Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T Keywood-Wainwright, Mrs L Rollings, S M Tweedale, and R Wootten.

Apologies for absence were also received from Mr P Thompson (Church Representative), Dr E van der Zee (Parent Governor Representative) and Councillor Mrs P A Bradwell (Executive Councillor for Children's Services).

The Chief Executive reported that, under Local Government (Committee and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, Councillor M A Whittington had been appointed to the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee to replace Councillor S M Tweedale for this meeting only.

There were no declarations of interest at this point in the meeting.

RESOLVED

            That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2016 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(To receive a report from Debbie Barnes, Executive Director for Children's Services which provides the Committee with an update on the savings proposals in the Children's Services budget for 2016/17 and anticipated cost pressures for 2016/17 and beyond)

Consideration was given to a report which provided an update to the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee on the saving proposals in the Children's Services budget for 2016/17 and anticipated cost pressures for 2016/17 and beyond.  It was clarified that these proposals had come before this Committee in November 2015, and this report was a reminder of the savings which had been agreed and implemented.

The Committee received a presentation which provided members with more detailed information in relation to the following budget areas:

·         Readiness for School

·         Learn and Achieve

·         Readiness for Adult Life

·         Children are Safe and Healthy

·         Cost Pressures

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and presentation, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was queried whether the government covered the cost of the 67 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) as it was listed as a zero value in the budget table.  Members were advised that young people who came into the country and were assessed as being under 18 and without a guardian were the responsibility of the State.  The numbers did vary, but on any given day there would be between 40 -70 UASC in the care of Lincolnshire County Council.  The authority did receive a grant from the government, which did cover the costs of supported accommodation for over 16's.  Children assessed as under the age of 16 would be placed in foster care.  The issues arose with those children under 16 who had complex needs.  However, officers currently thought that caring for these children was cost neutral for the authority, but it was not known how this could change in the future if the needs of the cohort were different.  Members were assured that officers were committed to continually reviewing this situation.

·         Whether children with Special Guardianship Orders (SGO's) transitioned to adult care would depend on their needs, such as if they had mental health issues or a disability.  However, if a child had an Education, Health and Care plan in place, they would be transitioned in accordance with their plan.  Members were advised that case law in relation to SGO's meant that children which were subject to a SGO tended to be younger and that it would be quite a few years before transition to adult care would be required for those with a SGO.

·         It was commented that investing in preventative services for children was the ultimate invest to save option, as well as being morally the right thing to do.

·         It was queried whether there was any way of measuring the impact of the introduction of signposting in place of services such as early health or careers.  Members were advised that in relation to NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training), those groups of young people who were classed as vulnerable were measured so data was collected on NEET via vulnerable group.  It was too early to see whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

(To receive a report by Maggie Freeman, 14-19 Commissioner, which invites the Committee to consider a report on the current situation in relation to post 16 education and training in Lincolnshire)

Consideration was given to a report which summarised the current situation in relation to post 16 (up to 25 for young people with Education, Health and Care Plans) education and training in Lincolnshire.  The report would seek approval from the Executive Councillor for Children's Services for the Council's position in relation to the forthcoming area based review of post 16 education and training institutions in Greater Lincolnshire.

The outcomes from the Committee's working group which was held on 25 July 2016 were reported to the meeting, and it was confirmed that they had been taken into account within the report.  These included concerns around the need for a broad curriculum in reach of all pupils and concerns that school sixth forms and other providers, such as Bishop Burton College and University Technical College, were excluded from the review.

The Chair of the Federation of Lincolnshire Colleges was in attendance at the meeting, and advised the Committee that the federation consisted of 10 colleges across Greater Lincolnshire.  It was reported that the federation was going into the area review open minded, and had been working collaboratively on a number of bids.  A single data pack had been made available to all chief executives and principals during the week, and would be provided to other stakeholders the following week.  It was emphasised that there was a need for caution in making conclusions about what the right answer was too early in the process.  This was an opportunity to examine the way that further education was delivered across the county.  There was a need to get the best possible outcomes for young people in Lincolnshire.  However, it was emphasised that this was not about a structural merger.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers and guests present in relation to the information contained within the report, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         Concerns were raised regarding how this review would fit into the review being undertaken by the shadow Combined Authority and the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership (GLLEP) and with devolution.  It was reported that the scope of devolution was aligned with the review and would be informed by the GLLEP.  It was highlighted that the colleges would make their own recommendations and the shadow Combined Authority could also put forward recommendations informed by the GLLEP which may differ to the colleges.  However, it was noted that the colleges would make their own decisions and could accept or reject the recommendations.

·         Concerns were also raised regarding Bishop Burton College and the loss of farms.  It was requested that this issue was raised with the Chief Executive and a formal response provided back to the Committee on the situation.

·         It was highlighted that there was a need for functional skills facilities to remain in colleges for those 16 year olds who did not achieve maths and English at schools, as this was an important part of the college system.  It was noted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

(To receive a report from Debbie Barnes, Executive Director for Children's Services which invites the Committee to consider the proposed partnership agreement between the Department of Education and Lincolnshire County Council Children's Services as part of the Government's Partner in Practice Programme.  The proposals are intended to improve practice in Lincolnshire and other Children's Services by transforming the quality of children's social care services and early help arrangements)

Consideration was given to a report which invited the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee to consider the proposed partnership agreement between the Department of Education (DfE) and Lincolnshire County Council's Children's Services as part of the Government's Partner in Practice Programme.  The proposals were intended to improve practice in Lincolnshire and other Children's Services by transforming the quality of children's social care services and early help arrangements.  Members were advised that the DfE had approached high performing local authorities to work with them about what an alternative child protection system would look like.  The authority had submitted its Partners in Practice proposal, but at the time of the meeting it had not yet been accepted.

Members were informed that the proposals to transform Children's Social Care were structured around three different work streams with 10 aspirations of what the authority wishes to achieve over the next four years.  It was believed that the three work streams would enable Lincolnshire to innovate which would improve the authority's practices and be more child focused, building on its approach for relationship based practice.  The three work streams were aligned to the DfE's reform programme, and were as follows:

·         Practice and systems

·         Governance and accountability

·         People and leadership

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was commented that the report was excellent and was welcomed.

·         There was agreement that staff relationship with the child was an important issue, and that there should be one person for the child to go to.

·         Members were pleased to see more use of 'Signs of Safety, and saw this as a positive move away from a tick box way of working.

·         It was commented that the successes of families working together in Lincolnshire showed the strength of the model.

·         There would be much more voice of the child in this process.

·         It was queried why, if Lincolnshire was already an outstanding local authority in child protection was it being asked to look at alternative delivery models.

·         It was confirmed that it was common for children to get attached to their social worker, and a lot of children in the care system had existing attachment issues.  Anything that would reduce the number of people a child had to deal with would be positive.

·         Concerns were raised with regard to Aspiration 6 as it was thought there was a need to know the exact ways that young people would be diverted away from criminal behaviour.

·         In terms of the governance work stream, the authority would be looking to explore collaborative working with joint ownership.

·         The Youth Offending Service would be moving into Children's Services, and then officers would be able to start working through how services would be further developed and integrated.

·         Officers commented that they were pleased with the comments about innovation, and management thought that this approach  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

(To receive a report from Janice Spencer, Assistant Director Children's Services, which sets out the work undertaken across Children's Services in response to questions 5, 6 and 7 of the CfPS 21 questions guide for Councillors on Safeguarding Children)

On 9 October 2015 the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee was asked to consider and comment on the CfPS 21 questions guide for Councillors on Safeguarding Children.

It was agreed following this that Officers would be requested to provide the Committee with assurance in respect of the questions set out in the CfPS Guide 2015.

The Committee received a report which set out the work undertaken across Children's Services in response to questions 5, 6 and 7, which were as follows:

·         How are local commissioners considering safeguarding issues in their work across a full range of local services?

·         How effective are 'early help' strategies in identifying children in need and addressing factors that may lead to concerns about safeguarding?

·         What has been learnt from early intervention approaches in the local area? What is effective and what are the resource implications?

RESOLVED

            That the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee note the contents of the response.

(To receive a report from Sally Savage, Chief Commissioning Officer, which provides key performance information for Quarter 1 2016/17 that is relevant to the work of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee.  Please note that Appendix D to this report contains exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and discussion of this information could result in the exclusion of the press and public)

Consideration was given to a report which provided the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee with key performance information for Quarter 1 2016/17 which was relevant to the work of the Committee.

Members were provided with an opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         It was queried whether any analysis was carried out on complaints to determine whether there were any patterns.  It was noted that there was a complaints officer, and the complaints listed in the report were the complaints which were submitted to the local authority.

·         Concerns were raised regarding performance of the achievement gap at foundation stage not being narrowed.  Members were advised that narrowing the gap was a significant challenge.  Some academies were not engaging with the authority, but all were measured by Ofsted on the gap as it was a key Ofsted indicator.  It was noted that it was very difficult to remove the gap. However, there were a number of schools who had not yet provided their data.

·         Members were advised that in the future the gap would not be measured on 5 A – C's, there would instead be a move toward Progress 8.   It was unclear at this stage how the authority would benchmark from last year to this year.

·         In relation to Care Leavers in suitable accommodation, it was suggested whether the target should be 100%, as there were concerns about whether the 10% could 'slip'.  Members were advised that these young people were managed on an individual basis to ensure they were in the right place.  Work was also ongoing on how the authority could pump prime some investment and work on creating more suitable accommodation for car leavers around the county.

It was noted that there was a working group on School Performance if any members were interested in joining.

 At this point in the meeting it was moved, seconded and:

RESOLVED

            That in accordance with section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government           Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the            consideration of Appendix D to the report on the grounds that if they             were present there could    be a disclosure of exempt information as             defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local          Government Act 1972, as amended.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to ask questions in relation to Appendix D of the report and officers responded to those questions raised.

RESOLVED

            That after the consideration of exempt information, as defined above,         the remainder of the meeting be held in public. 

RESOLVED

            That the comments made in relation to the performance information be      noted.

(To receive a verbal update from Councillor C R Oxby, Chairman of the Lincolnshire Safeguarding Boards Scrutiny Sub-Group)

It was reported that the Scrutiny Sub-Group met on 6 July 2016 but unfortunately the meeting had to be held informally due to being inquorate which was the reason why there were no minutes included with the agenda for this meeting.

The Sub-Group received the outcomes from Serious Case Review C which had now been published.  The case involved the death of a 5 month old baby with a suspected degenerative neurological condition.  The baby had been the subject of a neglect case, however a post mortem determined that the child had died naturally and the review concluded that the death could not have been prevented.

The Sub Group was updated on the work of the Lincolnshire Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) and was informed that Bishop Grosseteste University had been approached to produce a short play relating to child sexual exploitation which would be performed at schools around the county.  It would be performed by drama students and written and produced by the University, with funding from the LSCB.  The brief for the play was to feature real stories of child sexual exploitation from around Lincolnshire.

A new Education Sub Group of the Board had been formed whose aim was to better engage with the education sector to build their skills and knowledge, share resources and ensure the key messages of safeguarding practice reached those who spent a lot of time with children in Lincolnshire.

Some of the new policies currently being developed were the Consent and Competency Guidance which allowed for children to visit a GP without their parents' consent and included appointments to secure birth control.  Criminalisation of Children in Care was another new policy which promoted a sensible response to bad behaviour from looked after children in care homes.  Previously the police were called to all situations, regardless of triviality, but this policy would assist staff to deal with offences themselves.

With regards to the membership of the Sub-Group, officers were in the process of identifying new added members to fill the vacancies.  Contact had been made with the Police and Health who were both interested in having representation on the Sub Group and were looking into finding possible representatives.  A new district councillor representative had been appointed, which was Cllr Mike Exton from South Kesteven District Council.  The Parent Governor Representatives had also been approached to see if one of them was able to fill the Parent Governor vacancy.

The next meeting of the Sub Group would be held on 28 September 2016 and the Sub Group would receive updates on the work of the Board and its Sub Groups, Serious Case Reviews, and a report on the Identification and Prevention of Child Sexual Exploitation.

Members expressed disappointment that the Sub Group was not quorate on this occasion as it was due to consider a Serious Case Review.  It was clarified that, following legal advice, substitute members were permitted on the Sub Group, but it was still required to be politically balanced.

RESOLVED

            That the update  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

(To receive a report from Tracy Johnson, Senior Scrutiny Officer, which enables the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee to consider its own work programme for the coming year)

Consideration was given to a report which enabled the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee to consider its own work programme for the coming year.

Members were reminded that there was to be a budget workshop held on 25 November 2016 from 2.00 – 4.00pm.

An issue was raised by one of the members in relation to a government consultation on a review of the five mandated reviews by Health Visitors for babies.  Members were advised that a report on health visiting would be presented to the Committee at its October meeting.

RESOLVED

            That the content of the work programme be agreed.