Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Arnold and Councillor Bool.

To confirm the record of the meeting of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel held on 31 January 2019 (previously circulated) and the record of the Joint Scrutiny of the Budget meeting held on 23 January 2019 (previously circulated).

The minutes of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel held on 31 January 2019, and the minutes of the Joint Scrutiny of the Budget meeting, held on 23 January 2019, copies of which had been previously circulated, were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

In accordance with the Regulations, Members are invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have and the nature of those interests in respect of items on this Agenda and/or indicate if Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

No declarations of interest were received.

To consider any questions with notice from Members received in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules No 219 and No. 219A.

No questions with notice had been received from Members.

To consider any Notices of Motion from Members submitted in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule No 220.

No notices of motion had been received from Members.

To consider any matter referred to the Panel for a decision in relation to call in of a decision in accordance with Procedure Rule 206.

No matter had been referred to the Panel for a decision in relation to a call in of a decision in accordance with Procedure Rule 2016.

To receive Report No.54/2019 from the Strategic Director for People.

Report No.54/2019 was received from the Strategic Director for People.

Ms Bernadette Caffrey introduced the report the purpose of which was to update the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel on the current provisions delivered through the Young People Services and the wider links to other community services.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         In the past in Uppingham there had been an informal drop-in centre based at the cellar bar where youth workers were able to advise on all sorts of issues, including health.

·         There had to be careful consideration of the problem that was trying to be solved as sometimes offering services did not address the problem. Often anti-social behaviour (ASB) was about a lack of boundaries for some young people.

·         Some of the recent incidents in Uppingham had been caused by young people from outside of the area, coming in to Rutland.

·         The difference made to Children Looked After and Care Leavers was measured through an annual pledge survey which showed that Rutland was performing well above that of other local authorities.

·         Councillors had heard many positive stories about the number of young people in Rutland actively engaged with youth groups such as scouts, cadets and sports teams.  

·         The focus should be on those children who were not supported by their parents and who may have been excluded from school or who had an unsettled home life. Youth workers needed to build up trust with these children so that they could advise and signpost them if they needed help.

·         The introduction of advocacy work had been particularly successful as it provided sensible support at a level that young people understood. 32 Rutland children had been helped by the advocacy support service this year.

·         Although it was recognised that there was more work to be done, anti-social behaviour had reduced significantly in the last two or three years. Targeted intervention gave support to the whole family to solve issues and ultimately meant young people engaging less in this type of behaviour.

·         The chart in 3.2.2 of the report used a Department for Education reporting indicator which only tracked to 18 years of age. Percentages were used because the numbers were so small that they could make the young person identifiable.

·         Jules used to have its own website but it was in the process of moving over to the Rutland Information Service website.

·         Engagement with young people was a key priority for Youth Services.  Reports were received from the Youth Council that helped to influence service provision and young people were very welcome at meetings.

·         An invitation to attend the Panel’s first meeting of the new municipal year would be extended to the Youth Council.

·         Work was done in schools and youth services to raise the awareness of knife crime but it was not a problem in Rutland.

RESOLVED:

1.    The Panel NOTED the contents of the report and the provisions available to support young people in Rutland.

To receive Report No.55/2019 from the Strategic Director for People.

Report No. 55/2018 was received from the Strategic Director for People.

Mr Wilby, Portfolio Holder for Lifelong Learning, Early Years, Special Educational Needs & Disabilities and Inclusion, introduced the report the purpose of which was to update the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel on the challenges within the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system and the subsequent pressure on the Designated Schools Grant High Needs budget.

The report also provided the Panel with detail on the current system challenges as a result of growing demand and the new legal burdens placed on Local Authorities and outlines the steps in place to address these and reduce the pressure on the High Needs budget.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         Although there were pressures, the funding situation in Rutland was much better than compared to neighbouring authorities. Action was still needed however in order that the offer could be further improved and developed.

·         The numbers of children with SEND was increasing because of a number of factors; more children where surviving and moving into education, more families were aware of the support on offer, more children were being diagnosed at an earlier stage and more children had multi-faceted complex problems.

·         Additional pressure was placed on funds because reforms had meant that the Council now had a duty of care to support children beyond the age of 19 and up to age 25.

·         There was a need to shape provision so that it allowed young people to get used to the society that they would grow up to be adults in. It could be advantageous to children to be educated in mainstream settings as it would help with their socialisation and preparation for adulthood and independence.

·         Ideally, SEND provision needed to be flexible and supportive with children being able to step in and out of mainstream education.

·         It was difficult to show a comparison between the Rutland figures, shown in the table at 3.2.1 of the report, and national statistics as other authorities often had different systems. Officers who had attended conferences had heard from Directors of Children Services that other authorities were facing bigger pressures however this may not have been published information. 

·         One of the challenges in planning provision was that Rutland had small numbers of children with SEND spread over different year groups.

·         Sometimes children were placed in other Local Authority schools but the Council’s aim was to have provision that was the least restrictive and that was as close to possible to where they grow up in order that children would have a local peer support group.

·         There was an increasing number of parents requesting assessments for their children. Officers considered the needs of each child and family and balanced that with the cost to the public purse. The cost of a tribunal could be significant and was considered carefully when deciding whether to go to appeal. Officers would challenge costs of placements which had a huge implication for the Council but consideration of the child’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 689.

To receive a presentation from Mr M Andrews, Strategic Director for People.

A presentation (appended to the minutes) was given by Mr Mark Andrews, Strategic Director for People which updated the Panel on the transition from the Safeguarding Children Board to multiagency safeguarding arrangements.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         Unlike Rutland who had a good experience of the Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Board (LRSB), the national view of safeguarding boards was that they had been expensive and ineffective which was why there had been a move to change the arrangements.

·         The Board would be replaced by safeguarding partners who consisted of the Local Authority, CCGs and the Police. The partners would have joint responsibility for the role and share costs. Partners would make their decision on the arrangements in May but because of purdah at the Council, Cabinet would not be asked to agree them until June which was still in line with the publication deadline set by the Department of Education.

·         The overall simplified governance structure was shown in slide 4 of the presentation and showed that the Young People’s Advisory Group and the Case Review Group would be Leicestershire and Rutland only. Leicester City would be involved in joint board office functions

·         From an operational safeguarding view the difficult issue to handle was when schools believed that they had handed over information and that it had been acted on. To address this there was now a social care qualified member of staff who went into secondary schools on a weekly basis, rather than only at the stressful point of referral, to allay any concerns school staff had and also to help collate some of the information they needed.

·         The new Safeguarding Children Partnership had no operational functions but was a forum that enabled challenge of the services provided.

·         There would be an equal funding split between partners three ways but the funding proportion of the third for local Councils had yet to be decided.

·         The Director for People would present a further update to Scrutiny before implementation of the new arrangements on 22 September 2019.

RESOLVED:

1.    The Panel NOTED the new arrangements for safeguarding children and the transition to a multiagency Safeguarding Children Partnership

To receive report No.10/2019 from the Strategic Director for Resources (previously circulated).

The report was taken without debate.

AGREED:

That the Panel NOTED the report.

To consider the Forward Plan and identify any relevant items for inclusion in the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel annual work plan, or to request further information.  

Copies of the annual work plan and the latest Forward Plan will be available at the meeting. The Forward Plan can be found on the website using the following link.

No relevant items were identified for inclusion in the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel annual work plan.

To receive any other items of urgent business which have been previously notified to the person presiding.

No items of urgent business had been previously notified to the person presiding.

To be confirmed.

The date of the next meeting would be confirmed after agreement of the Calendar of Meetings at the Annual Council in May.