Agenda and minutes

1.1       RESOLVED – to confirm as a correct record the minutes of the last Committee meeting held on 16 March 2015.

2.1       Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Stephen Shing and Angharad Davies; Simon Parr, Roman Catholic Diocese representative; and Parent Governor Representatives, Cathy Platten and Nicola Boulter.

Disclosures by all members present of personal interests in matters on the agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the member regards the interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct.

3.1       Councillor Field declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in item 6 as she chairs an early years setting within the county.

Notification of items which the Chair considers to be urgent and proposes to take at the appropriate part of the agenda. Any members who wish to raise urgent items are asked, wherever possible, to notify the Chair before the start of the meeting. In so doing, they must state the special circumstances which they consider justify the matter being considered urgent.

4.1       No urgent matters were notified.

5.1   The Committee asked at its previous meeting for the Local Safeguarding

Children Board (LSCB) to report back on the outcomes from the Serious Case Reviews it had most recently completed.  Councillor Field introduced the report by clarifying it was not the role of the Committee to revisit the subject matter of the reviews.  Instead the Committee’s role was to focus on and consider the recommendations and learning identified in the report.

5.2       The Director of Children’s Services agreed to provide on an annual basis a report to the Committee on the LSCB’s serious case reviews.  The Director also agreed that amendments to the format of future serious case review reports would be considered in the light of the Committee’s comments.

5.3       The Director then highlighted the LSCB’s role in holding all relevant agencies to account for their learning from serious case reviews; that similarly each individual agency has its own governance structure in terms of looking at learning and actions and that the role of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee is an important part of that process.   Despite the publicity the cases considered by the review process had generated, officers were still duty bound to maintain the confidentially of the relevant parties at all times. 

5.4       The key responsibilities of the LSCB with regard to serious case reviews, the processes it must follow and the constraints the Board operate under when publishing reports were then summarized by Reg Hooke, Chair of the LSCB.   These points included:

·         that it is a statutory duty of the LSCB to conduct a serious case review where a child has either died or has been seriously injured and it is suspected there has been abuse or neglect;

·         the East Sussex Safeguarding Board has a case review sub group, of which serious case reviews form a small part of the workload.   It is via this sub-group that recommendations are made to the Chair of the LSCB as to whether a serious case review should take place. All cases, whether single or multi agency are considered; and

·         whilst recent serious case reviews have been published, a fundamental responsibility of the Board is to determine the content of any published report.   The Board have a duty to ensure that any published reports do not contain information which may identify individuals.   Reports are also not published until the full serious case review and the LCSB scrutiny role have been completed.   

5.5       Douglas Sinclair, Head of Children's Safeguards & Quality Assurance then took the Committee through a presentation on the two serious case reviews that were before them. Details of these cases, learnings and recommendations are contained within the report.  

Comments and Questions

5.6    The Committee welcomed the report and the opportunity to comment on the learning and recommendations.   A central issue for the Committee was whether it had been provided with sufficient information to enable it to perform its scrutiny role effectively.  For example, the Committee wanted more specific information about the uptake and proper implementation of individual recommendations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1       This is a six month monitoring report of the scrutiny review that reported to the Committee on 15 September 2014.   The Assistant Director for Education and Inclusion Special Educational Needs and Disability (ISEND) introduced the item by drawing the Committee’s attention to the many positive outcomes contained within the report and to ask the Committee to note this progress.   The report contains an action plan which is divided into seven sections.   The Committee were then provided with a summary of the some of the key outcomes within these seven recommendations, these points included:

·         Recommendation 1.   This recommendation relates to Home Learning and Children’s Centres.  The Committee were informed levels of co-ordination between different teams working within early years has improved and that the de-designation of children’s centres was incorporated into the department’s plan for the most vulnerable 2 year olds.  

·         Recommendation 3.   This target focused on improving communication with parents and making it easier for them to identify high quality pre-school provision.    The Department undertook a number of strategies to improve this area.  Although one aspect of this work is in abeyance because of a wider website update that is programmed to happen in the autumn.  A communication marketing campaign aimed at 2 year old entitlement was also undertaken.   Uptake in this area is now above the national average, and this has had the benefit of increasing 3 year old uptake. 

·         Recommendation 4.  This target focused on the quality of transitions, assessment and early years teaching practice.   The Village project which is now moving into its 4^th phase has been key to improving transitions and has had a very positive impact.   For example, the outcomes for children within the project have increased at a rate above the rest of the local authority.  The increased level of interest and engagement from schools and their commitment to early years is also viewed as very encouraging.   Increasing numbers of schools are coming forward to take over the early years provision which is on their site.  Similarly, a number of schools have also indicated they wish to lower the age range of their school to take in this early years group.   There is also increased interest from Head-teachers looking to work together in this area – as evidenced by the fact that there are now 10 early years hubs across East Sussex.   With regard to the quality of early years provision, there is very strong improvement as recorded in Ofsted outcomes.

·         Recommendation 7.   With regard to funding, the scrutiny review board recognised that it would not be possible to bring additional resources to this area.   However a question was raised by the review board as to whether resources could be reprioritised.  As a result of this, reports were taken to the Schools Forum which approved allowing some funding that sits within the ‘school’s block’ to be transferred across to the ‘early years block’.  This meant that the higher level of payment for a highly vulnerable two year old  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1       The Committee discussed the work programme and the potential areas for future reports and scrutiny reviews.

7.2       The Chair of the Committee informed the meeting that following a discussion with the Director of Children’s Services, it was agreed to postpone having a position statement on CAMHS at the June meeting (following a request for such an item at the March meeting of the Committee).  The decision to postpone this report was taken with the advent of the East Sussex Better Together transformation programme and the Better Care Fund money in mind and the impact these items might have on the service.   It was therefore agreed that a position statement should be provided as appropriate to either the September or November meetings of the Committee. 

7.3   The Committee requested a report on the Thrive programme be brought to the Scrutiny Committee being held on the 21 September 2015 to update the Committee on the end of the programme and to examine any financial implications for the budget setting process.   

7.4   The Committee agreed to continue with its rolling programme of attainment reviews and decided to conduct a review of attainment in Key Stage 1.

7.5      The Committee were informed that the Raising the Participation Age Scrutiny review was nearing completion.   It is anticipated that a final report will be provided to the meeting taking place on 23 November 2015.   

AWAY DAY

7.6      The Committee discussed the subject matter and arrangements for an Away Day, which it was agreed would take place on Friday 24 July 2015.  The purpose of the Away Day would be to provide an informal training opportunity to ensure the Committee is prepared for the ‘RPPR’ challenges ahead.     In advance of the Away Day it was also agreed that arrangements would be made for Members of the Committee to visit various teams within the Children’s Services Department.   

7.7   RESOLVED:  It was resolved that the work programme will be amended in line with paragraphs 5.17, 6.11, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 above.

The Forward Plan for the period June to September 2015. The Committee is asked to make comments or request further information.

8.1       The Committee noted the Forward Plan for the period 1 June 2015 to 31 October 2015.