Agenda item
Tower Hamlets Safeguarding Partnership
A presentation to be made at the meeting. Background reading papers attached.
Minutes:
Mr James Thomas, Corporate Director for Children and Culture made a presentation to the Sub-Committee outlining the work of the Tower Hamlets Safeguarding Partnership. He was joined by Mr Az Odabashian, Acting Detective Chief Inspector Public Protection (Met Police) and Mr Chetan Vyas, Director of Quality and Safety (WEL CCG).
He informed Members there had been a smooth transition from the former Board to the Partnership and highlighted three areas which gave new responsibilities to the statutory safeguarding partners.
Mr Thomas said under the new requirements equal responsibility in safeguarding children in the borough had been given to all partners rather than just the local authority. The changes also required independent scrutiny of the Partnership. Mr Thomas said the government had not prescribed how this would happen and had left it open to local partners to decide. The Partnership decided to appoint an independent scrutineer to oversee their work but were clear they could not rely on one person. He said the Partnership would develop a range of methods for independent scrutiny, with the Children and Education Scrutiny Sub-Committee also having a role in that process. Thirdly, changes had been made to how reviews are undertaken, with a move away from serious case reviews to the new local learning reviews. This gave local partners more leeway to establish the scope and determine how they carry out the reviews.
Ms Thomas said that since establishing the baseline for the changes, they had started to bring in more rigour to the partnership in terms of fulfilling their responsibilities, understanding the safeguarding system, looking at what is working well and what needs attention to drive improvement. Mr Thomas said they relied on data, listening to what children and young people told them plus a range of activity including learning reviews and audits. Mr Thomas informed members considerable time had been spent in setting the core priorities of the Partnership for 2021/22 and three key areas had been identified. (1) Domestic Abuse and the Impact on Children and Young People (2) Staying Safe Online and (3) Exploitation and Adolescent Safeguarding (Joint with Safeguarding Adults Board).
In response to questions from Members the following was noted:
· The framework for serious case reviews were set nationally, however under the new local learning reviews, the Partnership has more discretion as to how these are carried out. Mr Thomas said there would be both national and local learning reviews so wherever there is a death and reason to think that it could have been prevented, the Partnership had a responsibility to carry out a rapid review within 15 days, to determine whether a full local review should be carried out. Mr Thomas said the guidance is on learning and not on blame. The national panel takes a thematic approach so instead of looking in detail at one incident they gather a cluster of incidents and do a comprehensive piece of work nationally. Mr Thomas said they were looking at how they could replicate this locally because by looking at a cluster of cases with similar issues arising the Partnership would gain a depth of learning which it would not get from just looking at one incident.
· The technology devices supplied to children, during the pandemic for home learning had safeguarding software installed and schools would ensure checks and balances were in place, so they are not used inappropriately.
· In response to how cases of harm were investigated, Mr Vyas responded stating in all incidents there is a rapid review process. The process is undertaken with a range of partners and professionals in the safeguarding environment who make a judgement call based on all the information they have available. Mr Vyas said based on evidence a recommendation is made to the Children’s safeguarding executive to instigate a learning review. Mr Vyas said he was not suggesting cases would not be investigated because all cases are subject to a rapid review but there is a judgment call as to whether this would proceed to a full learning review. In respect to the Bethnal Green case, Mr Vyas said it was difficult to comment on specifics but professionals who would have come into contact with the girls, would have had to make a judgement call regarding the case.
· The Chair stated it would be beneficial to learn if that case would be something we could learn from now. She acknowledged the case predated the time the invitees had been at Tower Hamlets.
· In reference to page 89 of the agenda which showed the proportion of children subject to a child protection plan by category of abuse, Councillor Perry asked why Tower Hamlets had a high percentage of cases of Neglect, at 65%. She asked what were the instances of neglect and the reasons for this? Mr Baldwin, Divisional Director for Children’s Social Care stated neglect cases were taken seriously and said this was a key issue for the borough. He said the figures were what they were but in terms of looked after children the numbers were low compared to statistical neighbours and the national average. Mr Baldwin said the Council’s social care team did a good job keeping children safe at home and said this was reflected in their understanding of neglect. Poverty and inadequate housing played a role in why a child may be subject to a plan under the category of Neglect. Mr Baldwin said these were not a reason to bring children into care on their own but may indicate a safeguarding issue particularly when there are parents who might have a substance misuse or mental health issue and/or children at risk of exploitation.
· The Chair asked how the Partnership was going to achieve a balance between being reactive and being strategic. Mr Thomas responded saying the Partnership had concerns about harm being hidden during the pandemic lockdown and as such the Partnership were conscious that it ought not be stuck in a reactive space. Mr Thomas said they had set their strategic priorities for the year ahead and believed a balance would be maintained between the two. Mr Thomas said there would always be an element of being reactive, however he hoped that through the priorities and the annual report which would be brought to the Sub-Committee, they would be able to show the rigour in how they have raised the bar in safeguarding.
· The Chair asked how the new partnership was going to ensure it was a healthy working partnership and not a partnership based on passing the buck. How would it be taking ownership for decisions to keep children safe? Mr Odabashian responded saying buck passing was not the way forward and whilst each service area, council, metropolitan police and health partners were stretched in terms of staffing and budget pressures, there were functions that each organisation had to undertake and each were a critical friend to each other. Mr Odabashian said conflict can raise but the intention is always do the right thing for the child. Mr Vyas added they had every intention of being strategic and would ensure the Partnership would be a healthy place to improve the lives of children they were protecting.
o ACTION: The Chair said she would be keen to meet with the independent scrutineer and asked if the independent scrutineer could comment on the questions asked by members and said she would like a further discussion on this at a future meeting looking at the strategic priorities.
The Chair thanked the participants for this item and said the Sub-Committee appreciated their attendance.
Supporting documents:
- Item 6.3, item 6.3 PDF 92 KB
- TH SCP Arrangements, item 6.3 PDF 881 KB
- Presentation - LSCB to SCP, item 6.3 PDF 386 KB
- SCP Annual Report 19-20, item 6.3 PDF 2 MB
- One Page Summary THSCP Annual Report, item 6.3 PDF 224 KB
- Local Learning Review Options_, item 6.3 PDF 289 KB
- Priorities Planning Report, item 6.3 PDF 230 KB
- THSCP udate - Presentation slides, item 6.3 PDF 118 KB