The Head of Children’s Social Care firstly apologised on behalf of David Peplow, Independent Chair of the Thurrock Local Safeguarding Board (LSCB), who was unable to attend the meeting to present the report on behalf of the board.

The Head of Children’s Social Care introduced the report of Thurrock Local Safeguarding Board (LSCB), which set out the nature of the Serious Case Review covering the period from 2008 to 2013 and the reasons why the Serious Case Review was undertaken.

The Committee were advised that the Serious Case Review challenged agencies to look at their practices, such as how they were working together to deliver a coordinated approach, and questioned whether the persons involved had taken on board the history of the case rather than adopt what was referred to as a “start again” syndrome each time a referral was made.

It was noted that the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board conference in 2014 focused on neglect and an adolescent toolkit had been developed in an attempt to challenge the misconception that adolescent teenagers were able to help themselves and remove themselves from the situation.

The Head of Children’s Social Care assured Members that the landscape was now very different but recognised there was still learning to be done and that Social Workers and Professionals were currently piloting the NSPCC’s (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) Graded Care Profile 2 in order to better assess care and identify neglect.

Particular reference was made to the process that had been undertaken for the Serious Case Review, that the publication had been delayed in order to further investigate medical evidence, and the matter had been referred to an Independent Risk Assessor as there were concerns that the young person could be identified from the report.

Councillor Halden expressed concern that despite multi-referrals no quality checks were made to determine whether any referrals had a tangible impact.

During the debate Members queried whether the persons involved in the failures of the case had any professional conduct action taken against them as a consequence, to which officers explained that the agency Social Worker involved had been referred to the professional body, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), for review; however those staff from other agencies and partners were subject to their own professional codes of conduct and it was the responsibility of those agencies to progress this matter in accordance with their own policies and procedures.

It was recognised that the purpose of the Serious Case Review was not to apportion blame but to identify learning to ensure that a similar case could not happen again, however Members requested that the Thurrock Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) ask colleagues and partners to share information that could be disclosed regarding any outcomes of professional conduct action taken so that the Committee could be assured that those involved were held accountable.

Reverend Barlow recognised that whilst the report was that of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board and not of the Council, and as a result officers may not be best placed to answer, he highlighted that despite an apparent catalogue of failings such little change had been enacted and queried how aware the persons involved would have been of the detailed timeline of the case and what safeguards were in place for parents who wished to home educate.

A discussion took place regarding the issue of home elective education and the ability to establish a link to safeguarding concerns. Members expressed concern that a decision to home educate could result in a child receiving little or no education over a significant period of time, with no apparent checks and balances, and that it could effectively remove a vulnerable young person out of the education system which could otherwise help to identify safeguarding concerns. It was felt that robust oversight was required to determine whether it was appropriate for those children and young people who had safeguarding concerns to be permitted to receive home education.

During the discussion officers made particular reference to the following key points:

·         That legislatively parents had a right to educate their children at home and there were limitations on what actions the Local Authority could take unless there were suitable grounds to investigate matters further due to safeguarding concern, which had not been prevalent at the time in this case.

·         That there were now procedures in place regarding elective home education and safeguarding issues.

·         That arrangement’s for monitoring children had been tightened significantly and increased awareness of risks.

·         That it was recognised the school could have provided more effective challenge and escalated the matter to Senior Management.

Councillor Halden observed that if legislative routes had been exhausted there were other options to escalate the matter further, such as through a judicial process.

A brief discussion took place on criminal action for child neglect cases, and in what circumstances would it be most appropriate, and legal, to take such action.

Councillor S. Little arrived at the meeting at 9.10 pm and was permitted to observe by the Chair.

Reverend Barlow asked the Head of Children’s Social Care whether he felt the service was adequately funded and resourced, to which it was explained that there was adequate funding available but significant budget pressures at the present time based on the level of demand, however that the level of demand was changeable. Members were advised that there was a good Early Offer of Help service but it was important to continually monitor the level of caseloads; it was reported that the service had seen an increase in the number of adolescents entering the care system which was had put additional pressure on budgets.

The Chair indicated that it was not standard practice for Serious Case Reviews to be referred to the Committee, however he felt that it was important that Members had the opportunity to scrutinise any action plan. As a result he proposed the following actions to be taken, which were agreed by the Committee:

·         That the action plan from the Serious Case Review of “Megan” be referred to the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

·         That the Head of Children’s Social Care to work with the Thurrock Local Safeguarding Children Board in order to ask partners whether any professional standards action had been taken against the persons involved in the case.

·         That in light of the Committee’s concerns regarding the oversight of elective home education for those children and young people who were at risk of safeguarding issues, it be agreed that the Chair write to the Chief Executive to make her aware of such concerns.

·         That officer’s be instructed to establish whether the Council needed to invest in digitising archives, in response to the fact that the LSCB had difficulty in obtaining information about referrals.

The Interim Strategic Leader for School Improvement, Learning and Skills advised the Committee that when parents moved into the Borough they were under no legal obligation to inform the local authority that they had children of school age.

In response the Chair suggested that this matter should be explored along with admission arrangements by the Admissions Manager, Colin Jones.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee consider and comment upon the report.