Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of substitute members.

Councillor Jegorovas-Armstrong declared an interest regarding the Item for Call-In: The Executive decision on the Proposal on the future of Duncombe and Montem Primary Schools. The declared interest was as follows:

·       Councillor Jegorovas-Armstrong was a signatory of the motion to call-in the Executive’s decision.

The Chair confirmed that as a signatory of the call-in, Councillor Jegorovas-Armstrong would not be able to vote on this item, citing the provisions in the committee’s Terms of the Reference that “no member may be involved in scrutinising a decision in which they have been directly involved”, but as a member of the committee, would still be invited to ask questions and make representations during the deliberation of this item.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 15^th January 2024 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Chair confirmed that there would be three appointments to the Committee, effective from 29^th February 2024, subject to confirmation at the Budget Council meeting on that date (29^th February). These appointments would fill the three co-opted member vacancies and the nominees to these positions were:

·       Sophie McNeill, a parent governor of Drayton Park Primary School, as the Primary School Parent Governor, who was also in attendance as a member of the public.

·       Susie Graves, a parent governor of New River College as the Secondary School Parent Governor.

·       Nick Turpin representing the Church of England Diocese, who was also in attendance as a member of the public.

The following members were present in relation to the call-in:

·         Councillor Hamdache, Councillor Russell, Councillor Nathan, and Councillor Shaikh. Councillor Jegorovas-Armstrong, a member of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee, was also a signatory of the call-in.

·         Councillor Safi-Ngongo

There were four observing members in attendance:

·         Councillor Khondoker, Councillor O’Halloran, Councillor Turan and Councillor Williamson.

Three members of the public were in attendance:

·         Jeremy Corbyn MP, the Member of Parliament for Islington North.

·         Nick Turpin, Church of England Diocese.

·         Sophie McNeill, Parent Governor.

Additionally, the Corporate Director of Children’s Services, the Director for Learning & Achievement, and the Chief Executive were also in attendance.  The Monitoring Officer (the Director of Law & Governance) was in attendance in an advisory capacity.

In accordance with paragraph 42.2 of the Committee Procedure Rules in the Council’s Constitution, the Chair varied the order of agenda items to allow the committee to consider the call-in at the start of the meeting.

The Chair outlined that following the meeting of the Executive on Thursday 8 February 2024, the Monitoring Officer had confirmed that a valid notice of call-in was received regarding the decision made on the ‘Proposal on the Future of Duncombe and Montem Primary Schools’, and that as this decision related to an education function, the Monitoring Officer had, in accordance with paragraph 66.5 (c) of the Council’s Constitution, referred the call-in to this committee for consideration. The Chair then highlighted the options available to the committee. These were:

·       To not agree with the call-in and to uphold the decision made by the Executive, in which case it can be implemented following this meeting.

·       To agree, at least in part, with the call-in and refer the decision back to the Executive with recommendations that they should take into consideration when they review their original decision.

The Chair further outlined the procedure of the call-in and formally moved the motion to consider the item for call-in. Following this, the Chair invited the lead signatory of the call-in, Councillor Hamdache, to address the committee in support of the call-in. The representation was delivered jointly with Councillor Russell and included the following points:

·       Councillor Hamdache stated that the Department for Education’s intervention to grant Pooles Park Primary School academy status had left the Council in a difficult position, given the plans to close it as part of the school organisation plan. It was also stated in the representation that government policy had compounded the issue, as had an application from a further separate school in the borough, applying for academy status, which would affect school place planning going forward. Further points made to members included that Montem Primary School was a borough-leading ARP (Additionally Resourced Provision), that excelled in supporting disadvantaged children including those whose first language was not English, and that the decision on the future of the school had been questioned by parents and teachers alike. Councillor Hamdache made further points to members, including that Hackney, in dealing with their own plans, had bought in an independent body to assist with engagement; that the Executive’s decision on the proposal for Duncombe and Montem would also have the effect of defederating Drayton Park Primary School; that it was the view of parents and teachers that the consultation from the Council had been insufficient and called for a pause to start a participatory process; and that this call-in was an important opportunity for the Council to consider parents’ concerns.

·       Councillor Russell stated that the number of children in Islington was decreasing, and the Council was at a critical point wherein some schools across the borough would need to close, but that a conversation should be had with every school in the borough about how best to protect the education of its children. Councillor Russell closed with further statements that the community of Drayton Park Primary School had not been properly consulted in the process and that members should refer the decision back to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.

None.

The Director of Safeguarding and the Assistant Director of Safeguarding & Quality Assurance introduced this item to the committee. In the discussion, the following points were raised:

·       The most senior social worker in in any local authority was the Director of Safeguarding or named equivalent.

·       Islington’s social care workforce was comprised of suitable qualified practitioners, that were registered and regulated by Social Work England.

·       A Social Work qualification was a mandatory requirement as the postholder would be expected to carry out statutory safeguarding duties on behalf of the Local Authority.

·       The Workforce required qualified practitioners and managers to supervise and oversee key decisions e.g. case allocation, prioritisation, care planning, statutory decision making e.g. agency decision maker for adoption, permanency and fostering.

·       Islington employed 250 Child and Family Social Workers

·       Islington’s social early help service had been rated outstanding by Ofsted.

·       Nationally, research showed that no authority was confident that they will be able to recruit enough permanent Child and Family Social Workers to meet their needs in the next 12 months, and recruitment and retention was the top priority for service delivery for most local authorities.

·       Experienced Children & Family Social Workers were the hardest to recruit / retain, followed by team leaders and senior managers. Newly qualified CFSW were easier to recruit, but it was getting harder.

·       There had been a reduction in social work posts in the last three to four years, an increase in vacancies, agency positions and social workers leaving the profession. This had resulted in increased caseloads because there were fewer social workers. The sickness rate had also increased.

·       Islington’s position still remained stronger than the national average, with caseloads considerably less than the national average and sickness levels better also, at 1.8% compared to 2% nationally.

·       The Council met its needs through several workforce initiatives, but it was becoming harder to recruit and retain experienced talent, which would only increase going forward. One of the initiatives in place to tackle the measure regionally, was the London Pledge, which aimed to standardise agency costs across London.

·       Islington had a programme of benefits and allowances for harder to recruit posts including a retention bonus, Zones 1 and 2 Travelcard, and qualification increments for extra training.

·       The Council would no longer be able to offer Key Worker housing for newly qualified social workers, from April 1^st 2024, which had proved to be a popular draw for talent. There were six social workers at present that were still able to bid for properties before April 2024, the deadline for which had just been extended to May 2024, giving a month’s grace. Since 2022 the Council had housed nine social workers (five in Council stock and four in Housing Association stock), but not every social worker was eligible for this scheme. This was a decision taken by Islington Council in line with the housing allocation scheme amid concerns there was not enough to stock to adequately cater to both key workers and care leavers, with both groups often in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183.

The Executive Member for Children and Young People, Councillor Safi-Ngongo, introduced this item to the committee: In the discussion, the following points were raised:

·         The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were still being felt not just by the borough’s children and young people, but residents more broadly. There had been many pandemic-related mental health issues arising in the borough’s children and young people and the Executive Member had attended a conference addressing this issue.

·         The Executive Member also stated that there was still a significant crisis in housing the borough’s care leavers. Officers in Housing Services were said to be doing their best but a corporate strategy was needed to resolve the issue, even if it meant the cost being met through Children’s Services, as some of these young people were being forced out of the borough or housed in private accommodation at high cost to the Council.

·         The cost-of-living crisis and housing crisis was fuelling multiple interconnected crises in the borough. This included not just the lack of supply of accommodation for care leavers, but also falling rolls, with many families being rehomed outside of the borough.

·         There had been significant interest not just nationally but internationally in the work Islington was doing in relation to Family Hubs.

·         Early intervention was helping to prevent the number of looked after children and supporting the families where they were.

·         In terms of education, the next plan was to tackle persistent absence, which was said to be significant at even the primary school level and was another COVID-19 related issue. Officers were working hard to find a different approach to getting children back into education.

·         The Executive Member stated they were working with all members of the Executive to ensure Islington was a child friendly borough and that it was the responsibility of the entire organisation, not just Children’s Services.The Executive Member cited an instance wherein at a meeting with children from global majority groups, children of black heritage in particular voiced their fears that riding bicycles would increase their risk of criminalisation/perceived as threats, which highlighted that there was still more work to be done with police and colleagues to empower all young people to feel part of the borough.

·         The next step would be to review current policies to meet the changing need of young people and also to act upon the recommendations made by the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee in its 2022-23 scrutiny review.

·         In terms of the support offered to children missing in education, this was something that both officers and the Executive Member were reviewing to see whether it could be improved.

·         In terms of the  Council’s 2030 Child Friendly Ambition for “We will equip and empower every child and young person who attends our education settings with the learning and skills for life and the future world of work”, and whether home-educated children and/or children missing from education had been taken into account, the Executive Member confirmed to members that it had been and work was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

The Chair moved a motion to adjourn this item to the next meeting of the committee to the next meeting of the Committee, to allow sufficient time for members to effectively consider this item of business.

The motion was put to a vote and CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of Item B3 School Results, be adjourned to the meeting of 29th April 2024.

The Chair moved a motion to adjourn this item to the next meeting of the Committee, to allow sufficient time for members to effectively consider this item of business.

The motion was put to a vote and CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of Item B4 Scrutiny Review of SEN & Disabilities Transitions – 12-month update (including update on Baseline Report for Supported Internships), be adjourned to the meeting of 29^th April 2024.

The Chair informed members that following the motion to adjourn Items B3 School Results 2023 & B4 Scrutiny Review of SEN & Disabilities Transitions – 12-month update (including update on Baseline Report for Supported Internships) to the meeting of 29^th April 2024, the consideration of two items at that meeting will also be moved. The SACRE Annual Report and the Quarter 3 Performance Report will no longer be considered at the meeting of 29^th April 2024, but will instead be put forward to the committee’s first meeting of the new municipal year in June 2024.

The Chair thanked members of the committee for their diligence in the call-in and also the members that triggered the call-in of the Executive’s decision, as it allowed the committee the opportunity to interrogate that decision with an additional level of scrutiny.

RESOLVED:

That the work programme be noted.