Agenda item

Alan Caton, Independent Chair of the Islington Safeguarding Children Board, presented the report summarising the work of the Board.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The Safeguarding Children Board was subject to an Ofsted review in 2017 which found the Board’s practices to be good. In particular, it was highlighted that the Board had a clear vision and purpose and multi-agency working was well developed. Ofsted had made four recommendations and the Board was working to implement them.

·         Safeguarding children continued to be a challenging and complex area of work. The Board was concerned that the demand for services was increasing while the resources available to local agencies were decreasing.

·         Alan Caton was confident that local agencies were committed to identifying and supporting vulnerable children.

·         The Safeguarding Children Board was pleased with the progress made on Prevent and tackling radicalisation.

·         Alan Caton commented on the potential safeguarding risks associated with private fostering arrangements. Children’s Services was only aware of a few cases in Islington, and further work was needed to raise awareness among professionals of the need to report such arrangements to the local authority. There was a concern that young people in private fostering arrangements, particularly those from overseas, were invisible to local agencies.

·         The Safeguarding Children Board had expressed concerns about the oversight of elective home education. It was emphasised that the majority of parents who choose to home-school their children did so for entirely legitimate reasons, however there was a concern that a lack of oversight by local agencies was creating unnecessary safeguarding risks. The council only had limited powers to monitor families that home-educate their children. Alan Caton had written to the Children’s Minister about these issues.

·         Alan Caton commented on the importance of listening to the voices of children and young people, and summarised the Safeguarding Children Board’s work to engage with young people.

·         The Safeguarding Children Board had ongoing concerns about serious youth violence and gang activity and had commissioned a review of knife crime by Public Health. A number of recommendations had been made as a result.

·         The Safeguarding Children Board was keen to ensure that learning from case reviews was embedded into the practices of local agencies. The Committee noted the judicial review relating to accommodating children in police custody, and considered the challenges of finding appropriate accommodation for young people charged with serious offences. It was explained that this was a nationwide issue.

·         Alan Caton summarised the key messages for partner agencies, as set out in the report. It was suggested that the committee should be particularly aware of how services listen to the voices of young people; and should question demographic factors when reviewing services for young people.

·         The Committee congratulated the Islington Safeguarding Children Board on producing a clear and accessible report which explained the borough’s child safeguarding issues.

·         The Committee queried the Board’s risk register as detailed in the report, asking if the risks were current or if they had been addressed. In response, it was advised that the risk register was a live document which was discussed at every Board meeting. The register had been updated since the annual report had been produced. Current risks included matters related to serious youth violence, children waiting more than a year to see perpetrators charged, and the lack of safeguarding training received by staff at Pentonville Prison.  It was noted that the CPS would be attending the next Board meeting to discuss the charging of perpetrators, and training sessions were being arranged for Pentonville staff. This would involve up to 300 staff attending training sessions in a school hall.

·         The Committee asked if the Police or CPS was responsible for delays to perpetrators being charged. In response, it was advised that greater joint working between the agencies would result in better outcomes. It was hoped that this could be facilitated through the Safeguarding Children Board.

·         The Committee queried the number of young people being educated at home, and how the council supported these families. Officers advised that the council was aware of around 130 children being educated at home, however this number fluctuated regularly. The council employed a support officer who regularly visited families engaging with the local authority, however there was a risk that not all young people being educated at home were known to the local authority. There was no legal requirement for parents to engage with the council on this issue; it was explained that home education is a parental right and the council did not have powers to carry out inspections. However, the council could direct home-educated children to attend school if there were significant concerns about the curriculum or safeguarding.

·         A member of the public commented that he was pleased that the council was working to address violence against women and girls, however highlighted research by the National Education Union and UK Feminista into the concerning levels of sexism in Britain’s schools. It was queried if any work was underway to address sexism in Islington’s schools. In response, it was advised that such work was carried out by the council’s Anti-Bullying Co-ordinator. A report on the anti-bullying work in schools was presented to the previous meeting.

·         The Committee noted that the safeguarding children framework was due to change following the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Government guidance on revised safeguarding arrangements was expected to be published in May 2018; the Police, local authority and CCG would be able to determine the safeguarding arrangements in their local area. It was commented that some areas intended to carry out safeguarding activities over their NHS Sustainability and Transformation Partnership footprint, which combined several local authority areas. The new arrangements would come into force from September 2019. Officers commented that Islington’s safeguarding activity had been rated good and it was not intended to significantly revise Islington’s safeguarding arrangements.

RESOLVED:

That the Islington Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report for 2016/17 be noted.