Agenda and minutes
PDF 59 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Damian Markland or Andrew Spragg ,
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Cecile White, Robert Evans, Marsha Moseley, Mary Reynolds and Colin Kemp. Tina Mountain acted as a substitute for Marsha Moseley. Simon Parr acted as a substitute for Mary Reynolds.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 28 November 2013
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: These were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (21 January 2014). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (20 January 2014). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
The Committee did not refer any items to Cabinet at its last meeting, so there are no responses to report. Minutes: No items were referred to Cabinet at the last meeting of the Committee, so there were no responses to report. |
|
|
SURREY'S LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN AND CARE LEAVERS
The accompanying suite of reports provides commentary on this Looked after Children’s system as follows:
· Overview of Governance– This is addressed by the Lead Member’s Report. This is a statutory report as required under the Children Act 2004. [Annexe 1].
· Placement and Care - Fostering – This is addressed through the Fostering Statement of Purpose. This is a statutory report as required under the Fostering Regulations 2011. The Fostering Service provides a range of placements, both short and long term, for children who are in our care. [Annexe 2].
· Placement and Care - Adoption – This is addressed through the Adoption Statement of Purpose [Annexe 3] and Adoption annual report 2012/13 as required under the Adoption Regulations 2011, considering the services we manage to provide permanent placements for children. [Annexe 4].
· Outcomes for Looked after Children – This is a report that considers the indicators and measures we use to assess our performance and the impact of our work in looking after children who are in the care of Surrey on their outcomes and achievements. [Annexe 5].
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Caroline Budden, Deputy Director, Children, Schools & Families Sheila Jones, Head of County-wide Services, Children, Schools & Families Peter-John Wilkinson, Assistant Director for Schools and Learning Patrick Ward, Interim Headteacher, Virtual School for Children in Care Vicky Stobbart, Executive Nurse, Director of Quality and Safeguarding, Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group Mark Rapley, Interim Project Manager Looked After Children, Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group
Mary Angell, Cabinet Member for Children & Families
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee asked for details about the Council’s statutory responsibilities in relation to health assessments for Looked After Children. It was explained that it was the duty of the child’s social worker to inform the health service that the child had become looked after. Children under-five were required to have two health-checks a year, while children over-five were required to have one. The Committee was informed that the health service commissioned a provider to undertake this assessment. It was clarified that all Looked After Children were also able to access a GP in the same manner as any other young person if any health issues occurred outside of this assessment. It was highlighted that some older Looked After Children would refuse to attend this health-check.
2. Witnesses outlined the measures in place through the Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to address concerns around the health assessments for Looked After Children. It was commented that there were concerns about the quality of these health assessments in other local authorities. It was explained that there had been additional investment in doctors, and that the Corporate Parenting Board had set a specific target for the backlog of health assessments to be resolved by the end of March 2014. It was confirmed by witnesses that they would ensure that, where a Looked After Children had not had an in-year assessment, a reason was noted on the young person’s record.
3. The Committee held a discussion around the provision of residential homes. It was noted that the Council has seven children’s homes, and was distinct from many local authorities in that respect. It was also highlighted that the term ‘residential care’ was applied to a wide spectrum of care provisions, including mother-and-baby units. The Committee was informed that all children’s homes, both within the County and outside of it, were subject to Ofsted inspections; or Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections where the home was a health provision. The Committee was informed that the Head of Children’s Services had commissioned an independent report on residential care homes, and that this would be shared at a future meeting.
4. It was commented by officers that the decision to place a child out of county was made on an assessment of their needs. It was highlighted that this might be because the young person in question required a specialist provision, or education provision that Surrey could not provide. The decision to place Looked After Children out of county was based on identifying their needs, and then responding ... view the full minutes text for item 6/14 |
|
|
INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - REVIEW OF HEALTH AND DENTAL CHECKS - CHILDREN IN CARE 2013/14
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
To review the summary of audit findings and Management Action Plan produced as a result of an internal audit review of health and dental checks for children in care.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Caroline Budden, Deputy Director, Children, Schools & Families Sheila Jones, Head of County-wide Services, Children, Schools & Families Sue Lewry-Jones, Chief Internal Auditor Pascal Barras, Compliance Auditor Vicky Stobbart, Executive Nurse, Director of Quality and Safeguarding, Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group Mark Rapley, Interim Project Manager Looked After Children, Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group
Mary Angell, Cabinet Member for Children & Families
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman informed the Committee that Internal Audit had undertaken a review of health and dental checks for children in care in October 2013. The report produced as a result of the review attracted an audit opinion of “Major Improvement Needed” and, in line with Council policy, the matter had been referred to the Children & Education Select Committee.
2. An officer from NHS Guildford and Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) stated that the issues around health and dental checks had already been acknowledged before the audit, and that work subsequently undertaken meant that, to some extent, the actions detailed in the Management Action Plan (MAP) had been superseded.
3. The Committee was informed that officers were examining the data available to identify specific operational issues and ensure that resources could be reconfigured in order that assessments were undertaken promptly. It had become apparent during the diagnostic phase that information governance could be improved, and data was now better shared between agencies.
4. The Committee highlighted a number of actions in the MAP and queried whether they had been completed. An officer stated that work had moved on significantly since the MAP had been produced and that the actions detailed may not longer be the most appropriate course to take.
5. It was added that it would be sensible for officers to revisit the MAP to ensure that the actions were still relevant and to update accordingly.
6. The Chief Internal Auditor stated that it was important that services informed Internal Audit when there had been a change in circumstances. It was further added that there would be a follow-up audit which would assess progress made. Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
The Committee to receive an updated Management Action Plan.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
CHILDREN'S SERVICES ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012-2013
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
To note the contents of the Children’s Services Annual Complaints Report 2012-13 and make recommendations as appropriate. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Caroline Budden, Deputy Director, Children, Schools & Families Sheila Jones, Head of County-wide Services, Children, Schools & Families Belinda Newth, Head of Rights and Participation, Children, Schools & Families
Mary Angell, Cabinet Member for Children & Families
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee received a report setting out the process by which the County Council managed Children Social Care complaints. The Children’s Services Annual Complaints Report 2012-13 was also enclosed.
2. The Chairman explained that the documents had been requested following a recommendation from the Communities Select Committee that Members scrutinise performance against the target response rate for Children’s Social Care complaints.
3. An officer provided the Committee with an overview of the complaint handling process, including the various formal stages a complaint could pass through and the various statutory timescales that officers had to adhere to. The officer highlighted that the complexity of individual complaints could vary significantly although timescales remained, for the most part, rigid.
4. It was clarified that there were nuances to the way in which data was recorded and presented in the Annual Complaints Report, and data was not always directly comparable. Officers provided clarification on a number of specific queries and Members stated that they were satisfied with the explanations.
5. Members noted that very few complaints were in relation to initial handling by the contact centre, which was considered positive. It was also noted that the majority of complaints were in relation to decision making, as opposed to the Council’s underlying policies and procedures. Officers were working hard to ensure that all complaints were dealt with to the same high standard irrespective of how or where within the organisation the complaint was received.
6. An officer stated that the nature of social care work meant that the service could be perceived as intrusive, and that complaints were inevitable. It was also highlighted that the service was in the process of changing the assessment process it undertook and therefore operational data for past and future years would not be directly comparable.
7. The Committee had a discussion on the content of reports provided to the courts. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families assured Members that the information provided was of a high standard and, most importantly, accurate.
8. Officers clarified that satisfaction surveys were sent to those that had complained, although the reality was that people would rarely be satisfied unless they had achieved their desired outcome, something that was not always possible.
Recommendations:
a) That the Committee notes the report
b) That the Committee notes the key learning arising from complaints during the previous fiscal year, detailed in section 8.7.9 of the annual report, and changes made as a result.
c) That the Chairman write to the Chairman of Communities select committee to inform them of the discussion and response given on the number of complaints regarding the contact centre
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
INFORMATION, ADVICE & GUIDANCE MEMBER REFERENCE GROUP UPDATE
Purpose of the report:
To update the Committee on discussions that took place with the Head of Commissioning and Development for Young People in relation to the Skills for the Future strand of the Public Service Transformation Programme. Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee received an update on discussions that had taken place with the Head of Commissioning and Development for Young People in relation to the Skills for the Future strand of the Public Service Transformation Programme.
2. Following a query from a Member, the Chairman clarified that the role of Skill Centres was acknowledged, but that Skills for the Future was wider and itself part of a much bigger programme.
Recommendations:
· That the Committee note the work of the Information, Advice & Guidance Member Reference Group.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee noted its Forward Work Programme and Recommendations Tracker. There were no further comments.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None. |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10.30am on 27 March 2014. Minutes: The Committee noted that its next meeting would be held on 27 March 2014 at 10am. |