Agenda item

To receive and comment on the Annual Report of Haringey Local Safeguarding Children’s Board.

Geraldine Gavin, Interim Independent Chair of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB), introduced the LSCB Annual Report.  She had taken over from Sir Paul Ennals after he had departed in May.  The report focused on what had been successful and what needed to be improved.  Of greatest significance was the recent publication of the revised “Working Together to Safeguard Children” and child death review guidance and new regulations for consultation.  These proposed some major changes. 

From April 2019, LSCBs would cease to exist.  Safeguarding would become the responsibility of three statutory partners; the local authority, CCG and Police.  In respect of the proposals relating to serious case reviews, it was proposed that they would continue to be undertaken locally except where there were issues that might be of national interest, which would be dealt with by a national panel.  New arrangements to review child deaths would need to be agreed locally.  The proposed changes and transitional process carried some risks in their implementation and there was important work to do over the next 18 months to make sure the risks were well managed.

Since coming to Haringey, she had found an active partnership and good dialogue.  She felt that the LSCB was keen and alert to bringing in changes where necessary.  There had been an increasing amount of pressure to access services.  There were currently too many cases being referred inwards and not enough early intervention.   She highlighted a number of issues;

·         The LSCB was giving particular attention to neglect;

·         Gangs and serious youth violence were big issues.  She noted that the borough’s Youth Parliament had identified gangs and crime, mental health and having things to do as their top three priorities;

·         In respect of mental health, a concordat had been signed to prevent young people in crisis being held temporarily in Police stations.  Consideration was being given by the government to passing responsibility for this issue to local authorities; and  

·         The London Safeguarding Board continued to play a significant role.  Issues of child sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation and the Prevent programme were three London wide priorities that all local LSCBs also needed to make progress on.

In answer to a question, she stated that funding for the LSCB was its biggest challenge.  Partners made contributions to the LSCB but the bulk of the funding came from the local authority.  Under the new arrangements, the costs were intended to be shared between the three statutory partners.  Under the current system, the amount contributed by CCGs varied between areas and some other areas received more from their CCG than Haringey.  She commented that the new arrangements would include provision for independent scrutiny, although how this was done would be a matter for local determination.

Ms Gavin commented that she had access to a spreadsheet on LSCB funding across London.  Some boroughs received virtually nothing from external sources to fund their LSCB but payment in kind was sometimes offered instead.  The new guidance stated that all three statutory partners should jointly fund the LSCB.  Serious case reviews could have significant financial implications, with each costing between £5-10,000, and there could be several of these each year.  She felt that, at the very least, there needed to be some consistency between boroughs who were part of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan for north central London. There was a requirement for independent external scrutiny within the guidance but how this was achieved was not specified. 

She stated that the purpose of the LSCB was to facilitate partnership and dialogue and hold partners to account for their contribution to keeping children and young people safe. There was a small business unit to support this in Haringey.  New support arrangements would need to be determined as part of the local transitional arrangements.  Although the aim of the new arrangements was to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, there was a need for a minimum level of administrative support. 

The timing and frequency of board meetings was a matter for it to decide and it currently met on a three monthly basis.  Reducing the number of meetings and restricting attendance to just those who were essential helped make arrangements more cost effective.   However, there was a risk though that the voluntary sector and schools would not be as well engaged with the LSCB as a result of this.  Active lay members could add value to the work of the LSCB.

In answer to a question, Ms. Gavin stated that the LSCB got no money from central government.  It was entirely funded by safeguarding partners.  She reported that the first draft of the updated Working Together had contained no reference to schools.  Of particular relevance was the fact they were not regarded as a statutory partner.  Most LSCBs currently contained Headteacher representatives but some academies were less co-operative.   Most Headteachers were nevertheless keen to assist.   She stated that there were specific concerns in respect of home educated children that needed to be considered.

In response to a question, Ms. Gavin reported that there were good links with Adult Safeguarding but there was nevertheless a need for services to be joined up better.  Whilst improvements had been made, more progress needed to be made.

In answer to a question regarding lay and community involvement, she reported that a newsletter had been produced for community and voluntary sector colleagues in order to generate awareness and interest.   However, there were some difficulties due to lack of funding.  She felt that practice could be better informed by engagement with the community.  The Youth Council could provide a source of feedback but thought needed to be given on how best to engage with them. 

She reported that were around 100 serious case reviews that took place nationally in a year and they were all now required to be published.    In practice, most LSCBs published executive summaries on their websites.  There was one currently in progress in Haringey and there were currently around 1-2 per year.  Cities such as Birmingham could have up to 8 at any one time.

They Panel thanked Ms. Gavin for her kind assistance.