Agenda item

The draft annual report for 2015/16 includes key details about the demographics of local children, safeguarding responsibilities and activities of agencies which are represented on the LSCB, an overview of the LSCB priorities, activities and details of its budget; a review of the outcomes of Serious Case Reviews and learning that has resulted from these.

Councillor Vivienne Lukey welcomed Jean Daintith, Independent Chair of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB), accompanied by Emma Biskupski, LSCB Business Manager.  Detailing the background to the draft annual report, it was explained that there was a requirement for it to be submitted to several agency and organisational lead officers including the Chief Executive and the Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB).  This was the 4th Annual Report of the LSCB, covering LBHF, RBKC and WCC.  It was explained that the LSCB oversees a partnership arrangement, comprising of sub-groups and individual boards for each borough.

This year they had undertaken a range of activities including two task and finish short life working groups, one focusing on neglect, and a second on parental mental health, with lead officers from Children’s Services and mental health colleagues working collaboratively to support the process.  It had been a busy year, with 5 serious case work reviews being undertaken, together with a n inspection of children’s services in the three boroughs and the LSCB received a “good” rating and given five recommendations.  A different approach had been taken to producing the Annual Report for 2015/16 and partner organisations had each been invited to draft their own sections and account for themselves.  The report also set out what has been achieved in the past year and future direction of travel in the context of the significant changes planned by government and the introduction of the children and social work bill, currently going through Parliament. These changes were not anticipated to be implemented prior to 2018 but police, local authorities and health agencies to would positioned to lead on child safeguarding.

Ms Daintith explained that this was her fifth year of chairing the LSCB and that she had taken a decision to step down.  Interim arrangements had been made to begin the process of appointing a new independent chair. 

Janet Cree commented that she would have had sight of the Annual Report through the CCG Quality Committee, as well as through the HWB, welcomed the report.  However, she also recommended that the section on Ofsted recommendations be set out more clearly in a separate box, making them more accessible.  Ms Daintith explained that prior to the inspection, she had been concerned about demonstrating a clear link both through the governance arrangement with the HWB but also a shared agenda.  Going forward, they aimed to reduce the bureaucracy around having multiple meetings with the same individuals, a process which was already happening organically as they now worked across the partnership groups within the three boroughs, focusing on areas of local concern.  Examples of reporting arrangements in other parts of the country had shown great synergy between the LSCB and HWB in term of taking forward key concerns.   Ms Daintith felt that the LSCB was effective and benefitted from strong partnership arrangements, a sharing of good practice and an ability to work well together. 

Councillor Rory Vaughan expressed interest in the case review and commented that it was helpful to add perspective by including more detail about the points of learning and how these are translated into practice.  Referring to page 159 of the report and the LSCB training offer being amended where required to incorporate learning, did not offer a flavour of how that learning was implemented.  Ms Daintith explained that the amount of time spent on serious case reviews was not reflected in the short paragraph.  Whilst it was accepted that the learning points were actively noted and followed up, Cllr Vaughan responded that their inclusion at the back of the report was meant they were hidden and that given the interest to the lay reader, these could be given greater prominence. 

Councillor Lukey referred to the structure of the report and each section being written by individual agencies.  She welcomed the fact that each had made reference to the joint working arrangement that they engaged in.  Councillor Lukey also expressed interest in the section on “MASH” (Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub) which, given its importance, could have been expanded.  Councillor Lukey enquired about the level of joint working and also, what work had been undertaken to avoid duplication.  Responding to the query about the MASH, Ms Daintith acknowledged that this was short and that the MASH that operated in the three boroughs was very good.  The MASH was led by the police, and involved ASC and health colleagues.  However, some weaknesses had emerged resulting from changes to the probation service and the community rehabilitation company (CRC) which worked with the largest number of offenders.  The LSCB had undertaken some development work with the CRC to ensure that the new arrangements were picked up at a local level and that the CRC were on board with what the LSCB were trying to achieve.  Ms Daintith continued, reporting that the that there was a good representation from all the statutory agencies, including the prison service and health colleagues, in particular.  Any non-attendance was picked up at the Board sub-group.  The changes to the Metropolitan Police at a local level will have an impact on the arrangements.  The Police will need to be a lead in the future and from January 2017, will meet with the Director of Children’s Services and Jonathan Webster from the North West London Collaboration of CCGs to embed strong partnership working during the transition period of her departure and the new temporary independent chair and the new arrangements becoming clear.

Steve Miley, Director of Family Services, responded to issue of possible duplication of services, and explained that the LSCB had brought together leaders from across the three boroughs partnership group, which overall, had ensured positive local discussion without duplication.  This was understood to be less about duplication and more about seeking to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, with the aim of creating more effective interventions by giving professionals greater freedom to work flexibly.

Sarah McBride, Director of Partnerships, ASC, referred to page 130, listing the component parts of the system (NHS England, CCGs, NHS trusts and other providers) and the section under which primary care was represented (currently referred to in part under NHS England).  Primary care was a main touch point in the community and many were depended upon it as building block for future development.  Ms McBride suggested that further thought be given as to how the report for next year could represent that sector more clearly.  Jean Daintith explained that the LSCB had designated doctors and nurses from the acute trusts from the CCGs, respectively.  At a local level there were GP’s and there was additionally some attendance from NHS England.  Several serious case reviews had involved looking at GP practice and whether this had been good enough, particularly if there had been co-ordination around patient records and operational understanding of mental health referrals.

Councillor Lukey thanked Ms Daintith for an informative report and commended her for her work as the Independent Chair of the LSCB. 

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.