas of Surrey, and there is a problem with the lack of provision of transport. Because young people with SCND may not really be that capable of travelling unaccompanied long distances to get to patchy vocational education centres. So am I right in characterising it in that way? Yeah, I think so, but I'm really just focusing on the exact words from Family Voice. I've recently met a group of families with special education needs children, and we discuss at length the provision at school age and the shifting challenges that we've got there. So what most worries you? And they said, well actually, I'm not saying it's perfect, but they said what most worries us, and one parent told me it was frightening, is what happens when a young child becomes post-16 and looking at that post-16 educational provision. We see plans in place for new school places up to 16, but what happens then? And I really wonder how you might respond to those two first challenges that have been given to us by Family Voice for us to discuss in this session here today. In terms of the eligibility for the question around inconsistent information around the eligibility for adult transition team, I think that's a specific question that needs to be put to adult services. In terms of children with disabilities, all of our children that are open to the children with disabilities services meet the eligibility for the transition team. And obviously there's a different legislative framework for children than there is for adults, but in terms of how the information around the eligibility for the transition team, that's not an issue for us because all of the children meet the criteria. But if parents are saying that they're not clear about what the eligibility is for the transition team, I think that's a question that adult services would need to respond to. I think it is something that we would have to take up with the adult social care team because we can only look at the children's element of that and you have covered that. I suppose I wanted to make a suggestion that Councillor Essex has asked a question which in its complexity and its application to a range of children with widely differing needs is very difficult to answer off the cuff in an environment like this. So it is true that some families will be unclear about their eligibility for transition and other families will be super clear. And where the eligibility is unclear, that undoubtedly causes a problem. It is true that for some young people the further education options available do not necessarily meet their aspirations or those that do best fit their aspirations may be further away than is desirable. And our task as a council is to consider what are reasonable and proportionate responses to those accumulated gaps. So in other words, do we need a new type of provision in a particular location or do we have a child or young person whose particular interest that they wish to pursue is simply very challenging to meet in Surrey but commissioning a wholly new provision wouldn't be an appropriate response. And likewise with eligibility for transport, which is it is certainly true that if this council is not funding the transport for post-16 young people there will be some education choices that a young person or their family will not make because they will know that they need to fund the transport themselves. But as a council we need to make sensible and proportionate decisions about whether we go beyond our statutory duties to fund in exceptional circumstances. So the things that are set out on that slide are things that I would recognise and have encountered in relation to individual children or young people. And in some cases they will be cumulative across enough young people for us to take some kind of concrete action. But to be able to respond in detail to the question I think is simply not possible because it's such a varied picture across the county and across all our young people. Thank you, Rachel. Jonathan, do you want to come back? Yes, and thank you for that. Clearly it's a varied question because there's six very different comments from Family Voice. I agree on the eligibility one. Maybe that's something which we can do some kind of magic handshake to adult services. Maybe they can come back with an answer on that. And I accept, Rachel, that if transport isn't being provided as of default then choices will be different. But if choices are different then maybe the provision that we need to provide and where it is itself then might be different. We might need to go a little bit further in ensuring that there is suitable provision provided in the different localities across Surrey. Rather than relying, maybe it would be provided more centralised on the basis that we will pay for the transport there. And in a sense, unclear and inconsistent information is something we can address through improving communication. But to address struggling to find education, that sounds like we might need to increase our educational provision post-16. So I wonder, as you've rightly said, that's something slightly bigger to go away with than a quick answer. I wonder if it might be possible to look at what the level of demand is and whether we need to do more to meet that demand. So the report for us today sets out how the council is doing just that when it comes to the social care housing for transition. But it's not clear, because the report is silent on it, what we're doing with regard to the increasing demand for educational provision post-16 and how it ties into the removal of the transport. I think that latter point is actually quite challenging. I think what would be really helpful, actually, if we have as an action item, is to understand how the service looks at the demand for post-16 vocational education. And in what circumstances you would look to provision and in what circumstances you would decide not to provision. I think that would be helpful to understand, because I think that's not clear at the moment. I think in terms of the transport, I think only when we understand how post-16 provision is assessed and how we provide for increased demand, does the transport issue then come in? I agree totally. I think the transport answer would come out of the education and vocational provision answer. And maybe in answering that, the geography of not just how much is provided, but where it's provided is really useful. Yeah, because there is absolutely a significant geographic dimension to it. In response to the question that Jonathan is asking here, I wonder if there's an overlap very much with the work that the previous task group did on skills and further education. Because I feel that that is an area that sits with the economic development and the skills strategy that we have. And thinking about the work that the service does with the further education colleges and that kind of thing, which sort of sits aside from the work that's done by officers in the room here. Tracey, I'll come to you and then I'll go to John. It's a really quick point, but I thought it was pertinent, because hopefully it will help clarify the locality issue. And that's not saying that all children have a very clear pathway into further education. That isn't the case. But our further education colleagues can provide a really inclusive and vocational or academic pathway. And we often, where we can't meet needs in schools, ask our further education colleagues to provide a 14 to 16 programme. So the ability of further education colleges to meet the needs of children feels to me to be a little bit wider than our mainstream school offer. And so that might help with the sufficiency question. I think it would be really interesting to know that, absolutely. Back to Jonathan and then Chris. Thank you. Well, it's a rather more macro question. I was absolutely fascinated by that. I was intrigued by the exchange between Ashley and Jenny about, well, Jenny, I think, and I just took the words out, the cost structure. That there are going to be meetings in January or February. It's a genuine question of how significant this is in taking the improvement journey that was identified in the audit. And we've talked about some length earlier in the meeting. How significant are these meetings and new structure and costings in order to determine the improvement process that all of us are seeking across the board? The supplementary question—and I don't want to be teasing in this way in any way, I'm an ingenuous fellow—when the word budget comes in or costs, is it expected in order to facilitate the improvement journey, the Working Younger project, if I may call it that? In order to achieve that, is it likely that the costings will be met from the existing budget? Or, notwithstanding what Claire has said, that money isn't everything, but it can be something. I see Rachel immediately puts her hand up, which may be encouraging or may not be. We'll wait and see. You can see where I'm coming from. What is the significance of these meetings, of the new structure? Is it essential? In parenthesis, have we come as a committee a little too early because we want to see the structure and the way things are moving in order to determine whether, in six months or years' time, there's been demonstrable improvement in outcome, but we are where we are today. So you've got a broad idea. What is the significance of June, July in taking this thing forward? Are there any elements which are budget-related, such that this committee, as we are going to keep a benign eye on the previous item, will also perhaps keep an even more benign eye on this one? I'm leaping in only to provide what I hope is a helpful framework so that Jenny can answer the specifics in relation to June, July. So earlier, I think, we answered a question about funding in next year's budget. And I realised as the answer floated across the air that we weren't actually talking about next year's budget in the sense of April 2025 to March 2026. We are already so embedded in finalising that budget that that question is pointing to beyond next year. It's the next year's budget preparation. So you ask, are we asking these questions at the right time? There are actions that we can take in the services within existing resources, which reorganise existing resources to respond better to what I think you've described as a bridge, which I think is quite a nice way of describing it, so that we make a more robust bridge between children's and adult services. And those can be initiated within existing resources that we have already planned for in next year's budget, as in the budget from April 2025 to March 2026. Then the next year's budget that we will be developing, which is from April 2026 onwards, would be the place where if we concluded that we needed additional funding over and above, that would be the place where we would seek to build it in. And there are two places where funds may be needed. One is in the design and delivery of the service itself and the caseworkers who work in the service. And of course, that has to be funded. And the other is in the provision. We've been talking quite a lot about what provision young people access. And in that context, I wanted to make it really clear that there are three and more funding sources, actually. So there is education funding for those children who do have an education, health and care plan, which is from the DSG, the high needs block in the DSG. There is social care funding, which may come from children's social care under the age of 18 or adult social care over the age of 18. And we haven't alluded to it at all today, but there is also health funding. And so where young people have considerable additional needs or disabilities, they may well be eligible for health funding for some of the provision that sees them through into adulthood. And so in designing and thinking about our services and thinking about our budgets, we need to take all of those factors into consideration. And I thought that would be a helpful framework in which to ask Jenny to drop what she has to say. Before Jenny comes in, just to be absolutely clear, make sure we, in both our discussions, not make too much of it back into detail. When we say next year's budget, you're not talking about the budget that will be approved by council in February of 2025. You're talking about the budget that will be approved by council in February 2026. Is that right? I think that was a very useful clarification. I think it is what I understood, I have to admit, because I think what it says is that there, and I'm willing to be persuaded to the contrary, but there will be no dramatic changes in either the funding for EHCPs, SEND service, or for children transitioning and preparing for adulthood services in the next financial year, which is 2025-26. It will be within the current envelope. Can Jenny answer the substantive point she's making? The next stage for us is to do that analysis of what could be achieved within existing resources. No-one believes that there's additional resources, so the next piece of detailed work that's being undertaken is that analysis of the proposals. There's a proposal for a 16-25, there's also a proposal for a 0-25, but within that the 16-25 pathway would sit. The next piece of work is a detailed analysis of what can be achieved within our existing collective resources. That's where we hope to do the work within the existing resources, recognising that achieving additional resources is not necessarily an option, but taking Rachel's point about the collective pot, because there is significant health funding for some of the children that are eligible, that we have to factor in, et cetera, et cetera. But the analysis to inform the proposals is what we're working on next. Just to come back, and I may be completely confused now, but I'm not entirely sure how that discussion with John is initiated relates to the question I asked before. They may or may not be related. That's fine. I just wanted to check before making a complete what's it myself. I think John, given his background and his interest in all things financial, just wanted to ensure that he properly understood what we had been discussing. That's fine. Actually, it was a very useful clarification, because I think it sets our expectations on the two topics that we've discussed. That's fine. All I wanted, therefore, to clarify was, while that was the answer to John's question, the previous discussion, which was about sufficiency of places and also how that might impact transport, is not within the current financial envelope. I don't think in any way it really directly relates to the previous task group on skills, because that mainly looked at Surrey Adult Learning and then the FE colleges and how their provision was dissimilar to each other and what a vision for it coming together might be. It didn't really focus on special needs. I was saying the one we did, because that was past tense. The real question was—family voice, I've asked some questions here—while we've discussed and the report raises some of these really well, it doesn't really go into the transport issue, perhaps because it doesn't really go into the educational provision issue, which it relates to, because the sufficiency section of the report focuses on the sufficiency of social care and residential housing rather than education. I wonder if that is something which is outstanding from the family voice recommendations, but there may be other things that we need to pick up with regard to their comments in other areas too. I'd like to make a suggestion, and that is that we separately consider the provision of education and training for post-16s with SEND, and we look at the barriers. We look at what the provision looks like on another occasion, we look at what the provision looks like, we look at how the demand for provision is satisfied, and we look at the barriers to taking up that provision. But I think that is a subject in its own right, and I think we couldn't possibly do justice to it today, even if we started to look at it. But I do suggest that it is a very fruitful area for the select committee to scrutinise, and we try to schedule that as soon as we can. I'll just make one point, just to support in part what Claire said. I checked that group, of which Jonathan was a member, and we were quite active with the two FE colleges, and one of the recommendations was very much that Surrey works with those colleges to provide the sort of courses that are across the board. It wasn't specifically for SEND, but it was specifically across the board, and we did talk about social work courses, et cetera, et cetera, and one hopes that that has been picked up by both the authority here and the colleges themselves. I gather there's been some dialogue between them to move that forward, but that was definitely a clear recommendation from that report last year. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks, Chris. With everyone's agreement, I'm going to put the provision of post-16 education onto the forward work plan and the other repercussions that we've discussed today. Thank you. What I want to do now is to move into the recommendations. So we have some provisional recommendations, and I think following the discussion, I think what I'd like to do is to check whether those are still valid. Actually, I'd be interested. Well, number one is valid, but what I'm wondering is the extent to which the service is delivering the Preparing for Adulthood programme, or is it focusing on developing 16 to 25? So, you know, I'm conscious that we have the Preparing for Adulthood programme, which is still there. We potentially have a new service being delivered here. Preparing for Adulthood has had a number of challenges. Is our recommendation one still valid, Claire? I just wanted to, so I've listened to the discussion and the explanation that Tracy and Liz gave, and also Julia, about the annual review process, so being a meeting and then a series of activities. But the meeting takes place and is convened in a school and led by a Senco or whoever. So recommendation one actually is making a recommendation that is beyond the control of the local authority, because that meeting is not led by the local authority. Ok, so I think what would be really helpful then, if Preparing for Adulthood is still useful information to provide to families and young people at year nine, then could we make it available to them? But I understand that initiating the annual review is the responsibility of education. I think it's about making sure that families and young people are aware of how the process should work. Would that make more sense? Thank you Chair. I just wanted to come in just really in light of this bit about recommendation and what we're doing already. We are doing that already. So when we write out to parents, we alert them to the guidance on the local offer and also our annual review guidance to schools contains links to both the Preparing for Adulthood booklet and the Sorry Choices booklet, so that schools know that's what they need to share with parents. So whilst I think practice, as we've mentioned before, isn't always what we want it to be, certainly those activities and actions have been undertaken. I'm willing to strike recommendation one, but first of all Rachel and then Liz. Thank you Chairman. No, I think it's a celebration. I think the recommendation one should be acknowledged that while we've been working on it, this has already been done and we actually acknowledge it. And the only way we can really acknowledge it is actually still hold the recommendation and the recommendation really isn't about the meeting, though it says shared immediately after it. It is really about that booklet and the communication of everything at the right time. So maybe it needs a few words changing, but I think we should celebrate that that's a piece of work well done that all the officers worked on and the committee, to be fair, and Family Voice, and I think it should be celebrated because it will be really, really useful. Just picking up on something that was said earlier about the reviews and the caseworkers attendance at those reviews. And obviously if a caseworker is attending that review, are they able to perhaps bring up, because as whilst I applaud there being the booklet, and that is great, it also is assuming a lot of understanding of that information from a parent. And I think that we cannot assume that that information, as good as it's presented, is being understood from the point of view of that parent to their child. So I just wonder if the caseworkers are able to attend, is that something that potentially they could bring forward? So our expectation would be that they'd refer parents to that documentation again, definitely. So in terms of the inconsistency, we understand that that is there, and we've got training plans in January for all case officers around preparation for adulthood on what's expected at the annual review. And so we plan to reinforce that again. Thank you. Thank you. I think certainly Jenny alluded to events that you're coordinating with Family Voice Surrey in terms of giving parents an opportunity to discuss issues associated with transition. So I think what we want to do with recommendation two, then, is just to encourage and ensure those events actually do happen. Sorry, can I just? Of course. Apologies, from obviously what Tracy just said about encouraging the caseworkers to obviously be present at that review and the actual covering perhaps of the booklet information. Is that something we could weave into that as well, saying that we would support the future training and the presentation of the booklet at that review or something like that? That's far too wordy, apologies, but something like that. Because I think that is a really important thing, and also to cement that sort of role of the caseworker as well within that process, which I think, personally, I think is really, really important. Yeah, I think when we spoke earlier, I think what Liz said was that it wouldn't necessarily be the caseworker. You were looking at a representative from the local authority. So I think that's how we should characterise it, but I think it would be good to ensure that there is, if you like, a joined-up approach with the right information being made available to families at that point. And we will rewrite the recommendation on that basis, recognising that it has to be initiated by the school, but we would want to encourage a joined-up approach and improved information being made available. Just a quick point. When I reference the events we hold with Family Voice, they're not specifically focused on transition. Family Voice parents can raise any issue, including transition, but I completely understand the request for the broader, well, the transition which would involve a range of partners' requests, and that's something that I definitely think we can take forward. Excellent, thank you. Let's move on to Question 3. I have a feeling that you may well be doing this already in terms of feeding back as a result of the Orbis report, so maybe we can piggyback on that. And just for information, there has been a collation of the response to the audit report done in terms of a joint response from Children and Adults Services. That's in place. I mean, can we have that available to us by the end of January, or is it available now? It is available, so I could share that with you. Thank you very much, that would be really helpful. That's an action. That's an action, yeah, thank you. By this point of the session, really, you know. Our fourth recommendation is to have some response to the Family Voice survey. The Family Voice survey themes, and I think it would be very helpful to have a written response to those themes. I absolutely understand Rachel's point that we are talking about a very diverse cohort here, but I think it would be helpful to have some feedback to those themes. And also, does that include the sufficiency of post-16 education, or is that going to be covered at a future? I think the sufficiency of post-16 education is something we should tackle separately, because that feels to me like a very big topic. I was just going to say it would be a huge piece of work for us. I think it would be war and peace, really, wouldn't it? Yeah. Okay, right, I think we rest with a recommendation. So I'm just going back to the very, very, very first point that John O'Reilly made, which was about the 14-year-olds, and the fact that Paragraph 20 says, you know, while good practice is we do age 14, but currently it's mostly 16 or 17 until we do it. And I think John asked for some specific data, but I think the answer was more qualitative in its response. So I wonder if there might be a recommendation about meeting that age 14 requirement somehow, because it feels like it's a gap at the moment in terms of what we're doing compared to what we recognise we should be doing. I think when Jenny mentioned that, she said that as things currently stand, the only way of really doing that is within children's services at the moment. And that actually it's pretty much a continuation of the work that you're already doing, because... Sorry, I shouldn't paraphrase any answer. Perhaps you'd like to respond to that rather than me. We do have the data from the audit in terms of the percentages of children referred at ages 14, 16, 17, and the data says that only 12-point-something percent of 14-plus at 14 are referred into adult social care. But I suppose my position on that is that I don't see what the value is of us referring into adult social care at 14. That's why we don't. Yeah, I guess the issue is about ensuring that adult social care are aware of what's coming. I guess that's the real benefit of doing it. Yes, but I mean, if that's something that you would like us to take away and interrogate further, then obviously I'm very happy to. So maybe the way it's framed in paragraph 20 is a sentence with two parts that deserves a paragraph in between, maybe. In the sense that there's two completely different things. There's one is what we're not doing at age 14, and the second part is what we are doing at age 16 and 17. I don't think we're suggesting that stuff that we're doing at age 16 or 17 that isn't age appropriate to do earlier, we do earlier. But I think the question is, if there's national guidance that more should be done at age 14, we should be doing more at age 14. We shouldn't necessarily be doing the thing at age 14 that we should be doing at 16 or 17. I suppose I hope I offered some reassurance about how we're approaching, in children's services, the care planning and the thinking around the needs of the young people we're working with. In the education, health and care plan reviews at year nine, transition is a requirement to be talked about, that's a statutory requirement. Within children's social care, we are thinking and planning around the needs of young people approaching adulthood in terms of the work we do with that child and young person and family. Our duty is to plan their needs in terms of going into adult services. I might be misrepresenting something I don't know enough about clearly. I'm not an officer, but my understanding is the paragraph in the report talks about the transition occurring between 16 and 17. It starts by talking about engagement, if you like, at age 14, and the question that John asked was about it being initiated at age 14. Not it occurring at age 14, but it being initiated earlier. It would seem, from my understanding of what's been discussed here today, that there might be value in initiating things earlier. There's reasons why it's happening the way it's happening now. I know you've got a change programme in place, but it seems that there's a gap there between what the recommendation is that we should be doing and what we are doing. I don't know if it's a big issue or not, but it might be an issue for the families of those who are young people. Can I just follow on from John, before Rachael comes in? Might it have been that the paragraph was not as felicitously worded as it should have been? I hear what you've been saying and I'm comfortable with it, but maybe in return you might acknowledge that perhaps that paragraph 20 could have been written differently or modified so that we didn't go down a particular rabbit hole. I'm happy to acknowledge that. Thank you, Jenny. I think we have a better understanding now of exactly what's happening. I think what's fundamental in all of this is that that activity practically starts with the annual review in year 10 or year 9? Year 9. Right. I think we're there. Rachael's thinking, God, is this ever going to end? Right, we'll move on to item 8 then. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone. That was a long session. It was actually very helpful, even if it felt a bit fragmented. But I actually think we've been talking about mirroring today and I think the fragmentation of our understanding probably represents the fragmentation of the service, which in some ways is inevitable because it's split between two organisations. And obviously the fragmentation in a rather diverse cohort of young people. So, yeah, we're into analogies today. Right, we're moving on to item 8, which is children's homes and the Ofsted reports published since the last meeting. And what I would like to say is it's a good, it's very good once again to see such positive reports. And I would really like to extend the thanks of the select committee to all the staff and managers who make this happen. You know, I was struck in all three reports about the emphasis on the focus on the child, the quality of the working relationships between the staff and between the staff and the young people and the leadership shown by managers. And I, you know, I think that it's incredibly reassuring to see the calibre and to hear from an independent organisation about the calibre of work that is happening in our children's homes and it is a cause for celebration. And we've had a real run of incredibly positive reports and it's really wonderful to see. And I thank all of those involved for making it happen. I'll pass those good words, kind words onto the service. Thank you very much. The last item and Tom, your patience is exemplary. The last item is item nine, which is the performance overview. We had a performance review session earlier this week and I will just provide some summary comments because I think we have explored the compendium fairly thoroughly. It's very clear from our last meeting that some performance is stuck. We appreciate why, but the fact is in some areas we are stuck. And if I look at the areas where we seem to be stuck, it's our sufficiency on looked after children more than 20 miles from Surrey, so out of county and more than 20 miles. It seems to be resistant to all efforts to improve. And actually I'm not sure we've made any statistical progress in the three and a half years that I've been on the committee. But I do want to emphasise that we do understand and appreciate the reasons for this. But the fact is that statistic is stuck. We've also noted on the snapshot of performance information in relation to children with additional needs and disabilities, a significant drop in the MindWorks referrals in August, which seems to demonstrate how well rationing is working when schools aren't in, when schools are out. I think the rationing is working quite well when the schools are in, but it's working even better when the schools are out. Meanwhile, the waiting time for an ND pathway first appointment continues to grow and is now at 288 days. And I think that's as long, if not longer, than it's ever been. I don't know, Tom, are you able to say whether that's longer than it's ever been? I'm not sure whether this is necessarily an area of performance that you look at, given that it's a MindWorks issue. I'm sorry, Councillor Davison, I can't answer that one. But some of my education colleagues who I think might be in the room may be able to. It was an unfair question, Tom, because it's actually a MindWorks issue. I find it really amusing that the referrals just have more than halved in August. I mean, how amusing is that, since the only way you can get a referral is through a school? Anyway, and they're not there. Yes, isn't that amusing? I think it also continues to be. This is another area in which we're stuck. We are quite far away from our permanent social worker targets and actually performance is deteriorating. And the other thing that stands out about the statistics is the scale of short-term sickness in what is actually a relatively small workforce. And I do wonder whether that has something to do with the vacancy rate, in that the people who are there are much more challenged than they have been. I'm not expecting an answer to that, but it's stuck. I think we understand and appreciate some of the reasons why that statistic is stuck, but it's also concerning. And I think we have discussed the other items of performance in terms of the number of the doubling and the number of appeals and also looking at the improving statistics on the quality of EHCPs, but we have discussed that earlier, because there has been a significant jump associated with the change in the methodology. I won't go into those any more. The date of our next meeting is the 3rd of December. I mean, really, can you believe that we're going to have another meeting in less than three weeks? But anyway, our next meeting is Tuesday the 3rd of December. We'll be scrutinising the budget, which we're all really looking forward to. We'll be reviewing the modernisation of libraries and getting an update on alternative provision. But for today, thank you all very much and see you soon. Thank you.