Agenda and minutes

To agree the procedures for the operation of hybrid meetings.

With agreement from the Chair, the Committee was conducted as an informal remote meeting due to severe weather conditions and travel strike action; therefore, the hybrid meeting procedure was not required.

Apologies had been received from Councillors Cooper and Parkinson and Co-opted Members Margaret Harvey, Reverend Guy Pope and Samir Qurashi.

There were no declarations.

Broadcast of the meeting

The Chair to announce the following: ‘In addition to the rights by law that the public and press have to record this meeting, I would like to remind everyone that this meeting is being broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for twelve months after the meeting. After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available upon request.

If you have asked to address the meeting, you are deemed to be consenting to having your contributions recorded and broadcast, including video when switched on, and to the use of those sound recordings and images for webcasting and/or training purposes’.

The Chair made the following announcement: “In addition to the rights by law that the public and press have to record this meeting, I would like to remind everyone that this meeting is being broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for twelve months after the meeting. After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available upon request.

If you have asked to address the meeting, you are deemed to be consenting to having your contributions recorded and broadcast, including video when switched on, and to the use of those sound recordings and images for webcasting and/or training purposes.”

The Chair welcomed the two newly appointed parent governor co-opted members: Dr Rachel Wrangham (secondary rep) and Sarah Jafri (primary rep). 

Requests to speak at the Committee on a matter within its terms of reference must be made in writing to the clerk named on the front of this agenda by 5pm two working days before the meeting.

There were no deputations.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 14 November 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2022 were noted and deferred to be agreed at the next formal meeting of the Committee.

There was no urgent business.

Report of the Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families.

The Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families here provides the Committee with their annual report for discussion. This year’s report includes focus on the continued recovery from the pandemic and lockdowns and the cost-of-living crisis.

Consideration was given to the report of the Cabinet Member for Best Start for Children and Families. The report was presented by the Cabinet Member and focussed on the continued recovery from the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. The paper covered the following topics; Ofsted on Camden’s Children’s Services; Camden’s Schools Attainment; Camden Learning; the Education Strategy; Work Beyond Schools to Provide the Best Start to Children and Families; and Special Programmes, Responses and Other 2022 Projects. The Cabinet Member thanked Children’s Services colleagues for their work.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for the report and invited comments and questions from the Committee. It was discussed:

·       A Member stated that having spoken to teachers it was clear there was a lack in resourcing, particularly flagging speech therapy waiting times, which could not be resolved solely by innovation and collaboration that had been demonstrated by colleagues. She asked how the funding gap would be addressed. In response, it was stated that resources were an issue and that falling rolls was a key consideration for funding. They were expecting central funding for schools imminently, however much of it would be swallowed up by increasing schools’ capital costs, energy costs and staff pay rises. Camden feedback their concerns to the DfE through their regular meetings and there were ongoing discussions to lobby governments following place planning talks with the Local Government Association (LGA) and other Children’s Services lead members in other authorities.  Camden was also meeting the Shadow Secretary of State for Education in early January to raise these issues.

·       In relation to Camden Learning in section 2.3, a Member asked how the impact of training and Camden Learning’s interventions were being measured. In response, it was stated that there were yearly standards meetings between individual schools and Camden Learning to review results, other assessment criteria and compare to similar schools across the borough. Additionally, school advisors called Camden Professional Partners (CPP’s) visited all maintained school in Camden and reported on both the quality of education and welfare of pupils. The Cabinet Member stated that they would provide more information on the impact of specific training outside of the meeting.

Action By – CEO Camden Learning

·       A Member asked if there had been a recent increase in the number of children qualifying for free school meals (FSM). In response, it was stated that in autumn 2018, 27% of Camden maintained school population was eligible for free school meals. By autumn 2022, that rose to 40.3%, which was a significant increase in terms of overall numbers from 6066 to 8784. It was confirmed that FSM were centrally funded.

·       It was confirmed that there would be a breakfast club provision supported by the Council to provide free breakfast to all pupils eligible for FSM, at the minimum, by March 2023. It was confirmed the breakdown in cost of the breakfast club accounted not just for the food offer itself, but the care and resource to provide the spaces.

·       A Co-opted Member stated that schools  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting People.

In response to the Children and Social Work Act 2017, and publication of Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018, the Camden Safeguarding Children Partnership (CSCP) replaced the Camden Safeguarding Children Board (CSCB) on 1st July 2019. The statutory guidance set out what is expected of organisations, individually and jointly, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

The three statutory safeguarding partners, who hold equal responsibility for safeguarding children in the borough, lead the work of the CSCP, and they are Camden Council, North Central London Integrated Care Board (formally Clinical Commissioning Group) and Central North Basic Command Unit (BCU) of the London Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The annual report analyses the impact of the CSCP in maintaining good governance and strategic oversight of the quality and performance of the local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Supporting People. The CSCP Statutory Safeguarding Partners and the Independent Scrutineer, listed below, spoke to a presentation which drew key points from the report:

·       Martin Pratt, Executive Director of Supporting People (DCS)

·       Supt Charmaine Laurencin, Central North Basic Command Unit (BCU) of the London Metropolitan Police Service

·       David Pennington, Director for Safeguarding, North Central London Integrated Care Board

·       Dominic Clout, Independent Scrutineer

The presentation covered the CSCP Priorities for increased focus for 2020-22 and 2022-24; the governance of the CSCP; the ‘single front door’ service through Early Years and the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH); referrals to MASH by agencies; learning from national serious safeguarding incidents and local learning; safeguarding and supporting asylum seeking families; the independent scrutiny from the Independent Scrutineer, Lay Members and Young Advisors; supporting safeguarding in schools; and CSCP multi-agency safeguarding training.

The Chair thanked partners for the report and presentation and invited comments and questions from the Committee. The following was discussed:

·       In relation to neglect in section 3.11, a Member commented that child poverty even existed in households where there was at least one parent working and that poverty could be linked to cases of neglect that were not of the fault of families. In response, it was stated that poverty did not equate to neglect, however it was noted that poverty did pile stress onto families. Camden had invested heavily into early help services and additional offers through universal services – including the breakfast club offer, holiday activity and food vouchers and vouchers given to schools to distribute to families directly in a not stigmatising way. There were families crossing the threshold into poverty due to the increasingly difficult economic circumstances.

·       A Co-opted Member praised the report and particularly the support for the Designated Safeguarding Leads (DSL).

·       In response to a Co-opted Member, the priority of addressing professional differences in section 4.1 was clarified that there had been occasional instances where there was friction between agencies and it was the job of the statutory partners to ensure frontline services worked well together and lowered barriers. There had been cases where if concerns about a partners decisions had been escalated, then issues could have been resolved at an earlier stage, therefore it had become a priority.

·       A Co-opted Member asked how, in the ever increasing demands of the social and child protection services, was the Council working to safeguard early interventions and protect the Camden model. In response, it was stated that there had been no decision to raise the threshold of the requirement of protection services and the model remained the same. During covid there were differences because there were different risks and fewer children in schools. They were constantly auditing the process and looking at the consistency of decision making and the balance between those children who were in statutory safeguarding and social work services and those who could be supported outside of those services. Any colleagues who were concerned about any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Director of Children’s Safeguarding and Social Work Services.

This report provides information about complaints made to the Children’s statutory services in the London Borough of Camden during the twelve months between 1st April 2021 and 31st March 2022. It is a statutory requirement to produce an annual report which is published on the Council’s website.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Children’s Safeguarding and Social Work Services. The Executive Director Supporting people summarised the report. In addition to the paper he outlined the following:

·       The complaints were taken as a form of valuable feedback when processes did not happen as they ought to. The Council took complaints seriously and were reviewed and responded to through learning culture.

·       The period considered in the report was during the pandemic and there was a slight fall in the number of complaints received. This pandemic period meant that engaging with the complainant and the court proceeding process was more challenging than usual. Another challenge during this period was disruption to the looked after children service due to the sad and unexpected passing of a senior colleague, which meant some case tracking had been lost.

·       Next year there would be significant improvements to the timeliness of responses after installing changes to the complaints process. Firstly, they had introduced the role of a quality assurance administrator who was responsible for tracking and ensuring the responses were uploaded to the Council-wide complaints system, and secondly, a newly established Quality Assurance and Performance Board meeting monthly. Themes and patterns emerging of complaints would be reviewed and complemented by a new tracker for staff training.

·       A theme which had emerged through formal complaints was age disputes for Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC), complaints that children were being assessed to be adults.

The Chair thanked officers for the report and invited comments and questions from the Committee. The following was discussed:

·       In relation to the Children’s Safeguarding and Social Work (CSSW) Summary in section 4.21, a Co-opted Member asked whether in future reports that information could be presented in a way that showed the nature of a complaint, in addition to the judgement itself, and what had been learnt from the feedback. In response, it was stated that there was a quality assurance approach to measure how well they were progressing a single case or particular area of a service; this used data through auditing, samples and interviews ranging from single to multi agency; there was external validation of internal evaluations; and the actual experiences of residents, no matter how challenging those conversations may be and in some cases mediated to help redesign systems in a meaningful way. An example of how that learning journey had been successful in the past was the creation of the Parent Advisory Board through the Camden Conversations. Information would be shared with the Committee about the Camden Conversations.

Action By – Director of Children’s Safeguarding and Social Work

The meeting noted the report.

Report of the Chair of Language Development Scrutiny Panel.

The paper provides an update on the work so far of the Children, Schools and Families scrutiny panel set up to investigate the impact of Covid on the language development of early years and key stage one children in Camden.

Consideration was given to the report of the Chair of Language Development Scrutiny Panel. Councillor Sylvia McNamara updated the Committee on the Language Development Scrutiny Panel’s work since it was established. In addition to the report, it was noted:

·       The Panel had met with early years providers and parents. They hoped to set up additional interview sessions with more representatives from each group. There had been difficulties receiving responses from teachers and governors, likely due to the busy period, and they would now seek questionnaire responses instead of oral interviews.

·       The findings of the interview sessions so far aligned with national reporting, including the most recent Ofsted report. They were specifically finding an overlap with SEND and delays in language development. It was clear from feedback from parents that they struggled to access the support they would like in a timely manner, which linked to challenges of resourcing.

·       It was noted that the samples used were not representative of the borough, given the limited time period, however the findings would still provide useful information for services and a snapshot perspective.

The meeting noted the update report.

Report of the Executive Director, Supporting People 

This report sets out the work programme for the municipal year 2022/23 for the Committee’s consideration. The Committee will continue to be provided with an updated report on their future work programme at each meeting, for their consideration.

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Supporting People.

The meeting noted the work programme for the remainder of the municipal year.

The Children, Schools and Families Scrutiny Committee is asked to note the future meeting dates for the remainder of the 2022-23 municipal year:

·       12 January 2023

·       20 February 2023

The following future meeting dates for municipal year 2022-23 were noted:

·       13 December 2022

·       17 January 2023 (moved from 12 January)

·       20 February 2023

There was no urgent business.