Transcript

Select Committee, and I'd like to welcome all those in the room and all those online as well. We have a very full agenda today, but we will aim to finish by 1.30. There is no fire drill expected. In the event of a fire alarm sounding, everyone present is asked to leave by the nearest exit, which is on my left, and assemble at the top car park, reporting to a member of the building management team. Staff will be on hand to guide you to the nearest exit. Please ensure mobile phones are rather switched off or put on silent. In line with our guidance on the use of social media, I'm happy for anyone attending today's meeting, including members of the committee, to use social media if this does not disturb the business of the meeting. Today's meeting is being webcast to the public, and a recording will be available online afterwards. I'd also like to mention this meeting allows for participation by video conference via Microsoft Teams, and that some attendees are participating remotely. For those participating remotely, if the chat feature is enabled, please don't use it. Its use limits the transparency and open discussion we aim to maintain in a public meeting. For officers who have joined the meeting remotely, please use the raise hand function to indicate you would like to speak, and please mute your microphone and turn off your camera when not speaking. For officers and members who have joined us in person, may I please ask anyone presenting to speak clearly and directly into the microphone. When called upon to speak, press the right hand button on your microphone and start speaking when the red light appears. Please remember to turn off your microphone when you've finished. If you're sharing a desk and microphone, then you need to press the right or left hand button, depending on whichever side of the microphone you're sitting on. We have received some apologies for today's meeting from Julie Oldroyd, from Councillor Maureen Atterwell, and from Councillor Denise Turner-Stewart. I'd like to ask the members whether they approve the minutes as a true and accurate record of proceedings. Thank you. I'd now like to ask for a declaration of interest. Do any members have any interest to declare? I'm conscious already that Councillor Essex is a trustee of voluntary action, Rygate and Banstead. Not as of last night, so no any more conflicts of interest. So you leave the position straight away then? I've served 15 years and I was going to step down at the end of this year. Thank you for letting us know. We now move on to section four, which is questions and petitions. We will not be addressing any questions on this occasion. We did receive a question from a member of the public. Unfortunately for technical reasons, it didn't arrive in the right place at the right time. So we will be dealing with that question either through a written response or it will be picked up at our next meeting in March. We are now on section five of the agenda. The cabinet responds to select committee recommendations and that's pages five to eight of our pack. So the purpose of this session is to note the cabinet responds to the children not in school recommendations from the September select committee and the early health budget recommendations given to November cabinet. And for this item, I would like to introduce two witnesses, Claire Curran and Rachel Wardell. I'm only suggesting this will be a very short item just to summarize where we are on these two topics. But I would like to introduce the two witnesses. Please go ahead. Good morning, Councillor Claire Curran, cabinet member for children, families, lifelong learning. And Rachel Wardell, executive director for children, families and lifelong learning. Thank you. So members will recall that we were concerned at the consequences and life chances of the 2,300 roughly children and young people reported in financial year 2324 as severely absent from school, especially the significant proportion who have an EHCP or receive SEN support. And we also were concerned for some of the 2,000 young people receiving a very few hours of alternative provision. And we mentioned right at the end of our meeting, our concern at the safeguarding implications for the over 7,000 sorry children who weren't in school in their last reportable year, which is financial year 2324 or probably school year 2324. And we recognized the new role of the CNIS service manager and the improved focus in this area for which I think the directorate is to be commended. Our recommendations were on, our recommendations to cabinet therefore, were on ensuring that as a council we take a leadership position in what is actually a multi-agency responsibility. And that we drive agreement on key performance metrics and best practice standards in the area because 7,000 children is a reasonable proportion of series children to be missing school. And as I've mentioned before, we are aware of the safeguarding implications that arise when children aren't in school. So in my report to cabinet last week, I acknowledge the cabinet members reassurance that some of our recommendations are already underway. For example, identifying key performance indicators and her agreement to provide some examples of what is being done. For example, to improve the attendance of children with SEND. She also agreed to provide a copy of the CNIS policy and the best practice guidelines that are now available. And we thank her for that offer. I don't think there's anything more that I'd want to say about that. I think this is an area that is receiving a significant amount of attention now, which I think is a good thing. But I wondered if the cabinet member would like to respond in any way. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity. I just really wanted to reiterate the fact that, you know, this is an area of concern because not being in school does have impacts on children's life chances and their prospects. We see that achievement and attainment don't match those of other groups. And naturally, we're really concerned about the safeguarding implications when children don't have that protective layer of being on a school role or being regularly at school. And we also recognize that the reasons for children not being in school are many and varied and are attributable to a whole range of different factors, many of which need to be addressed in their own right. But generally looking at this in the round, it is something that the officer team and I take extremely seriously. And as you acknowledge, we really have stepped up our focus on these children over the last period. And as I said, I'm happy to make sure that we take the steps to provide this committee with the information that you want and to follow that up. There is just one thing I wanted to highlight. At Cabinet last week, as you'll recall, Chairman, the Council, the Partnership Lifetime of Learning Strategy was approved. And I do know that members of this committee didn't give it their wholehearted approval in its current state. But I wanted to highlight that one of the priority areas of work in that partnership strategy is to drive up attendance at school. And that obviously is part of this piece of work, too. That's all I want to say, Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, Claire. Yes, on the lifelong learning strategy, I think we felt that there wasn't sufficient substance in the strategy at present for us to be able to fully endorse it. So whilst we believe that it is a very desirable strategy and moving in the right direction, we'd like to reserve our endorsement until we see the action plan. And, you know, as we discussed in Cabinet, you clarified that that will be made available to us. So thank you for that. The other item that I spoke about... Councillor Essex. Thank you. I'm just looking at the reply and it refers to... We're unable to implement this with relation to those who are EHE. Really good to have lists of acronyms when you use them, please. I don't know what that means. I probably should do, but I've forgotten. I can tell you. And in terms of the recommendations that are accepted or not, what I can't see is deadlines as to when they would be delivered by. That was in the recommendations, but doesn't appear to be in response. Thank you. EHE is electively home educated. I know. I know. How would you ever remember all of these three-letter acronyms? I think we will come back to the timing. I think there was agreement that key performance indicators would be delivered by March. But we will come back to that. In terms of the early help budget, our feedback to Cabinet was that we noted the value of investing in early help and recommended that since preventive spending is having a positive impact on both outcomes for children and reducing statutory demand, early help spending should be protected with inflationary costs built in. The Cabinet member's response acknowledged the benefits of early help, but advised that funding for early help had to be balanced with statutory spending demands. Would the Cabinet member like to respond? I'm not sure that there is really any more that I can say, particularly given that we have the draft budget on the agenda later on. I think all members of the Cabinet would, all members of the Committee would appreciate how the utmost importance, paramount importance, is for the Directorate to meet statutory responsibilities, first and foremost from available budget. And obviously that doesn't include quite a significant portion of the early help spend. But we will be coming to that and we can discuss that, I'm sure, when we pick up this agenda item. Yes, we will. Absolutely. Rachel. If I may add one optimistic note, there was an indication during the course of last week that within the local government settlement, there might be funds specifically dedicated to prevention in children's services. So we await that with interest. There was £250 million potentially on the table. What that distribution looks like across local authorities, of course, remains to be seen. But we'll be interested in seeing that within the settlement. That would certainly be interesting and I know it's something that Councillor Essex will want to pick up later when we go to the budget discussions. Yeah. I hope we get a reasonable trance of it. But, you know, we can only keep our fingers... I can see the finance officers saying we may not get that much of it and I do understand that. But I guess we can always hope. So now we move to the recommendations tracker and the forward work programme. So we are up to date on actions and recommendations. But there is one point that I would like to make. We believe that we're up to date. But it's not clear that all the recommendations accepted by the service have been implemented as agreed. And I would ask the service to review commitments that have been made and whether those simply, you know, have been implemented and we simply haven't been alerted to the fact or had the feedback that those recommendations have actually been implemented. So it would be very helpful if the service could look at those commitments and just give us an update because it helps us to understand whether we are working effectively as a scrutiny body. So now we move to one of the main items on today's agenda and that's the draft 25-26 budget and the medium term financial strategy, which is out to 29-30. So we are at pages 19-66 of the public agenda pack. We will be scrutinising three elements of the budget. We'll be looking at the voluntary sector element of the adult wellbeing and health partnerships directorate for which we have a responsibility. We'll be looking at the children, families and lifelong learning budget. And we will also be looking at the libraries, arts and heritage elements of the customer digital and change directorate. So for those not familiar with the council, these are budgets across three directorates, which may be confusing, but they all fit in the remit of the children, families and lifelong learning and culture select committee. So what I'd like to do first of all is to invite the cabinet member for finance to provide a brief overview of the draft budget position. And those are the second and third slides in the pack. I'll then ask finance officers, Nikki O'Connor and Rachel Wigley to give us an overview of the latest medium term financial position for revenue and capital and the options for closing the budget gap. And we'll be referring to slides four to seven of the slides provided for this session. So we've read and reviewed all the slides in a preparatory session. So I would ask that these introductions are concise so that we have the opportunity to allocate most of our time for questions. What I should say to members of the committee is that we have a lot of questions and I may need to close off the session before all the questions have been asked. So I would ask you to bear with me on that. We will try to get through as many as possible. So can I please ask the cabinet member for finance to introduce himself? Thank you, chair. David Lewis, the portfolio holder for finance and resources. So let me just say a few words of introduction to the budget. I think, you know, there's no surprise and we've said it before that, you know, we are operating in what is a very difficult financial climate. It presents, has presented us with a number of challenges in order to develop our budget for 25-26. But also we have to bear in mind that we're also looking at developing our medium-term financial strategy for 29-30. And in terms of the budget for next year, you know, we're talking about both the revenue budget and the capital budget. So we need to bear that in mind. We do put a lot of stall in ensuring that this council remains financially resilient. And, you know, that has meant and will mean ongoing difficult decisions in order to ensure that at the end of the day we achieve a balanced budget. I think everyone's aware that the budget setting process began really as soon as we, as a council, had approved the budget for this year, in February 24. So it's been ongoing really since February. And the way it works is that each month there's an iteration of the budget that is put to the CLT, which they consider. And we look at the, as part of that process, look at the pressures and the efficiencies and look at the size of the gap and see whether or not that gap is getting smaller and what action needs to be taken in order to close that gap. And we'll come on to that again a little bit later. I think we've put a lot of store in the importance of engagement. And we have had a significant amount of engagement over the last few months, both through the select committees, through the opposition parties, who I think have all been briefed on the budget setting process. And we've had a couple of member development sessions as well. And so, you know, everyone hopefully has had an opportunity to input into the process. And we've now got to the stage where we've developed the draft budget, which was approved by Cabinet last week. As soon as that draft budget was signed off by Cabinet, we opened the next stage of the external consultation process as well, to seek the views of not just our residents, but organisations within Surrey in terms of the draft budget and getting to a point where we get the final budget, which will come before Council at the beginning of February. Each of the select committees, as you know, have conducted a number of deep dives into specific areas of work. And the outcome of those deep dives have been, were considered and will be considered as part of the stage of taking us from the draft budget to the final budget. Today, you have an opportunity to look at that draft budget and scrutinise the draft budget that was approved by Cabinet last week. I think we just need to be clear about where we're at and what that draft budget means. And we're talking now about the draft revenue budget for 2526. We currently are at a point where there's a gap of £17.4 million left to close in the budget. We have assumed in the draft budget that there would be an increase in Council tax of 2.99%. And the reason, part of the reason we made that assumption is because at the time of producing the draft budget, we still weren't certain what the Government's position was going to be in terms of how much Council tax it was going to allow us to levy. So the assumption has been that we will go for 2.99%. It has, however, been confirmed that we will be able to go to the 5% as we have in previous years. So it's 3% plus 2% for the adult social care levy. And it's worth just bearing in mind that for every 1% increase in Council tax, it raises just over £9 million in revenue. So at the moment, if nothing else changes, we have a gap of £17.4 million. And we've assumed a 2.99% increase in Council tax. We could go up to 5%, so we could increase it by a further 2%, and that would raise a further £18 million. And I just want to make a point because some of our Members and a Member of Parliament for Woking has been putting out in social media that the numbers don't add up in terms of the budget because we still have a £17.4 million gap. That is not correct. That's not true. We have always operated in this way whereby we have got to the point of the draft budget where there's been a gap and there's more work to be done either through raising Council tax or by further efficiencies. Or, of course, we don't know what the local government settlement is going to be. And it could well be that the grant situation changes from the assumptions that we've made. So, therefore, it wouldn't be sensible at this stage to assume that everything is known, everything is fixed, and get to a point where the budget is absolutely completed. So, therefore, it is completely, utterly wrong to say that the numbers don't add up. The numbers do add up. We can cover that gap. And more work will be done between now and when it comes to Cabinet and then full Council in terms of deciding how to close that gap. So, there are a number of options which are open to us. Despite the challenges that we face, you know, we continue to be an ambitious Council and we have ensured funding for a number of specific investments. And I guess for this particular committee, the interest will be around continuing the early help and family support services and there's been improvements in recruitment and retention and also the continuation of the work to improve the EHCP timeliness. So, funding has been provided in the budget for those specific initiatives. As I say, there are options open to us. There are a number of options open to us in terms of closing that 17.4 million gap. And as a result of the work that this committee does, the other select committees does, the feedback we receive as a result of the resident consultation, the details of the local government settlement scheme, which we'll get on the 19th of December. All those issues, all those inputs, if you like, will be taken into account and ultimately, Cabinet will make a decision as to how that gap is going to be closed. And that is the final budget that will come to Cabinet in January and come to full Council for approval at the beginning of February. And I think just to finish my introductory comments, you know, I said at the beginning, we're not talking about just about the budget next year, but we're talking about the medium-term financial strategy over the next five years. And, you know, we have developed a one-council approach to transformation. The big transformation programme which is underway with a number of cross-council projects, cross-council initiatives which will optimise the way in which we work and will make us a more efficient and effective organisation. And you can see on the slides, I'm not going to read through them, but you can see on the slides, recognise the specific areas that that transformation work is focusing on. At that point, I'll hand over, I think, to Nikki. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. If you could introduce yourself. Yes, good morning. I'm Nikki O'Connor. I'm the Strategic Finance Business Partner for Corporate Finance. In the interest of time, I will not go through the slides in detail. I'll just highlight some of the key headlines in relation to the draft revenue and capital budgets. So, overall, the envelope for the revenue budget is anticipated to increase by £34 million from the current year budget to just over £1.2 billion in total. As Councillor Lewis says, that is based on a council tax increase of 2.99% at this moment. And in the main, a rollover of our grant funding from the current financial year into the next. The government announced its budget at the end of October, and there was a policy statement released towards the end of last week as well. That has confirmed that the referendum limits for council tax mean we can increase council tax up to 5%, including the adult social care precept, as we've just discussed. Those two events, so the budget and the policy statement, have given us some indication of what our funding will be for 2025-26, but still no certainty over the exact allocations to the council. There are a number of moving parts. So, there was some new funding announced as part of those announcements, and an increase in the social care grant. As I say, the allocations are unsure and uncertain, and it very much depends on the formulas used by government. There's certainly a clear steer in the policy statement from last week that the government will be directing new funding at areas with high deprivation, although again, no indication of how deprivation will be measured. High deprivation and those areas that are considered to not be able to increase council tax significantly to raise income. So, we kind of await the provisional local government finance settlement to get details of where our funding assumptions sit against our actual allocations. We're expecting that by the 19th of December, potentially on the 19th of December, as pretty much the latest it can be this year. So, those increases in funding are offset by pressures that have been identified by all directorates amounting to 108 million, which would require then 74 million pounds worth of efficiencies in order to balance the budget. The draft budget has 57 million pounds worth of efficiencies identified within it, and that essentially is where the gap of 17 million remaining comes from. As part of the work to develop the 25-26 budget and the medium-term financial strategy to 20-29-30, we've also reviewed the capital programme. The cost of construction has increased significantly over recent years, and successive interest rate increases over a number of years also has made the cost of delivering our capital programme more expensive than it previously was. We have seen an interest rate reduction recently, but we're not expecting interest rates to come down anywhere near as quickly as they've increased over recent years. And therefore, there's been a line-by-line review of all of the schemes in the capital programme, particularly focusing on those requiring borrowing as a source of funding to ensure that the impact of borrowing for our capital programme is affordable in terms of the impact that it then has in terms of borrowing costs on the revenue budget, is deliverable and indeed is proportionate to the size of our net revenue budget. I will leave it there. Thank you. Hello, committee. I'm Rachel Wigley. I'm Director of Finance, Insight and Performance. Could we move the slides on for the benefit of the select committee, please, to the options to close the budget gap? Thank you. Thank you. So, as Councillor Lewis has set out, and Nikki has also said, we're awaiting the final announcement of the provisional local government settlement. As we've all said, significant uncertainty, particularly into the medium term around that. And we've only been getting one-year settlements. We're hoping for that multi-year settlement, but I'll come on to that in a little while. So, options to close the budget gap are in front of you. As I said, government funding. We're also working as officers to continue to identify any additional efficiencies and also to look where we could reduce any pressures or look to contain our costs. And directorates, all directorates, are continuing to do that. And we'll do so up until the final report to Cabinet. We've also been reviewing our reserves. And as you know, we've worked really hard to build depleted reserves over the last few years. And as officers, we would recommend that we only use reserves for one-off expenditure and not to use it for ongoing budgetary pressures. And then the other option that Councillor Lewis has obviously already set out is to look at the council tax levels. So, within the budget assumptions, within the draft budget assumptions, we have assumed 2.99% increase. But as Councillor Lewis has said, we could also look at an additional 2% for an adult social care preset. And just as a reminder, every 1% equates to £9 million extra funding. So, on to the medium-term position and where that leaves us. As I said, multiple single-year settlements have been made and they've made it quite difficult to predict where our budget is going forward. The new government has committed to have multi-year settlements going forward. We won't have Inter 5, 6 and beyond yet, but they have for the future. We've talked about it many times before, but the impact of fair funding remains a significant unknown for this council. We are assuming that that will be from 26.7 at the earliest and that there will be transitional arrangements. So, we've assumed, in effect, a flat funding from there on in. Looking at all our pressures and the efficiencies that we've been able to review, the medium-term gap is around £193 million. So, that's 16% of our net budget over the next five years up to 29.30. And that's pressures of £343 million and capital financing costs of £35 million. So, you can see why it's important that we continue to review the capital financing programme as well. We've assumed funding increase of £37 million and flat funding, as I've said, from after that. An offset by efficiencies predicated of £148 million. But, obviously, each year we continue to work on those as we move forward. And, as I said, reserves have reached a sustainable level and we're not recommending that we use those for ongoing pressures, but to weather any future challenges that we might have. So, that concludes our presentation on their financial statement. Thank you very much. We'll now look at each of the individual budgets. And, we'll start by looking at the voluntary sector element of the Adults' Wellbeing and Health Partnerships Directorate. I mean, I think it must be an accident of history that this particular element of funding falls within the CFLLC, but it does. Unfortunately, we have not been able to carry out the deep dive that we had hoped to in this area. So, it is not an area that we will be looking at this morning. And so, instead, I would like to read out a statement on behalf of the Select Committee. So, the Select Committee will recall that the terms of reference for our deep dive on the VCSE, that's the voluntary, charitable and social enterprise sector, set out the impact of the changes proposed. As the central question we set out to explore. When we undertook our deep dive on the funding of the VCSE infrastructure organisations, we'd not been briefed on the changes to the sector, and we'd not been provided with an equality analysis. So, we were unable to assess the impact of the proposed redistribution of funding, which entailed the removal of all funding from Surrey Community Action. In our report to Cabinet, the Committee at that point put on record that our interim recommendations were based on not being aware of the proposed changes to the sector, and not having seen an equality analysis. However, as a result of representations from Surrey Community Action, the Select Committee agreed that I should arrange for the relevant officers to attend a further meeting of our Select Committee, in order for the Committee to understand the impact of this redistribution to an organisation that has been quite a fundamental provider of support to many charities within Surrey. So, we felt we needed to understand what the removal of that funding would mean, and how the services provided would be provided in future. However, to our request, we were advised by Democratic Services that our request had been turned down, as the Adult Wellbeing and Health Partnership Directorate's view, was that an additional meeting was not warranted. On behalf of my colleagues, I therefore arranged a meeting with Surrey County Council's Monitoring Officer, to discuss the articles of the Constitution in relation to Select Committee's terms of reference and their role, and the current position in relation to the deep-dive information provided, and the absence of the equality analysis. From that meeting, it's clear that the right to ask members of the Cabinet or officers to attend a Select Committee meeting to answer questions on policy or actions taken is absolute, limited only by a test of reasonableness. I have argued that without prior information on the changes that the Budget proposals were designed to support, and the absence from the deep-dive papers of an equality analysis, the Committee is unable to assess the effects of the Budget proposals and the choices put before the Committee, and that seeking an additional Select Committee meeting to ask questions on the impact passes the test of reasonableness, and therefore that an additional Select Committee meeting should take place. It's become evident in the last day that there's been some misunderstanding about our request, and the circumstances in which it was made. However, at present, we remain unable to provide a Budget recommendation on the plan changes to the VCSE infrastructure organization sector funding. So we will move on now to the Draft Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Budget. And I would like to ask the witnesses for that session to introduce themselves if you haven't already introduced yourself. So perhaps, I think we were expecting Matt Ansell, but maybe he's unable to be present. Matt is on your leave this week. Ah, right. Okay. I think then, Kay, I think you are possibly the only other person who needs to introduce yourself. So thank you. Please do. Hi, my name is Kay Goodacre. I'm the Strategic Finance Business Partner for Children and Families and Lifelong Learning. Thank you very much. And we also have apologies from Suzanne Smith, who's the director. Suzanne Smith and Julia. Suzanne Smith, who is the director for CFL Commissioning for Transformation. And from Julia Catherine, who's the director for Education and Lifelong Learning. So now we actually get to the questions on the largest item on our agenda today. So I'd like to ask Ashley, if you'd like to start with the first question, please. Yes, thank you, Chair. And thank you for the introductory comments so far. I think that's a useful background. And clearly, we know there's an awful lot of uncertainty, particularly because of the local government settlement we haven't seen yet. But to concentrate on this from a CFL point of view, I wonder whether you could tell us what specifically is CFL's target for more efficiency savings? And what in CFL might be sacrificed if the council's overall 17.4 million gap can't be closed? Thank you for the question. So the efficiencies, the proposed efficiencies for our budget for next year are set out on the slide. I just wanted to point out, though, for the avoidance of doubt, that actually the overall net draft CFL budget, which is currently expected, does show an increase of more than 18.5 million pounds, which is an increase of more than 6% from this year's current budget, which is showing a relatively higher increase for the children's budget than the overall budget. So I did just want to make that point that this is actually a growth budget. However, within that, clearly, we are expected and we are focusing on making certain efficiencies, and they are set out on that slide. And particularly, are focusing on a range of efficiencies around children looked after, which is in line with one of the areas of most significant pressure on our current budget, which has been around social care placements. And we'll be working to achieve as many of those efficiencies as we possibly can. And I'm not sure whether the member is asking me what else could we possibly do, because I feel it will be really difficult and really hard and focused work for the directorate to achieve the efficiencies that are set out there. Much of the work of the directorate is statutory work, which we are obliged to. We have a statutory duty to fulfil. We cannot just take a knife to any of this and stop doing any of it. I think, to be fair to Ashley, I mean, I think he's concerned, you know, if the budget gap can't be closed elsewhere, is there a risk that there might be a need for additional efficiencies in children and families? But Ashley, please explain. Yes, that's right. We've seen that you're already predicting, or already planning on £11.1 million of efficiencies in CFL. And we can see where those are falling. It's whether that £17.4 million, if that can't be closed, whether there will be any more efficiencies asked of the CFL budget. Can I come to David first and then Rachel? Yeah, I'd just like to challenge that premise about, you know, it can't be closed, because I think in terms of the introductory comments that we made, I think we indicated that it can be closed. It can be closed by increasing council tax, but it can also be closed by a number of other ways, you know, in terms of, you know, government grants. We still haven't got the details of the local government settlement, so the government grants. We have to set a balanced budget at the end of the day. You know, ultimately, I mean, if every other option failed, we could draw down on reserves. We don't want to do that, but, you know, it will be closed. So I don't actually accept that's the final premise of your question, because I think we will get to a point where that can be closed, and I think we've demonstrated that we've got various options available to us in order to achieve that, which wouldn't necessarily require additional efficiencies to be provided from this directorate. Thank you for that. Rachel? I just wanted to add something from the perspective of the Statutory Director of Children's Services, which is I'm acutely conscious both of my responsibility as an executive director of this council to support the achievement of a balanced budget and my statutory duties under the Children Act as a DCS to secure good outcomes for all of the children of Surrey. So I appreciate the spirit in which the question has been asked, because it is about assuring ourselves that we are funded sufficiently to effect our statutory duties and go beyond if we possibly can. There is no other current target. So I understand the question to be what's CFLR's target for more efficiencies, and there isn't a current target for more efficiencies, so we have delivered the efficiencies we set out to. I recognize that if there remains a gap, that we may need to go around the loop again and consider what further efficiencies can be made. And in doing so, with my senior team, we look at protecting and preserving our statutory duties first and then to see whether there's anything that we can do that both delivers an efficiency and improves outcomes. And you'll see that in some of the 11 million plus efficiencies that we already have on the table, we're doing things that will be better for children at the same time as reducing costs to the council. So that is our starting point. And then we look at stretch targets. So sometimes efficiencies that we've already put forward are conservative estimates about what we can deliver, and we put greater pressure on ourselves to deliver more within the same range of efficiencies if we do come to be asked for more. I thought it would help the select committee to understand how we go about thinking about these things. I think that is helpful to understand. Ashley, do you want to come back at all? No, that's fine. Thank you. I get the next question. There's an anticipated net decrease in FTEs in CFLL of 71, and I'd be interested to know where the jobs are being lost or where you anticipate the jobs will be lost. And if I may, I'll build on my answer to the previous question, which is that this is a notional number which has not been assigned to individual specific roles, and it relates to the way that we're trying to work to deliver efficiencies right across CFLL and work in ways that deliver more effective outcomes. We're also managing our current vacancies and covering gaps where we're leaving a vacancy by redeploying individuals or reshaping the work. So in some senses, the roles that we currently have may be redesigned to accommodate the changes that we make. So I can't say it will be 71 posts of this particular type. What I can say is that we are deliberately protecting and preserving those roles that deliver direct work with families and with children. And that is in the social care remit and also in the special educational needs remit, which are the areas of greatest pressure, as you would imagine. So I can't give you the full pack drill for the 71, but again, that's how we go about thinking about making FTE changes. I think that the reassurance about the focus not being on frontline jobs is important to the Select Committee. Councillor Tainzand. Thank you. So last time at our Select Committee meeting, Claire, we discussed about the increasing staff to 135 permanent establishment FTEs. And obviously Claire did point out to us that the budget was very tight and the scope to increase the staffing budget may be compromised. Within the papers here, we've got £5 million of efficiencies and obviously £6.5 million of staff inflation. So I would like to know whether or not the increasing the SEND staff to 135 permanent establishment FTEs has been factored in to the budget. How this will be, how the budget will be affected by the rise in employer national insurance contributions. And also, I know that we've talked about using AI as well and how that will perhaps create efficiencies as well within the service. So is that to be used in addition to the 135s or is that being balanced up? How is that panning out, so to speak? Thank you. Sorry, lots of questions there. That's quite all right. No, I appreciate that. So first of all, just thinking back to the 135 additional staff. So that the additional staff in SEND is currently, and for the next year, certainly to the end of the next financial year, is funded through the additional recovery funding, which Cabinet agreed with the £15 million. So that is not impacted by the efficiencies that the SEND additional staffing budget is secured through the recovery funding. I believe that the national insurance increase is covered by separate arrangements, but I will ask Kay to talk about that. And so far as the AI is included, I would then have to think back to the evidence that was given by the witness at our last meeting. That was very much part of the end-to-end review and the process review and should have no impact, as far as I recall, the discussion that we had on staffing in the short term and particularly in this budget period. But I'll ask Kay to talk about the national insurance, if I may. Thank you, Claire. Just in terms of the national insurance, at the moment we're expecting the Government to give additional funding to support the costs for the public sector for national insurance changes. So, as Nikki said, we're waiting for the overall settlement, but we're currently expecting those costs to be met from within our settlement and to meet the public sector and AI pressures that are likely to come through from those changes. Thank you. Can I just... Sorry, Claire. So, the recovery funding takes us up to when did you say again? It's the end of the next financial year, the one after the one we're talking about. So, not 25-26, but the end of 26-27. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you. Do you have any additional follow-up? Not really, Chair. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Bob. Thank you, Chair. This question talks about the national living wage, but also, I think actually it was supposed to include the significant NIC changes as well. So, has the rise in the national living wage and NICs taken into account, been taken into account in the current financial forecast budget gap? Is it expected to impede or assist our recruitment of social workers? So, in terms of the recruitment of social workers, the social worker scale is considerably above the NI thresholds, changes, and the national living wage threshold. So, we don't expect it to have a significant impact on the recruitment in relation to the national living wage. But again, it's the same principle with the national insurance increases. Until we understand how the fund is going to be transferred to us from the central government, we are expecting that obligation to be met from public sector costs in relation to national insurance. So, you're reliant on the government covering that cost, is that what I'm hearing? In relation to social worker recruitment, yes. I mean, we understand that, obviously, the national living wage impact may have more consequences in relation to some of our placement budgets, and we are considering those in our inflationary elements. So, we have allowed for some inflationary changes in relation to our placement budget, where they are affected by external costs, but our social work costs would not be affected by the national living wage in any way. Okay. As a further supplementary, we have a number of charities and other organisations carrying out statutory work for the Council. They won't be covered by any subsidy from the government. What will you be expecting them to do? Do it from their own resources, or will you recognise that the Council should pay for that? They'll need to be considered on an individual basis. I'm sorry. Could you say that again? I'm sorry. They need to be considered on an individual basis on each individual contract. So, you will be open to them approaching the officers for that? We have some provision for contract inflation within our overall children's budget, and that would need to go against all contracts that we have within the Council. Okay. I wonder. Okay. Can I just clarify something, actually? Are we saying that within children's services, you believe that the whole cost of the national insurance increases will be met by government funding? I do remember noticing, and forgive me if I've misunderstood, in some of the budget information, that you weren't necessarily expecting to have all of the costs, all of the national insurance costs funded by central government. Could we just clarify that? Yes. Thanks, Chair. We have been told that there will be a grant for national insurance from the settlement, but we need to wait for the provisional settlement, because we don't know what the distribution of that will be, or indeed the amount it will be. But we have been told that we will get a grant, and that's all I can say at the moment. So, I guess, Bob, the answer is actually we don't really know just yet. No, absolutely. My concern is about those people on limited budgets who, frankly, it would not be acceptable if they're expected to subsidise the Council in delivering statutory services for us. I'm not sure I've had an answer to that, but I understand why. Clare? I just wanted to draw members' attention to the pressures slide, which has a section about contract inflation. And I know when we've looked at contract inflation across the whole piece for the directorate, there are many factors which build into that. One of those has been for the increase in the national living wage. For instance, this is just an example, not that it would necessarily impact here, but if we were looking at the fees which are charged by non-maintained schools, school fees obviously will be impacted by school costs. School costs could, in fact, be impacted by an increase in living wage, because they would have a certain number of employees who would be on a minimum wage. Likewise, for the increase in employers and NI contributions might include, might impact the independent school fees or residential, external residential care home fees, that sort of thing. So generally speaking, those considerations are included in our identified pressures where they possibly can be, but probably not on a case-by-case granular detail at this stage of calculation. I'm grateful for that. I think that's a rather more reassuring answer. Thank you. I have to admit, I'm still left questioning whether we are, whether, I think there is a risk that we will be requiring voluntary organisations to actually accept some of the additional costs of the national living wage and national insurance. and national insurance contributions. I think, I think there is a risk there. You know, we're not saying for definite that that's what's going to happen. But I would be very, very surprised whether we have sufficient headroom in our contract tolerances to allow for that to be picked up easily. But I, I, I, so I, my own view Bob actually is that I think it is, I think it is a significant risk. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Barney. Actually, quite, quite a lot of what I was going to ask has actually been now discussed, but I think I, I probably do need more reassurance on the third sector side of this. Because if you look at the strategies of all the major agencies for the next two or three years, it's about leaning on the third sector more and community bodies more to take up a lot of what we, we need to do. They have been hit on all sides, partly by contract changes as a result, not necessarily with us, but with others, post COVID, the lack of, with the, with the financial situation. They are getting less voluntary donations into those organizations more, they are being asked to do significantly more in terms of the number of people they have to cover and deal with on our behalf and others. And this is just another thing. And I, I, I know, and there are others. I, I mean, I could give a list of, I am a patron of, of what, of a charity, um, that we, we commission. Um, so I also declare that I'm a patron of Mary Francis Trust and I haven't had a conversation with them about this to be honest, but I have had a conversation with some other charities and things I'm interested in elsewhere. And, you know, each one of these is taking more to the brink. Um, added to which, of course, we've reduced the length of, we fought, um, Rachel fought like mad for, um, uh, an extended contracts with these voluntary sector. Uh, then it, that, without us knowing, that whittled down to sort of very small length of life contracts, which made it very difficult for them to get staff because everybody's got mortgages and what have you. And now we're, we, you know, we're back up to having that battle. I, I then, uh, had to fight for what Rachel had originally fought for and won. And now we're back there again. So when you put this all together, um, and I'm happy to add the other five things in another conversation with some of you. Um, this last thing, if we're thinking, oh, well, maybe they can pick this up. The answer is absolutely no, they can't. And if we want them to do the work for us, um, I don't know how we're going to have the voluntary sector there to lean on, um, as all of our strategies have dictated that we intend to do. Um, and I don't know, I, I, I, I have tried to get to the bottom of this is what are we looking at? What have we looked at? What do we understand about how the third sector operates, what we want from them and what the environment is for them right now? Um, so the reason I'm saying this, I'm not necessarily saying that we have to do anything, but what I'm saying is that I don't think we can be confident these people are going to be there for us when we need them. Um, uh, if, if, if we don't have a granular understanding at this stage about what their position is. And that's the question I have is because what I'm sensing is we haven't fully grasped or got the granular understanding of each of those organizations that we're leaning on. And that puts our children at a real risk of what us thinking of service is going to be there. And it, it, it won't be if we don't fully understand each of those charities positions now. Thank you. Thank you, Bernie. I mean, I think it's true. It's true, um, in both the children's arena and also, um, in the arena that, um, we spoke about earlier, which is the, um, organizations impacted by the changes, um, to the voluntary sector infrastructure, um, funding. Um, but I appreciate Rachel. You can probably only speak on behalf of the, the, the third sector in relation to children and families. Yes. Uh, thank you, chair. I can only do that. Um, I mean, to, to draw all of the threads of this conversation together, we, um, have, uh, a very wide range of third sector organizations working with children and families across the county. The number with whom we hold contracts is relatively small. Uh, and, uh, those contracts are on the whole fairly significant. They are on the whole over longer periods of time, although there are some small contracts among them. Um, and they are, um, negotiated on whatever frequency that they've been established through the commissioning team. We haven't prepared for this meeting, um, a granular piece of work delineating what the risks and issues are for each of those contracts. Um, and our final budget is not settlement, settlement isn't yet in. Um, but that is of course work that the commissioning team, um, engages in directly. Um, we know that we need to, um, um, have, uh, good contractual relationships which, um, make those, um, organizations that we work with sustainable, um, over the longer term because of what they deliver for children and for families. Um, and so there is no desire on the part of the directorate to, um, get this wrong. Um, but we just recognize that we're in shifting sands. Um, we have made provision, um, for contract inflation in the pressures that go into the budget. Um, and those will be taken, uh, forward with individual organizations, um, that we commission. Um, what I can't say, um, is that, uh, every third sector organization working with children and families in Surrey will be able to be financially sustainable. Um, and that the council will secure them, um, but we will want to work closely with those third sector organizations, um, that we have ongoing, um, contracts with in order to, um, ensure that those, um, those contracts are sustainable. And when the cabinet member referred to that being on a case by case basis, that is essential, um, because, um, as I, I, I know members around this table will be aware. Um, some of those, um, some of those, um, third sector providers are, um, on much less solid, uh, financial foundations than others. Um, and some, uh, you know, um, do, uh, do have more robust, uh, financial foundations. So we, we simply need to work on a case by case basis with each of those. So I realize that I can't give full assurances around this table, but, but I hope it's clear, um, that we're not going into this period thoughtlessly. Um, we, we've made some sensible, um, proportionate provision, uh, we think, and we'll continue to monitor the situation closely. Thank you. Thank you. Um, perhaps if, Bob, if you ask for supplementary, perhaps then Claire can come in, because it may be that you'd want to address what Bob has asked. I'm, I'm partly reassured by what the, uh, executive directors, uh, said, but is it suggested, because this, this would be what, what, an inter-, a reasonable interpretation of what you said, that if a charity has significant reserves, then, then you'd be happy that they subsidize, uh, uh, the service they're providing. Um, because the charity commission would not take that view. I'm sorry that that's how you interpreted my remarks, but, uh, what the, um, so we would pay a fair contract rate for the services that we commission, um, and we would expect to do that for any provider, third sector or otherwise. And we understand that you, uh, one needs to pay, uh, the essential rate for the works that is commissioned. What I wanted to be clear about is that there will be, um, some organizations who are more vulnerable than others, who we would be more alarmed at the prospect of losing, um, and, uh, uh, and so we would, uh, enter into more urgent, I suppose, discussions with them about their financial sustainability, um, than an organization that was clearly more financially robust. But what I was trying to, I suppose, point out is that there will be some organizations which are not financially sustainable, but with whom we have no kind of contractual relationship and ensuring that they continue to be sustainable will form, doesn't form part of our strategy. We, we need to commission from partner organizations, um, third sector and otherwise, um, at a fair and appropriate rate which takes into consideration, um, inflationary pressures. But I imagine that we will see, uh, some knocking on our door with more urgency than others about their financial sustainability. And that was the distinction I was trying to make. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to bring this back really to Children and Families Directorate's budget, um, because what we're talking about with this pressure on the third sector is a national issue. It isn't restricted to just Surrey, just this directorate. It is something that every charity, third sector, um, voluntary organization, um, is facing everywhere. I know I've had it in trustees meetings myself in completely different settings. But when we look at the efficiencies and the pressures which are set out on pages 48 and 49 of our agenda, we do have, um, quite significant growth element built into the pressure, into pressures which relates to inflation and contract inflation, which does pick up some of these areas. And I just wanted to reassure members also that when we look at the proposed efficiencies of 11.1 million pounds for the next financial year, and when you look at each particular initiative, there is very little there which relies on the capacity of a third sector to pick up or to, um, take on, like, take on pressure from the directorate. We are not looking for the work of the directorate to be picked up and taken on in the third sector. Nearly all our efficiencies are around practice improvement and doing things better internally for children and families. It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a good point to make. I suppose, I suppose the concern is that we are becoming increasingly reliant on the third sector. And although they may not be directly entirely dependent on us, um, we, we need, if we're becoming increasingly dependent on them, we need to take a kind of the pressures that they will experience in their costs. I, I think that was really the, the, um, the, the gist of our concern. But I, I, I, I take your point, Claire, that, um, in terms of the delivery of services, um, that we have allowed the delivery of direct services, you know, it has been allowed for in the pressures which have been identified. It's the indirect, I think, that, that we're concerned about as well. Um, because we will become increasingly, potentially increasingly reliant on those indirect, um, those third party organizations. Um, Rachel, you want to come back and then I think we probably need to move on from this topic. It's fine, I'm content for us to move on. Um, the next question, I'm, I'm sorry, I'm very sorry, Liz. I think we need to move on. It was just a very, very quick question. Honestly, it was just that reserves have been mentioned quite a bit. And obviously they're within the documents. It said that there was, um, um, that reserves were at a, you know, you were building them up again to an adequate level, and they're more sustainable level. And it was just a matter of clarification because I've got no idea how much that is. And I just wondered what is a, you know, an adequate reserve. Thank you. So there's no set number for an adequate reserves. And we review our reserves added, uh, annually in line with kind of an assessment of the risk environment. Um, we consciously have increased reserves since 2018, 19, um, where they were kind of considered to be perilously low for the size of the authority and compared to our, um, nearest neighbors. We've built them up. They currently stand about available reserves currently stand at about 12% of our net revenue budget, although we have committed, um, some of them to transformation schemes during this year. So they are expected to decrease actually over the next 12 months, but not significantly. Thank you for that. Presumably the transformation schemes are where we're investing to save. Yeah. Yeah. Understand. Councillor Essex. Thank you. I've got a question about early health prevention and how it relates to this indirect support from the voluntary sector, but I wonder if first I might just come back to the children's budget and looking at slides 48 and 49, which are the, the, the, uh, pressures and efficiencies. On the one hand, there's 11 million of efficiencies. It'd be really good to, to have a flavor from you. Maybe this is a follow up in terms of the, the, the relative risks in delivering those efficiencies. In previous years, they've been rag rated, red, amber, green, but it's not clear this year, which of the difficult ones and which ones you think are, are, are relatively assured. But on the other side, looking at the, the pressures, um, well, you see 11 million of efficiencies. There's a total of 10.7 million just in increased demand in home to school transport alone. So just contrasting those two things. On the one hand, it'd be interesting to understand your view of the risk in, in, uh, or likelihood of delivering on the 11 million. But on the other hand, you know, a couple, going back a couple of years, we, we, we heard about the freedom to travel program. Um, you know, um, you know, the organizational review of home to school transport and the opportunity of transformation in that area. But what it seems to at the moment is year on year, demand is continuing to go up. And although we've had service improvements and efficiencies delivered through the review, which we did a number of years ago, it hasn't transformed the basic nature of the service, which seems to be based on us buying, buying in taxis, um, often at, um, higher unit rates for every day, than most of us would, would, um, expect to pay if just we asked for a taxi to pick us up once. Um, I, I, I think that, that there might be an opportunity there to go back to what we committed to a couple of years ago and really review this as a rising cost area and wondered if there might be more efficiencies that can be delivered. Maybe not for next year. Um, a couple of years ago, we said this was a long-term area for improved efficiencies. So we've been working on it for a couple of years. When we can see, when can we expect to see that coming to fruition? Um, if I go first with Claire and then to Rachel, um, David, I don't know whether you had your hand up or not. Would you like to, to start perhaps? No, I'm just going to start by saying that, um, you know, I chaired the Home to School Transport Oversight Group. Um, and, you know, I think that, um, actually I disagree with Councillor Essex because I think a lot of progress has been made over the last one to two years, um, since the review that he refers to. Um, you know, in terms of the service delivery, I mean, we, we, we, we've seen a very significant improvement in terms of the number of complaints, the levels of satisfaction which are coming through. Um, where the challenge is in the cost. But there have been some very significant changes in terms of the way the, the service operates. We now have a much more joined up service. Um, we're working much closer with the, the, the, the placement team. Um, there have been a significant tightening, uh, of the, uh, um, the rules within what is a statutory service. Let's not forget that. So, certainly in terms of the provision of, uh, transport for the, for the under fives and, and, and, and the over sixteens. There have been initiatives which are still ongoing, uh, to look at, uh, um, how IT, AI, and so on, can, can, can, can improve things. We have been in discussion with other suppliers, you know, the, the Ubers and, and, and people like that, to see whether there's anything there that can, can, can help. Um, and I think that, you know, so, so I think there has been some very significant work done in that space. And although the level of overspend on this year's budget is significant, I'd make two comments. One is that we are just beginning to see that coming down, that level of overspend. And in fact, it's been contained for the whole of the financial year. It hasn't increased, and it is now beginning to decrease. Um, so I think that that's something which is, is, is very welcome and is reflective of, of the work that's being done. And that has to be seen in the context of the significant increase in demand for the service. So, although we've seen that very significant increase in demand, we've managed to contain the overspend of the cost. And in fact, in the very latest month, reduce that level of overspend. So, so, so I'm afraid I don't agree with Jonathan. So, you know, I think we have made some good progress, more to be done. Uh, but, but, but, but, you know, that, that's not, um, that's not knock our successes, you know, that, that, that, that, that's publicized our successes. Yeah, I think, I mean, I think you make some very good points, to be fair to, to, to Councillor Essex. I think he was wondering, you know, we seem to be going down understandably and having made huge progress. I would not deny the huge progress, but we're kind of going down the same track. And I think he's wondering if there is any, anything transformational that can happen in this area in terms of, you know, can we do things dramatically differently? Um, am I right in thinking that, Jonathan? Yeah, I mean, I, in, I mean, I, I feel I've been repainted what I've said and re-glossed by David Lewis. I, in no way was suggesting that we hadn't made good efficiency improvements and progress. Of course we have, but we've got a massive overspend in demand. And what I was asking was a very different question than the question you've answered with respect. It was a couple of years ago, we had a thing called the Twin Track Program. And we talked about freedom to travel. And rather than continuing the outsourcing model in different ways, which is what you've outlined, which is efficiency saving, step-by-step changing, we were talking a couple of years ago about transforming the service, about bringing some of those homeschool transport vehicles back in-house and doing things very differently. Not in terms of the delivery of the day-to-day, which, yes, we have made better. And I agree with you. So please do not suggest in any way that's not the case. But I asked a very different question than the one you answered. I'd be grateful if you could address that one, please. Thank you. Rachel, I think you wanted to answer that. Well, only to say that, yes, that work was done too. And we have not been able to identify a mechanism that would enable us to transport these children, these distances in these arrangements on a better basis yet than we are currently commissioning externally. We would still need, you know, we would need a fleet. We would need the same kind of routes. We would need to, the issue is the number of children that we are transporting, the conditions attached to their transport, in other words, the distances and the time taken for them to travel, the conditionality about whether they can travel with each other on a vehicle or have to travel separately, and in some cases with chaperones and with medical attendants. And so converting to an in-house fleet has been explored as part of the Freedom to Travel program, and there has not yet been an identified mechanism to enable us to find a way to do that that would deliver a savings. So I know that we continue to look at the prospect of alternative models, but we are challenged with a kind of particular kind of problem in terms of the travel arrangements that we need to make, and finding a cost-effective way to deliver those is really difficult. I mean, a couple of the kind of flashpoints are everyone starts school more or less at the same time. If you were transporting this number of young people and they could arrive at any time of day and go home at any time, it would be much less of a complex problem, but your one's fleet has to be big enough to transport 10,000 children. And that as an undertaking is extraordinary. And so we haven't yet, despite all the work that's gone on, found an alternative method of delivery other than commissioning this kind of... It sounds a bit derogatory to describe it as a patchwork of arrangements, but because of the way that we're covering the county and because of the way pupil movements occur, it is a bit of a patchwork of arrangements in order to meet the geographical needs of the place. So we continue to look for other possibilities, but we just haven't found a cost-effective way to do it differently yet. Thank you. Would you like to come back, Jonathan, before I refer to Claire? I guess just in asking Claire maybe to address more of the first part, which was about the risks of the efficiencies. And one particular risk I was concerned about was, paraphrase David, you know, really good feedback on the homeschool transport. But one area people are concerned about is the strict adherence to our policy of not providing the non-statutory entitlements, such as for the over-16s. You know, that's the efficiency saving we're committed to deliver at the moment, but it is affecting families and their lives. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, for just giving me the opportunity to come back. I just wanted to make four very quick points. First of all, I would say there has been a complete transformation in the service delivery in the homeschool travel assistance team. You have had the opportunity to have them in this team at this committee several times. And in my view that the service delivery has been entirely transformed. Secondly, it is a statutory service home to school transport. We have little or no choice in delivering home to school travel assistance to over 10,000 children across the county every day. And that number continues to rise, especially those children with additional needs. Contrary to or I just wanted to put some reality check in here. There is a minority, a very small minority of children who travel to school in a taxi by themselves every day. We are very, very clear of this being of an exception in the provision of home to school transport. I am trying to recall, I have a feeling of that 10,000 children. It is in the region of 400 children every day. It is a minority. It is by no means the rule that children are in taxis going to school. And fourthly, children still go to school in vehicles, whether they are cars or minibuses or coaches. I do not know if other members of this committee like me drive a vehicle, but the costs in running a vehicle on the road have risen exponentially over the last months. The cost of fuel, the cost of vehicles, the cost of insurance, ULES, all these factors have put up contract costs enormously, not to mention the issues that we have already discussed in this committee, such as employers' NI contributions and the national living wage. All these are driving up our contract costs every single day. They are inescapable, they are unavoidable. I just wanted to make those points, Chairman. Thank you. No, I think we need to move on from this actually. Yes, and then I will give Jonathan the right to come back. I just very quickly wanted, Chair, to pick up on Clare's point, because in terms of the way in which we procure the taxes and so on, that has changed as well. And they are now doing sort of the blind bidding type process. And what, again, we are beginning to see is improvement in the cost of the provision of the service as a result of that change, procurement change that has been introduced. And also just to reassure Jonathan, I mean, although we haven't bought services in-house, we have looked wherever possible to see where community transport can be used. And so each of the 11 districts and boroughs who have got community transport have been given the opportunity to provide a service, where appropriate, as part of the home to school transport service. So it's not bringing it in-house, but we have looked at the use of that community transport as well. Forgive me, Rachel. I'm going to ask if Jonathan the right to reply and then we need to move on. Do forgive me. I think we could spend all day on this. I was going to answer his question. Oh, good God. Then I have to give you the opportunity to speak. Good God. Well, only just that. The start of his question was about our confidence in delivering the 11 million of efficiency. And in the pressure slide, you'll notice that there are two elements of pressure, one which relates to unachieved contract savings and one which relates to unachieved stretch targets. And those are previous years when our efficiencies were over ambitious and we did not deliver. So you could describe us as once bitten and twice shy when it comes to efficiencies. We haven't rag rated these, but what we have put on the table are things that we do believe that we can deliver. And we have learned some hard lessons from previous years when we have been unable to. There's always a kind of slight plus or minus margin of error. And in some cases we have overachieved in some of these domains in the past. So they're in there and we might again do better. So I've got what I would describe as a reasonable assurance about delivering these 11 million. Jonathan, I hope that's helpful. Jonathan, can I ask that we move on to your other questions? Yeah, I think so. And before we do move on to those, I mean, you know, home to school transport, you know, it's become almost an intractable issue because when you look at the landscape, the difficulties are just huge and the constraints are very significant. So I don't think we're going to, you know, solve world war today. In terms of your next question, Jonathan, can I just remind you that we do have an answer to your question C. And that's about the level of funding that we spend on early help by comparison with some of our other statistical neighbours. And it's clear that that we are spending more than we have been. And that's very reassuring to see. And I'd like to thank the finance team for providing that information because it's not exact. They can't absolutely guarantee these numbers are absolutely correct, but they have done some work to provide the figures and they are very helpful. So thank you for that work. Jonathan? Yeah, thank you. I'd like to thank you for those previous flurry of answers and discussion. I think it was useful just to flag home to school transport as it is the biggest pressure and it's so big that it's as big as all of the efficiencies that we've put together across the whole of this service area. Just looking at a slightly different area of early help, you mentioned on page 32 that we've carried out a review of all non-statutely services. It would be really helpful if you can maybe touch on how that applies in this area. And very much thinking about prevention and early help in the focus of the children's area. How do we on the one hand make sure that's prioritised while clearly there's a budget that needs to reflect the increased demand for our statutory services? And in terms of early help, my understanding of the model that we have at the moment is a level three, or what used to be called whatever, but it's now called early help. I think level two was called early help, now it's level three. Level three is stuff we deliver. Is the C-SPAR referrals into that? I understand this year, the 16% of C-SPAR referrals in the first eight months of this year exceeded the total capacity and now appears to be a waiting list for our new service in that area. So are we spending enough in that area? And then the stuff that isn't done by us, what used to be called level one and level two, universal and signposting services. We're very much now signposting to the voluntary sector for them to do that work for us. So I think that relates back to the earlier discussion about the infrastructure organisations. And, you know, at what stage do we accept that their role is vital? And although it's not implicit, Claire, within our budget, it is implicit in the model which we have currently, as I understand, for delivering prevention and early help across the county. Thank you. Rachel. So I'm going to use some of my language really carefully around this. So when we signpost to other organisations, it is not so that they can do work for us. It is so that they can do the work that they were set up to do for the children and families of Surrey. So the Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership has an early help priority as a partnership priority. And that does not mean that the work is all the work of the council, nor is it all the councils to fund. And I would want that to be really clear in how I'm expressing what follows. And I won't take you through the detail today because we, you know, it would take us too long. But I would really commend to you the continuum of support, which describes very clearly how the range of provision that is available across Surrey. And I emphasise again, not solely provided by this council or funded by this council, but by the network of providers working with children and families across Surrey, deliver services to those children and to those families on a partnership basis. And we have a co-chaired early help partnership subgroup of the Safeguarding Partnership. One of those chairs is Matt Ansell, who couldn't be with us today, but the co-chair is a third sector partner and it's done really to establish very firmly that equal basis. So the question is about prioritisation of early help and prevention in a context of pressure on statutory services. And the other thing I want to correct slightly is around demand in our statutory services. So the demand in our statutory services is sustained, but we have fewer children on a child protection plan than we used to. And we have fewer children in our care than we used to. And that is a testament both to the work of all our partners across Surrey and also to the great effectiveness of the family safeguarding model in our statutory services, statutory services, which keeps children and families supported at the kind of lowest level of intervention, consistent with keeping them safe. And so all of those mechanisms are there to help to tilt us, if possible, away from swallowing up all the funding on the statutory services if we can. And it's a delicate balance and I won't pretend otherwise, but it is a balance that we are managing to maintain. So we are not able to prioritise funding into early help over and above funding in our statutory services for obvious reasons. But by really working hard on that continuum of support, focusing effective interventions for those targeted groups, we are maintaining and sustaining that balance even in a kind of delicate funding situation. And the early help partnership subgroup allows us to have those kind of really open and transparent and robust conversations. So I am optimistic that the way that we look at non-statutory services and the partnership approach that we are taking probably improves sustainability even in the absence of a massive injection of funding. And I allude again to the possibility that there may be central government funding which will be targeted towards prevention. And if any of that does land here, then obviously we will look at that differently because if it's targeted for prevention purposes, then it will be clear that that's what it needs to be used for. So the last thing you mentioned, Councillor Essex, and I'm sorry you're probably more up to date than I am, is you made reference to a waiting list and I need to go away and find out what organisation or service that waiting list might be in respect of. I would want to be clear that there is no waiting list in the C-SPAR. The C-SPAR is our front door, it's what accepts contacts and referrals and no one is made to wait there. So if I can take it up offline with you and work and find out where you believe there is a waiting list, it may be in one of the more early help services where it is acceptable to wait. But I would be alarmed if you were alluding to a waiting list anywhere else in the system, and I do need to follow that up with you. Do you want to come back? But a very quick point, please. I guess my concern about budgets and government and funding and grants is the government, I understand currently this year, funds Surrey 2.3 million under the Family Support Programme, which we then passport to the boroughs and districts, and that totals 233 million and ends this year. So if the government continues that into next year, all that would do is continue the work which isn't in this budget but flows into and out, I understand, of Surrey County Council as it's given to Surrey. And the current position, I understand, in our areas is those people are no longer going to be in employment at the end of this year. So we've increased, it would appear in our revenue budget, the internal funding through the internal family support service, but the passport of money from government appears to be ending. So if there's an extra 250 million, isn't that just going to continue what's there already? And are we assuming in our budget that it does continue, or are we expecting an overall reduction in early help? Because that work which is given to us and given to the boroughs and districts, or maybe it's slightly different in how it works, is disappearing or might continue depending on what government decides to do. Rachel, could I ask you to come back fairly quickly because we need to move on? So the supporting families funding, which Councilor Essex alluded to, which funded the family support program across the districts and boroughs, is coming to an end. So that stops. The intensive family support service in this Council is at a higher level of engagement and involvement. It's lower than statutory services, but this is work with families whose needs were not being met through those other mechanisms. So that is a separate thing, Councilor Essex is right. And the supporting families grant, as I say, does stop. However, it's stopping because it's being bundled along with a range of other grants into a single funding stream coming into local authorities. And the kind of payment by results mechanism that was attached to it is also ending. So there'll be another, no doubt, set of requirements against that grant. And the further 250 million is in addition. So there was an announcement on the 28th of November, and I can drop a link to colleagues if it would be helpful, which sets all of that out. It doesn't say until we get the local government settlement. It doesn't say what if that might be coming to Surrey, but it does make clear what that looks like. And then the last thing to say is that the supporting families grant and the attached family support program was by no means the totality of the early health provision across communities in Surrey. And just as another, for example, the family centers are commissioned by us, funded through our general fund funding, and were re-contracted just last year. And so there continue to be a range of other early health provisions, either funded by us or, as I alluded to earlier, simply self-sustaining out in the community, all of which form part of this partnership. So we'll continue to keep an eye on the funding streams going forward. Thank you. I just want to say thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Liz. Thank you. You have touched on this a little bit, but we've discussed within this select committee the need to invest in early health, and hopefully that will prevent escalation then, and also create efficiencies further on down the line. So within the report, there are identified 2.1 million efficiencies for early health and family support as well, proposed across the two years, 25-26 and 26-27. And I just wondered if you could clarify what particular areas they might be in. Sorry, Councillor Townsend, could you repeat the question? I was pinging a link to Councillor Essex at the time. Of course. I'll do it a little bit more succinctly this time. So just to say, could you clarify, within the papers we've got, there are 2.1 million efficiencies planned for early health and family support proposed across 25-26 and 26-27. And I just wondered what areas those are going to be targeted at. Thank you. So my understanding is that those relate to the contracts that we have in place, and that we will look to deliver our early help on a more efficient footprint when we come to contract renewal. And also in relation to our range of community services covered by the early help and the adolescent work. But for further detail, I'll have to go back to the team to get something more granular for you. That would be really helpful. I'm sure the committee would like to know. Obviously, if it regards third sector contracts, then we've already discussed quite at length about the impact of costs, escalating costs on those organisations. So that would be really useful to know. And we also know the stresses under our youth budget and what we are trying to propose there. So it would be really useful to know. Thank you. And to be clear, when we renegotiate contracts, it's not about sort of slashing the costs for delivery. Sometimes it's about redesigning delivery so that we are more effectively targeting or, in a sense, we're spending money on the things that we know are effective and not spending money on things where we can't demonstrate that it changes the outcomes. Thank you. Councillor Lake, Rachel. Thank you very much, Chairman. My question was on the short breaks and there were two elements to it. But I've actually changed because I've been reading and reading. And I have to say, this is the first budget paper where I can actually see in the many years that I've sat on the council and in this committee, that I have understood the majority of all of it. And I have to say a statement like that from me. I'm not a professional on figures. I love maths. I love arithmetic, if people can still remember what that was. And I have found this the clearest. And I want to give compliments to everybody that worked on it. Because we talked at the last meeting about glasses half full and glasses half empty. It should be said when you say something that you can put your hand on your heart and say, this is one of the better ones than I want to say that. However, I can go on to the bit that I am a bit depressed about. But I thought the sad thing is I totally understand. And it's the short breaks review. And I was. Oh, there's my screen just went off. It didn't believe it. Right. I looked at the equality impact assessment. And so the question two elements I was going to ask are really unsaid and I keep looking at it. But I would like to read something out. The review is being complete and approved by the cabinet. Positive impacts such as respite and support for families with children with disabilities. However, resources, resource issues may reduce access to high need families, young carers and children with disabilities. It says potentially, I think we could drop that increasing stress within these households. We all know short breaks are the most valued of literally anything because it involves the whole family. I read from that we don't have any money for it. And now I could be wrong. So we were doing co-production investigations and that. I wondered on the impact of the budget, what actually we do have left. Do we have any opportunity? Have we made provision in the budget for some exceptional circumstances? Or are we on a flat line and saying, I'm sorry, it's non statutory. And I emphasize that because statutory must come first, but it is non statutory, but it is so, so very valued. And have we investigated where maybe another organization, not financially covered by ourselves, that might be able to partner up with this and maybe do something, please? Can I ask for, I mean, this is an important topic for the select committee, as you're aware, but we are quickly running out of time. So I would ask you to be as brief as it is possible, please. Chairman, yes, I will try to be brief. And I do understand the depth of feeling, not only from this committee, but also from our groups of parents who rely on these services and the other groups who feel that they don't get the support to which they're entitled or all that they need. So as you know, we are currently engaged in a co-production project as a service in partnership with Family Voice Surrey. And I hope that many members of this committee have been along to some of the events. I think you've, yeah, and that work is partially funded by a grant from the DfE. And that is looking at analyzing waiting lists, looking at accessibility, looking at eligibility, looking at how it's set out in a local offer, what inclusive practice there is across the county, and how we can go about building really sustainable services. And all that work that's ongoing will be taken into account when the service works to develop what can be offered in the future. So recognizing that our statutory obligation is to provide overnight short breaks and that the so-called play and leisure short breaks is a discretionary service, but nevertheless still of incredible value to families. So at the moment, there are no concrete and developed plans for making the savings. You'll see that they're in future years, but that will be around evaluating and redesigning the offer based on the work that's underway now to absolutely maximize inclusive provision across the sector generally. You know, things like holiday clubs and, you know, so that brothers and sisters can go and access these things together, whether they have additional needs or not. And really absolutely ensuring an equity of access so that those who need it most get what they need, which is perhaps something which is not necessarily always happening now. It is likely that there will be an introduction of some eligibility criteria. As you know, at the moment, we have open access schemes for play and leisure, but other authorities, they do use eligibility criteria. So maybe that will have to be something that we look at. We may have to commission more effectively and I've been out meeting providers and really understanding the need and the uptake amongst families. And I think that's all I can really say now, because obviously we don't have absolutely concrete plans to put forward to the committee. But I know that as these plans develop, they will come forward to the committee for scrutiny. Rachel. And can I just say, but what has the impact been on this budget? Do we have anything at all on this income budget? So you'll see that the savings are not in the 25, 26 future years. So we've still got the same. Thank you. I was just going to say, although the co-production workshop that I went to, it was very disappointing that the facilitators didn't differentiate between the various types of short breaks. And whilst they were focusing, whilst the workshop purpose was about play and leisure, they just talked about short breaks. And actually all of the parents there were exceptionally confused until I asked for a clarification of the topic under discussion. And in fact, the professor from Birmingham was also surprised that all short breaks are not the same, that there are different criteria that attach to them. So what they were doing was they were running a very generic workshop when actually they were looking for very specific input and they had not, the facilitators had not understand, understood the difference. So I would, you know, I would hope that wouldn't be the case in other workshop sessions. I think we have one last question from John O'Reilly. Thank you very much indeed. And it may be the last question on this session, but it's, and what I'm trying to do as part of this question is, in a sense, take a macro picture and then possibly go down into the micro picture. The macro point is that the overall budget of this council for next year, as David said, is increasing by 2.8%. As Claire mentioned, the budget where we're considering now has gone up by 6.34%, almost double. So the savings, the efficiencies that have been outlined in which Rachel believes firmly can be delivered, by and large, almost certainly, you know, stuff like restructure of management structures, spans and layers, et cetera, 2 million, et cetera, mostly internal stuff, which is fine. So the question then is, if the rate of growth of spending for us, for this service is 6%. Claire said it is a growth. David, David, in his remarks, talked about difficult decisions. You can see where I'm coming to. Are there any difficult decisions for this service that will affect, detrimentally, those who need this service? Whatever it is. Whatever it is. All the issues that colleagues have been raised for the last hour and a half. Are there any downsides as a consequence of this budget to those who need our support the most? I hope the answer, based on the macro figures that I've just outlined, is no. But if there are, we need to know what they are. And that's what I mean by going into the micro level, not into any great detail. Are there people who use our services, young people, older people, who will be disadvantaged in some respect as a consequence of a budget that sees a 6.34% increase in spending? So this is a good question. That's always worrying. I'm thinking on my feet, really, because our starting point is we obviously seek not to disadvantage anyone if we can possibly avoid it. But I suppose there will certainly be changes to the delivery of some services, which some of our residents may not appreciate. You know, even if we think that they are the right thing to do when people experience a change, if they need to access a service that is delivered differently or not from the same location or some of the staffing changes or at the lower level. And you heard me answer Councillor Essex's question earlier saying that in some of the sort of early help space, waiting, you know, is acceptable, but not in the statutory services. But obviously, some people won't like to wait, and if they need to wait longer, that will be even less acceptable. So I suppose, pragmatically, I recognise that when you're working in a high-pressure service and costs are driving in one direction and you're always looking for efficiencies, some of the changes we make may lead to unhappy customers in some areas of our work. We always, by focusing in the statutory space, focus on delivering our statutory duties to the best of our ability to those who need us the most. I think every member of this committee will have seen some in focusing on our statutory obligations for homeschool travel assistance. There have been families who feel that those decisions have been very significant as far as they are concerned, and there have been some very difficult decisions taken there. I also think that the work that we will have to do to review some of the provision in Surrey adult learning will be extremely difficult, and users of that service may find it quite a challenge. Councillor Lake has touched particularly on future decisions that we may have to make around the offer of short breaks, depending on what the outcome of that work is. You know, when you work with families, vulnerable families, and those who have children with additional needs, who depend on this council, every decision is difficult. We're not dealing just with pound shillings and pens here, we're dealing with the everyday lives of children and their families, and so every decision is hard, every change is unwelcome. Thank you, Chairman, if I may briefly come back, and I appreciate the candour from both Rachel and Claire, but pound shillings and pens can certainly help alleviate issues, notwithstanding the point that Claire just raised. I suppose what I'm coming back to, I think I hear both Claire and Rachel saying, notwithstanding that the increase in funding for the service is over double what the revenue funding is for the council as a whole, that is effectively, in practice, to keep still, not to improve or enhance services. And I see Rachel nodding vigorously, and that in itself is helpful. Do you think it would be fair to say that it's not just about staying still, but potentially there will be some reduction? So I think, I mean, John, I would say that what I read into it is that, you know, it won't be just about standing still. We will actually be reducing, I mean, you know, it's just the inevitability of an environment of rising costs and rising demand. So I can't see how, looking at these figures and, you know, taking into account all of the discussions we've had this morning, we are talking about an element of retrenchment, not just standing still. That's how it seems to me. Sorry, David, and then Rachel, and then we will move on from this topic. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to add in the additional dimension of transformation. Because, you know, as we've said earlier on, we are investing quite large sums of money in our transformation programme. And one would hope that the benefits that come out of that investment and those changes will partly mitigate some of the other challenges, which, you know, if it was just a case of your finances being constrained and you didn't change the way that you were working, I think you could then realistically expect to see some deterioration in the level of service that you were providing. But if, as we are doing, you're going through a transformation process, if you think of the work that's going on in customer, if you think of the work that's going on in all of the organisational redesign, if you think of the work that's going on in digital and so on, all these things are taking place, if you like, in parallel with everything else that's happening. And, you know, none of us can be absolutely certain what the outcome is. But I'd be very disappointed if the beneficial effect of that transformation work and that transformation investment didn't, to a certain extent, help compensate for the challenges that we face in terms of the financial challenges and the budgetary challenges. Rachel, did you want to come in very quickly, please? Very quickly, because I realise that I nodded rather too vigorously at Councillor Riley's characterisation. And on balance, I think it is right. Standing still is probably the right way to describe it. But, of course, what you've pointed to, Chair, is the shrinkage in some places. And that's in the domains where we don't have a statutory duty. And so it's discretionary. And where we're exercising our discretion, there is some shrinkage. The other thing that I would point to, and I'd be a fool not to kind of flag wave about it, is we have consistently improved our statutory services over the last few years and we continue to do so. Some of the things that we are pointing to are transformative for children, for young people and for their families. And I couldn't characterise that as standing still. That is a genuine improvement. So on balance, yes, it is standing still. And that's how it sometimes feels to me as the exec director. But there's, I would say, a great blossoming of improvement in our statutory domains. And then, yes, a retrenchment where we've got discretion. Thank you. I think that's a good point at which to conclude this discussion. I'm very conscious that we have overrun somewhat. But this is a very, very important topic for all of us. So what I'm going to suggest is that we take a five-minute break, which I know will end up being ten minutes, but a five-minute break because we will continue for longer than we had anticipated. So can I please ask people to return no later than ten minutes, please? Thank you. Thank you. Everyone back, following our short break. And before we leave the children's and families budget, I'd like to put up our recommendation. I'm not going to formally request agreement to this recommendation here. I simply want to share it for colleagues on the committee to have sight of it. And then we will agree it outside of this meeting. I'm very conscious that at the outset of the meeting, the executive director reassured us that there were no plans to, in any way, if you like, cut jobs in frontline services, if that is at all possible. But I think that the feeling of the committee, certainly at our pre-meeting, was that it was important to emphasize our view that frontline services really require sufficient capacity in order to be effectively delivered. So our view is that any restructuring would ideally not fall on the very frontline roles that are so vital to the delivery of services. I will come back to committee members for agreement to this recommendation outside of this meeting. Jonathan? I just wondered, on top of that, we might consider something around areas where we have sought or seek greater clarity. So in particular, Councillor Townsend's question about early help and more granular information coming forward and what's happening with the money from the family support program and how that's being restructured into this budget from currently being spent outside, is what I understand. So while I agree with that, I think there's some lack of clarity in other areas which would be useful to bottom out for us to fully understand what the budget represents. I think, Rachel, you've already agreed to provide that information. So I don't think we need to include that in the recommendations. Rachel? Chairman, that was exactly what I was going to say. When we consider that this budget's been running from February this year, to suddenly think that we should have still questions left to ask of the service to get a recommendation out, I find a little bit disappointing on our side. I think we should have got all the information that we need, unless something has come out specifically within these budget figures. And so, but I think procedurally we need, and I would look to the officer, we need all to agree that we can deal with this online afterwards and that needs to be minuted. Otherwise, it's not official for us to do a decision out of the meeting. Can I get some advice then, please? Thank you. I think we have agreement that we can take it outside. And I would, I would, I have sent the recommendation to all members of the committee, and I would please ask for feedback by the end of this week. Thank you. Rachel and then David. If I may, I'd like to comment on one part of the recommendation. So it's the second bullet point that I can see on the screen. It says, we further recommend that recruitment into vacant or currently agency-filled frontline roles is prioritised. I've got no quarrel with that. And that difficulty recruiting some roles does not lead to budget being redirected or reallocated elsewhere. And I just wanted to say something clearly here, which is in relation to a direction of travel in the national reforms, which proposes a kind of continuum of work from early health through sort of family support, which would enable and kind of positively support alternatively qualified practitioners, to undertake work in that space. And a sensible structuring of our services, which allows alternatively qualified practitioners into some of the family support, where we don't have social workers, those workers would be overseen by social workers. That does form part of our thinking. So I didn't want a recommendation out of this committee to tie our hands in relation to something that is actually part of the direction of travel nationally. I think what you're explaining there, Rachel, it's a really helpful point to make, is that those roles would also be frontline roles. So we can certainly reword that second point to take that into account. Thank you for making that point. Thank you Chair. I just wanted to make the point that perhaps in the preamble you might want to reflect on the fact that both the Cabinet and the CLT have been, I think, very clear in saying that in terms of all the recruitment freezes, we have a new recruitment panel that any vacancy has to go through, we've been very, very clear that frontline roles are exempt from that process. I think that's a fair point to make, and certainly we were very conscious of that when we, in the last committee, when we were looking at the recruitment into social work roles. It was very clear that those frontline roles were exempt from the freeze, so I'm very happy to include that and to recognise that that has been practice up to this point. And I guess what we're trying to, the point we're trying to make here is that we think it will be important for that to be the case going forward. So if you like, we're kind of endorsing what has happened to date and requesting, recommending that that happens in future. Jonathan. Jonathan. If we're going to add that, I think we should really clarify what a frontline role is. I'm just saying because we need to know, frontline role is a lovely phrase, but what we need to know is which roles are included in that definition and which are excluded across the different directorates of the Council. Otherwise we could be, you know, it's all around agreeing something, but we need to know what we're agreeing so that we understand the implications clearly. To be fair Jonathan, we're just talking here about children and families. Yeah, yeah. Okay. I understand with folks in children and families. So, for example, a SEND case officer, is that a frontline role? I don't know. But to understand what is and what isn't, so we know what we're saying and what we're being encouraged to say differently by the leadership would be really helpful. Thank you. That's fair. Rachel? Well, I'm going to try and help clarify, but I'm also going to recognise that this is a slightly moving picture as well. So, children's social workers and their managers are definitely exempt. SEND case workers and their managers are definitely exempt. So, it's the social workers and the case workers who are the frontline roles, but their immediate supervisors are also exempt because it destabilises those teams if they lose their manager and that can't be covered. The more senior positions, and you've noted that in your recommendation, are not automatically exempt from the recruitment controls. Residential care workers are another group of workers and their direct line managers where we can't leave vacancies because of the nature of the work they do. Not surprisingly, they also are exempt. And we are, there are a range of other roles which are probably also quite properly considered frontline roles, but where the turnover or the vacancy rate is lower, and we haven't had to exercise a recruitment decision about them because we haven't had a vacancy that we needed to consider. Those vacancies, as they come forward, will no doubt lead to a conversation where we'll go, actually, if we get another one like this, we would exempt it in future. So, I would expect there will be, in due course, a longer list of what is considered a frontline role and is exempt from recruitment. But just to reassure this committee, two very important roles that we are all agreed need to be sustained. The frontline social workers and the SEMD case workers are currently exempt and will continue to be so. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay. Finally, we come to the draft culture budget. And I'm very aware that Denise Turner-Stewart is unable to be with us today, but I would like the other witnesses who haven't already introduced themselves to do so. And perhaps, Susan, if you would start, and then I will go to Liz, who's online. Thank you, Chair. My name is Susan Wills. I'm the Assistant Director for Cultural Services. Thank you. Liz. I'm Liz Mills. Thank you. I'm Liz Mills. I'm the Strategic Director for Customer Service Transformation. Thank you both. We'll go straight into the first question, which amazingly sits with me. I wanted to ask, was the Library's transformation programme delivered on budget? I'm happy to answer that question. Yes, the programme was on budget. We spent £2.1 million between the years 2019-20 to 23-24. So that finished in the last financial year. And from that, we were able to yield ongoing efficiencies of £3.5 million, which will recur. So can I just clarify that, Liz? I think I heard you say that you've delivered the £2.1 million that you had expected to spend between 20 and 24. That's fine. Can I just clarify, you mentioned £3.5 million? Were those the efficiencies that you delivered? Okay. I'm really sorry, your speaker is a little blurred at this end, and that's why. Okay. We might need to come back and just ask you some follow-up questions. And tell me, were the £3.5 million of efficiencies, were they planned efficiencies? Was that what you had anticipated? They were. Right. Right. Yes. Hopefully this is a bit clearer. Is this a bit clearer on the speaker? I'm not sure. You'll have to let me know. But yes, that was the planned efficiencies. Three million of those were in staffing efficiencies and half a million in operating costs. I think it's quite impressive bringing something in on budget. I mean, I don't think many of us have ever had that experience, you know, whether working in the private sector or the public sector. Good grief. I think you should probably disappoint both and all of the staff deserve a holiday on that basis. That's amazing. Thank you. Well, I'm going to credit Sue Wills with leading that through fully. So the congratulations all to her and her too. Thank you, Susan. Rachel. Thank you, Chairman. I think we're all aware our majority of our libraries, if not all of them, are a lot more than just borrowing books. I mean, they really have become community hubs, some much larger than others. But even at the moment, they're all prepared for warm hubs for people that need that extra support. They support isolation programs. They do so much. It's not a case of go borrow a book and buy a cheap pair of glasses if you've forgotten your own, if you're staying and read them. And of course, the first disappointment that I recall many years ago was when we took newspapers out. I don't think virtually anybody possibly around the room still buys a newspaper. Everything's online. But the thing is, is that these extra services, are they coming out of the library's normal budgets? And this is a general question because we have community libraries now, which are excellent. And we have different A's and B libraries, shall we call them. But I'm wondering, do they get extra in our strategy for this extra work, even as simple as giving teas and coffees to the people that come in when they're warm and running our heating longer or maybe slightly higher? Or has it all been encompassed whether they're in their own budget? And I have to say, I want to compliment whoever's team it is, that the transformation and the updating of so many libraries and refurbishments that is going on is a credit to everybody that's been working on it because it's a big, big change. I'm just disappointed that Walton was the new library and it hasn't seen all the extra stuff. But yes, well done. Can I ask who will take that question? Liz or Susan? Yeah. Thank you, Chair. So, and thank you for those really warm words. Really appreciate it. And yes, libraries are already working as, as you said, much more than a place to borrow books, already working as hubs for the community. And whilst books and reading will always be a key part of the core offer, since the libraries and cultural strategy was approved in 2019 and the subsequent transformation program delivered, libraries are now very much inclusive hubs and have worked to increase access to a range of services for the communities they serve. The library service restructured the workforce in 2021 and this was designed to empower the frontline staff to deliver a really wide range of diverse and inclusive events and activities and also to co-design that offer with local communities as well. This has resulted in the large increase in events. So in the last 12 months library events have increased by 56% to 11,095. Event attendees are up by 43% to 244,704. Very precise figures, nearly the quarter of a million. And registered library borrowers are up to 322,325 and that's the highest since 2017. And then we've also been working with our customer services team to roll out training to all of our frontline staff to enable staff to respond effectively, to hold a wide range of council inquiries. And in the last count we have responded now to 126,000 additional inquiries as a consequence of all of that increased training. Susan, could I just interrupt you for a moment actually? Because I wonder if we're straying into the modernisation session. Of course. Yes. I think I would, in this particular segment, I'd like to really focus on the budget. Yes, of course. Because we will come on to the modernisation and transformation programme. And I think that information would be very valuable there. I think Rachel's concern really is where the budget to create these hubs, which I think we all recognise are such an important new attribute of libraries, where that funding has come from and is it in the budget going forward? Which is why I said very simply, one of the simplest things, the teas and coffees. It might be a minor thing, but there are other new things that the library staff will need. And that was the extra budget that I was thinking about. Has that been incorporated? Thank you, Jamie. So I'll ask Liz to respond as well. But if I can just comment on the teas and coffees and so on. What we're also doing through a transformed service is really successfully winning new commissions, new funding streams to allow us to deliver new services like the teas and coffees and so on, as part of our warm welcome. And then we've also been lending out some equipment to help people stay healthier. And then also we've got the new Independent Skills Commission, helping people really, if you like, live a better life, if you like, through an independent skills programme. All of those are commissions where we're going out and winning that money and then bringing it back into the service to improve the service through that commissioning strategy. Thank you, Chair. I think what I hear you saying, Susan, is that some of the funding for these community hubs derives from outside Surrey County Council. So I'm wondering perhaps, Liz, if you could clarify the extent to which the budget covers the funding for the hubs and to what extent we're looking for funding outside of our own resources. If you could clarify that, that would be helpful in terms of addressing Rachel's question. I'm happy to do so. So the core funding is contained within the usual library service budget. And that's because what we're doing through the creation of hubs is largely using spaces differently and also equipping staff within those library spaces to be able to do more, to deliver more. So to that extent, it's contained within the core budget. There are some specific aspects where services might require us or ask us to take on something additional. So an example of that will be the independent skills work, which is partnership with our adult services colleagues. And then as a whole council approach, we might utilize some of the budget and resources from those cross-directorate teams in order to be able to facilitate those things for other customers, essentially. And then finally, just sort of turning to the grants and the Staines Cultural Hub would be a good example of this. We've made an application which we were successful in developing that community hub with a cultural partnership approach. And so that would be an example of something where we have applied for something specific to be able to develop the hub offer there focused on the culture. Thank you. So I think, Rachel, what I've heard is that it's a mix. It is. It's partnership working and I appreciate that and I very much approve. Thank you. The next question is from Jonathan. Thank you. And I just wonder also if it's possible for when we've got people online that we can do the sort of slightly larger, fill most of the rest of the screen option rather than the gallery, because it makes the person we're speaking to really, really small as it's currently displayed. And you, Chair, I'd want to maybe just roll two questions together for the sake of time. Firstly, most of the proposed efficiencies in the next two years in customers, digital and change are from staffing reductions. Can you set out what these reductions are and to what extent this reduction is of library staff in the short or longer term? And secondly, has there been any loss of income or wider budget impact during the refurbishment of both Ashsted and Red Hill libraries running, certainly in the case of Red Hill, from a smaller temporary library which has just moved? Thank you. That's welcome. And also potential future uptake in the scale of operations once they move back to their refurbished locations. Thank you. I'm happy to take both of those. Yeah. So I can be explicit in terms of the staffing reductions in the library's domain. So we have put in for the coming year £30,000 worth of reductions which are across the whole network linked to one or two hour changes that will come through sort of natural natural turnover and natural sort of change points in the library assistance. That's recognising that we've got new technology and other things on board that enables us to do that. But we won't be reducing any opening hours or impacting any of the offer through those changes. And then in addition to that, we have a £77,000 change in relation to one of the senior management team. That post has been vacant for a long time. And so we've taken the opportunity to delete that post. The work has been distributed between the remaining team members and has been done that way for some considerable length of time. And there is nothing further planned in the library space across the remainder of the medium term financial strategy. And secondly, in terms of the income question, we had planned ahead for some of these activities. And so we had a reduced income target of £57,000, which takes effect in the current financial year and will track across into next financial year. And then beyond that, that will be reinstated. So we have seen a loss in income and we've planned for that. And it is delivering as we expected it to on those lines. Thank you. Thank you. Les Tynesand. Thank you. I noticed within the papers that Surrey Arts had some during Covid was quite affected and had cancelled users. And obviously there was a drop in income as well. And I just wondered what what plan there is to bring the customers back. Thank you. And thank you for asking the question, because it's allowed me to update you with a really positive story, I think, because the team there worked so hard to get those customer numbers back. So student numbers now for lessons broadly at pre-Covid levels. There's been a large increase in the number of programmes being brought in by schools, which is further increasing engagement. And the membership of the ensemble still is not fully recovered. But this has been in part a piece of my note missing. But it's still not recovered, but that's part of the recovery programme. And you can see a really good, strong sort of response back in, if you like, to those pre-Covid levels. So I just want to say in recognition of all the work and effort the team have put together, I think we're now past Covid and we're actually beginning to see that change and that change in customers and so on. And seeing us getting back to pre-Covid and hopefully then above that as well. So it's a very positive news story. Thank you. That's really good to hear. Just as a supplementary on that, I noticed within the papers that the proposed efficiencies for Surrey Arts is about, over the next two years, about 0.34 million. And that's due to the removed subsidy of non-targeted music tuition. And obviously there has been a lot of talk about, you know, the lack of funding for arts and the lack of music available to people. And I just wondered, is that disproportionate in the efficiency savings you're trying to make within your budget, do you feel? And also, you know, what impact you think that might have in general? Thank you. Thank you for that supplementary question. I'll answer that first and then ask Liz if she wants to add anything else. But just very briefly, what we've been doing is working really, really hard to improve the offer and make sure that we're reaching, you know, a very diverse range of students. But I have to say, we've been incredibly fortunate. We've got a great team in our Surrey Arts Service. And they put in a really good bid into the Arts Council for our music hub. And so we're considered to be a national and exemplar service in the music service we have. And because of that, we've been recognised by the Arts Council. So we have now a significant grant coming in to support our young people with music tuition as well. So it's being a bit clever in terms of the bids that you can bring in and then making sure you're using that money and making it work extremely hard. But we are recognised as Surrey County Council for being an exemplar music service as well. So we're able to use that in the best way to support our children and people. Thank you. So I just said the extra little bit, do you think that that is a disproportionate amount for efficiencies of that? Or is that reasonable, bearing in mind the grant money perhaps that you've got in? Sorry, apologies. Just as a follow up. I feel it's reasonable. I feel it's a reasonable ask. And that's something we've been able to achieve as well. Thank you for asking then. Liz, I'm conscious that Susan suggested you might want to say something on this topic as well. Thank you. So the only thing I might add on this topic in relation to the music tuition and the arts work is that we must keep pace in our universal offer with the inflationary elements as we would for any of our other sort of activities that are traded in this way. But we very much focus preserving and making sure that we're supporting our vulnerable children, those that might be disadvantaged, so that we are not discouraging them or making sure that they are represented and fully represented in this offer as well. So there is something of a nuance that we've built in here in order to be able to make sure that we're maintaining and supporting the access arrangements for those that might benefit from it and need it most. And that's in line with our no one left behind, you know, main mission and goal. Thank you for both very much. Ashley. Thank you, Chair. There is a line at the bottom of the budget pack which says that further savings will be made by 0.1 million pounds, of the order of 0.1 million pounds, by stopping the archaeological service. Could you just flesh that out a bit? What would the effect be? What's the impact of stopping the archaeological services? Because I understood that that was quite an important function in terms of planning applications so that they can be consulted to see whether there's a site of significance. And does that affect the Woking History Centre at all, which is the repository of archaeological advice and research in the county? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'll respond. So the requirement to ensure that appropriate archaeological investigation is carried out is a material component of planning legislation in England and Wales. And all local authorities with a planning responsibility have capacity, either in-house or contracted, to ensure that conditions with respect to archaeology are included in planning consent for development and must be concluded either before development commences or is completed. This regulatory function is carried out by Surrey County Council's Historic Environment Planning Team, not by Surrey County Council Archaeological Unit, which is the subject of this review. Planning applications are not dependent on the Surrey County Archaeological Unit, which are just one of several commercial organisations that work within Surrey for which the Historic Environment Planning Team acts as a regulatory and monitoring body. The Surrey County Archaeological Unit are treated equally with other commercial bodies by the Historic Environment Planning Team and are expected to uphold the same professional standards. The Surrey Unit provides archaeological services to both commercial and public sector clients in Surrey and the surrounding district. This comprises desk-based assessments, heritage impact assessments, field work evaluation, excavation, watching briefs and building surveys. They also work to deliver a variety of funded community archaeological projects with local and national partners to increase interest and involvement in archaeological heritage and historic environments of Surrey by providing opportunities to participate in activities and events. A review of the Surrey Council Archaeological Unit is currently underway and consequently will be following the Surrey County Council's policy on managing reorganisation and restructures, which will include a confidential consultation and engagement with staff, which will commence shortly. This is alongside an equality impact assessment, which will support the change process and take account of those with protected characteristics. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. That's a very long and thorough answer. So are we saying that this stopping the Archaeological Service is stopping the SCC Archaeological Unit? Is that sort of – I'm not too sure which part of your answer is affected by this £0.1 million cut. You mentioned the historic environment planning team. Presumably that's going to continue as it is because that needs to provide the planning reference. You also mentioned then the SCC Archaeological Unit. Is it that that you're planning on cutting the funding for? And what exactly would the impact of that cut be on that archaeological unit? If I just come back on that and then I'll ask Liz to come in as well. The Surrey Archaeological Unit is a separate unit within the Heritage Centre. So they are – it's a totally discreet unit. And it's also a commercial unit. It works on a commercial basis, which is why the unit that sits within the County Council that advises in terms of planning applications that I referred to in my answer, they will – they will – the Surrey County Archaeological Unit is just one of a number of commercial organisations that basically will bid for the business when it's looking to do that archaeological work on a planning – on a building site. So that's what we're doing. We're wanting to review the service. And just – that's what really this work is about is reviewing the service and assessing it and then understanding then what that review will bring to light. But very much the planning application process is a very separate process to the Surrey Council Archaeological Unit. Thank you. So have I just come back once more then for a bit of clarification? Could I perhaps suggest, Ashley, that we ask Liz to come in on this? I mean, she – you know, she may – she may be directly responding to that – to that clarification you're looking for? I'll try and summarise very quickly. So this is absolutely focused only on the commercial-traded aspect of this archaeological unit. It is not currently keeping pace with others in the markets and has not for some time and has been loss-making. We are, through our review, asking the team whether they can identify any other mechanisms to put us on a neutral footing. But given that this is a traded activity, it's not something that is at all a dependency for our own planning applications. It doesn't feel right for us as a local authority to underwrite that commercial loss. We are, though, protecting in this review the non-commercial aspects, which are the educational aspects and the outreach service that is really important to our residents and our community. That is something which Surrey residents benefit from. And to come back to your very first question, I think there won't be any wider impacts to the wider heritage offer. So this is quite a targeted issue linked to a trading loss in a very commercial market. This is a choice. It's a discretionary service that the local authority has been engaged in. And it is about mitigating that loss through this review. Okay, no, that's fine. Thank you for that clarification. I think at that point, I think we should move on, actually. So can we share our recommendations for this budget? We have discussed this recommendation in our pre-meeting. Are members of the committee still comfortable? Rachel? Chairman, I appreciate everything that you've just said. But I wondered if within this we can actually acknowledge the fact that there is new partnerships working with regards to funding. I'm ad-libbing. I'm not asking for these exact words. And it says to provide community hubs, call on the new partnerships made and identified as an important aspect of the libraries. I mean, that's a brainstorm. There could be better words. But I think it's important to acknowledge that libraries have got partners bringing in resources for that. I think we can include that in the contextual narrative to the recommendation because we recognise that not all of the funding for libraries is going to be coming from Surrey County Council's funds either today or going forward. So, on that basis, is everyone happy? I just want to say one quick thing. One quick thing, that I have had quite a few residents who've had quite a few issues personally who have told me, and I really should have written to you, this is good news, have told me that going to the library has really opened up their world because it was the one safe thing they felt they could go, to go from one safe place at home to another safe place in the library. And it's really, really opened up their world to them. So, when so many councils are losing theirs, I think it is hugely important to people who have issues generally, and who are isolated, that our libraries are still open. So, I really want to say that is a good news story. Wow, it's not going to last long, you know. I mean, we're not known for compliments, for goodness sake, you know. So, it may not last. Jonathan. Yeah, in light of the comments we've had back from the officers, I agree with the positive framing here, because I think it's clear that we're not proposing massive cuts in staffing in the libraries, but those cuts are sitting elsewhere. So, I think that positive framing is helpful. I would just ask, separate to the recommendations, we might have an explanatory note shared in terms of what the detail is behind the changing in the funding of the data and insights team, which is both reflected in the pressure and the efficiency. And at one and a half million, that looks like a significant thing. Maybe that could just be a lay around rather than delaying the meeting now. Thank you. So, what I'd like to ask is, would it be possible for us to have a breakdown of the efficiency in respect of the data and insights team? Is that part, actually, that's not part of libraries. It's resources and performance. It is. It's not part of our remit. Thank you for that. Okay. Thank you very much. We're now going to move on to item eight, which is libraries modernisation. It kind of feels that we're tackling this the wrong way round, but to be honest, we needed to deal with all of the budget items together so that Councillor Lewis and our finance colleagues could actually get a break from our proceedings perhaps a bit earlier than the rest of us. So, thank you very much for coming along and thank you for your input. And we'll move on to libraries modernisation, which is actually a very encouraging picture. So, what I would say is that in an era of constrained budgets and changes in behaviour, particularly post-COVID, it's been very encouraging to learn how the library service is transforming itself to ensure it continues to meet residents' needs, as Bernie has attested, while developing a new role very much rooted in local communities. And it's also encouraging to learn that libraries continue to be relevant in a digital culture and it's great to learn of the services' success in delivering the transformation strategy. So, before we go into questions, I'd just like to point out to anyone online that we're currently dealing with pages 67 to 82 of the public pack. And I don't think I need to make any introductions because we've already had those as part of the last session. So, we'll go straight into our questions. Jonathan, you have the first one. Thank you. Thank you. But first of all, I just want to say thank you because I think credit where credit's due. We thought that there was a redevelopment of a racial library and then RAC was discovered. But the budget hasn't gone up, I understand. It was going to be closed and reopened in its new location by July next year. Now we understand it's June next year. It was in a temporary venue which then the council changed who was renting it. And you think, oh my God, what's going to happen now? And the new temporary venue is in a better location with a higher footfall. And it's a bigger temporary venue than the one we had before. So, going through a difficult process and having the largest library in the area where I live, which is, if you like, the hub, which all feeds into being replaced. Jonathan, can I absolutely appreciate your thanks to the service. Can you please ask a question? Okay, we're supposed to do some scrutiny here, aren't we? Okay. So, can you explain what a multi-purpose hub is? Do we have one example of one currently operating? And how does it fit in with the three tiers of libraries that are set out in this report? And as a hark back to this committee's adult learning task review a couple of years ago. It feels like a couple of years ago. Maybe it wasn't. I believe it or not. There you go. One of the recommendations there was to shift from Surrey Adult Learning providing one sorts of learning in one part of the county. And our further education college is delivering different sorts of more work-related stuff elsewhere. And that we should use these libraries, these community hubs as they're becoming, to provide frontline locations for that type of activity across the county. Just want a confirmation of how many of our 52 libraries are now currently being used in that way. Thank you. So, Chair, I'm going to pass over to Liz for this first question, if that's okay, Liz. Yeah, absolutely happy to answer. So, we are developing a wide range of hubs. Just to think about the tiering arrangement, any library can be a hub. And the purpose of a hub, and it's a sort of a name, really, which we're trying to conjure up, being able to build, as the committee here has been reflecting on, a much wider range of support and impacts that we can develop for our customers, for our residents here in Surrey. And that stretches from the cultural partnership and the hub that we described there in Staines right through to a digital approach, focus on our learning as being highlighted here. And also those independent skills, supporting our vulnerable residents and creating those safe spaces. So, you can step in the door of any library as we're developing this approach and be able to receive, is the ambition, the same sort of response that you might if you were to ring our contact centre. So, you can get signposting, you can get help and support. And we are developing our hub programme to be able to do that in partnership. We've heard something about that already today as well. And so, if we're looking to a wider range of locations, then that might be with districts and boroughs. It might be with health partners. It might be with community groups. And it will certainly be with other services that we deliver in the county. Coming to the explicit point about the adult learning, we haven't been able to move this as quickly as we would like to. That's in part because of the spaces that we're needing to develop. But if I take something like Sunbury, we are explicitly building that into the hub there. And we're working with the adult learning service to identify where we can utilise space that we already have differently. One of the things that we're removing as a barrier is the notion of the library service being constrained by the income it develops and generates to support the service. This is almost a perverse incentive because it might prevent us from partnering with our own services internally if we could, for example, rent rooms and spaces externally. So, we're removing that barrier through the sort of corporate approach, taking a one council approach to this work. And so, we believe that that will open the door to many more of our library spaces being used in the nearer future for adult learning purposes. So, a bit of a mixed picture and answer there, but certainly something we're still working towards. And Sunbury will be the first bespoke sort of area where we will have built the adult learning provision into the space that we will be creating there in the new hub. Thank you. Next question is with Rachel. Thank you. Now, this is the bit you can shine because the chairman said it would come. So, I've got to phrase this right for you. First of all, I'd like to know how we got residents involved with the designing and the transformation process. And then our strategy for promoting the transformation, encouraging the users and the members back, and in fact, getting new members. Thank you for the question. Liz, do you want to take the first half and I'll do the second part? Yeah, very happy to. So, I'll take the sort of the first part in terms of how we've got residents involved in the transformation and the work in our libraries. This has been an absolutely fundamental part of our strategy. We needed to make sure that we were focused on developing those opportunities and community led services. And we've seen that really come forward in very helpful and engaging ways, which has changed our thinking in the spaces that we're creating. And certainly the design of the interiors, all of those sorts of things. It's helped us think through accessibility issues as well as the way in which people want to use those spaces and what they'd like to see delivered there. And so we've really gone quite a long way in terms of equipping our workforce to be able to do this. So in order to be able to co-design, we established a specific part of our project work around this. We've trained all staff in libraries now on co-design skills and the methodology that comes with that. And so we're really embedding that into the service and into our job descriptions and other activities. So this should be a continual process. And it's certainly one that we've used for the transformation program itself. An example of that might be in Weybridge, where we had two resident engagement feedback events that were undertaken with partners also. And we also undertook there a survey which helped us to be able to really capture all the all the inputs that we needed to be able to make the design really work for our residents. Thank you. And Liz, just to add to that last piece, I just wanted to share that the last big survey we did to really kind of talk to our residents, we talked to 22,801 residents. So very much co-designing, wanting to engage with our residents very much at the heart of everything we do, but we do it on a continual basis. So I was just going to pick up the point about the, sorry, I've lost my place now, apologies. I think it was the strategy for promoting the transformation. Thank you. Thank you. So we're investing in transforming our libraries and we're providing extra hours of access. We're modernizing our facilities and we're ensuring that every library is fit for the future. We've promoted the library transformation and modernization program on the Surrey County Council website and that includes information on the library's transformation program, on super access technology in Surrey libraries, which increases the number of hours you can use the library for, on the library and cultural services strategy, all the different events and activities, and a section to discover more about your local library. And then as part of the transformation program, we put together a big communications work stream. We put some video together, make it happen. We shared good news stories. We put press articles out, releases and so on. And then we rolled out our new computers and sort of a number of other technology to make it a really exciting space that everybody wanted to go to. And our communications team in the council have been absolutely brilliant. They've been really working with us on developing an energetic and very welcoming communication campaign, particularly targeted on people maybe who've not used the library before or people who haven't used the library for a bit of time to get those people back into the library service. But let me cut to the quick committee because the thing I would love to share with you is, and I think I did mention this before, you now have the busiest library service in the country because of all the support you've been involved in doing. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. We have now got our, in the last 12 months, the library events are up by 56% to 11,095. The event attendees are up to the 244,744. That's a 43% increase. And our registered library borrowers, as I said before, we're up to 322,000. That's the highest since 2017. And that shows then that the work we're doing in terms of us as a county council investing in our libraries and our hubs programme is really delivering. But just to share that with you. Thank you so much for all of your support as well. So thank you. Thanks. I mean, one observation I would make is that, you know, certainly my own experience in Guildford Library is that it's a very welcoming space. You know, once you go in through the front door, you're very much encouraged. And I also think that helps, you know, if people are perhaps a little hesitant. Bernie, you wanted to say something? Sorry, Bernie. It's great. It really is great. Was there a suggestion? And don't shoot the messenger. Is it possibly we might consider a new title, not losing the word libraries or library, that we may consider at some stage whether we're going to call them something else? Is that in the feeling of people out there or in the ladies that's running it? Because I have to say, ladies, congratulations. Every member all the way down from from the top. And I know there's gentlemen on the way down. I know. But we've just heard from ladies on this issue. But no. Good. Or even, Rachel, women. Oh, women. Listen, I once called an old friend a girl as an affectionate term. And I think you've heard this chairman. She says, I'm not a girl. And I said, well, you're certainly no lady. Chair, can I ask, can I, could I ask, could I ask, could I ask Liz Mills to respond to that, please? Of course. Thank you, chair. I am. What we'll be doing is we'll be adding to the signage, the hubs aspect. And that's not to detract from wanting to make clear that there is a library present that is going to be welcoming, continue to do all of the things. But it is an indication that we will want to encourage you also to step into that space and be able to access all of those wider things that we've been talking about. So there will be some work to think about the look and feel of that. And we need to go through sort of planning application process and all of those good things in order to be able to achieve any change to our external signage in any event. But it will be very much looking to add and to be able to entice people in. Thank you. I'll hand over to Bernard. Maybe we could do something like library pluses or something, you know, libraries and library pluses. Anyway, the reason I'm sort of focusing on the comms thing is that most county councillors are on an enormous network of social media links and WhatsApp groups and what have you. And, well, I certainly haven't had anything particularly by the comms team for our area to say this is what, which I could then flood out to every single WhatsApp group. We've got 81 councillors and I do think if it's too much work to maybe do a borough wide one for all the people in that borough, not saying division by division. If that's too much, then it would be useful to have a very good pack link that we can just flood out for maybe Christmas events or something just to remind people at a time of year when they will be not at school and off work. But they may make their first dip in at this time of year into our libraries, people who might not have done it before. But I think we should all have something tailored to our borough that we can get out. If I just respond very briefly and Liz, you know, please happy to jump in. But just very briefly, I'd like to come back to you on that because we've got some amazing things happening over the next sort of 12 months. So if I could pick that up with you offline and I'll pick that up as well with our comms team. But that's a brilliant suggestion. Thank you. Liz, would you like to come in on that? Yeah, just happy to come in briefly. So we are working with our communications team to be able to think about how we can brief all councillors more routinely and more quickly about the things that are happening. We'll also work through how to put you in contact and link into the social media that is going out from most of our libraries and other things as well. So it is something very much we've got in our minds to improve upon. And we'll we'll work together with you on that. Thank you. I'll now pass over to Ashley, who has actually three questions. And please go ahead, Ashley. Thank you very much. Yeah. A quick question, first of all. Actually, a comment, first of all. Please don't use the word hub if you're going to retitle these things. I think it's I think it's a horribly overused word. So somebody with the word library in the title would be a lot better. Anyway, first question. We're slightly parochial, but it's been great to see the refurbishments of the Weybridge Library just down the road from where I live and well used by residents in my division. The papers suggest library open March 2025 with a wider hub due to be completed in May 2025. Can I just ask, is it on schedule and is it running to budget? So I'm happy to come in on that. We now think that we will need to open slightly later. So all that good news about on time and on budget. So definitely be on budget. But we think now that we are not able to possibly have the two stage opening. That's because whereas we were planning to open the library part ahead of the wider building, we're not sure that it's going to be operationally appropriate and safe to do so. So we're now looking towards slippage that might take us till June. But I'm waiting for our land and property colleagues who are leading on this to be able to confirm that. But just to sort of give an openness to where we think we currently are, that looks like the timeframe, but we don't expect any further slippage beyond that. OK, thanks. Can I can I make that known to the public or would you prefer some sort of comms to go out to it? I mean, it's it's publicly broadcast meeting, isn't it? So I guess that's already. It is a publicly broadcast meeting. So so I think to that extent, but we are and it might be more helpful for us to be able to finish the communication round on this. The lead for our hubs program is developing that communication and it will therefore be able to go out, you know, in in appropriate fashion to residents to let them know what's happening. So we will, of course, keep you copied in and equipped with those key lines yourself as a local councillor. Lovely, lovely. Thank you for that. And final sort of round of questions on this issue. Yeah, I was interested in the the super access that's commented upon. And I know we've got now got five buildings with super access, which are unstaffed outside normal working hours. So a question on how is the physical security maintained when it's when it's not staffed and have have there been any problems which might impact the continuation of super access to our libraries? I'm going to pick that up, please. OK, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And so super access technology is where you can use the library where there are no staff in there. It's well established in over 140 libraries in the UK. And in Surrey, we've we've built on the learning from other authorities and implementing our system and its safety and security measures. So when you join up as a library member to super access, you actually have to sign up specifically to super access. You have a sort of a very mini induction program. And during that sign up process, you have to set a show as proof of address. And that induction that you have covers the security and the health and safety aspects. This includes how to enter and exit safely and how to report any incidents as they arise. And then only users who have signed up and completed the induction can enter during super access hours. And we know which borrowers are in the building because they must scan in using their library cards and enter their pin number to access the library. And then each library has completed an individual risk assessment, which has been approved by our own Surrey County Council health and safety team. We've got CCTV coverage, which is extensive in the building. We've got speakers that provide announcements in the public spaces when the building is about to close through super access. And the alarms and the doors have been integrated into that system. And then the Surrey County Council contracted out of our security team and facilities management help desk are all on call to respond to any incidents. And they also have access to the libraries 24 hours a day, should it be required. And then to support these measures, staff, all the staff have completed extensive training. This includes locking up any areas that may cause a risk, such as back office spaces, stock rooms, toilets and lifts. It's all backed up by a clear desk policy and removal of any confidential information from those public areas. And I'm really pleased to say that we've rolled out super access since December 23. I can't believe now it's coming up to a year. And there have been no reports of any security incidents or issues at all. So it's a real, another, yet again, a really good success story. So thank you for asking the question. I really appreciate it. Good. I think that's really good to hear. I mean, do you know how popular the out of access service is then and what sort of demographic of people are using that super access? Liz, do you want to come in on that one? Yes, I'm happy just to share a bit about that. So we don't have a full year's worth of data yet. And of course, super access has been rolled out in a number of locations, including Hawley, Cambly, Dorking, Dittons, Egham, Godelny and Oxlade. And the most recent of those went live in the summer. So it hasn't been open that long. But we know that there has been over 2,600 additional registered users for the super access service of those in terms of the demographic information that I could share with you today. We have about 1,400 of those who are female, identify as female, 700 who identify as male and over 500 that have chosen not to fill out this information or identify in a different way. And the vast majority are over age 24, but 10 percent are in the 16 to 24 year old bracket. And they're typically students. And we've received some really positive feedback from this group, because particularly in someone like Egham, for example, close to Royal Holloway University and Strokes College, that they're seeing that the uptake there is very strong in relation to PC use, Wi-Fi use and so on. So it's really supporting their learning and studies, I think. So we have seen since March this year, there are nearly 7,600 visits that have taken place during the super access hours. But we, as I say, have yet to do some more work to be able to identify the full impact and make that assessment as the data is building over time. Good. Thank you. I think that's really good news that it's so well used. Fantastic. One final question. I just wonder, what are the factors then that determine whether a library can be super access? So at the moment you've got sort of 7 plan plus 7 more. Is that going to be rolled out to more libraries? Can I just come back on that if I may chair briefly? Yeah. We'd like to roll it out to more libraries, but in a perfect world, your library would be like a square or rectangular box. Because the more stairs you have and so on, the more complicated it is to put the technology in and use it. So we've chosen some buildings where we think the need was there, but also they're fairly straightforward buildings. So we're looking at the moment at other libraries in the estate. What other square or rectangular boxes have we got to be able to fit the kit in and to make it there? Because the more complicated the building is, the more expensive it is. And there comes a point then when it becomes too expensive to actually do. So that's something we're very much wanting to do. And that piece of work is beginning to progress now about which library is next. Thank you for asking the question. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks. And I think our last question. I think I now know why Guildford wasn't exactly top of the list. It's a bit of a rabbit warren of a building, isn't it? Councillor Reilly. Oh, Reilly. Yes. Indeed. We're both Irish, you know. First of all, can I just add to colleagues, commendation of the extraordinary success over the last few years. I mean, it is quite spectacular. And for those, I think there are five of us on this committee, who were in the, served in the previous council, the agenda then was to close a lot, a lot of libraries. So the new strategy has been entirely vindicated. So many congratulations to that. And, you know, I shouldn't bring too much. Ashley's already done his plug for Weybridge, my little Hersham library. I'm not going to go into any detail. But I just say your appendix is incorrect because the minor works, which are warmly welcomed, have already been done in Hersham in September. And thanks to Denise Turner-Stewart, who, after a dialogue, let me know. So taking what Bernie has said, that I could put this out, this excellent good news to the community as a whole. And just to say, I'm also delighted that my little library is 17th after 52 in terms of usage. So, you know, well done the folks. Councillor O'Reilly. I know. You had a word with me earlier about not allowing people to make too long a statement. I mean, Fiona, Madam Chairman, if you just add, if you, hold on, if you just add my entire verbiage, it would be a fraction of my other colleagues. So I think I'm entitled to a little bit of indulgence at this stage. I think we should. So the question, look, my bosses are the people of Hersham, not this committee. So everything I can do for them is something to be applauded. Not, you know, your brickbats I can take, but thank you, Bernie. So the question is, and again, is what is the extent, I don't think it's in the papers. If it is, I do apologise, of, you know, ordering books digitally on the new system, rather than just going into a library, sort of browsing and then taking books out. I always do that, and it's a remarkably good system that, and all I go do is to Waterstone, see if the book is there. Yes, if it is, I'll see if it's on the library and get it free, and order it. And I'm sure others doing it are the same. So my modest question, after all the rudeness I've encountered from my oversensitive colleagues, is how much is that being used by, you know, our residents as a whole? So if I just, if I, if I just come back and just, I just really respond to that around, particularly around the e-books and so on. What we're seeing now is people want both. They want, when you look at all the facts and figures, and you look at all the issues and so on, because we look at that data every week, every month, really hot on making sure we're getting value for money. And what we're seeing, and it's really interesting for me, because since the pandemic, people's behaviour has changed. During the pandemic, it was more and more e-books. And what we're seeing now is people are desperate to come into a library and get a physical book, because there's something about the pleasure of having a physical book and getting hold of it. But also, sometimes that's not convenient. Sometimes people do want an e-book, because on the train or whatever, or I don't know, or on holiday. So what we're seeing now is the level of demand and use for both physical books and e-books is going up and up and up. And it's not a case of either or, it's both. And it's just blown us away in terms of just the sheer use and the demand that we've got for both e-books and physical books. So I'm more than happy as well to contact you outside of this meeting and provide some more information about our e-book offer. Thank you very much. And my rambling, of course, that's a really useful answer, incidentally. But it was more a technical thing. When people order books, I mean, you know, physical books, only using the internet, you know, the excellent website, you just order books. Is that how most residents who get a physical book get it? No, that's my fault entirely. Can I just come back and briefly reply? The most important thing for us is every reader gets the book they want. So sometimes people will come into the library and ask for a book and we will do our best to get it. Sometimes we'll find it on the shelf. Sometimes we'll find it in another library and we'll have it sent over. But the other thing I think as well is, and we need to get better at promoting this as well, we joined the Libraries Consortium because that gives you then access to most of London library stock and also all of Essex County Council's library stock as well as Surrey County Council stock. So suddenly you've got, as a resident, at no cost, no extra cost. It's just available. It's how you can do things in a better way and create a better offer at reduced cost. Join that consortium. Thank you for letting me say that then in that case. It's been a brilliant way of being able to do over a million books you've now got access to through the Libraries Consortium. So, yes, basically if there's a book you're looking for, please pop into your local library and we will get it for you. Thank you. Thank you very much. That completes our session. I think I would just like to reiterate the views of the rest of the committee, which is to thank you for developing a library service and ensuring that we have kept a library service, which is both attractive and well used by residents. I think what you've managed to achieve is very impressive. And I think what I would say is more of the same, please. Thank you. The next subject we're going to move on to is the alternative provision update. And I'm very conscious, actually, that the two officers involved have been sitting there patiently for a long time, waiting to get to this session. But it's an important session. And we're looking at pages 83 to 92 in the public pack. So we had a fairly lengthy session on alternative provision back in February. And I think it's fair to say that many of us came away with some concerns. I think we were reassured about the role of the AP Academy and reassured about the level of provision and the quality of provision that children attending AP Academies receive. But I think we did come away with concerns around the quality of AP provision outside of an AP Academy. With the number of hours many children and young people were receiving. With the difficulty of accessing appropriate alternative provision. With the safeguarding issues with children receiving alternative provision. And with the outcomes following a period of alternative provision. And having said all those things, we are very conscious that alternative provision is not the sole responsibility of Surrey County Council. But we spoke earlier about our desire for this council to provide a leadership role across the many partners who are involved in providing alternative provision and managing alternative provision. But principally, obviously Surrey County Council and schools. So I think the update is very helpful. I think it provides evidence of progress. And progress since February. And we were very aware of that progress whenever we had our session in September around children not in school. And it's obviously not, you know, our concerns obviously can't be fixed overnight. But we can absolutely see progress. So what I'd like to say is I think this update is very useful and we have really appreciated it. And all the work that's going on behind it. But it doesn't quite address all of the recommendations that we made back in February. So as, you know, as an additional piece of work, as a follow up to this meeting, we would really appreciate if you could come back to us and give us an update on each of the recommendations that were agreed. Because I think, you know, I think we're going to understand more about the progress, but I think it would be also very helpful to understand what's happened about those recommendations. You know, there were some provisions of information that were scheduled to happen, you know, in the spring and summer in terms of the recommendations, which you agreed to follow up, particularly recommendations that we endorsed that derived from Family Voice Surrey. And it'd be really helpful to know, you know, what's actually happened on all of those items. So what I would like to do now is to ask yourselves to introduce yourselves and then we'll go into the questioning. Sorry, I'm Sandra Morrison, AD for inclusion and additional needs. Thank you, Sandra. I'm Dee Terville, I'm the alternative provision and participation manager. Thank you very much. I think actually Sandra may have a sore throat. Do you? Yeah. Perhaps we encourage Dee to do most of the speaking. I'm sorry? The condition has just gone on as well, which makes it harder. What I recommend Sandra is to get that microphone as close to your mouth as you possibly can. It will move and that will make it a bit easier for you. Because we would like to hear from you a bit, even though I'm sure Dee can probably answer most of the questions as well. I'll reintroduce myself. I'm Sandra Morrison, AD for inclusion and additional needs. Thank you. Okay. Actually, just before we start, can I just say that there was one piece of information in the pack that I was a bit confused about. And it's paragraph 2.1 on page 85. And please don't worry about it now. But the number of children receiving alternative provision that we discussed at our September meeting when we looked at children not in school was, I think, 1912. And yet the number on this paper is around 300. And I was just wondering what the difference was. I'm sure you can explain the difference. But I think that we're kind of perhaps in this paper maybe missing a bigger picture. So it would be helpful to understand, you know, the reason for that discrepancy in the numbers. But I'll first of all hand over to Jonathan Essex. I wonder, Chair, whether it might be useful to have an answer to that context-setting question first, if that's okay. Oh, if that's... If you're able to look at page 85 and explain it, then that would be helpful. So the grid that's on the bottom of page 84 relates to the cohort of children who we were tracking from the February committee, which is why the figure is 312. And that will match up with the figure that you had in the February report. The other figure is a much broader figure talking about children who are not in school, not specifically the ones that are in alternative provision that we were tracking. Am I right in thinking, though, that in terms of children who are receiving alternative provision, the total number is around 1900? It's split between Surrey County Council provision. I think it was 700 and something. These were 2324 figures. So I think it was about 700 and something receiving alternative provision via schools. And then there was a part-time number. It was in one of the tables that we looked at in February and related to 2324. So the grid that we... The grid we looked at in February and September is attached at Appendix 2? Yeah. I think we need to be clear that children not in school includes a variety of children, some who are in the Peru, some who are attending part-time, some who are electively home-educated. Oh, I think we're aware of that because there were over 7,000 children who were not in school. I think we were just looking at the number of children receiving alternative provision. And my understanding was that that was close to 2,000 in total. No? So if I can answer that, typically we have around 750 anywhere near that number at a peak at any one time in alternative provision. And is that... Can I just clarify again? So is that alternative provision provided directly by Surrey County Council or alternative provision provided by schools who are also a large provider of AP? So that figure relates to alternative provision that's either funded by or operated by the local authority. So that doesn't include any school-based alternative provision. Okay, thank you. And just out of interest, do we have the numbers for the numbers of children receiving alternative provision in schools? Is that also about 700? I don't have the numbers available, but that is something we can look into. I think that would be very helpful to know, actually. Yeah, thank you. On that basis, Jonathan? Thank you. So my understanding from Appendix 2, which has just been referred to in relation to this table, which this question is about, is that we provide 300 and something alternative provision places in the schools, provide 700 and something. And the answer relates to the 300 and something which we're providing, or at least those which provide comparative data from February to now. So in terms of our provision, it looks from the table you presented with us that significant progress has been made from February to October. There are now a reduced number of children receiving less than 15 hours, which I think is the requirement. Can you just maybe let us know why you think that's happened, and what your target is? Is that good enough, or are we going to go for all of them, 15 plus? Or if there are a few that can't have 15 plus because of specific educational needs, how you estimate what those numbers are, so we can see whether the numbers with less than 15 is what you'd expect it to be based on everyone getting the support they need. So I'm thinking of a comparison, looked after children. We'd like them all to be in Surrey, but there are certain reasons why some are outside of Surrey. Similarly, there presumably are some specific reasons why it's less than 15. And maybe as a written follow-up, it would be really good to understand if we're doing our part from a council-funded provision, how can we assure ourselves and ensure that a similar level of alternative provision is also provided for those which are funded by schools? Thank you. Thank you for the question. Firstly, just to clarify on that table, the 312 that we were talking about doesn't include those who are attending an AP Academy or approved. They will be receiving a full-time equivalent education as part of their school provision. So that number specifically relates to provisions that fall outside of that category of provision. So those can include our Access to Education Service, our independent AP, or our Surrey Online School. Sorry. So it's a very specific cohort within a broader alternative provision cohort of young people. We have had a really strong focus on reviewing individual packages of support for children. That's been an ongoing piece of work. There's been training that's been rolled out to do with our Section 19 duties to increase officers' understanding and responsibilities. Alongside that, the rigor and challenge in our Education Governance Board around the referrals that are made and ensuring that that referral meets that minimum threshold of 15 hours where that is suitable for that child. I can't stress enough that there are children who will not be receiving 15 hours because of the complex needs that they are currently experiencing. And therefore, they will be reviewed regularly in order to increase that package as appropriate to the needs at the time. The target is absolutely to get as many of our children to 15 hours of provision who are receiving alternative provision. But it must be recognised that that is not suitable necessarily for every single child. But we will look at producing a more granular level report that looks at those different categories so that we have a greater understanding. I wonder if I could just add something in response to the question that Councillor Essex raised and put some more context in this to remind members of the committee that we did have a specific recommendation and directive from the local government ombudsman back in September 2023, I think, to focus on our Section 19 duties and the arrangement of alternative provision. And after that, there was also feedback from Family Voice around this area because of a concern there. The provision of alternative provision is also one of the specific areas of improvement highlighted in the Ofsted CQC inspection report. But I also have had this as an area of parity, and I'm sure that Sandra indeed will recognise that I've put a bit of pressure on them to drive this through. And also, I just wouldn't like to discount the recommendations of this select committee from February. So there's been a lot of focus on this area, on this cohort of children, and extend my thanks to the officers for actually driving through this review and moving these numbers in the right direction. Thank you, Claire. I mean, I think I would endorse that. I think the one area that is really very unclear to me is the numbers. You know, I don't get the numbers. I don't want to quote the wrong numbers. You know, I really don't. So I think having the right numbers, comparable numbers at a point in time would be incredibly helpful. Because, you know, I really don't want to quote the wrong numbers. That's really not helpful to anyone. But I absolutely take your point, Claire. The numbers in the report are fine, are right, and they do correspond. But I know what the numbers are, and I'm following them very closely. Yeah, I think it's, you know, we have 312, but we talk about 700 elsewhere. So, I appreciate the different children. But I think we need, when we produce tables, we need to be very explicit, you know, with the labelling as to what the table comprises. Because I, for one, you know, will compare between... I'm sorry, Chairman, but actually, I think those numbers are very explicitly set out in Appendix 2, in the table there, that is at the bottom, that's on page 91. And I think you'll see there your 700 children, the 371, in each category. And I think we did take a lot of care and time and trouble to set out all the different categories to be explicit for the members of the committee, so that it would be... Ah, these relate to the 312. Yeah. Sorry, I was looking at different... I was taking the figures that we were given back in September. And it's only now that I realise that this is a particular cohort that's being followed. And it's not the total number of young people receiving alternative provision in Surrey. They're different. We're talking about different cohorts, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I think it's the comparability, and that may be my feeling, but I think it would be, you know, in quoting numbers, I think it would be helpful to be very explicit about exactly what it is and what it isn't. It would certainly help me because I read a lot of tables and, you know, I am liable to get them mixed up. Just for clarity, the 312 relates to the data that you looked at in February, and then we provided an update. And this is the update. Yeah. So, can I just clarify something? So, you know, at that point in time that this data was collected, that was that we only had 312 children in Surrey utilising alternative provision outside of an AP academy provided by Surrey County Council. Oh, right. Okay. It's lower than I thought then. I have misunderstood some of the figures. There are now more. But there are now more. Are we now at 700? No. Oh, I won't. Sorry, I won't labour the point. I won't labour the point. Jonathan. So, just to come back to the original question. So, this is a subset of the total. So, from looking at Surrey children and whether it's good enough for Surrey children across the board, it would be really good to understand not just the level of achievement on this for this group, but what if you include those ones which are excluded, including those ones which are funded from schools. And if it turns out the performance of the school funded ones is lower, then I think we would want as a committee to ensure that those meet the same standard as we're meeting internally. That's the first point. The second point is about what the numbers should be. So, what it would be good to know is in all cases, you know, if the statutory requirement is 15, but we're saying that there are exceptions where it's reasonable to have lower than 15, because that's the expected amount of alternative provision providing, then what is that reasonable number? So, clearly between February and October, the numbers have changed. So, are the numbers now what they should be? What we're expecting? What good or outstanding, if you like, might be? Or do we need to move further? Because I think what we want to do is to make sure that we provide enough funding and we provide enough provision such that we provide those 15 hours for all for whom it's due, and that if the schools are doing different numbers to what we're doing, that we are actually calling that out and asking them to raise their standards and their game in the same way as we have raised ours. Thank you. If I may just say something, which is the Select Committee will recall that in relation to a large number of domains, I have insisted that we don't have a target that's less than 100%, because our starting point is that all children should expect. In recognizing that for some children there are exceptions, it's somewhat unhelpful to give a percentage that we would expect to be the exceptions for two reasons. The first is, if we're inside the target, we may still not be meeting the need of some children, because that number will fluctuate. So, we should still carry on and persist in trying to secure the right outcome for those children. Conversely, we might not hit our target, but because of this particular group of children that we're looking at in the moment, that is also right for those children, and pressuring them to attend for more than 15 hours would be wrong. So, the approach that we're taking is saying the 15-hour standard is right for every child in principle, and then in practice we would focus on doing what's right for the individual children that we're working with. And with that as the context, I'll invite colleagues to go further. Briefly follow-up. So, that could have been said in February, and it could have been said now, but the numbers from now are different from February. For sufficiency, for looked after children being placed within Surrey, again, our absolute target is 100%, but we've got an acknowledged target of 80%, accepting that there is always going to be some level of exceptions to work to. So, what I would really like to understand is whether the split in the number of hours in this table here is what you want it to end up as, or are we still on a journey? Have we still got some way to go? And then if we can understand whether that kind of, accepting that the exceptions are going to go up and down from month to month, that are we roughly in the place we want to be? And then it would be good to know whether the school's funded ones are in the similar place or not. I mean, there'll be different children in the school. And so, what might be right as a percentage for the children in our commission service might not be right for the schools, and they'll be different in each school. So, it's, I can understand why it feels easy to give a figure and to measure everyone against that particular figure, but it isn't helpful in terms of getting things right for individual children. And stacking, you know, schools against each other and then against us and saying, well, you're at this percent and we're at that percent, and we really think it should be, you know, you should be around about here, doesn't help our services to do the right thing by children. So, I remain uncomfortable about the fact that we have a notional target of 80% for children in county. I would argue that it's too low, and yet we still haven't reached it. So, you know, yeah. So, I mean, I will defer to my colleagues to speak about the work that they're doing in detail, but you can sense my resistance to applying a percentage to this figure because I don't think it will lead us into good discussions or good decisions. Okay. I guess my ask really is the moment we've got percentages in the figures presented to us, but what we don't have is a commentary supporting it to give us any assurance as to whether the percentage we're currently at is where we'd like it to be, whether we want it to be higher. And if there was a similar commentary attached to the schools figure, and there would be an explanation as to why a different percentage in this particular month, in this particular year, in this particular county, we consider to be okay, or good enough, or outstanding, that's fine. But at the moment, we've got a table that's been presented back to us as a committee without any expansion note. So I'm not clear as to whether we should be looking at it and saying, hooray, or, well, that's halfway. When will you be getting us to the other half of what improvement needs? I think that's good. I think the commentary would be a good compromise, actually, because, you know, if you're on the outside of the system, looking in, you know, there's a huge risk that we misinterpret things that we don't understand. So if you like more commentary in terms of what the figures are rather than less, I think would probably be helpful. Clare, you wanted to come in. I just really did want to add something on that commentary. And I'm not sure, looking around the room, whether any members of the committee are governors at a secondary school. But I'm just drawing on my own experience when I was chairman of governors of a large Surrey comprehensive school, which would source alternative provision for some learners. And that would look different for different children. So children who found themselves. And I said earlier that there are many reasons why children are not in school. And a good school will tailor a curriculum as much as it possibly can around the needs of those children that it has on role. So children who found it hard, learners who found it hard to engage with an academic curriculum, the school would procure some alternative provision, maybe around vocational skills for one or two days a week, maybe in maybe in partnership with something like the gas project or a bike project or with a college. For young people who found it difficult to attend for emotional reasons, there would be some online provision. There might be some kind of therapeutic provision for other groups of children. And that's just to give you a feeling of what it would be like for a school and the nature of the alternative provision that a school might procure. And I think, you know, actually, Dee would be able to give a whole range of different kinds of packages of alternative provision that are put in place for different kinds of children by the local authority. No, I'm very conscious that it's a, excuse me, Jonathan, just a moment. Just for clarity, that's not the kind of explanation I was looking for. It's more, you know, you could be perfect in doing all of us in February. And so the difference between February and now is because the mix of children's good and we've chosen very different things. There was all fine then, it's all fine now. Or the shift in numbers is because we weren't in the right place and we either now or we're getting better. And that's the kind of explanation I was looking for, not the sort of commentary. Claire, I mean, I know, I think we know roughly what alternative provision it is. It's more a question whether it's good enough or not. Tony. Yeah, I am with Council Essex in one sense, is that having read the paper, and I did read it a couple of times, because I, because we're on the outside, I really don't know whether we're on the right path or not. Because normally when we get information, we get sort of comparisons. And I do, it's like saying, you know, it's like saying there are 22 ducks on 10s and not knowing whether it should be 20,000 ducks or one. You know, it's either amazing or terrible. And we just don't seem to have a picture of what we should be aiming at. And because of the, because you're there, this is important because these are vulnerable kids. We're sitting round here wanting to do the right thing by these kids or children, I should say, you know, these young people. But we aren't able to, if you like, do our job as scrutiny because we're given a set of figures that we have no, nothing in the papers to interpret it by. We, all I'm interested in, and I'm sure Council of Essex is interested in, I'm sure, is all of the children that are in the system, wherever they are, because I don't think it should be just about the children that are in our system. I think we need to understand the picture. We are here to scrutinise what's happening in Surrey, not just what we do at Surrey County Council. So I think the picture has to be across the, we are, we are responsible for the children of Surrey. And whether or not somebody else is providing the service or not, we need to understand the picture. But also, we need to understand, at any one time, whether the children in our system are getting what we would hope that they would get. And if we get an impression, for instance, that we are going above and beyond, we need to be able to sit here and pat you on the back and say, fantastic. If, on the other hand, they're getting something, but it's well short of what they should be getting to thrive, then we need to be scrutinising that. And at the moment, nothing in these papers indicates whether the individual children or the system is what it should be for those children. Now, I don't know if I'm asking too much. I don't know if we need to have another meeting just on this, you know, what do you call it, informal, where you describe it to us and we understand it. These are the most vulnerable, you know, the people for whom their life prospects are already not in a great place. So it's even more important that we scrutinise from a position of strength and understanding. And I can't lift anything out of this other than there's a snapshot that I don't know what it, ultimately, whether it's good enough or not. Okay, Rachel, did you want to come, or Sandra, do you want to come in? I'm not quite sure who. I just wanted to make reference to the comparator information under Appendix 2, which makes it clear whether something is good to be low or high and states whether we are lower or higher than national and southeast and statistical neighbours. So I accept that that doesn't give a detailed understanding for individual children of whether the package that they are experiencing is right for them. But I do think that is overreach of this committee, whereas the general information about our position seems to be in the domain of scrutiny. So evaluating individual packages and their effectiveness feels like a level of detail too far. If there is something between Appendix 2 and the clarity about where we're positioned against national statistical averages and statistical neighbours, then we could look to furnish that, I think. I would, well, can I just say something? I think the level of Appendix 2 is where we should be operating. I think we don't want to be in two specific packages. I don't think that's, I don't, you know, I don't, and I'm not quite sure that's what you're asking for. It's all very well said about national averages and what have you. But, you know, we've been down this route before in my other committee. And, you know, we had stats where we were alongside national averages, but actually the situation that the people were in actually meant that whilst we looked like we were in a good place, actually we weren't for the specifics because of the cohort that we were dealing with at the time meant we should be well above average. This is what I'm saying. We need some indicator as to whether, I really hate going along national averages because we know we're an outlier on so many things and demographically and socially and what have you. So I do think we need to understand whether you are satisfied that we, you know, we, yeah, it just seems very, very hard to get a picture from this. I think the best way of dealing with this actually is what are your aspirations? What would you like to achieve by comparison with where we are now and with a commentary that tells us whether you think that's good, bad or indifferent? Because, you know, it's very clear from all of this information that we are on a journey, you know, and this journey is not going to be, you know, we're not going to arrive there overnight. But I do think the common thread in all of the points that have been made so far is, you know, please tell us what you're aiming for. Tell us where you think we are now and what you think the difficulties and the challenges and how soon you think you'll be able to get to where you want to be. I think that would satisfy everyone, actually. Why? And because I recognize that this is a, you know, it's a, it's a subject that concerns us. I mean, as you'll know from our thorough discussions back in February, which I don't want to replay here. But I think, I think that would, that would be really helpful. I think, sorry, I'm not, I'm not suggesting that there needs to be an answer to that. I think, I think it's, it's, I think it's enough to say that I think that would be helpful pulling all the threads together. We have another question from, we have another, we're sorry, we're sorry, Rebecca, I didn't see you. I'm sorry, Madam Chairman, following on from your, your comment. I'm your councillor, I'm your councillor and councillor Essex. We need to understand our permission, position. We need to understand that the children that need it are getting what they deserve. So we do have to go above and beyond just knowing what the aspirations are. I think, I think maybe, maybe I used the word aspiration inappropriately, because I wouldn't disagree with what you just said. You know, what do we want to deliver? What do children need? What do we want to deliver? How are we, how are we succeeding in delivering what children need? I'm going, I'm going to make a very brief overarching response and then invite Sandra and Dee to talk about alternative provision specifically. So, what is good for children is to be in school. What is good for children is to be receiving, where they're capable of enjoying it and benefiting from it, a mainstream education that is full time. What is good for education, for children is to be in a school with their peers, in a school in their community, in a school with their brothers and sisters, in a school where they're achieving age-related expectations, with a little support if they need it, with a lot of support if they need a lot of support. Um, but to, to, to be in school. When we're working with young people who are out of school, severely absent, persistently absent, missing a lot of education, struggling to maintain their mental wellbeing in a mainstream school, what we're offering them is already compromised. They're already not getting really what they may, what they need. They may be getting the best that we can hope to wrap around them in their very difficult individual circumstances. And that may be right for them at that moment. But our aspiration is always towards reintegration, always towards a curriculum that they can cope with, that will allow them to develop, that will prepare them for adulthood and independent and flourishing life. And so, so, so our starting point, um, when we're, when we're considering alternative provision is already compromised delivery. And, and, and, uh, within that, what we're striving for is the best of what we can, um, offer to those young people. Um, it should be 15 hours or more subject to the exclusions that Dee has already described. Um, uh, and necessarily it will be designed differently for those children's different individual needs. But, but I, I wouldn't want us to start from a point where we are, um, where we're, uh, where we lose sight of the bigger picture, which is, um, the requirement really for children to be in school full time if, if their health and wellbeing allows it. I'm sorry, I really will shut up and let my officers answer the detailed questions. Um, just coming back to the kind of wider context around alternative provision. Um, whilst I don't want to go back to the figures and the comparisons, what I will say is it is a journey of improvement. Um, so I think you made reference to that chair. We, we do continue to make progress and we will continue to provide those updates on those progress, but the cohort is very, very fluid. So needs are changing continuously. Um, so whilst we continue to focus on improving for all of our children, that cohort does change. So we can't necessarily say it's always going to be X percent here, X percent there, which kind of refers back to what Rachel was talking about earlier. Um, the other thing I do just want to focus on is the term suitable education from the Department for Education. Now we are working to a 15 hours minimum for those who are able to achieve it. However, the Department for Education does not specify a number of hours for education. It is very specific to the needs of that child. So we have a, in kind of consultation with Family Voice Surrey and other partners, we are working for 15 hours. The other thing to consider is children who are in receipt of one-to-one tuition are receiving very intensive education compared to their peers in a classroom or group setting. So the intensity of that education also needs to be factored in to their package of support. This kind of comes back to, um, other comments that have been made around individual children and looking at their package based on their needs. We are, we continue to review every single package and increase those hours where it is appropriate and suitable to achieve the best for those children with a plan to reintegrate them into a school setting at the earliest opportunity. Thank you. I know that Rebecca wants to come back. Sorry. Yes. Thank you. So off the back of both Rachel's and your, your response, my question is about the individual child. How do we know that the best outcome for the individual child's needs is actually being delivered and how are we measuring that information? Because that's what's important. So the children who are in receipt of an alternative provision, um, package or whether it may be multiple providers or it could be a single provider, they are held by a case officer or a similar officer within the local authority. It may be a virtual school colleague that is overseeing that package. And that package is reviewed and changes and amendments made as that child progresses in order to better meet their needs and continue their reintegration. So on page 90, there's a breakdown of the vulnerable cohorts are receiving AP. If a child has an education, health and care plan, they will have an annual review of that plan, which will summarize their progress. If a child is looked after, then as Dee has mentioned, the virtual school, which, um, has a governing body, which I chair, um, has a, um, an annual, uh, has a complete overview of that child's education progress and a personal education plan. Those are the two biggest groups in there. Um, the child is, uh, but in addition to that, the service is also has regular reviews and, um, um, is it annual reviews of each child or, um, periodic reviews of each child with, um, with a package of AP, which is, um, following their attendance, their attainment, their progress, and so on. So my response would be, we know we're putting figures in boxes, but is that actually determining whether we are improving the picture? I thought you asked about individual children's progress, councillor, not, not the big picture. But it's, it's both. If we're meeting the individual needs of the child, we then as a council are delivering and improving the service that we are delivering. I, I, I have a feeling that that information is bound up on outcomes and that is something that, um, is it, I think we have, have we identified the outcomes? I know it was, it was, it was a request and it was a recommendation, um, that we should have some information on outcomes. I, I'm sorry, I can't quite see whether that's on, on Appendix 2 or not. No, I don't think it is. No, I don't think it is. So I think, you know, I think one of the things that I think would probably be helpful is to, is to, is to have that information on outcomes that we requested, um, as a recommendation and I think was agreed. I think it would be, it would, it would, it would help to understand whether, you know, the, the progress that we believe we're making, you know, is actually, um, creating a group of children who are either able to go back to school or to move on to something else meaningful, you know, and they're, they're not, they're not restricted in, in what they can pursue subsequently. I'm, I do not want to have a rerun of, um, our February meeting. This was designed to be an update. I'm sorry, Councillor Essex, I'm going to give the last question on this to Ashley. We could spend forever on this topic. Um, I think, you know, I think that both Dee and Sandra and, and Rachel are aware of how, how significant we feel this topic. Um, and I think that, um, if we have some more of the information that, um, we requested or that, that was recommended, um, back in February to have that information would be helpful probably in, in relieving some of the, the, the concerns that we have whilst recognizing, you know, that you're on a journey. And, and, and you do have some way to go to be successful in everything you want to achieve. Ashley. Yeah, thank you, Chair. And, and thank you to Rachel for your last statement, which I think was, was, uh, put, put everything into context about, you know, the main aim should be to try and get as many, many people as possible into mainstream education. And I think, uh, my question is a general question based on, uh, you know, what I see from emails from lots and lots of parents about thinking an EHCP is somehow golden ticket leading to alternative provision, where in fact their child may well be a lot better off in mainstream education. So it's, the question is whether, whether we, whether schools, parents, officers, members have a clear understanding of what alternative provision is and what's it designed to achieve and the circumstances in which it should be considered appropriate. And if this is the last question, whether the same could be asked of, of OAP as well, is it really well understood and well explained to parents and everybody else who sort of use those terms? Thank you. Thank you. We are in the process of developing a suite of documentation to address any, um, issues around clarity of roles and responsibilities and understanding of the purpose of AP. These include a document being designed with Family Voice Surrey, um, an FAQ's document for parents and carers. Um, it includes a document for schools outlining their responsibility as commissioners of AP, but also their responsibilities where the local authority may be still commissioning AP, but that child remains on a school role. There's also a further document around admissions into AP, so those are local authority commissioned or operated AP services to create transparency across the system about what is available, who it's suited to, what the outcomes of those provisions might look like for, for the cohorts that are accessing them. So we are working on ensuring there's transparency and clarity across the system. And could you like, just to tap, to tie in that last little bit about OAP, do parents do you think really understand what ordinary available provision is? I think, I think, I think in the, in the context, I mean, alternative provision and OAP are, are two different things. Um, but I think, you know, I think the, the question we, we originally had was, you know, to what extent is there a risk that children end up in alternative provision? Because the appropriate OAP is not available in OAP is not available in OAP. You know, do you believe that is, that is something that happens? Do you feel that, that schools don't necessarily understand the extent of their responsibilities, um, on ordinarily available provision such that some children then do end up perhaps unnecessarily, um, in alternative provision? So, I would say that it's a combination of factors and, um, and across the breadth of schools in Surrey and children and families in Surrey, it varies quite a lot. So, we have many, um, very inclusive schools, uh, working well with us and with each other, um, who are really insightful about ordinarily available provision, um, and, uh, absolutely, um, work hard to make sure that all of the children in their community are, uh, are accommodated and their needs met, um, and their educational goals achieved, um, in their school. So, um, so that's a sort of important foundational layer. We could also probably point to schools where we think that, um, uh, children who attend or who are considering attending, um, don't feel their needs could be met, um, in those schools. Sometimes they're incorrect. Sometimes what the school offers would meet their needs and their understanding and appreciation of what is on offer is incomplete, um, or they're, they're expecting something that realistically wouldn't be there. In other cases, sadly, they're right that they, what they're looking for would be perfectly reasonable for a school to provide, but the school isn't currently, um, providing it. Um, and then also we have situations in which, um, different children, um, and different family circumstances are more or less resilient to the challenge of trying to match a child's needs to a school's ordinarily available provision. So in some cases there will be a mismatch, a child may be temporarily unhappy, a family and a school will work together and they will resolve that. And in other cases, um, that resolution doesn't come quickly enough for that child or that family and they may withdraw their child from school or seek some alternative measures. So it is a very, very variable cohort and a very variable position. And the most honest way to say is that some schools, uh, you know, have really nailed this and their families, um, of the children attending are being very well served by the measures that are being put in place by those schools to support their, uh, children with a variety of needs. And in other places, um, I think that, um, families are looking for something that the school, um, is, uh, not in a position currently to provide, um, and they may find, um, that alternative provision is what meets their child's needs on a temporary basis. And we're working on both of those fronts. So in other words, we're working to improve our alternative provision all the time so that it is, um, equipping children to return to, um, full-time school. And we're also working with those schools to equip them to accommodate and work with those children when they return on role, um, or into the classroom. I'm going to draw the session to a close. I, I recognize that, you know, we could spend a lot of time on it. We did spend a lot of time in February. Um, I think, you know, I, I think we can see the progress, which is really good to see. I think the additional information that we've requested this afternoon would be really helpful in, in just, um, if you like reassuring us about the progress that we're seeing. But I think it's fair to say that, you know, we recognize that we have some way to go, but the progress that we're making, um, is good to see. And I, I think you deserve, you know, a lot of commendation for making the level of progress that we have. And we look forward to seeing more because it's a, it's a, it's a complex area. And I recognize that, you know, that there are a large number of children in the cohort and that makes it a rather complex activity as well. Um, we have some recommendations that we would like to, um, agree. Um, can we put those up, please? Um, can I ask colleagues whether these are recommendations that they would support? They don't really reflect the riches of the debate we just made with? No, they don't. Um, I, I think what we, what we, what we can do, and I don't want to prolong the meeting any further than necessary. I mean, we can certainly propose some different, um, recommendations outside of the meeting and then get those recommendations agreed in exactly the same way we are with the budget. So we can certainly do that. I think, I think, I think, I think that's what we've learned today that you are doing. You are doing, you are doing four, so four. Four's gone. Uh, but one I think we can stay with. I think that's nothing wrong with that. I think the other two, I agree, we need to, two and three are not, not where we've gone today. We haven't talked about severe absence of mental health. We haven't talked about virtual school in any detail. So two and three, we need to, certainly one, four you're doing, so I think we need to revise these to reflect. Okay, but I, my, my, my view is what, what concerns me here. I, I, I see that table. I do agree with a lot of what you've been saying about that Appendix 2. I think it does say a lot. But there's 3,000 children that, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. is actually to do with the parents themselves. I think when it comes to electively home educated, we have no opportunity to influence that. So let me take the temperature of the meeting. So we will retain recommendation one. We will reconsider two and three. And four, as we have just learned, is already being worked on. So I don't think we need to include that. You know, I was thinking about the Hertfordshire booklet. You've got it. Yeah. Claire. In relation to recommendation three, my feeling is that the numbers there are so small, almost in danger of being able to identify individual children. Chairman, I was going to ask whether it was necessary that we, my word, what I was going to say was segregate them from the other people that's in that field. I mean, mental health is, would normally come under a different committee in any case. But yes, I'm with the portfolio holder. I think that it would not be a suitable route for us to go down. I think as things stand, I think we should retain recommendation one. I think we should reflect on today as to whether, you know, there is a beneficial additional recommendation. And if there is, then I will share that with the committee for your input. I think we should close the session by thanking both Sandra and Dee very much. And I would like you to know that we continue to be very supportive of actually getting this whole area into perhaps a better state than it has been. So we remain very supportive of all the work that you're doing. So thank you for that. Chairman, it is extremely obvious to me, I don't know about other members of the committee, that there has been a progression that's been going on that doesn't always show up because it takes a long time to embed things. And we're now coming to, or we have been recently, coming to a place where the numbers are showing quite significantly that what's been embedded is working. And I have been extremely impressed of what I've actually seen coming through. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay, we'll move on to item 10. I can tell you that we're going to close in a few minutes. Item 10, pages 93 to 102 of the public pack, is the Ofsted reports published since the last select committee on children's homes. So one was inspected in September and judged to be good overall, following an outstanding rating in January 24. And I think what I'd say that was although this home, reading the report, although this home was graded lower than the last inspection, you know, we're aware that these are challenging environments. And it's clear from the report that this remains a well-managed and caring child-centric home. On performance, I'm not going to suggest that we simply note performance because we had a session less than a month ago where we did actually scrutinize performance. There is one thing, there are two things that I'd like to say, though, in terms of noting the difference between the data provided at our last session and this one. And the data relates to the information on the additional needs and disabilities snapshot report. And I'm referring to the speech and language therapy waiting times, which are going up significantly, and the MindWorks referrals and waiting times, which are increasing at a relentless rate. And the impact of the start of the school year on referrals is absolutely stark. It's really quite extraordinary. And it is really not clear that the MindWorks Consortium really is making the sort of progress in dealing with their responsibilities that they need to be making. It really is. It is quite disappointing that that progress just doesn't appear to be happening. Jonathan. I just want to reiterate that. I think looking at the performance overall, there's lots of things which are heading in the right direction. But the outlier, a significant outlier, is the outside stuff, MindWorks. In the past, what we've had is joint scrutiny of MindWorks. There was a follow-up session, I think, which we as a committee were not invited to, which is troubling. It was a joint meeting, but we weren't invited to it. So it didn't turn out to be a joint meeting. It ended up as being a single scrutiny meeting. So my suggestion is that we need to work out a method to maybe to increase the effectiveness of scrutiny of scrutiny on MindWorks and whether there's a need for a joint task group or some kind of thing which holds them stronger to account. Because it feels at the moment that the service is improving across all parts of children. But obviously there are constraints. But the outlier is that which sits outside of the council, for which our scrutiny up until now doesn't seem to have had an impact. I think we'd all agree with that. I mean, I think we were very disappointed not to be invited to the follow-up meeting. And I did. I only found out about it afterwards. And I did make the point that I felt we should have been invited. But we weren't. Last item on the agenda is the date of the next meeting, which is Thursday the 13th of March. So everyone will get a good rest before our next outing. And on the agenda is scrutiny of intensive family support service and the new youth service strategy. So I know it's a little early, but I'd like to wish everyone a very happy Christmas and new year. And thank you very much for staying with us today.