The Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee met to discuss budget proposals for 2026-27, the short breaks budget, and other performance and strategic issues. The committee agreed to recommendations that the consultation on short breaks include data gathering on the impact of previous cuts, and that alternative funding sources for the voluntary sector be explored. The committee also expressed concerns about pressures on the directorate due to inflation and increased demand, and about the lack of specialist school places to meet the needs of children and young people in Surrey.

Short Breaks Budget

The committee heard from Jen Dearman, Executive Director of Challengers, a charity providing play and leisure activities for disabled children. She spoke about the potential consequences of an £800,000 efficiency saving in the short breaks budget and the introduction of eligibility criteria to access play and leisure services.

Jen Dearman said that introducing eligibility criteria would be like saying you're not disabled enough to come to this and that it would treat disabled children like cookie cutters . She also said that reducing the budget would mean that more children would be left behind, and that families would find life without short breaks incredibly difficult. She warned that the consequences of an £800,000 cut would be a higher spend in other areas, including alternative provision, and more parent carers unemployed. She also said that local people currently employed in the charitable sector would be made redundant.

Councillor Robert Hughes asked if the reduction in funding would have any wider impacts on the operation of the impacted charities, and if the funding received from Surrey County Council allowed the charities to seek further funding to provide additional support. Jen Dearman responded that the funding was vital and was the starting point and bedrock for the charities. She said that if the funding was reduced, the charities would not be in a position to continue to deliver the same level of top up, which would reduce hours.

Councillor Liz Townsend noted that there were about 300 children and young people on waiting lists to access play and leisure schemes, and that this number was increasing. She asked if there were families that Jen Dearman was concerned about that were not receiving any support, and how that impact was assessed. Jen Dearman said that it was hard for individual charities to assess that impact because they all had their own waiting lists. She said that she had 250 families on her waiting list for short breaks in Surrey, most of whom were aged 4 to 13. She said that the last time the waiting list was deduplicated, there were 326 children who weren't getting support.

Councillor Jonathan Essex asked how long a family would typically stay on a waiting list before getting support. Jen Dearman said that it was one in, one out and that as a child aged out at 18, a child would be moved up the waiting list. She estimated that it would take four and a half years for a child to get off the waiting list at Challengers.

Jen Dearman also made some observations on the report, saying that she didn't understand the logic of the geographies chosen to compare Surrey in terms of children and spend. She said that given Surrey is the third highest local authority of children with EHCPs, she would have thought that Hampshire and Kent should have featured on there. She also said that she was confused that the report went up to 14, as play and leisure short breaks are four to 18 and where the push points are are four to 11, which is what they call the play age.

Councillor Chris Townsend asked what assessment had been made of the potential impact on parents and carers' well-being if access is stopped or reduced, and what steps would be taken to mitigate risks of needs escalating due to that reduced provision. Councillor Halley responded that the play and leisure elements of the Short Breaks programme are key, and that it is a programme with a multi-million pound budget, providing key support and services to young people. He said that the demand is currently outstripping supply, and that this is because of complexity of need that is rising and also requests for support from outside of Surrey. He also noted that the Department for Education had removed the Short Breaks Innovation Fund.

Suzanne Wilson, Executive Director, Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, said that there had already been considerable engagement and co-production with families about the ways that the council might be able to change the commissioning of the Short Breaks service. She also said that previously, when changes have been made, an equalities impact assessment was completed and published online.

Councillor Townsend asked when the previous assessment had been done. Suzanne Wilson said that it was done in 2022-23. Councillor Townsend asked why the council had not gathered information on the families who did receive short breaks and then didn't as a result of cuts. Suzanne Wilson responded that the intention of the consultation that they were proposing to go ahead with wasn't a backward-looking piece of work, but a forward-looking piece of work.

Councillor Ashley Tilling asked how the financial pressures and decisions would affect the statutory duties that the council has under the legislation. Suzanne Wilson responded that the statutory duty around short breaks is broader than the play and leisure schemes, and that it covers overnight respite, personal support, and direct payments. She said that the council was trying to balance the financial pressure by looking at taking 17% of the budget, whilst retaining the budget of those more specialist services where there are assessed needs.

Councillor Catherine Powell asked what alternatives had been considered for the sufficiency and what contingency plans were in place if the savings could not be achieved without reducing the service capacity or quality. Suzanne Wilson responded that in identifying the CFLL efficiencies program, they looked at all sorts of things, including all lines of their budget. She said that all viable alternatives are already within their MTFS efficiencies delivery plan.

Councillor Robert Hughes asked what mitigation measures had been considered to allow the charities that would be impacted to continue to provide these much-needed early intervention, prevention and support services. Suzanne Wilson responded that as part of their pre-consultation engagement, they had done some work with providers to seek their input, views and thoughts on the proposals that they could consult on. She also said that the council's procurement board had considered a request to extend the existing contractual arrangements for plain leisure for a two-year period, because they would need time to undertake the consultation and to implement any changes.

Councillor Essex asked if the council valued all of the services they provide for all children with disabilities, or some more than others. He also asked if there was a two-tier eligibility criteria for the complex overnight stays, or if that was just for the play and leisure. Suzanne Wilson responded that they were not sat there saying that they were going to implement a two-tier eligibility system, but that they were suggesting it because it's something that a number of other local authorities do, and it's something that they are interested in understanding views on.

The committee agreed to recommendations that:

• The Select Committee requests that the proposed questions for the consultation are shared with the Select Committee to provide additional assurance that the questions will elicit the required information.
• The consultation report captures the feedback provided and includes an EIA, and includes the likely impacts of the implementation.
• The consultation includes data gathering questions, enabling the understanding of the impact of previous efficiencies.
• The service ensures that they improve the data that is made available to the SADU unit which is to ensure it's clear how many children, young people and their families could benefit from access to these services and what the minimum level of service would need to be to make it meaningful and a snapshot of where these children and young people live compared to the provision that's currently available and accessed.
• The report includes recommendations on how alternative funding sources could be found and how future unitary authorities could work with the charities to access those funds.

Budget 2026-27

Councillor David Lewis, Cabinet Member for Finance, introduced the budget for 2026-27, noting that it was set in a very difficult way. He said that the draft budget assumed a 2.99% council tax increase, and that this left a gap of £21.3 million that had to be closed.

Rachel Wigley, Executive Director of Resources, said that the budget was heavily influenced by fair funding. She said that the formula for fair funding is in two parts, and that Surrey benefits from an increase in need, but is heavily penalised by the council tax equalisation, which is at 100%. She said that this gives Surrey a loss of income of over £100 million over the next three years if it wasn't for transitional funding. She said that the transitional funding ensures that Surrey has flat funding.

Rachel Wigley said that within the budget, there are pressures of £84 million and efficiency of £73.5 million, leading to the gap of £21.3 million. She said that the focus on capital has been on deliverability and affordability. She also said that the revenue costs of borrowing are included in the revenue budget and are around 6% of that revenue budget.

Councillor Chris Townsend asked how likely it was that the £14.7 million, which is identified as efficient 7% on this year's, would be achieved, given that it was £5.5 million more than last year, despite the increasing number of children in care. Councillor Halley responded that they had comprehensive delivery plans in place for those efficiencies, and that they had been largely successful in the delivery of their efficiency plans for 2025-26.

Councillor Jeremy Webster asked about the workforce, noting that a reduced dependency on agency workers had been achieved, but that there was pressure identified with recruitment and retention, which was proposed to be addressed by introducing recruitment and retention bonuses and employing overseas workers to stabilise the workforce. He asked if these good efforts were in danger of being undermined if the council took away the retention payments for the second tranche of social workers as proposed. Councillor Halley responded that they were not removing any retention payments from those social workers who were previously awarded them, but that they could not extend some of the benefits to a wider group of social workers.

Councillor Frank Kelly asked how seeking an efficiency through joint placement costs would affect the council's relation with its key health partners. Suzanne Wilson responded that this piece of work was being undertaken with their health partners, and that it seeks to ensure that there's fair and equitable distribution of resources across the partnerships, that decisions are made in a timely way, that management overheads are minimised, and where possible to reduce the amount of time and the extensiveness of negotiations and dispute resolution when there are shared costs.

Councillor Ashley Tilling asked if the service had looked for efficiencies in work processes to optimise the use of a system staff and systems, and if there were any areas of inefficiency that had been identified where there seem to be barriers to them being delivered. Suzanne Wilson responded that they had done a review of their entire and centralisation of their entire business administration, and that this had been possible to do, including a significantly reduced head count, by leaning into all of the different ways that they can support those processes to be more efficient.

Councillor Liz Townsend asked how confident the service was that the £1.5 million efficiency associated with the fostering service review would be achieved, given that it has been a really challenging time recruiting and retaining foster carers. Tina Benjamin, Director of Social Care, responded that it was a challenging picture nationally, but that Surrey performs well in, actually, as who are looking after their maximum amount. She said that the review is focusing on the marketing and recruiting of carers who can meet the needs of those particular groups of children.

Councillor Catherine Powell asked about the efficiency around children with disabilities and short breaks review, noting that the efficiency that's currently shown in the draft budget is £1.3 million, but that they had been talking about £800,000. She asked for some explanation around that, and in particular, what the £500,000 was. Suzanne Wilson responded that the £800,000 saving has been delayed by the delayed decision around going to consultation, which means that they are unlikely to achieve the full £800,000 in 2027-28, because those changes need to be publicly consulted on before they can implement. She said that the additional £500,000 relates to the broader CWD service and service provision, and that it's looking at the kind of total spend on that cohort of children.

Councillor Jonathan Essex said that there is a cumulative deficit in the high needs block that's higher than they wanted it to be at this point, and that these free schools are going to make that worse. He asked what the likely overspend was going to be in next year's budget, and what the implication of that was from the government. Councillor Halley responded that they do not expect to be told off for the ongoing pressures, and that they do not expect the safety valve agreement to be renegotiated. He said that the Department of Education has been really clear that they're not renegotiating any.

The committee agreed to recommendations that:

• The select committee notes significant pressures on the directorate due to inflation, increased demand, additional investment in the HCP timeliness, additional EPs and investment in recruitment and retention bonuses for social workers. The committee is concerned that some of the proposed efficiencies will be difficult to deliver as they are dependent on savings of placements that children looked after that have been difficult to realise in the current budget year and on the withholding of market supplement agreed in 25-26 budget that has not been fully applied which may lead to increase in agency staff. The committee also notes that the EIAs are not currently available. The committee recommends reviewing whether as an alternative there are opportunities to seek efficiencies within the council's work processes to optimise the use of existing staff and systems.
• The select committee is concerned that the proposed efficiency in the CFFL draft budget of 1.3 million associated with the proposed children with disabilities and short breaks review is the one that is a real cut to help and support that the council provides to some of the most vulnerable in our community and the efficiency is therefore not consistent with no one left behind. The committee notes that there is no analysis of mitigation options that could be implemented and recommends alternative ways of funding these services to meet the needs are explored, particularly given these services are currently supporting many families who are in crisis or say they would be in crisis without these services.
• The committee is concerned about the lack of maintained special school and SEND unit places to meet the existing and future additional needs children and young people in Surrey and that the planned SEND capital programme does not address the existing needs so there is no headroom for future need. There is therefore a pressure that is not shown on the budget. The committee recommends that this pressure is acknowledged, along with the potential impact on the home-to-school travel assistance budget and that there is an urgent review of the SEND capital programme includes the identification of those children with special school or SEND unit on their EHCP in order to ensure that appropriate places are planned along with a margin for those that are in progress and that this should also address the impacts of local government reorganisation and identify the burrowing required to support the SEND capital programme in both the two new unitary authorities.

Culture Budget

Councillor Chris Townsend asked what impact came from the £0.8 million reduction in the future 2026-27 capital allocated to libraries transformation, and what the money was going to be used for. Susan Wilson, Head of Libraries and Heritage, responded that the £0.8 million was broadly split out into two parts, with roughly half a million pounds being an underspend from phase one of the library's capital program, and the second half being related to schemes which they have had to reshape a little bit just to make sure that they can get the work done within the time that they have available.

Councillor Jeremy Webster asked if the council had had to do any shuffling around of their priorities. Susan Wilson responded that they have huge palaces of their own, and that they are now considered to be an exemplar library service.

Voluntary Sector Budget

Councillor Robert Hughes commented that the voluntary sector and VCFS sector is delighted that there won't be any reductions in the budgets to the infrastructure grants, but that there is concern about the impact of not increasing it in line with inflation, bearing in mind they and the charities and voluntary organisations, which in effect are their clients and they provide services to, are suffering huge increases in NICs and staff salaries and things. Claire Savage, Director of Adult Social Care, responded that they recognise in an ideal world, they would want to increase the budget in line with inflation and additional pressures, but that even within adult social care, they are unable to even sometimes match that of their social care market providers and have to have very strong negotiation skills and discussions with them in order to meet their statutory duties, given the financial challenges they face nationally and, of course, locally.

Performance Overview

Bernie Muir asked if the point about the delays in record-keeping was the same thing as item 10.1, page 190, last line, and if that would be addressed by the magic notes scenario. Matt Furniss responded that yes, with the more AI technology they can implement and provide, it will make it easier for them to record in a timely way.