Agenda and draft minutes

30.1     The Committee RESOLVED to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2024 as a correct record.

31.1     Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Clark, Field and Lambert and Maria Cowler (Diocese of Arundel and Brighton Representative). Councillor Murphy attended as a substitute for Councillor Field and Councillor Wright attended as a substitute for Councillor Lambert.

Disclosures by all members present of personal interests in matters on the agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the member regards the interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct.

32.1  Councillor Redstone declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest under item 7, School Exclusions Scrutiny Review and item 9, Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education (SACRE) Annual Report as Chair of Governors for the Genesis Federation.

Notification of items which the Chair considers to be urgent and proposes to take at the appropriate part of the agenda. Any members who wish to raise urgent items are asked, wherever possible, to notify the Chair before the start of the meeting. In so doing, they must state the special circumstances which they consider justify the matter being considered urgent.

33.1     There were no urgent items.

34.1     The Chair introduced the report and outlined that the purpose of the report was to allow the Committee to consider the call-in in relation to the decision by Cabinet regarding the proposal to close the Linden Court Day Service for people with a learning disability and merge it with Beeching Park day service.

34.2     The Committee considered the call-in and the information contained in the report. A summary of the questions raised, and comments made is given below.

• Impact of decision on a future unitary authority Some Members raised concerns about the potential financial impacts of the proposal on a future unitary authority, including a potential increase in residential care costs for individuals who would not be able to access alternative provision. Some Members also expressed concern that this proposal could impact on vulnerable people’s emotional wellbeing which would increase demand for local health services, including specialist provision such as the NHS Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust Learning Disabilities service and, subsequently, increase costs for a future unitary authority. Some Councillors expressed the view that there needed to be more financial assessment of any impacts on a future unitary authority, including increased demand for residential care.

In response, the Director of Adult Social Care and Health (ASCH) recognised the concerns and the impact of all the ASCH savings proposals on clients, carers and families but noted that these were put forward in light of the need for the Council to deliver its statutory duties to meet Care Act eligible needs and to deliver a balanced budget. In relation to the agreement in principle between ESCC and the district and borough councils, there was no formal agreement yet in place and final proposals for a unitary authority would not be submitted until September 2025. He also noted that potential impacts of decisions on a future unitary authority had been considered by the Scrutiny Committee and at Cabinet and confirmed that there were no anticipated impacts of this proposal on any future unitary council. In response to concerns about increased demand for residential care, the Director clarified that there was no anticipated increase to residential care needs as a result of this proposal due to the reprovision of care for those with eligible needs.

• Impact of decision on districts and boroughs - Some Members raised concerns about the potential financial impacts of the proposal on district and borough councils, including a potential increase on demand for Revenue and Benefits services if people needed to pay more for care. Some Members expressed the view that there needed to be more financial assessment of any impacts on district and borough councils. In response, the Director confirmed that there were no anticipated impacts from this proposal on district and brough councils and no anticipated increased costs for clients’ care.
• Use of consultations - Some Members raised concerns about the responses to the public consultation in relation to the proposal, noting that the majority of respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposal to close  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

35.1     The Chair introduced the report and outlined that the purpose of the report was to allow the Committee to consider the call-in in relation to the decision by Cabinet regarding the proposal to reduce the funding for the Housing-Related Floating Support Service.

35.2     The Committee considered the call-in and the information contained in the report. A summary of the questions raised, and comments made is given below.

·       Use of consultations – Councillor Cross commented that 92% respondents to the public consultation either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposal and expressed concern about public engagement in future consultations if residents felt their views had not been heard, which could impact on a future unitary council. In response the Director of ASCH commented that consultation responses had been considered and that the value of the service and potential impacts, including an increase in demand, had been acknowledged and debated by the Scrutiny Committee and by Cabinet.

·       Impact of decisions on district and borough councils– Some Members commented that district and borough housing teams had estimated an additional annual cost to housing authorities of £9m if the service had not been available and sought clarification about conversations with district and borough councils about alternative funding arrangements. Some Members commented that, although they understood that the Housing-Related Floating Support Service was not a statutory responsibility, reducing the funding would have significant financial implications for district and borough councils and, in light of local government reorganisation, that these implications, as well as plans for the transition period, needed further consideration.

In response, the Director noted that, although the £9m cost to district and borough councils was unverified, the impacts had been transparent in the original Cabinet papers and had been considered in detail by the Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet. The Director clarified that ESCC made up approximately 50% of the referrals to the service (although noted that most referrals were housing related), and the remainder came from district and borough councils (approximately 25%), other organisations (approximately 20%) and self-referrals (approximately 5%) and noted that it was currently fully funded by ESCC. The Director clarified that, as well as the consultation, formal and informal conversations had been taking place with district and borough councils since prior to the publication of the proposals and that these were continuing. ESCC had requested funding from district and borough councils to support the service, but as of yet this had not been forthcoming. If the implementation of the decision was delayed for six months, as requested by the districts and boroughs, ESCC would need to identify £1.9m of savings elsewhere. The Director reiterated that, although the implications of reducing the service had been considered by Cabinet, housing and homelessness prevention was not a statutory duty for ESCC.

The Chair noted the discussion at the pre-decision scrutiny board where it was recognised that this proposal would have an impact on the district and borough councils but the Committee, in light of the financial situation, had understood it was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.1     The Committee considered the report which provided an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the School Exclusions Scrutiny Review.

36.2     The Committee RESOLVED to note that all the recommendations from the Scrutiny Review had been embedded within the work of the Department which had resulted in a reduction in permanent exclusions. The Committee agreed that any questions on the report would be followed up outside of the meeting.

37.1     The Director of Children’s Services Department (CSD) introduced the report which detailed key national policy developments in Children's Services, including the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill which set out 39 new policies across social care and education, which would impact on the services provided by ESCC. The Director welcomed the direction of travel, noting that many of the reforms aligned with current CSD priorities, including a focus on prevention, although did note some concern with the speed in which these were being implemented. The report outlined the Department’s response to these reforms and the Director welcomed scrutiny’s input into this.

37.2     The Committee asked questions and made comments on the following areas:

• Use of agency workers – The Committee enquired about the Council’s use of agency workers and if this would be impacted by the reforms to reduce council spend on this. The Director welcomed the change as it promoted a more permanent and stable workforce and clarified that this would have less of an impact on ESCC as they did not use many agency social workers.
• Funding- The Committee sought clarification on the likely costs for ESCC, as well as government funding, to deliver the reforms. The Director noted that local authorities had been allocated some funding through the Government’s Prevention Grant to deliver these reforms and commented that the ambitions of the reforms mirrored local priorities on prevention and early intervention to improve outcomes for families as well as significantly reduce the cost of care.
• Departmental priorities – The Committee welcomed some of the reforms, including increased school places, changes to Multi Academy Trusts and inclusive education in schools, but recognised the Council’s financial limitations and asked how the Department would prioritise its resources. The Director clarified that the Department would provide services in line with the legislation and reiterated that work currently underway to support families earlier and focus on prevention mirrored the ambitions of these reforms and the Prevention Grant would be used to further resource the delivery of these ambitions. The Director also noted that it would be working with partners to ensure there was wider support for this work.
• Educational outcomes – A question was asked about the educational outcomes in schools in East Sussex compared to national outcomes. The Directorcommented that there was more to do in East Sussex to improve attainment and that there was focussed work in targeted areas to improve outcomes.

37.3     The Committee RESOLVED to note the breadth and depth of policy reforms affecting the delivery of services to children, young people and families in East Sussex and agreed to receive updates on progress of these reforms by the Department quarterly through a Reference Group.

38.1     The Chair of SACRE introduced the annual report which outlined the work of SACRE for 2023-24 and thanked the team involved with SACRE, including teachers and volunteers.

38.2     The Committee welcomed the report and noted the positive addition of a Humanist Representative to SACRE and that there had been no complaints regarding Collective Worship which was a testament to the hard work of SACRE. The Committee also welcomed the number of school visits arranged by SACRE.

38.3     The Committee RESOLVED to note the work of SACRE in the implementation of the Local Agreed Syllabus, raising the profile and importance of religious education and supporting the high-quality teaching of Religious Education in East Sussex and academies.

39.1     The Chair introduced the report which reviewed the Committee’s input into the RPPR cycle for the 2024-25 financial year and provided an opportunity for the Committee to review the priorities on its work programme.

39.2     The Directors of ASCH and CSD welcomed scrutiny’s input into the RPPR process.

39.3     Councillor Wright commented that the Committee could explore how to make the process more agile.

39.4     The Committee RESOLVED to note the report and identify topics for the Committee’s work programme in the work programme item.

40.1     The Chair introduced the report which outlined the Committee’s latest work programme.

40.2     The Committee discussed its current reference groups and RESOLVED to combine the School Attendance Reference Group and the Prevention in Children’s Services Reference Group into one reference group focussed on Children’s Services reforms. The Director of ASCH commented that the CQC Reference Group could provide input into the Department’s action plan in response to the awaited CQC report.

40.3     The Committee discussed a potential focus on the recruitment of foster carers and agreed that this would be included in the Children’s Services reforms Reference Group.

40.4     Councillor Wright enquired if the Committee could look at the Council’s consultation process. The Lead Member for Education and ISEND commented that this would be within the remit of the Governance Committee.

40.5     The Committee discussed transport for all age care and RESOLVED to establish a scoping board for a potential scrutiny review of this topic. The scoping board would include officers from ASCH, CSD and Communities, Economy and Transport.

40.6     The Director of ASCH informed the Committee of work underway to develop a Climate Change Health Impact Assessment and asked if the Committee would like to receive a briefing on this. The Committee RESOLVED to receive a briefing on this as well as a report to Committee in July.

40.7     The Committee RESOLVED to agree the updated work programme incorporating the changes above.

41.1     The Director of ASCH introduced the report which provided an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the Equality and Inclusion in ASCH Scrutiny Review. The action plan included significant process including a new Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Group and the use of data to understand how seldom heard groups accessed services.

41.2     The Director noted that work on the Community Engagement Framework had paused due to the resources needed for the recent CQC assessment and the RPPR savings proposals, however this would continue in the near future.

41.3     The Committee welcomed the positive outcomes outlined in the report and action plan and asked questions in following areas:

• East Sussex Gypsy Roma Traveller Health Inequalities Partnership Group – There Committee enquired about the membership of the East Sussex Gypsy Roma Traveller Health Inequalities Partnership Group. The Head of Inclusion and Support Services commented that the Department had taken time to establish this Group to ensure a Terms of Reference was drafted in collaboration with key partners including members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community and confirmed that the Group included representatives from this community.
• ASCH complaints – The Committee enquired about the work to collect data around complaints and if people were happy to share this data. The Head of Inclusion and Support Services noted that analysis was being undertaken to understand groups that are not making complaints, as well as those who are, and noted that they had not received a lot of feedback to date. The Department was working to complete data impact assessments to collate data from the liquid logic system when complaints are made. The Director added that data was being used to understand how the Department was engaging and supporting seldom heard groups and confirmed that its annual complaints report could be circulated to the Committee.

41.4     The Committee thanked officers for the report and requested another update in 6 months time.

41.5     The Committee RESOLVED to note the report.