Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 6 December 2011.

The record of the meeting held on 6 December 2011 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

To receive apologies for absence. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mackness, Samantha Collins (Parent Governor representative) and Sam Tutt (Youth Parliament representative). 

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were no urgent matters.

The Chairman welcomed Shirley Griffiths as the new LINk representative on the Committee and Doyin Yayhi as the new Medway Youth Parliament nominated substitute to their first meeting of the committee. 

(a)                Personal interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, may stay, speak, and vote on the matter.

(b)               Prejudicial interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal and prejudicial interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, must withdraw from the room and take no part in the debate or vote on the matter.

Councillors who have declared a personal and prejudicial interest may make representations, answer questions and give evidence before leaving the room but only if members of the public are allowed to attend for the same purpose.

If an interest is not declared at the outset of the meeting, it should be disclosed as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

(c)            Whipping – the Council’s constitution also requires any Member of the Committee who is subject to a party whip (ie agreeing to vote in line with the majority view of a private party group meeting) to declare the existence of the whip

Councillor Cooper declared a personal interest in relation to item 6 (Medway Safeguarding Children Board) and item 7 (outcomes of the Children’s Services Assessment and the Ofsted/CQC announced inspection) as both reports referred to the NHS, as her step daughter worked for the organisation.  Councillor Cooper also declared a personal interest in any reference to Saxon Way Primary School as she was a Community Governor at the school.

Councillor Gilry declared a personal interest in relation to item 7 (outcomes of the Children’s Services Assessment and the Ofsted/CQC announced inspection) as it referred to Medway NHS Foundation Trust and Medway Maritime Hospital, where she sometimes worked.

Shirley Griffiths declared a personal interest in relation to item 7 (outcomes of the Children’s Services Assessment and the Ofsted/CQC announced inspection) as she was a member of Medway NHS Foundation Trust and the South East Coast Ambulance Trust.

Councillor Iles declared a personal interest in relation to item 7 (outcomes of the Children’s Services Assessment and the Ofsted/CQC announced inspection) as she was a member of Medway NHS Foundation Trust.

Councillor Purdy declared a personal interest in relation to item 8 (school admission arrangements for 2013) as she was a Governor of Chatham Grammar School for Girls, which was referred to in the report.

To hold the Portfolio Holder for Children Services to account for performance of services within his portfolio.

Discussion:

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services (lead member) addressed the committee outlining the main achievements within areas of his portfolio, including:

·        Outcomes of the Children Services Assessment and the Ofsted and CQC inspection of safeguarding and looked after children;

·        Time to talk cards which the portfolio holder was keen to see distributed further;

·        Sure Start Children Centres – with 182,894 contacts being made in 2011 and 89% of 0-1 year olds having contact with a centre;

·        Youth Service – the preventative work being done, including intervention work with young offenders and that a bid had been placed for funding for vocational training in partnership with a French youth service;

·        Medway Youth Parliament (MYP) is continuing to thrive, as is the extent and reach of the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme;

·        University Technical College (UTC) - an application for this had been submitted;

·        Capital investments in schools were being progressed;

·        Common Assessment Framework was  increasingly being used as a preventative mechanism.

The Portfolio Holder also talked about priorities for the forthcoming year, which included: -

·        Tackling domestic violence issues and the impact it has on children and young people;

·        Improving performance at key stage two;

·        Improving leadership in schools – strengthening it where it is found to be weak (including Governors and senior teaching staff)

Members welcomed the information provided and asked the Portfolio Holder a number of questions, which included: -

·        UTC – what views had local schools given about the plans and what had been done to alleviate concerns;

·        Reliability of data used for school place planning;

·        Concern about quality of careers advice as a recent MYP report found that 86% of students did not feel they received enough career advice and 40% had said they did not receive advice on the career they wanted to pursue;

·        The key stage 2 task group and whether any funding would be provided to resource recommendations from that to improve performance;

·        Assurance that robust auditing procedures were in place in relation to ensuring public funding delegated to schools is spent wisely and well. Members cited recent issues in relation to Woodlands and Temple Mill primary schools. 

·        How the Portfolio Holder would ensure the timescales from the Ofsted inspection actions would be met;

·        What the Portfolio Holder was hoping to see amongst school governors in Medway;

·        Why some schools were going into special measures throughout Medway;

·        In relation to primary schools carrying out self-audits, could primary schools audit each other’s procedures?

·        Governor training – Chairs of Governors should be strongly encouraged to attend the training programme for Chairs of Governors delivered by the national college.

In response to the queries around UTC, the Portfolio Holder explained that a formal consultation had not yet taken place at this stage but if agreement in principle was received following the application, then formal consultation would be carried out.  However, comments were being encouraged via the council’s website.

In response to the concerns relating to careers advice, the Portfolio holder undertook to attend the next meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 701.

This report updates the Committee on the work of the Medway Safeguarding Children Board (MSCB) in 2011/12.  It will present progress the MSCB has made against the MSCB business plan for 2011- 12. 

Discussion:

The Independent Chair of the Medway Safeguarding Children Board introduced the report and provided the committee with a presentation, which updated Members on the MSCB’s progress against its objectives, what achievements had been made and next steps.

Issues covered included: -

• The enhanced role of the MSCB following the outcome of the Munro review into child protection;
• Domestic Violence issues and improving the ways agencies share information about domestic violence incidents;
• Improving quality assurance framework;
• The recent serious case review, which was judged as good by Ofsted;
• A sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) campaign had been carried out which was very successful and more of the prompt cards about safe sleeping for babies were to be produced and distributed;
• A section 11 audit had been carried out, the results of which were awaited;
• Improvements had been made in terms of Child Protection Conferences being quorate.

Decision:

The committee thanked the Independent Chair of the Medway safeguarding Children Board for her report and presentation.

This report details the outcome of the following inspections and assessments that took place in 2011: -

·        The Ofsted and Care Quality Commission inspection of safeguarding and children in care across the Medway partnership;

·        Children Services Assessment rating of Council Services

Discussion:

The Director of Children and Adult Services provided a presentation to the committee which provided details about the inspection, its format, its findings and its recommendations to the Medway partnership.

Members then asked officers and partner agency representatives a number of questions, which included: -

• Life stories and how these could be improved;
• Referrals to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS);
• What interventions were in place for summer born babies who statistically had poorer learning chances;
• Concern about the reorganisation of local PCSOs;
• Request for updates on how progress was going against the objectives in the action plan and congratulated partners for completing some of their required actions;
• Reducing the bureaucracy relating to child minders, while maintaining safeguarding of children;
• Concern about the number of looked after children not attending health appointments.

In relation to the query about life stories, officers confirmed that these were being improved, particularly from the beginning of a child’s first encounter into care, which wasn’t always being done to the detail that was desired and needed for children for when they want to look back at their life story when they are older.

In relation to accessing CAMHS, officers confirmed that they were developing an electronic referral form to improve accessibility to the service.

In relation to summer born babies, officers confirmed that children with summer birthdays did often lag in terms of performance but that they did catch up with their peers eventually.  In addition, early years services were in place for all children to access and develop skills early on to help reduce the impact of being a child born later than other children in the class.  Officers undertook to provide a briefing note to Members on the services already in place for early years as well as services proposed for the future.

In response to the concerns raised about the reorganisation of PCSOs, DCI Pritchard explained that Kent Police had made around 1000 redundancies due to funding cuts and therefore reorganisations were inevitable.  However, he undertook to put the Councillor in touch with one of his colleagues leading on PCSO to discuss the issue further.

The Head of Nursing at the Medway NHS Foundation Trust invited members of the committee to Medway Maritime Hospital so they could see the new arrangements at A&E, as well as other areas of the hospital dedicated to children services.

In relation to childminding, the Director of Children and Adults explained that there had been recognition from Ofsted that some of the regulation had got excessive and so some streamlining of this was anticipated.  It was suggested that the Chairman write a letter to the Ofsted Chief Inspector to reiterate the committee’s concerns about the bureaucracy and the need to find a balance of streamlined regulations while maintaining safeguarding standards.

In relation to looked after children not attending health assessments, officers and partners explained that there were a number of different reasons why these occurred, such as; appointments being provided at short notice  ...  view the full minutes text for item 703.

This report sets out the proposed work programme previously agreed by the Committee for 2011/12. 

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report and explained that a new forward plan had been published earlier in the week but there were no new items that fell within the remit of this committee.

Decision: 

The committee considered the work programme and agreed the following additions: -

·        A visit to A&E to look at the new arrangements in place for children;

·        A report on careers advice, following the recent Medway Youth Parliament report on this issue.

This report details the draft proposals for school admission arrangements for 2013 and requests comments to be forwarded to the Cabinet. 

Discussion:

Before the officers introduced the report the committee requested clarification on the legal position around members being able to support and represent parents at school admission appeals if they took part in the discussion and debate of this item.  It was confirmed that although they would have previously been unable to represent parents if they had taken part in the discussions (under paragraph 2.14 of the School Admission Appeals Code), this requirement had been removed from the new School Admission Appeals Code, which was due to come into force in February 2012.  Therefore, as it would be in force by the time members became involved in admission appeals relating to the admission arrangements for 2013, Members were advised they were able to take part in the discussion of this report and represent parents at school admission appeals.

The Head of School Organisation and Governor Services introduced the report, highlighting to the committee the updated information following the closure of the consultation, which had been after the despatch of the agenda, which was tabled at the meeting.

Key outcomes from the consultation were: -

·        In relation to secondary school admission arrangements, 147 responses were received, with the majority of respondents supporting option A (to hold selection test in pupil’s own primary schools);

·        Smaller response to the primary school admission arrangements was received with the majority in support of the arrangements;

·        The removal of the denominational preference from voluntary controlled schools’ criteria had received a less clear overall view but the new admissions code was clear that the box alone was not appropriate;

·        In relation to the local authority maintaining the management of in-year admissions, the majority of secondary schools agreed, however the majority of primary schools disagreed.

Members then made comments and asked questions, which included: -

• Getting information to primary schools, on the number of preferences received, at the right time;
• Why the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Delce Junior was being increased when last year it had been reported that there were surplus places in the school;
• Whether primary schools could be forced to participate in holding the selection test at their schools.
• Fair access panels – who sits on the panels and how frequent are they;
• Confirmation as to whether parents could apply online without an email address.

In relation to Delce Juniors, officers explained that the surplus places were at the top end of the school and that the cohort coming into the school was now larger.  Plus it was proposed to link St Peter’s Infant School to the junior school along with Delce Infant School and therefore by increasing the PAN to 130 ensured that all children from both infant schools would have a place at the junior school if they wished.

Officers confirmed that the Council could not require primary schools to accommodate selection testing their schools and so pupils from primary schools that refused to participate would need to attend a test centre.

Officers explained that Fair Access Panels were held every two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 705.