Agenda item

The purpose of this report is for the independent chair of the Brent Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) to present the annual report to members.

Chris Spencer (Independent Chair, Brent Local Safeguarding Children Board) presented the annual report and advised that the Brent Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) consisted of statutory partners, such as health representatives, the police and the council, and other non-statutory organisations, such as those from the voluntary sector and schools.  The LSCB met approximately every six weeks and considered reports on a range of issues identified in its business plan based on priorities agreed as a result of local and national drivers influenced by the key safeguarding priorities of partner agencies.  This involved creating a number of work streams and sub-groups to address these priorities and Chris Spencer drew members’ attention to the seven sub-groups as set out in the report.

During members’ discussion, further details of the background of the Chair of the LSCB were sought.  A member commented that the report did not provide a particularly clear picture of child wellbeing and welfare and safety in Brent.  She felt the report lacked comparative statistics with other London boroughs and information on the pressure on school places in Brent.  She also stated that there was no information on child suicides, the growing use of food bags and the number of children at risk in the borough and she hoped for more detail in future reports.  Another member enquired how effective was Brent at early intervention compared to other boroughs and she sought views on what level of support young people who had been placed outside the borough received.  A number of children in Brent also lived in poverty and she enquired how the LSCB oversaw a multi-agency approach in addressing this.  A member sought further information regarding unexpected deaths including the causes and what steps were being taken to address this.  He felt that this was an issue worthy of further scrutiny and the next report should provide more detail on this. 

Another member asked whether the LSCB’s role extended to analysing whether there was a sufficient budget to undertake all the priorities that had been agreed.  In view of the need for savings to be made and the resulting pressures this would create, such as social worker caseloads, he asked whether safeguarding measures were robust enough.  A member emphasised the importance of early intervention where children were not doing well at school, for example in identifying dyslexia, in order to ensure they had a good education which was vital to their future.  A member sought clarification that the LSCB currently had a vacancy for the position of second lay member and in respect of an apparent dispute over payments between the LSCB and the NWLHT.  She also asked whether she could be provided with a copy of the Section 11 audit report in respect of NPH.  Another member enquired what steps were being taken to combat trafficked children in the borough. 

With the approval of the Chair, Anna Tulley addressed the committee.  Anna Tulley advised that she worked for a disabled childcare charity and stated that she was aware of a case regarding safeguarding issues where finding help proved fruitless.  She sought further information in respect of the Task and Finish group for safeguarding disabled children as mentioned in the report.

In reply to the issues raised, Chris Spencer informed members that he had been a director of education and children’s services since 2000, including holding two substantive posts and an interim role with another London borough.  Since 2011, he had chaired two West Midlands Improvement Boards  and also advised the Home Office.  In respect of the detail in the report, Chris Spencer advised that the LSBC’s role was to support and challenge the work of the partner organisations and the LSBC received all the specific data on issues such as child suicides, school places and use of food bags in order to undertake analysis.  The results of the analysis would help steer the direction in providing a strategic oversight.  The committee heard that the services offered in the borough were crucial to the process of managing risk for children and Chris Spencer emphasised how crucial the role of early intervention was.  He advised that a recent review on early intervention had been reported to the LSBC and it had been identified that there was room to develop services, however the role of non-statutory organisations and budget pressures needed to be resolved in order for this to happen.  There was a strong argument and evidence for early intervention measures being of particular importance in the borough and it was thought that through commissioning, such services could be improved.  Chris Spencer advised that the trend was not to place young vulnerable people far from Brent.  At present, approximately 20 were currently outside of the borough and in such circumstances these children needed to be visited frequently by Children’s Services.  However, he added that sometimes there were very sound reasons to place children outside of Brent.  With regard to tackling child poverty, Chris Spencer commented that the situation in Brent was highly complex, with a wide range of vulnerabilities and this enhanced the level of poverty.  He felt that the most reliable way of preventing poverty was good education and early intervention and the children’s centres played a vital role in achieving this.

Chris Spencer advised that the Child Death Overview Panel, a sub-group of the LSBC, investigated causes of child death and measures to prevent this and a report was provided separately to the Health and Wellbeing Board, although this could also be provided to the committee.  Members noted that child deaths were not necessarily due to abuse.  Chris Spencer advised that the LSBC did consider budget and their potential effects on capacity and in a recent serious case review, a shortfall in frontline staff practice had been identified.  As well as a lack of capacity, such problems may be attributable to lack of training or the right messages being communicated clearly enough.  In his view, Chris Spencer felt that although capacity was stretched, there was no evidence to suggest that this presented unacceptable risks, although caseloads for social workers were higher overall compared to most London boroughs.  He added that in some situations the number of caseloads may be artificially inflated if they had not been formally closed when they should have been and this has been an issue in Brent, although action was being taken to address this and there had been some progress.  Members noted that in order to get a good inspection outcome, the number of caseloads needed to be reduced.  

Chris Spencer stated that Brent schools faced challenging circumstances, however good head teachers and teaching would help overcome this and there was considerable effort being made to raise educational standards.  He confirmed that the second lay position on the LSBC had been filled on 20 January 2014 and that NPH had been informed that they were not making a sufficient financial contribution to the Board, but this had since been rectified.  The committee also heard that a Section 11 audit had identified some shortcomings around safeguarding for the NPH and an action plan to address these had been produced and Chris Spencer was to check if this could be provided to members.  The committee heard that the Vulnerable Groups sub-group looked at priorities in respect of vulnerable children and trafficked children would be included in next year’s plan, with bespoke training courses being provided for staff of relevant partner organisations.  Chris Spencer advised that the safeguarding of disabled children was high on the LSCB’s agenda as they were a particularly vulnerable group.  In respect of the Task and Finish group, he clarified that the Child to Adult Services covered this area.

Gail Tolley (Strategic Director of Children and Young People) added that a Scrutiny Committee task group had been set up in respect of the Pupil Premium which through engagement with the Brent Schools Partnership was contributing to schools with a good or outstanding rating increasing. 

The Chair stated that a briefing note updating the work of the task group on the Pupil Premium would be provided to members.  He emphasised the importance of safeguarding children and welcomed the report.