Agenda and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence were received from:

-  Cllr Soraya Adejare

-  Jane Heffernan

1.2    Apologies for lateness were received from:

  - Cllr Clare Potter

2.1 The following declarations were received by members:

·  Cllr Chauhan was a teacher at secondary school in another London borough and a member of the NEU.

·  Cllr Peters was a governor at the Garden School.

·  Jo Macleod was a governor of a local primary school.

3.1   There were no late or urgent items of business.

4.1 The Commission completed a review of unregistered educational settings in January 2018 which made a number of recommendations to help bring such schools into regulatory compliance.  This item was a progress report on the recommendations of that review which were agreed by Cabinet in July 2018.  The Chair welcomed presenters for this item Anne Canning, Andrew Lee, Jim Gamble and Rory McCallum.

4.2 It was noted that this remained an important piece of work for the Council. The Council and other regulatory and enforcement partners continued to work in partnership to ensure that the places where children congregated were safe, structures were sound and that safe recruitment practices were being followed.

4.3 Whilst it was acknowledged that whilst there had been some local progress, the paucity of regulatory legislation in this area remained a significant barrier to addressing the concerns presented by unregistered educational settings.  Since the Commission’s report had been published however, there had been a significant amount of media interest which kept unregistered educational settings in the national spotlight, which was positive.

4.4 The government had recently published the Integrated Communities Strategy Green Paper which had set out a range of developments for unregistered settings, out of school settings and home education. Whilst problems around the legal definition of a school and curriculum remained, there had been some positive advancement in 3 areas:

- Proposed tighter controls on the requirements for school registration;

- Launch of a consultation on voluntary safeguarding code of practice;

- Planned introduction of compulsory register for home educated children.

4.5 The introduction of a register for home education represented a significant development in the regulatory framework.  Given the number of local children that were home educated however, this would be a major piece of work and which would require additional resources.  It was still unclear however, how local education officers and regulatory partners could use the planned home education register.

4.6 It was noted that officers from Hackney Learning Trust and the Children and Families Service had met with representatives from the orthodox Jewish community (OJC), from which it was reported that the community were keen to develop local safeguarding arrangements across out of school settings.  Whilst it was acknowledged that there had been improved engagement, a forum to discuss the establishment of basic safeguarding protocols in unregistered educational settings, had not yet been established. Discussions were however continuing.

4.7 CHSCB also confirmed that progress had been made in developing safeguarding arrangements in local out of school settings within the OJC.  There had been increased communication and engagement with the representatives of the OJC which was encouraging. CHSCB also noted however, that whilst there had been commitments toward establishing safeguarding arrangements in out of school settings, to date there had been no tangible developments within the OJC.  The CHSCB remained optimistic however, that safeguarding improvements would be introduced. 

4.8 It was understood that there was a safeguarding committee in operation within the OJC which had agreed in principle to new safeguarding procedures  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.1 The annual report of CHSCB is presented each year to scrutiny.  The independent Chair of CHSCB presented the annual report from 2017/18 to the Commission. A summary of the key points from this presentation are highlighted below.

·  A key objective for CHSCB for 2017/18 was the health and wellbeing of the workforce as this was an important part of safeguarding children.  Feedback from this aspect of the work has been very positive, where the local safeguarding workforce indicated that they were well led and managed.

·  Hackney continued to lead in the way that local authorities provide support to vulnerable adolescents, this was exemplified through the contextual safeguarding project.

·  In 2017/18, two serious case reviews were published.  The first resulted in the parents being sentenced for child cruelty.  The second resulted in new systems for checking the unexplained absence of children from school. The latter had also resulted in new guidelines from the DfE.

·  The local training offer available had been reviewed and attendances monitored. CHSCB would continue to appraise the training offer to ensure that it met the needs of local safeguarding practitioners.

·  CHSCB acknowledged the importance of the local designated safeguarding Doctor and Nurse as the work of both had been exemplary.

·  An audit was being undertaken by CHSCB to ensure that the safeguarding data being collected through Children Families Service (CFS) was correct and was producing correct evaluative data.  Further discussions were being held with CFS in Hackney in this respect.

·  CHSCB also continued to look at the safeguarding partnership and how effectively partners communicated and worked together to address local safeguarding concerns.

·  CHSCB also paid tribute to the local leadership particularly at a time of immense transition.

Questions

5.2 What work had been undertaken in relation to rough sleeping among the 15-24 year-old age group?

·  It was reported that there had been no focus to date on safeguarding and rough sleepers.  It was suggested however that this may be a line of work being pursued by the Safeguarding Adults Board or through another service within the council. Both the Child and Adult Safeguarding Boards had recently met to discuss transitional issues and this would be the type of issue that both boards would like to assess.  It would be useful to identify early indicators and those measures that can be put in place to prevent young people ending up on the street.

5.3 In respect of domestic violence and abuse it was noted that whilst good work had been undertaken with local women, the Commission wanted to know what work had undertaken with young girls who may be in equally abusive relationships. What was behind the 43% increase in referrals to the service?

·  CHSCB noted that lots of work had been undertaken on this issue through many projects, for example the Coercion and Control and Contextual Safeguarding Project.  It was suggested that the increase in referrals may in part be due to the increased activity and awareness of practitioners.

·  The Board also noted that there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1 Since the last meeting on 25h March 2019, a focus group has been held with children who have been excluded.  This was conducted by Young Hackney for children in attendance at New Regents College.

6.2 The Commission will continue to collect evidence to support the review throughout May.  Three more site visits of Alternative Providers were planned these included:

·  Complete Works (Tower Hamlets);

·  Footsteps (Haringey);

·  BSix (Hackney).

6.3 The Commission would also look at the evidence from the ‘deep dive’ the HLT had undertaken and would use this to inform its conclusions and recommendation into school exclusions.

6.4 Once the above has been completed, the Commission will then review the evidence it has collected, assess if further work is needed, and to formulate conclusions and recommendations.  These conclusions and recommendations will be tested out with senior officers and relevant cabinet member(s) to ensure that these were practical, achievable and affordable

6.5 The Chair will produce a draft report which will be circulated to the Commission for comment.  This will then be finalised at a future meeting of the Commission.

7.1 Given that this was the final meeting of the municipal year the Commission was invited to reflect on the current work programme (what worked, what didn’t work) and what items it may want to include in the future work programme. 

7.2 The 2018/19 work programme saw a wide breadth of issues covered.  There were 4 types of items which were considered by the Commission:

·  Standing Items; items which require annual oversight and surveillance such as the school places, childcare sufficiency, and children’s social care.

·  Holding Executive to Account; Cabinet Members were both invited to be questioned on their portfolio covered by the CYP Scrutiny Commission;

·  Review – items were taken to support the current review (school exclusions) as well as to follow up the recommendations from previous reviews (free childcare, foster care, unregistered schools);

·  One-off items – items of interest that required an update or lighter touch scrutiny (Support to LGBT young people, mental health in schools, SEND update).

7.3 It was important to remember the role of Overview & Scrutiny in developing the work programme for the Commission as these would shape the types of items that are selected for scrutiny.  The key functions of scrutiny were highlighted to the Commissions:

·  Overview – Holds decision makers (e.g. Cabinet Members and Senior Officers) to account;

·  Policy development and review – help to improve or develop new services and policies;

·  Performance management – e.g. reviews performance, budget monitoring, value for money, quality;

·  Scrutinise external agencies e.g. Police, Health Services, Fire Service, Housing Associations;

·  Public engagement and involvement - represents views of the public and helps maintain public confidence in decision making.

7.4 The Commission also discussed how valued is added to those items which are scrutinised by the Council.

·  Provides assurance to decision making;

·  Provides open challenge in public which promote democratic accountability;

·  Bring stakeholders together to look at difficult or complex issues – bringing statutory agencies, voluntary sector and community to develop collaborative approach and solutions;

·  Public engagement and involvement - seek to involve service users, residents and the local community and meetings are held in public;

·  Enhances democratic accountability and involvement - open, public and transparent assessment gives confidence to community

7.5 The Commission also discussed those skills and approaches to scrutiny that contribute to effective scrutiny practice.  These included:

7.6 Given that there were 8 meeting per year of the CYP Scrutiny Commission there was limited capacity and it could not scrutinise all the issues that might be suggested through the consultation.  In this context, it would be important to prioritise items for inclusion within the work programme against a number of assessment criteria:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1 Two actions were confirmed.

8.2 These were agreed.

9.1 There was no other business.

9.2 The date of the next meeting was the Monday 24^th June 2019.

  The meeting closed at 9.35pm.