Agenda item

The Committee considered a call-in from Councillor Stokes seeking to scrutinise both the Borough Council and all relevant partners in respect of their child protection policies and practices.  These partners included the three local health authorities (Berkshire East Primary Care Trust, The Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals Trust and the Berkshire Healthcare Trust), the Thames Valley Police, the local voluntary sector and the Probation Service, amongst others.  Councillor Stokes had suggested that all relevant partners be invited to separate meetings to facilitate the scrutiny of individual policies and practices and to assess partner co-ordination. 

The Committee was advised that all of these partners are members of the Slough Local Safeguarding Children Board, established arising out of the recommendations of the Lord Laming, and whose role specifically is to ensure that child protection procedures across the partners are fit for purpose and regularly scrutinised.  The Board had an independent Chair and had recently been involved in the revision and republication of child protection procedures across Berkshire.  The Committee was asked to consider whether the detailed scrutiny as suggested by Councillor Stokes could to some extent duplicate the work already being undertaken by the Safeguarding Board.

The Committee was also advised that, as well as the role of the Safeguarding Board, child protection in Slough has been subject to a number of other forms of scrutiny during the last year.  These include:

·  External scrutiny from Ofsted, as well as requests from the DCSF and the Government Office of the South-East for information over the last nine months following the death of Baby Peter.

·  Report and briefing at Council in December 2008.

·  Reports to the Education & Children’s Services Scrutiny Panel in June and October 2009 with regard to the recent unannounced Ofsted inspection.

·  Three discussions at the Local Strategic Partnership in the last year.

·  The considerable amount of officer time dedicated to briefing and training Members on their safeguarding role.

The Committee was offered a number of options if it wished to pursue this call-in.  One option was for the establishment of a Task and Finish Group (T&FG) of Councillors with the time to commit to a series of daytime meetings.  It was suggested that if a T&FG was proposed, the Committee needed to be very clear about its purpose, remit of timescale, and why it was required outside of the existing inspection, scrutiny and LSCB processes.

The second option was for a briefing by the Strategic Director of Education & Children’s Services on the authority’s child protection policies and practices and to outline the role of the Safeguarding Board in engaging all partners in child protection and ensuring that best practice is followed in referral processes and arranging for appropriate training to be undertaken by staff in all agencies.

A third option put forward was to ask this Panel to undertake a detailed scrutiny of child protection procedures to satisfy itself of their robustness.

Members of the Committee were unanimous in the view that this was an issue of the utmost importance and that Members should satisfy themselves that appropriate practices and procedures were in place in Slough so that a tragedy such as had happened with Victoria Climbie or Baby Peter could not be repeated in the town.  Following considerable debate, the Committee decided that it would be appropriate to pass the call-in to the Education & Children’s Services Scrutiny Panel with a view to it establishing a Task and Finish Group to consider the issue.  The Committee took the view however that the terms of Councillor Stokes’s call-in were extremely wide and that it would be important to focus in on the key areas of the performance of the Local Safeguarding Children Board and how the key partners worked in the field of child protection.  The Committee noted that the BILLD Group Members were not currently participating in the scrutiny process and, given that a Member of that Group had submitted the call-in, it would be appropriate to formally invite that Group to be involved in this scrutiny process.  Councillor Stokes indicated that he would be prepared to serve on any Task and Finish Group established for this purpose.

Members further suggested that it may be appropriate for consideration to be given to co-opting representation from appropriate external bodies, including for example the NSPCC or Barnardos as they had particular expertise in this field. 

A Member referred to a comment made in Councillor Stokes’s call-in letter suggesting that the call-in may be “sabotaged” and asked Councillor Stokes to explain this.  He commented that he believed the scrutiny system in Slough was politicised and referred to the fact that the Audit Commission had criticised the process in the past.  He added that if the call-in was responded to appropriately by the Committee, the BILLD Group may reconsider its previous decision not to appoint Members to the scrutiny bodies in the current municipal year.  Following further discussion, Councillor Stokes apologised for his use of the word “sabotage” which he withdrew.

A proposal moved by Councillor Cryer and seconded by Councillor Coad that approval in principle be given to the establishment of a Task and Finish Group, subject to further discussions between the Chair and Vice-Chair and Councillor Stokes on issues such as its functioning and timescale, with proposals presented to the next meeting was put and lost.

Resolved –

(a)  That Councillor Stokes’s call-in be referred to the Education and Children’s Services Scrutiny Panel with a recommendation that it considers establishing a Task and Finish Group to consider the issue of Child Protection Procedures and Practices in Slough.

(b)  That the scrutiny concentrate on the role of the Local Safeguarding Children Board and the effectiveness of partner organisations in child protection.

(c)  That the BILLD Group be formally invited to be involved in the Task and Finish Group. 

(d)  That the Panel give consideration to co-opting representation from appropriate external bodies such as the NSPCC or Barnardos. 

(e)  That the Panel decide the composition, terms of reference and timescale of the proposed Task and Finish Group.