Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting and Members noted the information contained therein.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Morris and Mr Taye.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business (late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with as noted below).

None.

None.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

None.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of 18 March 2015.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of 18 March 2015 be approved.

To note the terms of reference for the Panel.

AGREED:

That the terms of reference for the Panel be noted.

To consider actions to address Priority 1 within the Council’s Corporate Plan; “Enable every child and young person to have the best start in life, with high quality education”.

James Page, the Head of Transformation and Strategy, Children and Young People’s Service, reported that outcome measures and performance targets for the next three years were currently under development.  The aim was that these would help to clarify what good looked like.  Ambitious targets had been set and it was intended that progress against these would be measured in an open and transparent way.  It was proposed that performance information would be published quarterly on the Council’s website.

In answer to questions, the Panel noted that:

·         A well-being survey of children and young people had been commissioned from an organisation that had successfully undertaken similar work elsewhere;

·         The distribution of services across the borough had been looked at.  Locality based services were determined by levels of need.  In particular, a detailed analysis of services had been undertaken in respect of early help;

·         Health issues relating to migrant children were being considered as part of service re-design.  The intention was to re-align services with localities and work on this was taking place with school nurses.  The intention was to pick up issues at an earlier stage;

·         Over 120 schools were now buying traded services from the Council.  A wide range of services were traded and there were now also attracting schools from outside of the borough.

·         The number of Looked After Children (LAC) had gone down in the last year.  The focus of action was on good permanency planning so that young people had a greater level of stability.  The service was also working to support young people better when they left care.  In addition, consideration was also being given to the needs of those children and young people who were on the edge of care.  The intention was to provide support at an earlier stage.

Councillor Mark Blake reported that there was a disproportionate number of young people from black and ethnic minority communities within the youth justice system and that a disproportionality toolkit had been developed by the Youth Justice Board to help local authorities address this.  Gill Gibson, Assistant Director for the Children and Young People’s Service, agreed to look into this issue and report back in due course.  She reported that, as part of the service from October 15, there would be a team focussing on young people ‘at risk’ as part of a multi agency response and targeting a response to vulnerable groups. Recent analysis under the LSCB had, for example, identified that disabled children were over represented amongst those young people involved in gangs.  The new structure aimed to have the responsiveness to deal with specific needs and issues.  The aim was to intervene earlier and involve the whole of the family.  It was intended to obtain good data on where any gaps might be and that this would inform the commissioning strategy. 

Panel Members requested data on the percentage of LAC who were within the youth justice system.  However, it was noted that young people who were remanded were automatically put into care. 

Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To agree preliminary findings and further work to be undertaken as part of the Panel’s project on youth transition.

The Chair reported that the Panel had been disappointed that it had not been able to make more progress with the project.  In particular, she thought that they had not necessarily received evidence from the right children and young people so far. Not all young people wished to go to university and a significant number were more interested in vocational options.  Part of the evidence received appeared to suggest that some young people felt at a disadvantage coming from the local area.  Many young people also went out of borough for post 16 education as they appeared to be of the view that there were more exciting opportunities elsewhere.   It was intended that the further work by the Panel would examine these issues.

Panel Members expressed concern at developments within post 16 education within the borough.  Both the Tottenham University Technical College (UTC) and Haringey 6^th Form College appeared to be experiencing challenges in recruiting students. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families stated that she shared the concerns of the Panel regarding post 16 education in the east of the borough.  The 6^th Form College now had a new Principal who was committed to increasing its attractiveness to potential students.  The UTC should be an attractive post 16 option for young people and efforts were being made to increase its visibility and profile.  In addition, a national digital college was to be launched that would provide another option for local young people.  Alternative options outside of the borough were not necessarily better than what was provided locally.

Panel Members stated that the work on this issue had to be considered within the context of the inequalities that existed within the borough.  Haringey was one of the most unequal boroughs in London and, in particular, there were particular inequalities based on ethnicity.  There was also an issue relating to travelling across the borough as there certain places where young people would not go due to rivalries based around post codes.  Many schools in the east of the borough did not have 6^th forms so provision was something that would need to be looked at, particularly as young people were now required to stay on until they were 18.  It would be useful to find out what colleges outside of the borough were doing to attract students.  Haringey did not necessarily need to compete directly but could instead focus on creating its own niche.  For example, it could concentrate on vocational routes in areas where there were skills shortages. 

In respect of the 6^th Form College, the Cabinet Member reported that it had now become an academy.  Work was taking place with it in order to bring about improvements.  The college had been set up at a time when schools in the east of the borough were not performing well and the intention was that it would attract a sufficient number of students to make it a viable proposition.  However, schools in the east were now performing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To agree items for prioritisation within the work plan for the Panel for recommendation to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Panel Members were of the view that the prevention of radicalisation was an issue that warranted particular attention.  It was noted that the Prevent programme was included within the list of potential community safety issues to be covered by the Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Panel, under whose terms of reference it was included.  The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People reported that there was a lot of work that was being undertaken on this issue with schools and that an element of safeguarding was included within this.  More staff were to be recruited to assist with the programme.  Members of the Panel were of the view that there needed to be a balanced approach.  Over reaction could lead to marginalising communities further.  It was important that there was consultation with communities and that Muslim people were involved in the development of the programme.

In respect of the proposal to undertake in-depth work on early help, Gill Gibson, Assistant Director for Children and Young People, requested that this be scheduled after the other proposed project for the Panel, which it was proposed would focus on early years.

The Panel noted the responsibilities that overview and scrutiny had in many important areas and which had been highlighted in reports on the Rotherham and Mid Staffordshire scandals.  Concern was expressed that the lack of staffing resources for scrutiny could preclude it from fulfilling these responsibilities adequately.  It was noted that report would be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27 July on the lessons from Rotherham.  This would look at the implications of the Casey report into the issue and would have a cross Council focus.  A programme of action would be recommended in response to it.  The Local Safeguarding Children Board would be an important element within this and regular liaison with it would be included within the work plan.

The Panel noted that overview and scrutiny had assumed a greater level of responsibility for scrutinising safeguarding following the disestablishment of the Council’s Children’s Safeguarding Policy and Practice Advisory Committee in 2012.  It was also noted that that all schools were required to have a safeguarding policy.  The Chair felt that reassurance and clarity regarding safeguarding issues would be welcome, such as details of how schools deal with issues and suggested that a presentation to Members could assist with this.

It was noted that the Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel would be undertaking a major piece of work on obesity.  The Children and Young People’s Panel could nevertheless still look at the issue but it would not necessarily need to be examined in depth.  The issue of school places was a matter of general concern and would be appropriate for a one-off item to provide assurance regarding planning processes.  In terms of educational attainment performance, there was a lot of data available and school performance was generally good across the borough.  One possibility for addressing this issue would be to invite two schools to come along to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

None.

·         8 October 2014; and

·         3 March 2016.

·         8 October 2015; and

·         3 March 2016.