The Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee met on Thursday 16 October 2025 to discuss a range of critical issues affecting young people and families in Surrey. Key decisions and discussions included a comprehensive review of early help services, the adoption of recommendations for improving transition pathways for young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and an update on the performance of children's homes.

Early Help Spotlight Review

The committee reviewed the findings of a spotlight review into early help services, initiated by Councillor Jonathan Essex. The review highlighted the importance of preventative approaches and strengthening universal early help. Councillor Jeremy Webster, who acted as spokesman for the review group, presented the findings, noting that the absence of early help leads to poorer outcomes for children. The review emphasized the need for local needs identification, integrated services, co-location, and a focus on commissioning, with services including school readiness, speech and language therapy, school attendance, health, parenting, and perinatal support.

Key recommendations from the review included lobbying at a national level for an early help framework based on need and supported by long-term grants, and providing explicit guidance on how local centres identify need and upskill to work in a changing environment. Councillor Liz Townsend stressed the importance of universal provision, drawing parallels with the former Sure Start centres and noting that the current offering has become more patchy and fragmented since their disappearance. Councillor Jonathan Essex echoed these sentiments, highlighting the contrast between effective targeted work and the diminished universal provision, and suggesting that council-owned assets could be utilised to increase the number of family hubs. Councillor Bob Hughes noted that conclusions drawn over a decade ago regarding the importance of working with the voluntary sector remain the same, advocating for increased investment in organisations like Home-Start. Councillor John O'Reilly questioned whether there would be a partial rollback of the council's previous philosophy and strategy towards targeted support, emphasizing the critical nature of funding for universal provision. Councillor Ashley Tilling highlighted the need for early intervention to prevent future, more costly interventions, including those within the judicial service.

The committee discussed amendments to the recommendations, including prioritizing the use of existing council-owned assets for family hubs and committing multi-year funding and support to voluntary sector partners. There was also a discussion about formally writing to the Secretary of State for Education, the Minister for Children and Families, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to advocate for increased funding for early help services.

Corporate Parenting Annual Report

The committee received the Corporate Parenting Annual Report for 2023-2024, noting that the data presented relates to a period 18 months to two years prior to the meeting. Councillor Catherine Powell, Chair of the committee, highlighted the dissolution of the Surrey County Fostering Association in March 2025 due to an inability to recruit new members.

Councillor Powell asked Councillor Jonathan Hulley, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, for an update on how foster carers will raise concerns and improve retention and recruitment in the absence of the association. Councillor Hulley expressed his support for establishing a new association and noted that interviews are being conducted as part of a wider review of the fostering service to gather feedback from foster carers. Tina Benjamin and Rachel Wardell provided further detail on the engagement process with foster groups.

Councillor Liz Townsend inquired about the national housing project for young people, and Councillor Hulley reported that the first cohort had finished formal engagement, with six out of seven participants now in permanent housing. He also noted that the second cohort has already doubled in size.

Councillor Jeremy Webster raised concerns about budget efficiencies and the challenge of building up competence in foster carers to save money. Councillor Karen Muir asked what more the committee and council could do to ensure the Foster Carers Charter is fully embedded. Councillor Hulley reminded members that they are all corporate parents with a responsibility to promote the fostering service and support foster carers. He mentioned a recent event promoting foster carers and the film The Run, encouraging members to promote the charter and the film.

A discussion ensued regarding the proportion of children's homes placements in Surrey, with clarification sought on whether the reported decrease from 20% to 15% referred to placements within Surrey or the proportion of looked-after children in children's homes. Tina Benjamin explained that the figures relate to the proportion of children's homes placements and that the increase in children in supported accommodation is partly due to a higher proportion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children aged 16 and over.

Councillor Jonathan Essex raised concerns about the increasing use of semi-independent accommodation for looked-after children aged 16 and over, questioning whether this is the right approach and if it is cost-effective. Rachel Wardell explained that decisions are made on an individual basis, considering the young person's needs and readiness, and that registered supported accommodation would not accept referrals if the young person was not deemed ready. She acknowledged that there are instances where children end up in supported accommodation due to a lack of alternative provision, but these cases are monitored and moved as soon as possible.

The committee also discussed the role of the virtual school and other forums in gathering feedback from care-experienced young people.

Children's Homes Ofsted Reports

The committee noted two Ofsted reports on children's homes operated by Surrey County Council. One home dropped from outstanding to good, while another saw its rating raised from good to outstanding. The committee congratulated staff on their hard work and commitment.

Councillor Ashley Tilling expressed concern about the rating drop, particularly if it related to safeguarding issues. Tina Benjamin explained that the home that dropped from outstanding to good was due to a child's safety concerns related to the wider community, not the home's care standards. She noted that Ofsted can penalize homes when a child's outcome is not good, even if the care provided is appropriate. The reverse happened for the other home, which regained its outstanding rating. Rachel Wardell added that the council has a strategic objective to keep children they are most worried about within Surrey and in their own homes to provide better support.

Councillor Jonathan Essex inquired about tracking the stability of children in children's homes and comparing this with children placed privately, to see if it supports the benefits of in-house provision. Tina Benjamin suggested this could be explored with the data team, noting anecdotally that children in independent homes move more often in an unplanned way.

Preparing for Adulthood

The committee received an update on improving transition pathways for young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) as they move into adulthood. Councillor Chris Townsend asked about the reasons for not starting detailed transition work earlier, questioning if it was a resource issue or if young people are not ready at 14. Rachel Wardell explained that 14 is identified as the start of year nine, when conversations about future education and work pathways begin to firm up. However, detailed work for those needing adult social care support typically begins later to avoid invoking adult services before a child is ready.

Councillor Liz Townsend raised concerns about the reconciliation of national guidance recommending transition planning from age 14 with the finding that only 7.9% of referrals to transition teams were for individuals aged 14 or under. Claire Edgar, Executive Director for Adults' Well-being and Health Partnerships, clarified that while national guidance recommends starting at 14, formal referrals for adult social care eligibility typically occur later. She explained that intelligence gathered from earlier referrals helps in forecasting and commissioning services.

The committee discussed the sufficiency of post-16 provision, with Councillor Jeremy Webster questioning if the needs of learners with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) would be met and when all demands are forecast to be met. Councillor Ashley Tilling asked about plans to address gaps in provision, geographic disparities, and reliance on non-maintained places. Councillor John O'Reilly questioned the capacity of mainstream schools to deliver specialist provision.

Councillor Jonathan Essex raised concerns about the proposed increase in post-16 SEND places being insufficient given the doubling of the cohort size. He questioned the plan for new places beyond 2026 and the completion of current capital programs. Rachel Wardell stated that the sufficiency strategy is under review and that revised information would be provided.

The committee discussed the decision not to proceed with a dedicated 16-25 service, with Councillor Bernie Muir expressing concern about the lack of a clear timeline and the potential for kicking the can down the road. Councillor John O'Reilly suggested acknowledging the decision but expressing disappointment at the lack of a timeline. Councillor Liz Townsend agreed, emphasizing the need for a timeline. Councillor Jonathan Essex supported the amendment to express disappointment at the lack of a timeline.

A discussion also took place regarding the integration of the Liquid Logic children's system and the adult LAS system. Councillor Bob Hughes noted that this concern had been raised for years and questioned the business case for integration. Rachel Wardell explained that the financial element of integration did not stack up and that information sharing is already occurring. Claire Edgar added that while an integrated system would be ideal, it is challenging and costly, and that the focus is on developing a transition plan and document to mitigate risks during the period of local government reorganisation.

Performance Quarterly Assurance

The committee received an update on performance monitoring. Councillor Chris Townsend asked about key performance indicators (KPIs) for the voluntary sector, libraries, arts, and heritage. Liz Mills, Director for Customer, Culture and Transformation, outlined KPIs for libraries, including visit numbers, events, and new borrowers, and for heritage, including visits to the Surrey History Centre and archives accessed. Denise Turner Stewart, Director for Communities, outlined KPIs for the voluntary sector, including fuel poverty, warm welcome schemes, and support for charities.

Councillor Jeremy Webster asked about the ideal caseload for social workers and efforts to recruit and retain permanent staff. Matt, a representative from the service, stated that an acceptable range for child protection cases is 15-20 children, depending on complexity. He reported positive trends in permanent recruitment and reduced vacancy gaps, attributing this to the council's academy offer and a focus on staff relationships.

Councillor Rebecca Jennings-Evans asked about mechanisms to ensure performance data leads to tangible service improvements. Patricia, a representative from the service, explained that data is reviewed in dedicated performance meetings, fed down to team meetings, and translated into practice through supervision, audits, and practice learning reviews.

Councillor Liz Townsend inquired about a KPI to track children not in school, particularly given concerns about rising numbers. Rachel Wardell acknowledged the point and stated that the transitions work applies to all children, including those not in education.

Councillor Jonathan Essex's question regarding the safety valve agreement and earmarked reserve for unforeseen growth in assessment requests was addressed by Rachel Wardell, who explained that the council has been transparent with the Department for Education about not meeting cost containment targets but continues to receive funding. She noted that many local authorities are experiencing similar deficits.

Councillor Ashley Tilling asked why the disadvantage gap is higher in Surrey than the national average and what is being done to improve attainment scores for pupils with EHCPs and SEND support. Dr. Catherine, a representative from the service, acknowledged the disparity and highlighted the Opportunity Index report, which details attainment by different groups across the country. She noted that while the council is working to improve attainment, the needle has not yet moved significantly.

The committee was informed that the next meeting would include a budget session on Thursday, 4 December, starting at 2 p.m.