To allow Members an opportunity to [a] declare any personal, prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interests they might have in any items which appear on this agenda; and [b] record any items from which they are precluded from voting as a result of Council Tax/Council rent arrears; [c] the existence and nature of party whipping arrangements in respect of any item to be considered at this meeting. Members with a personal interest should declare that at the start of the item under consideration.  If Members also have a prejudicial or disclosable pecuniary interest they must withdraw from the meeting during the consideration of the item.

Councillor Mandongwe declared a personal interest as a trustee of the Dimobi Children’s Disability Trust and stated that she would declare any conflicts of interests during the meeting and recuse herself from any related decisions.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2024.

Decision

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 October 2024 be approved as a correct record.

Report of the Strategic Director (Children and Education Services)

This report provides a progress update on Manchester’s high needs block recovery plan.

The Committee considered the report of the Acting Strategic Director (Children and Education Services) which provided a progress update on Manchester’s high needs block recovery plan.

Key points and themes in the report included:

• Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) support;
• High Needs Block (HNB) forecast;
• Update on HNB recovery actions; and
• Schools Block transfer consultation for 2025/26 budget setting.

Some of the key points and themes that arose from the Committee’s discussions were:

• Concern at the level of overspend in the HNB;
• Request for clarification on the impact of the announcements in the Government’s Autumn Statement in relation to schools and SEND;
• Challenges in meeting the needs of children with SEND and strategies to ensure resources were allocated efficiently to meet the needs of children and young people;
• Specialist SEND units in mainstream schools;
• Delays in obtaining an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP);
• Challenges for schools, including supporting children who were waiting for a diagnosis, and the importance of the Council working in partnership with schools; and
• The importance of remembering the child’s voice.

The Assistant Finance Director (Children’s, Education Services and Schools) informed Members that the additional funding for the HNB was £1 billion nationally and it was estimated that Manchester would receive approximately £10 million, although this was not confirmed yet.  She reported that the Council had previously assumed that it would receive about £6 million so this additional £4 million would help but would not be sufficient to address the gap, which was around £30 million so there was still a need to transfer funds from the Schools Block into the HNB.  She reported that the additional money would mainly go to settings and that this would be in the 2025/26 budget.

In response to a Member’s question, the Director of Education clarified that, where children were on a waiting list for health services for a significant period of time, EHCPs were being requested so that the child could still access interventions and that requests for EHCPs were being used as a means to get assessments.  She reported that the main challenges creating pressures on demand in relation to children with SEND was in Early Years, where the main need related to speech, language and communication, at transition from primary to secondary where there was an increase in pupils with Social Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) difficulties and in education for 19 to 25-year-olds with SEND.  She advised that resources were being targeted into these areas, highlighting the Kickstarter Project which the Committee had considered at the previous meeting, the SAFE Project in secondary schools, working with children with SEMH needs, mentoring for pupils in Year 6 who it had been identified might struggle with the transition from primary to secondary, a project to help schools to become neurodiverse friendly and post-19 transition work, for example, increasing supported internships.  She advised that obtaining grant funding had been important to enable the Council to invest in these areas and try to reduce spending on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Report of the Head of Service (Adoption Counts)

This report outlines the performance of Adoption Counts in relation to numbers and timescales for children with a plan of adoption, Manchester's priorities relating to adoption, adopter recruitment and adoption support.

The Committee considered the report and presentation of the Head of Service (Adoption Counts) which outlined the performance of Adoption Counts in relation to numbers and timescales for children with a plan of adoption, Manchester's priorities relating to adoption, adopter recruitment and adoption support.

Key points and themes in the report and presentation included:

• Outcomes for children;
• Quality of reports;
• Marketing and recruitment of adopters;
• Practice developments in Adoption Counts;
• Adoption Panel; and
• Adoption support.

Some of the key points and themes that arose from the Committee’s discussions were:

• Concern about delays in the system;
• What would the average time from entering care to adoptive placement have been if the one child with a particularly high period of 1,820 days was removed from the figures; 
• Reducing the need for children to be adopted;
• Kinship Carers;
• Adoption support;
• Retention of staff and support for staff;
• Request for figures to be broken down by ethnicity; and
• Recruitment of adopters, particularly from black and ethnic minority communities.

Gail Spray from Adoption Counts confirmed that the service’s figures for the average time from entering care to adoptive placement would be within the national average if the one child for whom this was 1,820 days was excluded from the data.  In response to a Member’s question, she advised that this specific child was in a settled placement, following an adoption breakdown, and was receiving a significant amount of support and work was taking place to identify where the child’s needs would best be met.  She reported that Adoption Counts had a strong and experienced management team and that staff retention was good due to the organisation’s structure and focus on emotional well-being, advising that annual well-being surveys were carried and any relevant changes identified in these were implemented.  She reported that a breakdown of data by ethnicity was available, advising that Manchester had eight global majority children with a plan for adoption out of around 22 children who were waiting, that the number of global majority children was higher than the other local authorities within the regional adoption agency and so Manchester had more children who were likely to wait longer.  In response to a Member’s question, she reported that exit interviews were carried out with people who decided not to proceed further after making an enquiry, advising that sometimes people enquired about adoption when they were not yet ready to proceed but that having contact with Adoption Counts at that stage would mean that they would have the agency in mind when they were ready to make that step.  She reported that social media was now the top method for recruiting potential adopters, with word of mouth also being popular.  She advised that the agency needed to target global majority families and informed Members about work to address this, including identifying barriers to approaching the agency and making a podcast with a black adopter talking about their experience to dispel myths.  She advised that in-person events were less successful in generating interest that anticipated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Report of the Governance and Scrutiny Support Unit

The monthly report includes the recommendations monitor, relevant key decisions, the Committee’s work programme and any items for information.

A report of the Governance and Scrutiny Support Unit was submitted. The overview report contained key decisions within the Committee’s remit, responses to previous recommendations and the Committee’s work programme, which the Committee was asked to approve.

Decision

To note the report and agree the work programme.