Transcript

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Cabinet meeting of, sorry, County Council here at Woodhatch on the 17th of December 2024. First of all, can I welcome members and officers and members of the public that are in attendance. As there are members of the public here, I will just refer to the fire alarm details. So we are not expecting any fire drills this afternoon. So in the event that the alarm does go off, would everybody in the building please leave by the nearest exit and assemble at the top car park and indeed then report to a member of the building management team who will identify themselves. Social media is perfectly acceptable, the use of social media. Join the course of the meeting as long as it doesn't interfere with the running of the meeting. The meeting is being webcast live and it is open to the public. Just to remind you. For members of Cabinet, just to remind you please to use your microphones because we do have people joining us online and they won't be able to hear otherwise. Could you make sure you turn your mobile phones to Simon please. So I think that is probably all of the housekeeping issues. So I'll just ask each member of the Cabinet to introduce themselves before making a public statement. So can I start with Claire Curran. Hello, good afternoon. I'm Claire Curran, the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning. I'm Claire Curran, the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning. Thank you. David Lewis. Good afternoon. David Lewis, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources. Denise Turner-Stewart. Good afternoon. Denise Turner-Stewart, Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities and Deputy Leader. Thank you. Jonathan Hulley. Jonathan Hulley. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jonathan Hulley, Deputy Cabinet Member, Strategic Highways. Thank you. Kevin Deenas. Yes, good afternoon. Kevin Deenas, Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue and Resilience. Mark Newty. Thank you, Leader. Mark Newty, Councillor Member for Health and Wellbeing. And as is now traditional, I will just let you know that today is International Wright Brothers Day in 1903. They took the first flight on today. Maybe more pertinent, it's National Device Appreciation Day as we're all looking at our laptops. But I think, and hopefully we'll remember this one, it's Better Conversations Week this week. So let's remember that as we go forward. Thank you very much. Informative as ever. Marissa Heath. Thank you, Leader. Good afternoon. Marissa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment. Matt Furness. Good afternoon. Matt Furness, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth. Thank you. Maureen Attawell. Good afternoon, everybody. Maureen Attawell, Deputy Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning. Thank you. Natalie Bramhall. Good afternoon, Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure. And Paul Deitch. Afternoon, Paul Deitch, Deputy Cabinet Member to the Leader of the Council. Sinead Mooney. Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care. Thank you. And Steve Bax. Good afternoon. Steve Bax, Deputy Cabinet Member for Highways. Okay. Thank you all very much. So that's full attendance. Item two minutes of the previous meeting, which was held on the 26th November 2024. Those agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Does any member have any interest to declare in relation to the items on today's agenda? No? Thank you. Before we move on to the rest of the agenda, I want to read out a statement in relation to the very sad case of Sara Sharif. Sometimes we, our staff, our residents, us as members, are faced with the toughest of circumstances and the most difficult news to digest. I would like to take a moment at the beginning of this meeting to recognize the horrendous details that have emerged regarding the unspeakably sad death of Sara Sharif in Woking. While we can take some sense of justice that the evil perpetrators have now been convicted and indeed this morning sentenced, the details that the criminal trial exposed will never be forgotten. Now that the trial is concluded, the local child safeguarding practice review will proceed. Partners including the police, health, social care and education amongst others, under an independent author, will review the practice of all agencies involved with the family and identify any learning. I think I speak on behalf of all our partners in Surrey when I say that the safety, wellbeing and care of children and young people here is of the utmost importance to us. As a council, we will of course play a full and active role in that review to truly understand the wider circumstances around Sara's life and tragic death. We always strive and will always strive to improve how we do things and do all that we can in our power to ensure the children are kept safe in the county. Obviously any and every lesson that is learned through that review will be acted upon. Thank you. Thank you. We will move to item 4, which are members' questions. There are no members' questions today but there is one question from a member of the public, Deborah Fitzgerald, who I can see in the public gallery. So please do come forward and ask any supplementary questions if you have one. Thanks very much for responding to my question, Councillor Curran. I do have genuine concerns around the fact that education is a human right that has currently been denied or delayed to many disabled children and young people in Surrey. Councillor Curran stated in her response that it is not the case that original decisions made by the local authority are incorrect or unlawful but that different set of evidence has been submitted. My lived experience, and I am a member of a lot of forums on social media relating to send issues, is that essential assessments are often denied or delayed by the council, even when they are suggested by professionals. And I have witnessed senior case managers knowingly finalise inadequate and incomplete EHC plans in order to give us our right to appeal to the tribunal. That happens frequently. I would just like the council to consider that it is actually their statutory duty to make sure that the assessments are complete and that the SEN code lists in full the advice and information that local authorities must consider as part of their legal obligations. And it also requires that the needs assessment should be supported by senior leadership teams. And this means that additional information or evidence wouldn't even be needed if the statutory assessment was completed to an appropriate standard. So I think that Surrey really need to consider how they are completing the initial assessments. And parents should not feel pressure to fund additional reports as this increases discrimination towards children that don't have access to such funds. And I've also been informed in my journey in SEND that there isn't an actual department in Surrey to check that EHCPs do conform to relevant legislation, which I think are really significant when it comes to the number of appeals that you're having to deal with. So if you wouldn't mind just moving to your supplementary question. I will very quickly. So my supplementary question, therefore, relating to that is why would there routinely be a need to have additional evidence if the local authority had fulfilled their statutory duty to provide an effective assessment and process which fully identified the needs and outcomes of the children? And I would like to see, as a result of that, a lot less going to the appeal if the original assessment would have been done very thoroughly. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Claire, are you able to comment or answer any of those points? I can answer that to an extent. And I would like to draw a distinction in responding here to the route that parents often take to appeal a decision and the mechanism that is available to parents to complain when they feel that the process that they have been through has been inadequate or in some way erroneous, which is to use the council's complaints procedure and then to escalate that complaint through to the local government ombudsman. So in some respects, I feel that what the question was originally targeted at was appeals that are raised by parents against a decision that is taken by the local authority. But also to say that where parents feel that there has been a failure in the process or mistakes have been made or undue delay, the route to follow that through is through a formal complaint and to use the complaints procedure. It is a fine line to tread and obviously in responding to the question that's come today, it is difficult to see which side of that divide was really being referred to there. But I do feel that we have sought assurance as a cabinet and as a council that decisions being made by the council are entirely lawful. And I do refute any assertion that just because a decision is taken at a tribunal which overturns the decision which was made at the council in any way, it means that that original decision was unlawful. And I think, you know, I mean it doesn't help the situation but it is true that the percentage of appeals that are won in whole or in part in this council reflects the same percentage now on a national basis which shows that the system isn't really working for families, for children or indeed I suspect for councils. So, you know, I know that there is an active conversation within government around how the whole SCN system can be improved and I'm hoping that, you know, we will get some clarity from what this government intends to do within the near future. But we absolutely understand it is a challenging process for families to go through and I know it doesn't necessarily feel it but we do try and make the processes as painless and as straightforward as possible. But take on board your comments. So, thank you very much for your questions and your supplementary. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. OK. Can I then move please to item 4C. There were no petitions and no representations received on reports to be considered in private. So item 5, reports from select committees and we do have a report of scrutiny of the 25-26 draft budgets and the medium term financial strategy. For 29-30, so this cabinet passed a draft budget in the November cabinet. We are expecting the local government finance settlement, the draft finance settlement to be announced from government tomorrow which will give us greater clarity on our funding streams. And then it will go back to cabinet in January for further consideration in the light of that and then to full council in February. But as normal here, the draft budget, the November budget has been through the scrutiny process and I think we have three representatives at least from the select committee who are going to present. So Trevor Hogg on behalf of adults and then I think Jeremy Webster and then Stephen McCormack. So Trevor, would you like to go first? Thank you, Leader. First of all, I think we have to recognise the extraordinary pressures that the adults wellbeing and health partnerships budget is under from rising costs and ageing population and more demand. Action really is essential to restructure what we are doing to transform what we are doing and a very key part of that is the intention to roll out technology enabled care across Surrey. Which I also view as a major opportunity to actually improve the day-to-day care of residents enabling them to be in their own home but actually looking after them better at the same time. But we do have some open issues still. I think national insurance and the increase in national insurance is one with the effects that that is going to have on the social care market. The change to the living wage again puts more pressure on employers of care staff who tend to be at that sort of level. So that is not yet fully factored into the numbers I feel. And if we are to do that kind of transformation then the culture change that goes alongside it to help people understand how things are changing, why they are changing, why it is actually better for them all need to actually be brought in and managed very, very carefully. The other factor that we also have to bear in mind is that the NHS is part of this as well and we have to factor that in how we are working with them. They themselves are introducing technology aimed at keeping people in their homes to be looked at how we do that both technically, management wise, culturally so that it is one approach rather than three or four different approaches. And so, yeah, overall I think the select committee feels very strong risk management is going to be something that has to be a feature here with independent monitoring and reporting to keep strict control of the risks with a focus on very effective early action being taken to correct problems. And that is absolutely key if the service is going to maintain its spending within the desired cost envelope and at the same time provide the services to residents that are required to actually keep them and enable them to have the life that they would like to have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Trevor. Thank you very much, Trevor. I mean, I think just picking up on a two or three of those points, so you are absolutely right that we haven't seen the detail. At the moment our expectation is that the direct cost, increased cost of national insurance and national living wage for this council, the employees of this council will be reimbursed by the government. But what we haven't had confirmation is that that will extend to our providers. The government announced 680 million of additional funding into adult social care in the budget, but all of our share of that, which is probably no greater than 10 million, all of that will be wiped out by the increased costs that almost certainly will be passed on from our providers. So that is going to leave probably a further gap in our budget. There is currently a gap of 17.4 million on the basis of council taxes increased by 2.99%. We will be encouraged by the government to use the maximum increase that we are allowed, which would mean adding on another 2% preset for adult social care. And that probably in itself would close that 17.4 million gap, but we don't know what the impact of the national insurance is. I think that just to mention perhaps in passing, but from a local government perspective, a huge milestone yesterday with the government's publication of a white paper in relation to English devolution. And that sets out the government's direction of travel and agenda, which will be the first major reform of the structure of local government since 1974. We are in what is known as a two-tier authority. So we have a county council, we have 11 districts and boroughs, and we have over 100 parish and town councils, actually. But the government have requested a submission from all of the two-tier areas, and there are 21 councils in that situation across the country in terms of how we would look to restructure. And part of the motivation for moving that local government reorganization forward from what the government say is to deliver some savings in the hope or the expectation that those savings will be repurposed back into frontline services. I think we have to recognize that, you know, and there's been a lot of discussion around this and who's to blame, but we have to recognize that there is little, if any, new money that is going to come into the system for public service. So it is about making the best of what we have got. The second part of the government's agenda is around public service reform and touching on the point you made around the NHS. You know, we do overlap with them, particularly in relation to discharge from hospital. And indeed, you know, we have a plan and are encouraged to look at the closer integration of health and social care. You know, the health system, although it received 22.6 billion, as against the 600 million, 680 million that adult social care received, I gather a high percentage of that will go to fund national insurance contributions. So I think, you know, the landscape is not great and it does mean that, particularly in relation to adult social care, which is over 50% of our total budget for this council, that we have to find ways of delivering those improved services that we absolutely want to do using technology, but also working closely with our partners in terms of ways in which we can drive that greater efficiency. So thank you for the select committee's comments. We will take those away in the context of tomorrow's announcement around the actual draft financial settlement. Only one year in my whole time as a councillor has the government actually changed the draft financial settlement. That was last year after heavy lobbying. I'm sure there will be heavy lobbying this year, but I'm not as confident that it will change. But that's very helpful. You've highlighted the areas of concern and we will pick those up and then come back, say, in January with any revision to the budget. Well, thank you, Leader. There is just one, you know, small point that I would pick up on, which is self-funders also, we get an impact right the way across the care market. Yeah, that's a very good point actually, which I suspect has passed a lot of people by. And bearing in mind that we have almost the highest percentage across in the country of self-funders, that would have a significant impact for us. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Jeremy Steven, did you want to? Good afternoon all. I won't extemporise. I will read, if you don't mind. Fiona Davidson, the Chair of the Children's Committee is absent. So, I'm standing in for her today. So, in addition to a macro level review of the children, families, lifelong learning and cultural budget, the Select Committee chose to explore early health preventive spending and the impact of proposed funding changes on a voluntary charity and social enterprise infrastructure organisations as its deep dive topics. I'll speak first on our deep dive recommendations before turning to our recommendations on the overall CFLLC budget. First, on the deep dive regarding early health preventive spend. In respect of early health preventive spend, our deep dive question was whether the level of investment is sufficient to deliver meaningful benefits in downstream statutory supports, and whether it's sufficient to increase the wellbeing and life chance of the most disadvantaged Surrey residents. Surrey's spending in this area has increased in recent years, and although it is difficult to compare, it now appears to be in line with similar authorities. We noted that there are indications that early health, which is discretionary spending, does reduce the demand on statutory services in Surrey. For example, the number of children going into care, and the number of children on protection plans. We believe that investing more, such as in emotional support for adolescents, would prevent young people's needs escalating, driving both improved wellbeing and reduced statutory demand. We sought assurances that early health will be prioritised in spite of increased demand for statutory services, but were advised that funding for statutory services has to be prioritised. We understand this rationale, but we believe that the aim of no one left behind in addressing the budget survey preferences of residents requires the budget envelope for children and families to increase beyond the 6.5% proposed to enable increased spending on preventive services. The committee is convinced of the value of early health on both outcomes for children and reduced statutory demand, and does recommend that early health spend is at least protected from statutory pressures with inflation costs built in. Second, the deep dive on the voluntary sector, which I think sits with us. The Select Committee's decision to undertake a deep dive into voluntary sector funding was driven by the recognition that Surrey will increasingly rely on voluntary sector organisations to deliver services that would in the past have been delivered by the Council. Consequently, our deep dive question was on the impact of the changes proposed in the sector. However, our scrutiny was inhibited when a briefing on these changes promised in October was not made available to the committee. Similarly, no information on the impact that these changes were provided. A meeting to explore the changes, the proposed funding redistribution, the impact on the sector was refused. And regrettably, therefore, the committee has so far been unable to scrutinise this element of the budget and to make recommendations. In the last day, however, we have received the equality impact analysis for the changes and we look forward to the scrutiny meeting that we requested being set up in line with the right to select committees as detailed in the constitution. Finally, overall CFLLC budget recommendations. The committee noted that the most significant pressures on the budget derived from home-to-school transport and social care placements. The projected increase of 11 million in home-to-school transport costs in the year 25-26 accounted by projective efficiencies of 11 million. We have asked for the directorate believes that these efficiencies can be achieved and we have been reassured that the lessons of over-ambitious efficiency targets in previous years have been learned and the efficiencies are in fact achievable. We understand that no further efficiencies are currently proposed. We noted that plans reduce staff numbers following a review of management structures and spans of control and we do welcome the reassurance that frontline roles will not be subject to cuts or to recruitment freezes. This is a particular concern because of the sizable number of vacant social worker positions, only some of which are currently filled by agency staff. The committee also noted the likely impact on third sector contracts and the delivery of services as a result of national insurance changes and increases in national living wage. Although we were reassured that inflationary pressures have been built into the draft budget, we do recognize that these are unlikely to accommodate the scale of the impact of these two increases. The equality impact assessment for the budget identifies that children and young people, including those with special education needs and disabilities, that is SEND, and families as well as staff and residents facing socio-economic advantage will be disproportionately impacted by the proposals. The budget's focus is on delivering the Council's statutory obligations and these priorities will undoubtedly mean a retrenchment in areas of discretionary funding. Regretted these will result in more of the most vulnerable being left behind. We recognize the constraints of current local authority funding, but we do urge the Cabinet to consider any and all opportunities to extend the budget envelope proposed for the Children and Families Directorate to provide further discretionary funding ring-fenced for early help. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I mean, I'm sure we all absolutely understand that our primary priority is to discharge our statutory functions. I mean, that we have to do, whether that's in relation to adults, children, or indeed highways. So that has to be the priority. Our challenge, and absolutely our second, our absolute focus for this Council is around investment in prevention and early intervention and early support. The challenge is double running the cost of delivering the kind of, if you like, what's in the system now. But if we don't focus on prevention, whether that be as local government or indeed as the health system, neither of us will survive. I mean, at the end of the day, that we have to, the outcomes, you know, are so much better where there is that early intervention. There's no question about it. And we are seeing, you know, deteriorating healthy life expectancy across the whole of this county. So that absolutely resonates with what your committee is saying. I think that there is, although again, there's no clarity on it, there will be something in the local government finance settlement around children's. And they've, the government, this government have created a new formula, but I don't think we've seen what that formula means for us. But, you know, but there is apparently going to be some money, further money to go into preventative activities. And we have invested a lot in prevention, you know, particularly around SCN. I'm not sure I understand the point about reduction in SCN spend, but we'll pick that up as part of the response, the formal response to you. In terms of the voluntary sector, the VCSE, you know, a lot of work is being done with the VCSE. They are reshaping themselves through the establishment of an independent elected board for the VCSE Alliance to provide a sort of a clearer voice for the sector. As part of those conversations, there have been discussions with the infrastructure bodies and indeed the executive director of adult social care and health and wellbeing. And I did have a meeting with them last week, which is very productive. It has never been the intention to cut the investment in the VCSE. I mean, it falls into two parts, the commission services and the discretionary services. The discretionary services are, you know, those are the ones that are coming under considerable pressure. And also, it's fair to say that we have been picking up services that perhaps some of the district and boroughs have been doing historically and haven't the funds to do. And then finally, on your frontline role, if we could have all of our frontline staff roles filled with permanent staff, nobody would be happier. I mean, it's absolutely the focus. The problem is, as we know, there are particular challenges in this county around the cost of living and housing here. But, you know, agency staff, you know, we're very grateful for their involvement and commitment, but that isn't where we want to be. It is, and we do have a joint venture with Kent County Council, which is working well in terms of recruitment. And we need to, you know, push that as, and indeed we are pushing that as hard as we can. So, thank you. We will come back to you with a formal response, but that was, that was useful. Thank you. Yes, sorry. Yes. I did just want to quickly to come in. There was one point that Councillor Webster mentioned, which I wanted to pick up on. I think you may have transposed your figures when you were looking at the budget. The service is not looking to make savings of 11 million pounds on home to school transport. That's the projected growth in the budget, where I think the projected savings were in the region of half a million pounds next year. I just didn't want anyone to go away with the impression that the service would be trying to make cuts of that magnitude in the budget. Thank you, leader. Thank you. That's understood, yes. And that is against the budget of in excess of 65 million that we're currently spending on home to school transport. So, half a million on that point. Okay. Thank you. And then lastly, Steve McCormack. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, members and officers. Today, I'm here to present the key recommendations from the Resource and Performance Select Committee. Our committee has conducted a meticulous and comprehensive scrutiny of the council's budget to ensure financial sustainability and efficiency, which is vital for the well-being of our community. We've examined the significant budget gap of 17.4 million, and we know that while a 2% rise in council tax could fill this gap, we sought assurance that this council is committed to exploring every possible alternative before considering this measure. This approach underscores our dedication to minimizing the financial burden on our residents. During our scrutiny, we challenged officers on the deliverability of efficiencies, particularly those planned for 24-25. We've been assured of a more rigorous governance framework to hold directorates accountable for these planned efficiencies. We also scrutinized the council's capital expenditure, noting the conscious effort to reduce capital financing costs in the revenue budget. This strategic move aims to refocus investments and generate ongoing future revenue efficiencies. Risk management has been a key focal point of our scrutiny. We identified significant risks, including potential funding reform, the need to deliver efficiencies in external economic factors such as inflation and interest rates. To mitigate these risks, the council has established robust measures, including maintaining healthy reserves and a £20 million contingency fund to ensure our financial stability. The committee has also scrutinized the transformation program to ensure it will deliver long-term efficiencies. A strong assurance and monitoring mechanism is in place, with a transformation program board chaired by the chief executive receiving monthly progress reports. This includes scrutinizing costs and expected savings from the transformation initiatives in children and adult services. In conclusion, the committee's recommendations reflect our unwavering commitment to maintaining a balanced and sustainable budget while continuously improving our services. Through rigorous budget scrutiny, a focus on efficiency and strategic investments, we are confident in this council's ability to navigate the financial challenges ahead. Together, we can ensure the financial health and efficiency of their council, ultimately benefiting every member of our community. Thank you for your attention and look forward to our continued efforts in this vital endeavour. Thank you. Thank you very much. One of the things that we need to take into consideration when we're looking at next year's budget is the budgets from 26 onwards. So, the government have said that from 2026, there will be a multi-year settlement, either two years or three years. And before then, and we'll see more detail of that following the consultation that's about to be launched around a funding review. So, the government are looking at how funding is distributed across all tiers of local government. But there is a bit of a hint as to what that might look like for Surrey in this year's budget. So, the 1.3 billion set aside for adult social care, 680 million of that has been distributed, will be distributed on the usual formula. So, which is worth something in the region of 9 or 10 million for us. But the other remaining 700,000 or so, the government have targeted at areas where they say there are high levels of deprivation. And so, Surrey will not receive any, not one single pound from that distribution. The funding review will largely, although we've been seeking reassurance on this, but will largely be driven by using the deprivation index. And we have deprivation in this county. We don't have the same level of deprivation as some other parts of the country. But if that is the sole criteria that is used, that will see this council receive significantly less going forward. Secondly, it has also been made clear that there will be effectively council tax equalization. So, that will mean that those areas that have a high council tax base, which this county is one, will be expected to optimize the council tax that they can raise locally. Which I'm afraid in layman's terms means that we would be expected to put up council tax to the maximum level, whatever that is, every year. We have made the point to government that actually, you can't just use those two criteria. You've got to look at need, you've got to look at demand, and you've got to look at cost of delivery. And cost of delivery is much higher in rural areas. So, that criteria for redistribution has to be much wider than simply deprivation. But I think that is, I'm afraid at the moment, I don't think there's going to be any good news that's coming our way. And quite the reverse. So, you know, it is, and we are legally obliged to assess a sustainable budget. And I think we have done that over the last six years. And we've tried to keep council tax down wherever possible. But I'm afraid, I think this year, it's very unlikely that the way that the formulas are going to work, that we, that the government will have assumed that we will take the full 5%. As you say, that means we then, and we have looked at the capital program. The capital program was driven almost entirely around creating facilities that would see a revenue reduction. So, the creation of specialist placements for children with additional needs, extra care facilities to keep people independently longer in their own home and so on. You know, and, and, you know, and we are working through that program. And we will see a lot of delivery on that next, next year. But, so I think it's, it's, it is, you know, it is challenging. It is challenging. But, you know, and, and thank you to all, all of the select committees for your, your input. You know, they're very welcomed. And we will all collectively try and do the best we can when we see the outcome tomorrow, in terms of how we do get to that, that balanced position. Thank you very much. Right, thank you. We'll move on then to item six, which were the decisions that were taken since the last cabinet. Those are recorded in the agenda paper. There were seven of them unless any member wishes to speak specifically in relation to any of them there for noting. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And item seven then. Each month we have a presentation from one of the cabinet members. And it is the privilege of Matt Furness to do that today. Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Leader. I'll be quite brief because members will have seen this similar report at Council last week. Just a quick overview of highways and infrastructure. We have again completed so far this year over 120 miles of pavement and road improvements through our Horizon Road program. We have dealt with 40,000 pothole repairs between April and November of this year. And we have had quite a few diesel spills on the network. The A24 probably being the one nationally that was picked up where we managed to resurface 10 miles in 10 days. And I have to say hats off to our contractor and the highways team as well for being able to pull that off. And thanks to the public for their patience. Whilst that was going on, we had two other diesel spill, an oil spill and a vehicle fire all in that same area. So it just shows the impact on the network that we have to deal with. Also this year, following the funding that the cabinet has agreed, we've implemented an extensive road marking refresh program. Five crews have acted from going out across the network where we will fully utilize the 1.9 million in this financial year, including major works at the M25 Junction 6. And we're also coming to do Junction 8 at the beginning to Rygate also this year. We've also introduced the Roadside Rangers initiative. This is to spring clean, tidy up our roads and streets across Surrey. We are now at eight gangs as of the 25th of November. It is being received extremely well by the public who are complimenting the crews for the fact that they are rediscovering pavements, cleaning signs and getting rid of those hesky weeds that we've had over the summer. Just on transport, we've had a substantial growth in bus usage this year. Over 26 million journeys in the previous year, which was 24 million. And nearly 12 million journeys so far in the current year. We have managed to secure 12 million of funding for the next financial year to invest in improved bus services. And we'll work closely with bus operators to deliver that government funding. And in addition, with our sort of net zero agenda on replacing our public transports with EV and hydrogen, we've got another number of buses which are switching over to EV from our small and medium sized operators, which is great. We've also got our hydrogen buses in place now with Metrobus running from Crawley. And we have more planned for the future. I just wanted to recognise the Safer Travel team because they've actually won a national award for our Feet First Child Pedestrian Training Programme. This targets 6,000 year three pupils across 120 schools. And it's really good to see that their work is being recognised. Just on the economic growth, we've had a really good start with the Surrey Growth Hub. We've already provided support to just under 1,000 businesses on varying levels of intervention. We've had our first year of the Surrey Careers Hub where we've been helping over 90% of schools. And we have seen that the Gatsby benchmarks for career education have risen on all six. So it is doing well education in Surrey and the links to careers. And as you know, Lida, we had our second Festival of Skills with over 3,000 students and teachers meeting over 90 businesses from within Surrey just to see what they might like to do as a future career choice or to develop their skills more. And we are preparing to launch a Connect to Work programme to support about 1,000 residents annually, focusing on vulnerable and unrepresented groups. And just very lastly, in placemaking, we've got multiple high street improvement projects with community engagements, Cranley, Hawley and Ashford. We've got projects under construction now in Caterham and Togham, which we're expecting to be completed by April 2025. And we've secured community infrastructure levy for Walton Lee School expansion and the Yule village enhancements as well. So it's an absolutely busy time at the moment across the service. It's probably the most forward-facing part of the Council at times. But I really just want to say hats off to the team because they really do a lot of work. And it's just a shame that we can't sort of shout about it that little bit more in this very short period. But thank you. Well, thank you, Matt. And indeed we had an opportunity to talk that through full Council last week. Is there anybody who wants to ask any further questions or clarification? Yeah. I mean, I think we're just hoping that we have a benign winter because I mean, I probably shouldn't say it out loud, but I do think that the team are doing a very good job in dealing proactively with potholes. And I think we are seeing a lot less of those. But as we know, wet winters, freezing water does cause enormous damage to our network. And we also know that there is relentless attacks on the network, if you like, from utility companies as they deal with emergencies and other things. So anyway, hopefully we will get through the winter without being too scared. So good. Thank you. And you circulated, I think, some pictures of things that the teams have been doing. And it is very noticeable when actually signs are cleaned and, you know, leaves are removed. So, well done. Thank you. OK. Right. So, shall we move to item eight then, please, which is, in fact, Surrey schools and early years funding? Claire. Yes, thank you, Lida. This report sets out the recommended funding formula principles for Surrey's mainstream schools and the early years providers for next year, 25-26. So schools, whether they're community schools, church schools or academies, are autonomous from the local authority. This council does not run, control or manage any schools. And mainstream schools, whether they are community schools or academies, are funded by central government from the schools block of the dedicated schools grant. And funding is passed on to each individual school through an allocation by a local formula that is reviewed annually by the council and determined locally, albeit within Department for Education parameters. And if you look at the report, you'll see in Appendix 1 that some of the criteria that we do use for working out what those formulas, formulae are, are set out. The dedicated schools grant is provided to the county council in four blocks, which covers schools, school central services, which the local authority provides, the high needs block, which funds our services for children with additional needs through our special educational needs and disabilities budget, and for early years, which members will know is an area that has expanded very significantly this year with the government's own extension of the early years entitlement. So each local authority is required to consult on and maintain those local formula arrangements to allocate the DSG to our local schools. And we consult through Schools Forum, which is a statutory body which is consulted every year on how their grants should be allocated to each school. Schools Forum, in turn, comprises headteachers, governors, academy representatives, and non-school representatives from early years providers, diocesan boards, teaching unions, post-16 providers, and also representatives of families whose children have additional needs. So this report before us today is concentrating on the decision that we need to make relating to school funding for pupils aged between 4 and 15 in all of Surrey's mainstream schools, which includes academies, and also for early years funding. This report does not address pupil premium or six-form funding, because those are central government allocations distributed through other formulae, and it doesn't cover budgets for services funded by the high-needs block, that's our SEND services, or central service blocks, because those are covered in our separate Cabinet report on the budget. As you all know, this Council has entered into a safety valve agreement with the Department for Education to ensure a balance on our accumulated deficit to clear the accumulated deficit of high-needs block funding over a period of years. And this agreement includes an agreement that schools will agree to a 1% block transfer from their schools' DSG block to the high-needs block to the high-needs block every year of the five-year term of the agreement. Now, although schools do not have a formal right of approval or disapproval over that request, the Council is nevertheless required to consult schools and to share the outcome with the Secretary of State, who ultimately gives permission for that transfer to be made. And in Annex 2, on page 65, I think you will see that the schools are equally split on whether or not that transfer should be made. And you will see that one of the recommendations is for this Council, nevertheless, to apply for the Secretary of State to approve that transfer being made. I just wanted also to mention, as regards the safety valve, you will see the wording in the report saying that we are as a Council on track to make the efficiencies that we have been obliged to make through the agreement. However, achieving the long-term balance on the high-needs block is now at risk of not being on track in the period of the agreement because of the enormous demand that we have seen and the additional expense of meeting that demand. And we currently have flagged that with the Department for Education and it is a subject of separate discussion. Leader, the recommendations of this report are set out on page 51 and 52 and there are six, as I said, an application to the Secretary of State to make the 1% transfer from the school, the dedicated schools grant into the high-needs block. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think it's fair to say that part of the challenge in, you know, not being able to meet some of the demand, all of the demand, is that we have yet to receive the capital funding from the Government that we were promised to enable us to build more facilities. So we will continue to push for that funding which was an integral part of the safety valve agreement that we entered into, albeit with the previous Government. So as Claire has said, does anybody wish to comment on that? Otherwise, I won't read all of the recommendations other than the first, which is to note, support the application to the Secretary of State the transfer of 1%, which is the equivalent of 8.4 million from the school's block, designated schools grant to the high-needs block at DSG, as set out in the safety valve agreement with the Department of Education and then the various formulas and so on to follow on. Are those six recommendations then agreed? Thank you very much. Item nine, climate change progress assessment. Marissa. Thank you, Leader. This report sets out some positive outcomes this following year. Once again, we're on target. So we've remained on track, 38% reduction in admissions achieved and savings of around 4 million on our bills. So it's very positive. We've done this with no mandate from Government, as you know, Leader. We've done it because we believed it's what our residents wanted us to do. But I think we've also been pragmatic this year and not risked our public finances around this, which is another thing our public want us to do. At the beginning of the current strategy in 2021, we were committed to working with partnerships and being transparent about this work, and I'm quite confident we've achieved that. This year, we've brought in the Centre for Sustainability at the University of Surrey to invite them to scrutinise and challenge us. And also, whether it's been well received or not, we've continued working with the Greener Futures Partnership in an attempt to share resource and knowledge across the districts and boroughs. We've been fortunate in that we've had the critical eyes of the Select Committee and the county's own working group on the work, which has been really helpful in driving the agenda and making us look at what more we can do. And we've had the eyes of the Surrey Climate Commission and the myriad smaller resident-led community change groups, which ensure we have not been able to be complacent about this, not that we would want to do so. Some have said in response to this report that we've picked up all the low-hanging fruit, and to an extent maybe that's true, but I'd like to clarify that none of this work has been easy for the team. It's meant a huge effort from the climate change staff applying for last-minute rushed funding from government and being highly successful in doing that, to also being a fleet of foot and identifying opportunities across the county to further the climate cause. So, we're the leading eco-school county, and we've been the most successful in decarbonising homes, so our team have performed very well. I think what they've done is what we hope from all of the public sector and that they've gone above just being a job role and worked for the betterment of success of Surrey in this agenda. Just briefly, of course, I need to acknowledge the serious risk that is outlined in this report. Confidence in meeting the organisational 2030 target is lower compared to last year. Inflation continues to have an impact on everyone, demanding priorities, of course, and challenges like the lack of grid connection means things are going to get a lot harder for us. So, with that in mind, we're bringing forward the work on the next five-year delivery plan early and have commissioned Arup to produce an accurate cost outline for such. As government has been so clear and confident that they meet the net zero goals and indeed even expedite them, we're expecting that to be recognised that it cannot be done without local government. And therefore, when we've identified the funding gaps to reaching net zero, I'm quite sure government will have to therefore deliver the funding needed as well as the grid connectivity and the infrastructure that will enable us to get there. That's what they've committed to doing so. We've been very clear from the very beginning that we cannot do this without national government. So, I look forward to that money coming in over the next year or two in order to make sure we stay on track. But on the whole, it's a positive report again. We've done what we said we'd do at the very beginning. We've done it with quite confidence. We've got on and kept up of our targets and we have a plan going forward. And I think the team at the Council need to be commended for that and the good work recognised. We'll see where we are next year, but for now, we stay on target. And as I said, we've shown real leadership in many areas on this agenda across the country. Thank you, Leader. Thank you very much, Marisa. Can I just ask which I – this was raised at the Surrey Leaders Group meeting last week. Where we are working on the five-year climate change delivery plan, could I ask you to write to all of the leaders of the district and boroughs and invite them to join a workshop or some – offer them the opportunity to engage fully in that delivery or the setting of that plan, which I know that they are through the Greener Futures Board. as to how – where do we – where is the fall and where there can be a conversation around a Surrey-wide climate strategy? Sure. I will do that, Leader, and be explicit in doing so. But the Greener Futures Partnership has been a struggle, to be honest with you, in order of getting that engagement. We are there. Our officers are working with other officers in the districts and boroughs permanently ongoing. You can lead a horse to water, shall we say. I will continue to try and do that, frankly. I will be explicit in their role in doing this five-year plan because the district and boroughs are very far from meeting their net zero goals. They've got even more of a challenge than us. So we remain open, happy to work with them, happy to share our resources, but equally they need to come forward as well and tell us what they need and want. But, yes, I will write and offer them that chance. Yeah, no, well, thank you because, I mean, the second biggest sort of issue around carbon is housing and that's their responsibility. So, I know clearly the more that we can do as a county authorities, the better. So, but – and we do need to keep an eye on the 2030 target. I mean, that was a commitment that we would make this council carbon neutral by 2030. But, as you say, I mean, there are things that have intervened in the meantime, but I know you're working hard to achieve that. I mean, we will carry on driving for those targets, absolutely. But, as I said, we need government to be tackling the big issues around things like grid connection to help us. And I think we've just got to be clear that we're not here to waste good resources. We've got to utilize good resources in the best way possible as well. So we have, to an extent, done the low-hanging fruit in regards to buildings that have had very old boilers or, you know, inappropriate energy generation. And now we're on to the tougher area. But the thing that we have achieved since 2021 is making sure that the council is considering net zero across the board. And I know land and property are now working with us very closely to ensure that happens. So I remain confident this county will do everything it can to get there. And we will be upping our lobbying and pressure on national government next year. That will be one of the main focuses. And the districts and boroughs should join us in that. And we should be doing that as a collective. Yeah, definitely. I mean, there's some very stretching national targets. And some of those will only be delivered with the support of local government. So, yeah, it will be good to have that conversation both here locally and nationally. Good. Okay. There are two, then, recommendations. Are those agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much. Item 10, the annual procurement forward plan. David. Yeah, thank you, Leader. So those members of Cabinet who have been around for some time will know that at this meeting each year, we're asked as a Cabinet to approve the annual procurement forward plan. And this is the result of the procurement and contract standing orders, which were agreed by this council back in 2019 and then further revised in May 23. Those orders require us to prepare an annual procurement forward plan. And we've now developed such a plan for 2526. And Cabinet are asked to approve the plan to allow the implementation of the identified procurement activity. The reason why we go to the trouble of producing the plan is that it enables Cabinet to have an oversight of the planned procurement projects for the forthcoming financial year, so 2526. And also to give us oversight of the significant procurement contracts, which are likely to be approved during that period. It also means that we don't have to bring to Cabinet multiple individual requests for approval. So if you look at the papers which have been presented as part of the agenda, you'll see that in Annex 1 there's a list of the known projects with a value, and it's a strange value, it's £214,909, including VAT, which are due for procurement in the fourth coming year. And they cover all directorates and services across the Council. And I know that each Cabinet member, each portfolio holder have been engaged on the list of projects within their service, within their directorate. That level is determined by the Public Contract Regulations 2015. There are different thresholds for the Work Contracts and Light Touch services. This year there is a slight difference in the sense that we also have an Annex 2, which is part of the papers which you have in the agenda. And Annex 2 gives an indication of the projects which have been identified and known to us coming up in the year for 26-27. And this is just for information only. It could, you know, be refined and changed. But this forward look is required under the new Procurement Act of 2023, which you know was due to come in earlier in the year but was postponed and will now come into effect on the 24th of February 2025. And under the Procurement Act, the Council will be required to publish a mandatory pipeline notice by the end of May each year, 26th of May each year, covering a minimum of 18 months. So an overview of the planned procurement activities which exceed £2 million. And again, these projects which are in this Annex 2 list will be brought to Cabinet for formal approval to procure as part of the preparation of the annual procurement forward plan for next, for the following year for 26-27. The list in front of you is, so the Annex 1 list is a part 1 list. There will be further details provided as part 2 of this meeting as some of the projects which are on the procurement plan have a degree of commercial sensitivity around them and will be covered by the part 2 regulations. Thank you, Nido. Thank you, David. Cabinet members have had an opportunity to go through their areas, so hopefully this is not a surprise to them. Does anybody want to add anything? No. In that case, we will go straight to the recommendations which are set out on the agenda, which there are five. Are all of those agreed? Good. Thank you very much. Item 11 then, Surry Environment Partnership and Joint Waste Solutions. Mrs. Brownhall. Thank you, Lido. The report in part 1 of this meeting explains and sets out Surry County Council's plans for the future of some administrative and project management services currently provided on behalf of Surry County Council by the Joint Waste Solutions team. The published report requires one clarification. In paragraph 12b of the report, with reference to the re-procurement of the Waste Collection Service, that paragraph should refer to the four authorities are working together to consider options for the delivery of waste collection services after the expiry of the AIME contract in 2027. Surry County Council transferred several of its functions to the Joint Waste Service, including activities to encourage better recycling, increased recycling, communications and website hosting, project administration and governance. JWS is based at Surry Heath Borough Council and has two main roles. Management of a joint waste contract for waste collection with AIME on behalf of the four authorities of Elmbridge, Moor Valley, Surry Heath and Woking and provision of several waste disposal authority functions on behalf of Surry County Council. The current arrangement is no longer felt suitable to meet the strategic needs of Surry County Council in reducing its exposure to policy changes, namely the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme and the Emissions Trading Scheme. Surry County Council supports the concept of partnership with the Ds and Bs and would like to see a closer and more effective relationship with all 11 councils and believes this can be better secured by Surry County Council managing its activities. Thank you, Leader. Thank you very much. I mean, there have been a number of discussions around this, including with the district and boroughs. You know, the – it is an area where there are efficiencies to be delivered by bringing it back in-house. I don't think with any negative impacts on the service delivery and hopefully we will continue to, you know, through that partnership but encourage the collection agencies, the district and boroughs, particularly to drive up curbside recycling. You know, we do have good recycling rates in this county compared with the rest of the country, but we could and must do better. And one way to do that is to enhance the curbside elements to it. I think, you know, we're expecting quite a lot of government announcement, aren't we, in terms of how many bins we can expect and how it will be separated out and so on. And also, and I always get this wrong, but the extended producer EP – I'll get the first two – responsibility, which I think is charging packaging to those that supply goods with packaging. And so, again, there's going to be some sort of – not recycling of money, but there's going to be some redistribution of funding between the district and boroughs. But – and the other area that we do really need to encourage residents, particularly over the Christmas period, to use their food waste bins, which can then be sent to the anaerobic digester up in Spelthorne. So, yeah. But I think this, you know, this makes sense to move forward on the basis that you set out. Denise. Thank you, Leader. I mean, I think generated waste is probably at an all-time high if you look at the amount of delivery vehicles we see flying around everywhere. So, everything we can do to reduce our exposure and to gain control of the whole kind of recycling and waste system is, you know, I think this is very timely and absolutely requesting our residents all joining us in reducing that burden and maintaining, you know, an efficient waste system, which is a really, really difficult task. And this Council has been working really hard in that regard. So, I commend this report. Thank you. Thank you. And, of course, there will be an active dialogue with the district and boroughs affected. Okay. So, the recommendation is to agree in principle, the principle of Surrey County Council bringing back the functions and associated funding to SCC and to delegate authority to the Executive Director with the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of Resources and the Director of Law and Governance, to take such actions and decisions as are necessary to facilitate the manner and mechanisms through which this decision can be most suitably implemented. Is that agreed? Okay. Good. Thank you. We are on to the last item of the public part of the agenda, which is a quick update on where we are as of month seven. Thank you, David. Yeah. Thank you, Leader. So, yes, this report relates to the end of October of this year, which is month seven in the financial year, where we were forecasting an overspend against budget of the revenue budget of £17.7 million. It's good to note that, although that's still a huge overspend, we have and did see some improvement during the month. And, in fact, that £17.7 million represents a £0.9 million improvement over the month six position. The, if we look at the individual directorates, the forecast spend in adult social care was unchanged, and that there was a very welcome £1.6 million improvement in children's and lifelong services. And, in particular, we saw a £0.4, £400,000 forecast improvement in the forecast overspend in the home to school transport area. So, although we are still forecasting a £7 million overspend, that forecast overspend in home to school transport assistance has, in fact, reduced slightly, compared to the level it's been at and it's been fairly stable for the first six months of the year. And now, as a result of all the work that's going on in that space, we are just beginning to see a slight improvement in that forecast overspend. There was also some improvements in the looked after children area and care leavers area, which contributed, as I said, to the £1.6 million improvement which we saw in children's. There was a small increase in place in terms of the forecast overspend and generally that budget has been impacted by the money that we have agreed and have spent on verge maintenance. And on the land and property, we have got more buildings that have been vacant for a longer period of time than was originally anticipated. So, that's contributed slightly to that forecast increase. If we look at the risks on the revenue budget, there have been some slight increases but overall, we're forecasting a risk of just over £11 million against the revenue budget. So, still, you know, very much within, you know, facing significant challenges for the remainder of the year. We do have our £20 million contingency, which we put aside as part of the budget setting process. But ideally, we would like to use that money to feed and top up our reserves as much as we can. So, we are still looking for directorates and services to identify and implement mitigation measures to try and get that forecast 17.7 million figure down further in the remaining five months of the year. If we look at the capital budget, as you know, we re-phased the budget early on to reflect what we felt was both affordable and deliverable. And we forecast a spend of £332 million and we're currently spending something like just under £11 million, £10.9 million more than that re-phased budget, which was just up slightly, £1.8 million on the forecast position at month six. So, we're currently forecasting the current budget of £321 million. That was the original current budget. In terms of that overspend, we've deliberately accelerated the number of schemes within land and property, in terms of accelerated the work on schemes around independent living, SEMD libraries and so on. And there's also been quite deliberately some expenditure brought forward within highways, particularly around the work that's taken place in terms of things such as surface dressing and so on program, which has accelerated the spend and reflects in that forecast overspend on the capital budget. And it's probably just worth saying that on the IT capital budget, we're just under £1 million less than budget. So, overall, still challenging and, you know, as we said, you know, looking forward, looking ahead. I don't think the things are going to get much easier for us. But, you know, it's – I feel confident that, you know, we have our expenditure under control. And, you know, we are beginning to see the impact of some efficiencies working their way through. But there's more work to be done in order to mitigate against those forecast overspends on the revenue side. So, thank you. Thank you, Alex, David. Yes, we're nearly at the end of, you know, 9, month 9, December. So, hopefully that trend will continue. So, the report is for noting. So, if we could do that, thank you very much. So, that brings us to the end, so the public part of the agenda. On behalf of the Cabinet, can I thank all of the staff and the members for all of their hard work and support this past year, which has been a challenging year, and I suspect 2025 will be even more so. But, can I wish all of you, and indeed all of our residents, a peaceful Christmas and a Happy New Year. Thank you very much.