Agenda item

Provisional item subject to the discussion at the Children, Families and Education - Vulnerable Children and Partnerships Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 31 March and the County Council meeting on 1 April.

Would Members please bring their copy of the Safeguarding Children report contained with the County Council papers (Item 12 pages 39 – 88) for this item.

Mrs S. Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education, and Mrs Kay Weiss, Head of Policy and Performance (CFE) will attend the meeting from 11.30am to 12noon to answer Members’ questions on this item.

(Mrs S Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education and Mrs K Weiss, Head of Policy and Performance (CFE) were in attendance for this item to answer questions from Members of the Committee)

(1)    Mr Christie explained that Members had concerns about how information following Serious Case Reviews got to Members of the Council.  Why were Members unaware of the outcomes of Serious Case Reviews, if an Executive Summary of the reviews existed, why was it not available to all Members?  How could Members monitor the implementation of any recommendations of Serious Case Reviews if they were not made aware of the reports?

(2)    Mrs Hohler explained that it was necessary to put a protocol in place to deal with information surrounding Serious Case Reviews.  It was sensible for the Managing Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member to make a decision on who needed to be made aware of the outcomes of Serious Case Reviews.  The annual Children’s safeguarding report was a public document which contained summary details of all Serious Case Reviews.  This was monitored generally through the Children’s Champion’s Board. 

(3)    Mrs Weiss explained that once the Executive summary was made public, following the conclusion of the review and discussion with the family, the fact that a report existed was put on the Kent Safeguarding Board website.  The Executive Summary could be sent to the Group Leaders.  In response to a question from the Chairman Mrs Weiss confirmed that the summary was a public document so could be available for all Members.    Mrs Hohler explained that from a practical aspect it may be more sensible for Group Leaders to receive the document and then forward it, if relevant, to all Members.  It was felt to be important that the local Member should be made aware when the Executive Summary was made available. 

(4)    Mrs Hohler explained that the Edinburgh review had been commissioned to look at Serious Case Reviews and this showed a pattern relating to many cases within families.  The Edinburgh review would be circulated to all Members, the conclusions of the review were important, particularly with Members’ role as Corporate Parents. 

(5)    Mr Christie explained that as long as Members were aware of the Executive Summary it was reassuring, there were, however, concerns about the status of the Children’s Champion’s Board. 

(6)    The Chairman asked what information was available from schools to inform Members in their role as Corporate Parents.  Mrs Weiss explained that cases open to Children’s social services and subject to Serious Case Reviews were confidential.  An agency would highlight to the Safeguarding board that there were concerns, the board would set up a panel which would meet if a Serious Case Review was to be conducted.  The Safeguarding Board would appoint an independent Chair, agencies would be asked to provide information, the case would be analysed and a report written (the final copy would be anonymised).  It would be difficult to inform a local member early on in the case because the details were not disclosed until the report was signed off.  Mrs Weiss would check regarding the issue of the School Governors and Local Members having the names of Looked after Children and whether there was any way of anonymising that information.  Mrs Weiss explained that the Council was currently recruiting a virtual head teacher; the issues discussed by the Committee would be referred to that post.  Children Families and Education had a small safeguarding team, regular training was made available for teachers, governors and designated safeguarding staff within the schools.    Members asked that a briefing note be made available to alert Members to what schools had available to them. 

(7)    It was suggested that there be an opportunity for Member input before the final recommendations of the Serious Case Reviews were agreed, or to allow Members to pass comment on the recommendations.  It was considered that the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee might be the more appropriate forum for this to take place.

(8)    Mr Scholes asked whether an action plan was being put together to monitor the implementation of the many recommendations from the Safeguarding Children report.  The Chairman also asked for a definition of the term ‘abandoned calls’.  Mrs Hohler explained that the Managing Director would go through the recommendations to work up an action plan.  Information would be reported back to Members as soon as possible.

(9)    Mr Critchley, one of the Parent Governor Representatives asked whether there was a culture of fire-fighting rather than nurturing regarding referrals from neighbours and the police and was there dysfunctionality and cultural barriers in inter-agency working?  Mrs Hohler explained that the number of referrals had increased, however the proportion from neighbours and the police had remained fairly constant.  Mrs Weiss explained that it was essential to work with other agencies, this was co-ordinated by a social worker.  All agencies had different cultures, it was part of the role of the Safeguarding Board to help pull the different cultures together, and to reduce any barriers.  The safety of the child was the first priority, prosecution would follow. 

(10)                      The Chairman asked whether there was a single telephone number to report any suspicion relating to children in danger, Mrs Weiss explained that social workers, the police or the NSPCC were the most appropriate channels. 

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

1. Thank Mrs Hohler, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education and Mrs K Weiss for their attendance at the meeting and for answering Members’ questions;
2. Thank the Cabinet Member Children Families and Education for her offer that when the summary of a serious case review is published and available to the public it is made available to all Group Leaders and Mr Lees and ask that this be extended to all Members;
3. Ask that the Cabinet Member Children, Families and Education in conjunction with the Deputy Leader (who has the portfolio for the Overview and Scrutiny Function) look again at the interrelationship with the Vulnerable Children’s Policy Overview Scrutiny Committee, the Children’s Champions Board, the Safeguarding Board and report the outcome to the Scrutiny Board;
4. Ask that the Scrutiny Board receive a report addressing how and whom should have the responsibility for elected Members as “Corporate Parents” supporting the needs of Looked After Children;
5. That the Cabinet Member for Children Families and Education in conjunction with the Managing Director be asked to prepare a briefing note setting out for Members the information and resources made available to schools and governors to ensure that the risks and vulnerability of children, as occurred in the recent case in Tunbridge Wells, is avoided.
6. Ask the Cabinet Member for Children Families and Education to draw up a protocol for dealing with future Serious Case Reviews in as far as it affects Information to Members, Members’ input into the recommendations flowing from the review and the monitoring of the recommendations. It was suggested that the Vulnerable Children’s Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be the appropriate body to consider such a protocol in the first instance.