Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Tony Gill, with Councillor Raju Sansarpuri substituting.

Councillor Jan Sweeting declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 9 as she was a governor at St Martins School.

Councillor Peter Smallwood OBE declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 10 as he was a governor at Whiteheath School.

Both Councillors stayed in the room for the discussion on those items.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed

Officers introduced the report.

Month 7 performance showed little movement from Month 6, which was considered a positive sign. General Fund pressure remained unchanged at just under £6 million. A £1.9 million positive movement had been achieved from Month 6 in the in-year DSG position.

Savings of £273,000 rated Amber related to children’s homes and increasing residential provision. These savings were now more secure following registration of the six new children's homes.

Members referenced the £6 million pressures and asked if this would be addressed through Exceptional Financial Support (EFS), or new government fair funding. This related to pressures around placement costs and Section 17. The current year overspend would require EFS, and next year’s budget would not be balanced without EFS.

Members commended officers for the progress on the DSG position but noted the remaining deficit. Members asked whether further EFS may be required depending on government treatment of DSG deficits. Officers noted that national guidance was expected and awaited. Government had not yet clarified how deficits up to March 2028 will be treated, though many councils faced even larger DSG deficits and this remained a national issue.

Members asked if rising placement costs were driven more by complexity of need or by market conditions. Officers advised both. There were higher overall numbers of children in care with complex needs, and while specialist residential placements had not increased in number, they had risen in cost. In-house provision aimed to improve quality and reduce costs.

Members referenced the £1.9m saving and asked if it could be broken down into savings from returning children to Hillingdon from out-of-borough placements, and reductions in funding to in-borough schools. This was difficult to establish currently as some savings will be from new in-year activity and some would be cumulative savings.

Members asked and officers confirmed that MVF referred to Managed Vacancy Factor.

Members asked whether 2026 savings relied on capital transformation funding. Only a small amount of capital funding had been previously used to support two project lead posts. No additional capital funding was being requested this year.

On the topics of temporary accommodation and children’s homes, Members referenced six new builds. Officers advised that these were two separate issues that must be distinguished:

·         Temporary Accommodation Costs – relate to families with no recourse to public funds; this was about intervention and support, not building new units.

·         Children’s Homes – the six new-build children’s homes were new constructions for residential care. These homes were now registered, developed with DfE input.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the 2025/26 Month 7 budget monitoring position.

Officers introduced the report.

The Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) had been published just before Christmas, reflecting a challenging financial climate for local authorities, including Hillingdon. Primary cost drivers included rising demand for services; market pressure in social care and placements; and inflation that exceeded CPI inflation.

Central Government’s revised funding methodology had acknowledged that Hillingdon has been historically underfunded. Additional funding was forthcoming but would be phased over three years and will not be received until 2026/27.

It was noted that financial reserves had been significantly depleted in recent years to sustain services. Hillingdon cannot balance the budget without EFS. It was noted that EFS was not free money – it required Government approval and had to be repaid.

Savings identified within the report were owned by senior officers and services leads, and had been challenged through a series of ‘challenge sessions’ which included Corporate Directors, Cabinet Members and Finance colleagues. Savings were intended to be realistic, not aspirational. Some Directorates would be required to prepare detailed delivery plans, particularly for higher risk or high value savings.

A six-week public consultation was ongoing until early February before the budget is considered by Cabinet on 19 February and Council on 26 February.

The Committee welcomed the reported £12.13 growth and sought clarification on whether this came predominantly from the new fair funding allocation from Government (spread over three years) or relied on possible EFS. No specific growth item was attributed solely to either Government funding or EFS. The Council did not segregate sources of funding in that manner.

Members highlighted a saving proposed through “ceasing SEND key working” and asked for clarity on what would replace it, and how escalation to tribunals or complaints will be avoided. Officers clarified that the SEND key working service had already been discontinued this year. It was non-statutory. It was a ‘nice to have’ but not financially sustainable. An impact review had showed some impact but not sufficient to justify continuing. It was emphasised that families will not lose support as early help and SEND support was now embedded within the family help model; social care pathways; and a more integrated early-intervention structure. A small part-year saving had already been realised this year while the full year effect will materialise next year.

Members asked how confident officers were that the new proposals were realistic rather than aspirational. Officers noted that this year’s process was more rigorous than previous years. Service managers had been involved in the process. Growth was based on data, known pressures, and existing savings trajectories. Officers expressed high confidence but acknowledged some uncertainty inherent in social care demand. Monitoring will be continuous and monthly.

Members asked what impact growth in the Education, Health & Care Team will have. Officers advised that posts had been funded already through the capital transformation programme. This would enable establishment of an in-house tribunals team which was more cost-effective; more efficient management of increased caseloads; and improved ability to meet statutory EHC deadlines.

Members asked about the nature  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Officers introduced the bi-annual performance report, noting no major changes compared with previously presented annual report.

Members asked for clarification on a quote that read: “Often children commit a subsequent offence before being directed to youth justice services”. Officers advised that reoffending was measured only after a child had been found guilty of an offence. Hillingdon had very low numbers of first-time entrants into the youth justice system, a positive indicator reflecting effective early intervention. Because the cohort was small, percentages can appear disproportionately large. A review through the Youth Justice Partnership Board showed that where a young person had been referred to the Youth Justice Service, the number of subsequent offences significantly decreased. Additional initiatives included placing youth workers in custody suites to reach young people before they were charged. These early engagement outcomes would not appear in performance data for 12–18 months due to national reporting lags.

Members commended strong performance and low expenditure, but queried two yellow indicators of ‘Referrals’ and ‘Re-registrations for CPP’ (child protection plans), asking if performance was close to turning green. Officers noted that rising referral numbers often correlated with increased complexity and risk. The Council was introducing new multi-agency child protection teams to strengthen oversight and early support. Some families needed further support, and the priority was ensuring safety. It was clarified that Hillingdon maintained low numbers of Child Protection Plans overall. Therefore, even a small number of new registrations produced a large percentage shift.

Members noted the low expenditure and asked if there had been negative implications of this. Officers noted that better outcomes often costed less, though there were financial challenges. Decisions must be made about what was essential versus ‘nice to have’. Officers were not seeing a negative impact on the outcomes for children.

Members asked why Hillingdon’s Early Years net expenditure was lower than the London average. This was due to significant Early Years expansion projects in progress as well as Lifelong Learning projects experiencing delays relative to other boroughs. As these programmes accelerated, particularly since Early Years had moved into the Education portfolio, expenditure will likely increase.

RESOLVED: That the Committee:

1. Noted the six-month performance report for 2025/26, as attached in Appendix 1; and

2. Delegated comments to Council to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead

Officers presented the report.

The Family First reforms were described as the most significant changes in a number of years. The programme involved close collaboration with the DfE and strategic partners including health, education, police, and voluntary sector agencies. Oversight was provided by an Executive Transformation Group, comprising senior leaders from multiple agencies, ensuring accountability across all workstreams.

A detailed delivery plan had been completed and submitted to the DfE, who the Council met with quarterly for feedback. Hillingdon also worked with other local authorities and was supported by the London Innovation and Improvement Alliance.

Quarter 1 involved extensive consultation with practitioners and staff. This phase was complete and the programme was now in delivery and transformation.

DfE grant funding had supported the recruitment of two part-time Participation Officers with lived experience to lead co-production with families, as well as the creation of a Data Analyst Apprenticeship, ring-fenced for a care experienced young person to reinforce the commitment and responsibilities as corporate parents.

The Family Help Service had gone live on 27 August, creating 11 locality-based teams aligned to family hubs and children’s centres. Key workers and social workers had been integrated to create locality focused multi-disciplinary teams. Workforce capacity had increased, particularly among alternative qualified key workers, supported by additional service managers providing local leadership and quality assurance.

A New Beginnings team had been launched at the end of November, supporting families during pregnancy and early infancy. This was now supporting 11 families, and demonstrated good working relationships, particularly with midwifery colleagues. Demonstrating early success, one family had already been supported and safely stepped down from further intervention. A care experienced young person volunteered with the team. This model also had potential for preventing children entering care, reducing trauma and generating financial savings. The DfE had expressed significant interest in this work at the December quarterly meeting.

The Stronger Families Hub, co-located at the Civic Centre since 01 December, provided representation from Probation, Housing, Health, Education, Police, Youth services, Domestic Abuse specialists, and SEND services. This arrangement enabled multi-agency triage at first contact, improving signposting and support for children and families.

Eight Lead Child Protection Practitioners had been recruited, mostly internal promotions, to oversee the child protection journey in line with the family first reforms.

One of the key elements within the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill was around Family Group Decision Making and making that mandatory at pre-proceeding stage. However, Hillingdon had long practised this model, commissioning external providers for family group conferencing. Family Group Decision Making aligned well with the Family Help model and will be strengthened and integrated further.

The reforms introduced new data requirements. Officers were working with Digital & Intelligence teams to develop live Power BI dashboards for managers. These will improve real time monitoring of caseloads, outcomes and performance.

Hillingdon worked effectively with schools, particularly in early intervention. School leaders contributed at both strategic and operational levels within the safeguarding partnership and the Executive Transformation Group.

Officers explained that a Kinship Steering Group had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The Chair opened the item, noting that Field End Infant School was within their ward.

The proposal concerned reducing Field End Infant School’s PAN from a three-form entry to a two-form entry, effective from September 2027. This change was intended to support the school’s financial viability in the context of falling pupil numbers.

Members asked if the need to reduce PAN was driven specifically by Hillingdon’s circumstances, or part of a broader London-wide or national trend. Falling pupil numbers were a national issue, with London experiencing a decline. Many London boroughs were already closing schools; Hillingdon was not at that stage. The Council was monitoring roll numbers and working closely with all schools, including through regular dialogue with headteachers.

Officers had been in discussion with Field End over the last year and monitoring their numbers in order to support them to continue being financially viable.

Several other Hillingdon schools were also expected to propose PAN reductions, with early conversations already underway.

Members highlighted that the consultation had received few responses, with only one respondent being a parent of a child at Field End Infant School. Members asked if this was typical, and if officers had gathered parental views beyond formal consultation. Schools shared consultation information before the summer holiday, including letters to both Infant and Junior School parents. Parents could also respond via links circulated by the school. Some informal feedback was likely provided directly to schools, but the Council had only received the formal responses noted in the report.

Members asked, if the Infant School reduced its PAN, what consideration had been given to impacts on the linked Junior School? Officers had been working closely with both schools and advised that the Junior School had initially approached the Council regarding a reduction in its own PAN. Since both schools were closely aligned, discussions and consultations had taken place jointly. Parents from both schools had been consulted and made aware of the potential changes. The system was designed to remain flexible – if pupil numbers increase in future, both schools had capacity to open additional classes on request from the Council.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families & Education Select Committee:

1. Reviewed the proposal to reduce the Published Admission Number for Field End Infant School from 90 to 60;

2. Noted the 4 responses from the consultation on a PAN change to community primary phase;

3. Noted the proposals submitted to the Local Authority following formal consultations from non-community schools: Field End Junior School to reduce its Planned Admissions Number from 90 to 60; St Martin’s Church of England Primary School to reduce its Planned Admissions Number from 60 to 30, and Park Academy West London to reduce its Planned Admissions Number from 180 to 150, all taking effect from September 2027; and

4. Delegated comments to Cabinet to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead

Officers introduced the report, which outlined the proposal to lower the school’s age range to include two-year-olds. This related to the expansion of early years provision and would particularly benefit children from disadvantaged backgrounds and children form working families.

Members asked if there were other schools in the borough offering places for two-years olds, and if so, what was their experience, and could this be of reassurance to parents of Whiteheath pupils. Officers advised that Minet Infant School was an example of another setting who had lowered their age range and that this change had only received positive feedback such as that this had helped to facilitate school drop-offs.

Members noted that there had been a difference in the opinions of parents to that of providers and asked how these were weighted. Officers clarified that all respondents were weighted equally. While parents were more likely to see the wider family perspective, providers would likely look more to the business perspective.

Members asked about navigating more difficult disparities in views. This was about helping everyone to understand the benefits of the proposal. This proposal would benefit lots of families. It was noted that some of the concerns from other providers may be around increased competition to them, where families may choose to send their child to Whiteheath instead of, for example, a private childminder or different nursey setting. This proposal was about providing a varied offer for families to consider, and specific to the Ward.

Members asked why the age range was stated as 3-11 and 2-11 when it was an Infant School. Officers clarified that this reflected Whiteheath as a whole.

RESOLVED: That the Committee:

1. Noted the proposal and consultation taken place; and

2. Delegated comments to Cabinet to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead

The Chair introduced the item on the fostering review, summarising that several witness sessions had taken place with officers, foster carers and young people with lived experience of foster care. The Chair thanked all participants, especially the young people, for their candour, openness and valuable insights.

The Chair reminded Members to consider that two of the sessions had taken place in private.

Members suggested a number of emerging themes, including:

Communication and Information?Sharing

Young people had reported occasions of being left ‘in the dark’ regarding decisions made about them, including decisions around entering care. There was also a desire for more age-appropriate, honest and timely information.

There appeared to be a need for better communication between social workers, officers, foster carers and young people, as well as more inclusivity in decision-related information sharing where safe and appropriate.

Members noted a perception that there was some sugar-coating to encourage people to become foster carers, and that young people were unaware of who they would be placed with.

Matching

Various witnesses raised concerns around matching, including the importance of cultural compatibility. Consideration should also be given to the existing household composition, including and other children or care-experienced young people already living there.

Mentoring/ Buddy System for Foster Carers

Witnesses had noted that there had previously been a buddy scheme but were not aware if this was currently happening. Foster carers would benefit from peer support for advice and guidance, emotional support, and learning from more experienced carers.

Recruiting Specialist Foster Carers

Multiple witnesses noted that foster carers may come with valuable professional skills or subject experience. This may help with the need for recruitment for specialist placements for young people with complex needs and adolescents.

Family Contact

There was a need to ensure that family contact was always in the best interest of the young person. There was a suggestion to review how family contact was planned, supervised and assessed.

Training and foster carers skills

Members highlighted that training was repeatedly requested by foster carers and young people and should include trauma-informed practice; behaviour management; cultural knowledge; LGBTQ+ awareness; and managing complex needs. Training should be expanded and standardised.

Starter packs

Members proposed a starter pack for young people entering a care placement, to include information such as their care plan, their rights, key contacts and advocacy services. This would help ensure continuity when placements change.

Officers noted this related to life story work and ensuring young people understand their care plan in accessible language. Officers also clarified that it was intended that young people will be aware of their plan. Young people also had access to advocacy services which were independent from the Local Authority. Young people also had an Independent Reviewing Officer. It was meaningful to hear this feedback from young people.

Sibling separation

Young people reported occasions of being split up from their siblings. Members suggested that sibling placement and sibling contact be strengthened, and that officers review how sibling groups can be better supported to remain connected.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Officers highlighted two inaccuracies within the minutes.

• The minutes noted statistics for take-up of initial health assessments (IHAs) and review health assessments (RHAs). It was clarified that these statistics reflected the ICB timescales and not the statutory timescales that the Local Authority is required to meet. The LA statistics are noted within the IRO report of the CPP agenda.
• The minutes stated that “79.7% of care experienced young people were in education, employment or training, up from 76% in the previous year”. It was clarified that this figure is for 17–18-year-old cared for and care-experienced individuals, and not just care-experienced individuals.

These would be rectified before the minutes are presented for approval to the next Corporate Parenting Panel.

RESOLVED: That the Select Committee noted the minutes

Members considered the Forward Plan.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the Forward Plan

Members considered the Work Programme.

RESOLVED: That the Committee considered the report