Issue - items at meetings - Draft Brighton & Hove Local Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2010-2011

Report of Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (copy attached).

(1)       That the report be noted, and that its contents be taken into account in the Board’s future work (or that of successor bodies such as any Health and Wellbeing Board).

9.1       The Board considered a report of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board which presented the Brighton & Hove Local Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2010-11.  The report explained that the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 introduced a requirement for Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards (LSCBs) to produce and publish an Annual Report on the effectiveness of safeguarding in the local area.  The future recipient of the LSCB Annual Report when Children’s Trusts are no longer statutorily required, had not been determined.  The report was being submitted to the CYPT again this year as this was still required by statutory guidance.   

9.2             Alan Bedford presented the report (which would be submitted each autumn from now on) and highlighted the importance of the LSCB at a time of public sector reorganisation and financial constraint.  He also highlighted the business plan achievements in 2010-11, the key topics addressed by the Board, and the contribution of many staff from all agencies in the subgroups.  He mentioned that the new chief officer led Executive Group had been successful in making quick high level decisions on priority.  Meanwhile, safeguarding had been kept high on agency agendas.

9.3              Mr Bedford drew attention to the section headed Children & Young People Subject of a Child Protection Plan Year Ending 31 March 2011.  This stated that “The rate of children subject of a child protection plan per 10,000 in Brighton & Hove was almost double that of its statistical neighbours.”  It was not clear why the numbers had remained consistently high in Brighton & Hove and the Head of Service Children & Families described work in hand to explore this.    

9.4       The Business Plan for 2011/12 included an audit of child sexual abuse.  This would try to gain an overview as to why numbers of such cases appeared to be low in Brighton & Hove compared to 10 years ago.  There would also be a second audit of domestic violence to assess progress since the 2010 audit identified areas for action.    

9.5       Mr Bedford stressed that it was important for the LSCB to be a strong fixed point while there is so much reorganisation locally.  The Government wanted LSCBs to continue and strengthen their role in relation to assessing the effectiveness of local services.  

9.6       The Chair informed the Committee that she was an executive member of the LSCB.   She thanked Mr Bedford for his thorough report and invited questions.

9.7       Councillor Marsh thanked Mr Bedford and said that she valued the work he carried out.  She referred to the LSCB conference looking at why Brighton & Hove had more children subject to child protection measures.  It would be useful to have feedback from the conference.  Councillor Marsh asked what would happen to the CYPT Board when the Health and Wellbeing Board took over.  She was concerned to know where matters relating to children would be considered.   It was agreed this matter would be discussed at under Item 10.

9.8       Alan Bedford stated that the LSCB did not fully understand why more children in the city were subject to child protection measures.  It was likely that it was related to the need to improve the quality of early intervention and prevention work.    

9.9       The Head of Service, Children and Families reported that there had been a significant piece of work looking why Brighton & Hove had large numbers of “children in need”.  The work had been carried out between the commissioning unit and delivery unit.  Officers were investigating the findings and a report could be brought back to the CYPT Board in the New Year.  

9.10         Councillor Buckley asked if nurseries were included in the Education Safeguarding Strategy Sub-Group.  The Head of Service, Children and Families confirmed that nurseries were covered in the sub-group.

9.11         Councillor Buckley referred to the low attendance of GPs at child protection conferences as shown in the graph in Section 7 of the report (Attendance at Child Protection Conferences Year Ending 31 March 2011).  Councillor Buckley asked if any action had been taken to encourage GP attendance at the conferences.  Mr Bedford replied that there were time issues in relation to GPs attendance at the case conferences.  The LSCB had funded extra sessions for the lead safeguarding GP to extend work with GPs to improve safeguarding practice.  GPs would be involved in most commissioning decisions through the planned Clinical Commissioning Groups, and this would include safeguarding.

9.12    Councillor Buckley referred to the pie chart in Section 7 of the report (Children Subject of a Child Protection Plan who are also Looked After as at 31 March 2011).  She asked for an explanation of the chart.  The Head of Service, Children and Families explained that a child could be both looked after and on the protection plan.  The chart showed that of the 453 children subject to a Child Protection Plan as at 31 March 2011, 46 were also looked after children.  The council were moving away from duel registration. 

9.13    Councillor Wealls referred to the penultimate bullet point of 8.3, concerning two serious incidents requiring investigation into child deaths.  He asked if someone checked whether recommendations for enhancing GP practice had been put in place.   Mr Bedford replied that there was a statutory requirement to have a Child Death Review Panel.  Any unexplained death would be considered by the Panel.  The LSCB Board had a presentation from the Chair of the Child Death Review Panel at their last meeting.  No child deaths had been clearly preventable in the last year.  

9.14    Eleanor Davies asked if the Parent Forum could have representation on the LSCB.   Alan Bedford explained that the national guidance was that there should be two lay representatives on the Board.  Most LSCB’s had not implemented this guidance as it was difficult to know what criteria/selection process to use.  Mr Bedford stated that he would be happy to meet with Ms Davies to discuss this matter further.

9.15         The Chair referred to the child sexual abuse category.  She asked if Brighton & Hove had lower figures of child sexual abuse compared to other Local Authorities.   Alan Bedford confirmed that the figures were lower and stressed that it was important to ensure that something was not being missed.

9.16    The Head of Service, Children and Families reported that Ofsted had required the council to record the primary category in relation to sexual abuse.  Officers were investigating these figures which appeared low compared to other local authorities. 

9.17    Alan Bedford asked the Board for feedback on the way the report was presented and whether it contained the right information.   

9.18    The Chair considered it to be a good report, written in language that was understandable.

9.19    RESOLVED - (1)      That the report be noted, and that its contents be taken into account in the Board’s future work (or that of successor bodies such as any Health and Wellbeing Board).