Agenda item

 Following  the Committee’s initial discussion of the findings of the Judicial Review, the Independent Member  has been asked by the Chair to complete a  short audit of  the  work of the screening team . The audit will  examine in particular  how consent  has been  gained  to share information on cases,  proportionality, and the thresholds  being worked to. Report to follow.

The Independent Member had completed a case audit of referrals to the screening team and in the introduction to the audit the independent member had added some background by referring to the Judicial Review. The Independent member   clarified that she may have over stipulated certain aspects of the case. For example, the background wrongly implied that   the unlawful sharing of information stemmed from the information sharing strategy in use by the MASH. This was implied in the judgement but not stipulated.

The Independent Member had completed her case audit of referrals 4 days after the temporary protocol had been put in place. The Committee noted that there around 20-25 referrals to the first response team every day with discussions held with the refer when received.  The Committee heard about the different kinds of case referrals received by the Screening team and how sometimes it will be obvious that a strategy meeting is needed but there will be cases where information provided is ambigious and there will need to be further clarifications provided form the referrer to assess the right way forward.  Prior to the Judicial Review, cases, where information was missing, would be considered by the MASH for an early view and some were dismissed at this stage. The judgement currently suggests that, where there is ambiguous information provided in a referral, you cannot make enquiries with partners and agencies about the family without parental consent.   In response to a question about   information needed to take forward a section 47  investigation ,where it is not clear that this type of intervention is needed a section 17  should be  implemented and this will enable  a visit to the family and  after this a  move to a section 47 investigation, if needed. The Committee were advised that , if it is not clear  whether a section 17 or  section 47  investigation is required, the judgement  currently implies that  no  action is  taken . This still leaves the service with an open case until either the referrer gets consent or information is obtained which meets the threshold for a section 17 investigation. The Committee were advised that the way forward was obligating the referrer (Midwife, Teacher, and GP) who was in contact with the family seeking consent to make   enquiries about the welfare of the child/young person. The merits of this were that the family are being approached by a professional that they already have a working relationship with. The Committee commented on this responsibility of the professional working with the family and how much they were currently aware of this. They would need to be sufficiently confident in this responsibility and trained appropriately to approach the subject of their concern about the child with the parents and seek approval to make further enquiries about the welfare of the child.  The Committee commented that the social worker would be experienced and educated in the role of approaching a family or person as opposed to a professional from the third sector that may not have the necessary skills to perform this role.   The Committee were advised that In terms of reporting of issues and making referrals to First Response, going forward, if there was more onus placed on schools and other agencies for taking forward their concerns with the family this would lead to better reporting and better ownership of the issues to be addressed.  

 It was reiterated that it was the lack of recording around the reasons for

Dispensing with the parents consent to undertake an investigation of the concerns which was a crucial element of the case against the council. There were a range of reasons why consent could be dispensed with and these would need to be written down before action such as a section 47 was taken forward.

The Committee were further asked to note that the council was still waiting formal interpretation of the full implications of the judgment on information sharing between partners from a QC who specialised in data protection. When received, this advice and its implications would be formally considered at the LSCB and by this Committee.  The Committee were keen to ensure that wider community groups and stakeholders were aware of the current status of information sharing and their responsibility for providing quality information at the time of the referral to avoid ambiguity and quicker assessment of the referral.  They would also need to be clear on their responsibilities for seeking consent from parents to share information with partners. The Chair felt there should be a formal process around this to ensure there was  adherence to these responsibilities especially for organisations that may not be in daily contact with Children Services  and will not be fully aware of the changes .  A formal process will allow issues around compliance to be raised.  The Committee wanted to ensure that all  local stakeholders that are in contact with children/families were fully aware of their responsibilities and did not sit on information because they were unsure of the process or had the skills to take a referral forward. The Chair requested an update on engagement and involvement with wider community groups/stakeholders at the next meeting.   

In  connection  with the responsibilities of  professionals and support workers working with families  clear direction would ensure there was no anxiety at the ground level when working with families.  This would really reassure the work force and help with judgement calls.  This would in turn translate into better performance.  It was important to be clear on the specifics and provide wider understanding of the implications.  The clear message being given out by the service was that if you record you protect. There should be clear accountable reasons for ignoring consent.

The Committee agreed to consider advice of the QC on information sharing at their next meeting in July and get a wider report back on engagement with wider community groups on the changes relating to information sharing and their roles and responsibility.