Agenda and minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2015.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the Children and Education Policy and Accountability Committee held on 21 September 2015 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings, subject to the following amendment:

Minute 8, Paragraph 13

Add “The committee agreed that it could be helpful if the School Improvement Service positively promoted schools setting up working parties to address workload and work-life balance” to the end of paragraph 13.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Caroline Ffiske and Nadia Taylor.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter.  The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee. 

There were no declarations of interest.

To invite questions from members of the public present.

Members of the public with more complex issues are invited to submit their questions in advance in order to allow a more substantive answer to be given. Questions can be sent to the contact officer shown on the front page of the agenda.

Ian Ross, representing Outside Chance, explained that the organisation ran workshops aimed at preventing young people from engaging in gang related behaviour. These sessions were available to schools in Hammersmith and Fulham at no cost, and there were sessions designed for both primary and secondary school pupils. The workshops covered topics such as making the right friends, young people and the law, the dangers of drugs and catching criminals. Councillor De’Ath said that Mr Ross had run a session at St Thomas More Catholic School which had been very good. Andrew Christie explained that he was happy to publicise the workshops through newsletters, but noted the importance of word of mouth between schools. Councillors also noted that as most schools were now academies the local authority had limited influence over them. Denis Charman suggested that Mr Ross engage with governors directly, for example by running a workshop at a borough-wide governors meeting.

ACTION – Officers to continue to work with Outside Chance to promote their workshops to schools (IAN HEGGS).

In this section there will be a presentation on safeguarding covering key topics such as:

·         What do we mean by safeguarding?

·         Whose responsibility is it?

·         Myths and realities.

·         What to do if you have concerns about someone (referral pathways).

The report is attached as an accompaniment to the presentation and provides an overview of child protection and safeguarding activity in the borough.

A presentation on Child Protection and Safeguarding was given by Anna Carpenter, Iain Keeting, Liz Royale and Rebecca Harvey.

Key points from the presentation were:

Introduction (Anna Carpenter)

-       Safeguarding was a responsibility shared by everyone, although some agencies had specific responsibilities.

-       Abuse was both inflicting and failing to act to prevent harm. Abuse was divided into four categories, these being physical, emotional and  sexual abuse with the fourth being neglect.

-       There were four thresholds of need in children’s services ranging from universal to acute.

-       Children’s Services were not able to remove children from their parents. Only the police and the courts could do that, and even then only in limited circumstances.

Police (Iain Keeting)

-       Every police officer in London had been trained on safeguarding, regardless of their role.

-       If officers were concerned about a safeguarding issue, they would create a MERLIN alert, which would be passed to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). This would then be considered and referred as appropriate.

-       There were two teams which dealt with criminal safeguarding investigations; these were the child abuse investigation team, which had very strong links to children’s services, and the community safety and domestic violence team which sometimes dealt with investigations in which the children’s safeguarding enquiries were part of a wider investigation. Referrals might also be made to the police anti-terrorism or anti-gang units.

-       Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) was tackled through regular multi agency CSE meetings at both borough-wide level and across the three boroughs. Police worked not only to prosecute for CSE, but also, where more serious charges could not reasonably be brought, to prosecute for lower level offences in order to remove perpetrators from victims lives.

Health (Liz Royale)

-       Health professionals were in a good position to identify safeguarding issues as they had close contact with children, often with multiple visits from families.

-       Health services were now provided by a wide range of different organisations, and so contacts might not be clear.

-       Commissioning organisations had Designated Doctors and Nurses who dealt with safeguarding strategically. Delivering organisations had Named Doctors and Nurses who were responsible for delivery. Central London Community Healthcare also had a Head of Safeguarding and a Safeguarding Lead on the Executive Board.

-       Health organisations had safeguarding responsibilities under both Section 11 of the Children’s Act 2004 and the Working Together to Safeguard Children Statutory Guidance published in 2015. There were also new duties from other acts relating to the reporting of Female Genital Mutilation and Counter-Terrorism.

Children’s Services Social Work in Action (Rebecca Harvey)

-       There were currently three different routes into social work: a traditional degree, the Step-Up to Social Work programme, or the Frontline programme.

-       Social workers workloads were protected in Hammersmith and Fulham, with a cap of about ten cases, which helped to improve outcomes. The borough was considered to be a good place to be a social worker; there were also good opportunities for progression.

-       A case study of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Annual Report provides a detailed overview of the work of the Local Safeguarding Children Board in 2014/15 and the priorities it needs to pursue in 2015/16 and beyond.

Jean Daintith, Independent Chair of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB), explained that the board was required to produce an annual report. The report was being brought to the Children and Education Policy and Accountability Committee to give members the opportunity to scrutinise the board’s work.

Councillor Chumnery asked whether the LSCB considered the effectiveness of the council’s scrutiny arrangements when writing the report. Jean Daintith explained that she met with the chief executive, the head of children’s services and with cabinet members to discuss the performance of the organisation, and relied on these meetings to identify problems, rather than directly scrutinising the scrutiny arrangements of the council.

Councillor Johnson noted the list of the LSCB’s achievements, and asked what else the LSCB hoped to achieve. He also asked how good the council was at learning from its mistakes. Jean Daintith explained that the LSCB needed to improve its communication, which was an ongoing project. She was pleased however that the council  learned from mistakes, including those made in Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster. The shared LSCB was of particular benefit in this regard as there was a greater amount of casework available to learn from compared to smaller authorities. Areas which needed to improve in Hammersmith and Fulham included relationships with absent partners, timeliness of actions, police and mental health service attendance at incidents and the way Chelsea and Westminster hospitals dealt with Female Genital Mutilation.

Councillor Chumnery asked whether learning from the LSCB was passed to frontline officers. Jean Daintith explained that a quarterly newsletter was produced and circulated. The effectiveness of the cascading arrangements were currently being tested. The LSCB had also launched a website which they were hoping to build further to contain more useful information for officers.

Councillor Chumnery also asked how the voluntary sector were involved in the work of the LSCB. Jean Daintith explained that the LSCB included a representative of the voluntary sector, and that there were more voluntary sector members on the borough based local partnership groups. Anna Carpenter explained that the last local partnership group had included a lengthy item on the voluntary sector; there was a strong link between the LSCB and voluntary organisations.

Dennis Charman said that it was important that safeguarding messages were communicated in different ways to ensure that they engaged professionals who had been trained before. He also asked whether those professionals who were investigated because of safeguarding concerns were given sufficient support, considering the long period of time investigations sometimes lasted. Andrew Christie noted that safeguarding investigations were complex and difficult for those who had been accused of wrongdoing, and said that the LADO ought to make it as easy as possible whilst still ensuring that a thorough investigation took place. He was happy to discuss any specific concerns Mr Charman had.

Councillor Needham asked whether there was scope for further work on E-Safety. Jean Daintith explained that the issue had been looked at by an LSCB Short Life Working Group, and new protocols  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report provides a brief overview of recent developments of relevance in the Children’s Services department for the Committee to consider.

Andrew Christie explained that the Metropolitan Police had been very proactive in supporting Operation Makesafe and commended the work of the officers involved.

Councillor Chumnery noted that the Angelou Partnership had recently been launched to tackle Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) and asked that this be included in the next Executive Director’s update. ACTION – VAWG to be included in the next Executive Director’s next update report to the committee (ANDREW CHRISTIE).

Councillor Needham noted that youth takeover day had taken place recently and that it had been very successful. More children had participated than ever before, and some of the work they had done had been of a very high standard. The success of the event was to be publicised to secondary school headteachers. ACTION – Brenda Whinnett to be invited to attend a future meeting of the committee to update members on Youth Takeover Day (DAVID ABBOTT/BRENDA WHINNETT).

This section provides time for the Cabinet Member(s) to update members on activity relevant to the Committee.

Councillor Macmillan explained that an 8am-6pm childcare offer was currently being discussed with headteachers. Since the last meeting she had visited a number of primary and secondary schools and the council’s family assist team.

Councillor Chumnery asked that the impact of the 8am-6pm childcare proposal on child-minders be remembered. She also asked what work the family assist team did. Steve Miley explained that the family assist team carried out short term intensive work with families. It was intended to build this team up as it was effective at keeping families together and improving outcomes, as well as reducing the cost to the council. Referrals came from police, other professionals or where someone was assessed as needing their support when first seen by the council. Details of the work of each team would be included in the journey map for social work which officers had agreed to circulate to members.

Dennis Charman said that he felt that the local authority would need to take a leading role in opposing the changes to the school funding formula proposed by the government which would take a significant amount of funding away from Hammersmith and Fulham. Councillor Macmillan said that headteachers had already raised the issue with her, despite the formal announcement not being due until later in the week. It was noted that any reductions in funding would be dampened so as they took effect gradually.

Nandini Ganesh asked whether proposed new eligibility for school transport for pupils  above the age of 19 had been drafted yet. Councillor Macmillan explained that these would be discussed with parents representatives at an upcoming meeting.

The Committee is asked to give consideration to its work programme for the current municipal year.

The following changes to the work programme were agreed:

18^th January 2016

Add:

-       Youth Takeover Day to the Youth Council Update

Remove:

-       Childcare Task Group Update

29^th February 2016

Add:

-       Childcare Task Group Update

-       Local Authority Designated Officer

-       CAMHS Working Group Update

Future Items

Add:

-       The role of School Governors and Governors Training.

Councillor Chumnery asked whether statistics on Anti-Social Behaviour perpetrated by children and young people could be included on a future agenda. Andrew Christie explained that Anti-Social Behaviour would be considered by the Community Safety, Environment and Residents Services Policy and Accountability Committee. ACTION – Councillor Chumnery to be provided with relevant reports (AINSLEY GILBERT).

Councillor Needham noted that the committee had a long standing vacancy for a Parent Governor. Andrew Christie agreed to speak to Governors Support about the issue, and specifically whether a governor from an academy could fill the vacancy. ACTION – Attempts to be made to fill the vacancy for a parent governor (ANDREW CHRISTIE).

The next meeting is scheduled for 18 January 2016.

The Committee noted that the next meeting would be held on 18^th January 2016.