Agenda item

This item presents the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Safeguarding Children Partnership (LSCP) Annual Report April 2021 – December 2022 for review and comment.

Mike Howard (Independent Chair of the Local Safeguarding Children Partnership) presented the first annual report which covered an extended period from its formation on 1 April 2021 to 31 October 2022. He noted that the new sovereign Local Safeguarding Children Partnership (LSCP) was formed on 1 April 2021 by Hammersmith & Fulham Council. The sovereign partnership meant better collaborative working and focus on local issues, which enabled the best outcomes for children and young people in the borough.

Mike Howard outlined the two ‘Adam’ and ‘David’ serious case reviews inherited from the previous Tri-borough arrangement. He noted that the ‘David’ review was one of the most complicated case reviews he’d been a part of. He highlighted the lessons learned and said it had achieved a number of positive outcomes. Over the past year, other LSCP’s had been in touch for support on similar reviews across the country.

The Chair thanked Mike Howard for the report and his commitment to such a challenging and important area of work.

The Chair asked how best practice informed NHS commissioning or funding. Mike Howard said the LSCP did have some influence and they were represented under the new Integrated Care Board (ICB) arrangements. They had been working to ensure the NHS understood what was needed in terms of safeguarding. He said the Partnership would like more involvement but recruiting designates (designated nurses with expertise in child protection) was a problem. He also noted that the ‘David’ case outcomes had still not been satisfactorily dealt with by central Government, which he attributed to a ‘revolving door’ of senior civil servants and ministers.

The Chair asked what the Partnership was asking for from the civil service. Mike Howard said the current system did not have enough flexibility to recognise the needs of individuals and in the most serious cases there was not enough capacity to give the treatment necessary. As the cases were relatively rare, they didn’t get the priority they deserved.

The Chair noted that the Council had robust data underpinning its services, including predictive analytics and suggested it could be used to bolster the Partnership’s case to Government. She offered to take this forward with officers.

ACTION: Councillor Helen Rowbottom

The Chair asked if the ‘Child Q’ case had links to the Baroness Casey review of the Metropolitan Police. Mike Howard said he felt the Casey review, particularly in relation to public protection and police response was accurate. He said the Partnership had challenged the police to come up with a response to the report and they would be following up on that at the next Board meeting. He added that in the ‘Child Q’ case, a major factor was that the officers doing the search weren’t Safer Schools officers, so they had less understanding of the correct procedures. He also said the school should have provided an appropriate adult to act in the girl’s best interest. The police had brought in new guidelines in response to the incident and the local Safer Schools Sergeant and Headteacher had given assurances to the Partnership.

The Chair asked how the Council worked with the Safer Schools team in the borough. Jacqui McShannon said the Council had a strong working relationship with the Safer Schools team. They had forum meetings and there was also a partnership group for safeguarding assurance. Children’s Services were also looking at holding a conference in the Autumn looking at equalities, diversity, and inclusion issues.

Amana Gordon said officers were looking at ensuring the whole system provided equity for children in the borough. She acknowledged there was still some discrimination within school, health, and police systems. But she said all partners challenged each other on these topics and they were working hard to ensure children were given the right opportunities and support.

Councillor Daryl Brown noted a case of extreme neglect where the parents thought their behaviour was normal and asked how neglect was defined and how to get the message out to parents. Amana Gordon said social workers tried to avoid terms like neglect, preferring to describe behaviours to avoid misunderstandings. Social workers were very clear with parents about what needed to change and would provide additional support if they thought it was needed.

Councillor Brown asked how the most vulnerable children could be reached. Jacqui McShannon said they worked with schools and partners to ensure they were clear about how to refer concerns to the Initial Consultation Advice Team (ICAT). She said schools in the borough were very alert to children’s needs. Amana Gordon added that they also tried to ensure under-fives were exposed to local services like health visitors.

Councillor Aliya Afzal-Khan referred to the case of Awaab Ishak and noted that the borough had a lot of damp and mould in its housing stock and asked if parents could raise concerns on behalf of their children or if referrals could only be made by professionals. Amana Gordon said they were there to support parents. They had a damp and mould group which informed decisions, but the housing department was responsible for housing issues in the borough.

Councillor Afzal-Khan asked how residents could get the housing department to respond. Officers said if they weren’t receiving responses, they could go through the complaints procedure.

Mike Howard said there was a housing representative on the Partnership. He said the Awaab Ishak case was unusual in that it wasn’t a safeguarding case but was provoked by the coroner writing to the Secretary of State. It was found to have been an institutional failure by housing provider. The Committee asked for more information about how mould and damp housing issues could be escalated and resolved if children were involved.

ACTION: Housing officers

Nandini Ganesh asked if more education was needed to help residents understand the various referrals routes and support structures. Mike Howard said it was not necessarily important for residents to know the specific terms, what mattered was the outcome.

Jacqui McShannon said the disabled children’s team had done a lot of work to try to demystify the service. She suggested someone from Amana’s team could attend a Parentsactive meeting and discuss how the service worked. She noted they had done similar sessions with schools already.

ACTION: Amana Gordon / Nandini Ganesh

The Chair thanked Mike Howard and officers for their contributions.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee noted and commented on the item.