Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Scrutiny of Services

This report sets out how the Council and its safeguarding partners have responded to new statutory responsibilities introduced by government guidance, ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children 2015’. These responsibilities relate to children at risk of:

            - Sexual Exploitation

            - Female Genital Mutilation

            - Radicalisation

Witnesses:

Caroline Budden, Deputy Director for Children, Schools and Families

Julian Gordon-Walker, Head of Safeguarding

Gordon Falconer, Community Safety Unit Senior Manager

Helen Atkinson, Director of Public Health

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Board was informed that information sharing had improved between safeguarding partners and as result of the change in Missing and Exploited Children’s Conference (MAECC) process. It was highlighted that work was being developed with district and boroughs to improve disruption techniques, and that this work would seek to engage community impact and action groups.

[Marissa Heath arrived at 10.15am]

2.    A question was raised about the manner in which voluntary sector organisations could be supported in helping reduce the risk of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE). Training and awareness raising campaigns such as Chelsea’s Choice were highlighted by officers as being particularly significant in assisting in that regard. The Board was informed that engagement with community safety officers in particular had seen an increase in referrals and raised awareness.

3.    The Board sought clarity on the numbers of children and young people identified at risk of CSE. It was clarified that 293 had been identified as having been at risk at one time or another. 96 were identified as being at risk at the time the report had been written. The Board went on to question what measurable outcomes there were in terms of monitoring the effectiveness of safeguarding interventions. Officers responded that there were a number of indicators; these included the number of teenage pregnancies and instances of Sexually Transmitted Diseases being reported. It was also highlighted that the new and evolving responsibilities required shifts in the culture of partner organisations such as health, in order to understand how the safeguarding community could work together to identify those at risk.

4.    The Board was provided with an update on the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Task and Finish Group, which had been established by the Surrey Safeguarding Children’s Board (SSCB). It was agreed that officers would circulate the latest report of this group to the Board outside of the meeting. Initial findings suggested that there were relatively small numbers of the population considered at risk of FGM when compared with the national picture, but that specific targeted work needed to be undertaken to address gaps within the Surrey profile on FGM.

5.    Officers highlighted that work had been undertaken in partnership between Surrey and Sussex police in Gatwick, in order to engage with families travelling to countries where there was an increased risk of FGM. In addition the Task and Finish Group was reviewing policies and procedures in line with protocols that had been established in Manchester, an area considered best practice in this regard. Toolkits and guidance were being circulated to schools, with primary schools receiving these as a matter of priority and secondary schools to be updated in the next year. There were also increased efforts to raise awareness with Members. The Board queried what had been done to engage governing bodies in these safeguarding areas. It was highlighted by the Cabinet Member that policies on  school safeguarding were being refreshed and that this would also set out advice for governors in this area.

6.    The Board was informed that the Council had gained additional responsibilities under the Terrorism and Security Act 2015 in relation to those at risk of radicalisation. Officers told the Board that this was a transfer of responsibilities from the police with no additional funding attached. The Board was informed that Government had recently offered £100,000 as a one off grant for non-priority areas. It was highlighted that processes were being restructured in line with the requirements of the new legislation, and officers gave an outline of the role of Channel Panels in addressing those at risk of radicalisation.

7.    Officers highlighted that Surrey Police were responsible for the Counter-Terrorism local plan, and that the organisation shared a partner version with the chief executives of both the county, district and borough councils. The Board was informed that this partner version of the local plan indicated limited, little or no Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) activity. Officers commented that historically radicalisation in Surrey was more likely to be related to far-Right or environmental groups.

8.    The Board raised a series of concerns about the thresholds for what would be considered radical activity. It was explained that there were defined thresholds for police assessment in order to ensure that any response was proportionate to the level of risk. Officers highlighted the changing nature of terrorism, with more attacks being carried out by individuals rather than organised cells. It was recognised that this, as well as the increasing role of the internet in radicalising individuals, posed a significant challenge for services.

Recommendations

The Board recommends:

·         That an assessment is undertaken to establish the Council’s expenditure for recent additional responsibilities to the Council following the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, 2015 passing into law.

·         That officers work with key partners in the voluntary, community and faith sector to identify possible training gaps for front-line agencies in relation to CSE, FGM and Radicalisation.

·         That the latest report of the FGM Task and Finish Group is shared with the Board and a further update brought in 12 month’s time.

·         That progress on the County’s Prevent Strategy Action Plan be brought to the Board in 12 month’s time