Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 9 December 2014.

The record of the meeting held on 14 January 2015 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

To receive apologies for absence. 

Apologies for absence were received from Alex Tear (Church of England representative) and Lauraine McManus (Teacher 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 none. 

(A)              Disclosable pecuniary interests and other interests

A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.

A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.

A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.

Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.

Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.

In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons.

(B)            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.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

This report is to update the committee on the work and launch of the Medway Children’s Action Network (CAN). 

Discussion:

The Assistant Director, Partnership Commissioning introduced the report which updated the Committee on the work of Medway Children Action Network (CAN) and its launch which had taken place on 8 December 2014.  She explained that Medway CAN was a multi-agency group which was focussing on the early help agenda.  A protocol had been developed to formalise relationships between partners and other multi-agency groups and this was appended to the report.

Officers then responded to questions and comments from Members, which included: -

• Vice-Chair of Medway CAN.  The Assistant Director confirmed that the Chief Executive of Medway Youth Trust was the Vice-Chair and not the Co-Chairman as was referred to in the terms of reference as attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

• Representation of minority ethnic groups and Medway Youth Offending Team (YOT).  In response to a query about how these groups were represented, the Assistant Director did confirm that a representative from the Ethnic Minority Forum was included in the Medway CAN membership and they were expected to then liaise with the wider ethnic minority community of Medway.  A YOT representative was not included on the membership but would be invited when there were relevant topics being discussed at meetings and had attended previously.  There had been an attempt to not make the membership of the Medway CAN too large at the risk of it becoming less effective.  In addition, the Director of Children and Adults Services confirmed that the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services (Lead Member), who chaired Medway CAN was also a member of the YOT Board so clear links were in place.

• Engagement with children, young people and their families.  The Medway Youth Parliament representative referred to section 4(ii) of the Terms of Reference of Medway CAN, attached at Appendix 1 to the report and asked how the development of the engagement strategy referred to was progressing.  In response the Assistant Director explained that ensuring the voice of young people was included in discussions was a key focus for Medway CAN and part of that was that two representatives from Medway Youth Parliament attended the network’s meetings.  The timings of the meetings were also being reviewed to ensure they were held at times that enabled young people to attend.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report. 

This report provides an overview of the Troubled Families Programme (in Medway called Action for Families), which supports families with multiple and complex needs.  The report also updates Members on how the programme has developed over the past year of Phase 1 and plans going forward for Phase 2.

Discussion:

The Head of Service (Early Help) introduced the report which updated the Committee on the Troubled Families Programme, which was locally called Medway Action for Families (MAfF), which supported families with multiple and complex needs.  He explained that Medway had worked in partnership to create a pooled resource of practitioners across a wide range of partner agencies and was based on a five year plan.  He added that the Government had recently announced a second phase of the programme, which would be launched in April 2015 and widened the scope of the programme to also include: -

• Families affected by domestic abuse and violence;
• Parents and children with health problems
• Children and families who are in need of help that do not meet the social care threshold.

The Head of Service (Early Help) also gave a short presentation, which consisted of three cases studies to demonstrate how the programme was working in practice.

Officers then responded to questions and comments from Members, which included: -

• Partnership working.  A Member asked about how the partnership working had progressed in relation to this programme.  In response, officers explained that partnership working was key to the programme’s success and explained that Medway’s pooled resource approach to the programme across agencies had been fundamental in the effectiveness of the partnership arrangements.

• Sanctions and families that do not co-operate.  A Member asked if sanctions were imposed and resource withdrawn after a certain period if families did not cooperate or improve against targets.  Officers confirmed that staff working with officers were incredibly persistent to ensure that families did engage and where improvements were not demonstrated, tactics were changed to find an alternative way in support the family.

• Re-engagement in MAfF.  In response to a question, officers confirmed that where necessary families were able to re-engage in the programme but this was very rare.  In most cases, when families were ceased to be supported by the programme, they were instead supported at a lower level by other teams or agencies, as appropriate.

• Managed withdrawal of support.  A Member raised concern about how families were prepared to manage the withdrawal of support from the programme.  Officers confirmed that support was phased out with intensive support being provided at the beginning and then gradually this support was reduced.  A family’s exit from the programme was carefully planned and links with other community based support services were made to provide continued low-level support to the family as necessary.

• Referrals.  In response to questions about referrals officers confirmed that the majority of referrals were made by schools.  It was also confirmed that if Councillors had concerns about a family that they considered may benefit from the programme then they should approach the Head of Service (Early Help) to discuss their concerns.

• Underspend of budgets.  Officers confirmed that the budget had been planned for a five year programme and so the current underspend was owing to the programme only being in its third year. 

• Common  ...  view the full minutes text for item 643.

This report provides an update on the commissioned public health service of school nursing for school aged children. 

Discussion:

The Director of Public Health introduced the report which updated the committee on school nursing since it was last reported to this committee in January 2014.  She confirmed that the service was commissioned by the Council, funded from the public health grant.  The Lead Nurse for School Health from Medway NHS Foundation Trust, the providers of the service, then explained to Members how the service worked.  She highlighted areas such as: -

• The high caseloads of staff;
• The difficulty that had been experienced in recruiting school nurses and how this had been addressed through skill mix;
• The structure of the service in Medway;
• The work being done to improve relationships and joined up working with other agencies;
• Plans to improve engagement with young people;
• Improving access to the service for families who home school their children.

Officers then responded to questions and comments from Members, which included: -

• Visits to schools.  In response to questions about how regularly the service visits schools it was explained that this varied depending on the school and its pupils’ needs.  Most schools were visited at least once a term, where as some schools are visited much more frequently.  It was also confirmed that the service engaged with all schools, with the exception of special schools, which were supported by a specialist service.

• Response levels of the service.  A Member asked how quickly the service could respond to calls and queries from schools.  Officers explained that the service was primarily a proactive service and to be reactive was sometimes challenging due to capacity issues.  The service was able to, and would improve further at, effectively signposting schools to the right support when required.

• Location of the service to one site.  It was confirmed that the intention of the service was to relocate to bring all staff together at one site to improve its joined up working.

• E-cigarettes.  A Member asked if the service had been involved in giving advice on e-cigarettes.  Officers confirmed that national data were demonstrating that e-cigarettes were mainly being taken up by people trying to quit smoking and were less popular among those who had never smoked. An evidence based preventative scheme for smoking is run in schools by Public Health

• Headlice.  In response to a question about headlice and how this is tackled, officers explained that evidence suggested one off checking for lice by the school nurse was unsuccessful in managing and eradicating the problem.  There needed to be a whole school approach to tackling headlice and the school nurses role was to support the school and families in advice on how to address and manage the problem.

• Medicine in schools.  The Headteacher representative asked what plans there were for supporting schools in administering medication as new policy had widened this remit making this a more complex challenge for schools.  It was confirmed that the school nurse’s role was to support the school and be able to provide advice and guidance rather than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 644.

This report details the areas covered by the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services.  The areas within the portfolio are listed each time a Cabinet Member is invited to attend any of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees to be held to account.

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress on the area within the terms of reference of this Committee and covered by the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, as set out below:

• Independent Safeguarding and Reviewing Service

The Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Brake, then responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows: -

• Reliance on agency staff. In response to a Member’s question about what progress was being made to the reduced reliance on agency staff the Portfolio Holder confirmed that Medway did still have reliance on agency staff to fill posts within the Independent Safeguarding and Reviewing Service which and this was an issue shared amongst local authorities (LAs) nationally.  Medway was working hard to encourage people to work at the Council and there had been some success in this initiative.

• Strengthening families.  A Member asked for an update on this new approach and in response the Portfolio Holder explained that this was a key part of the service and wherever safe to do so it was ensured that families were kept united or were reunited as much as possible.

• Caseloads.  A Member asked whether the average caseload for Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs), reported as 77, was high or low when compared with other LAs.  He confirmed that nationally this figure was approximately 70-80.

• Percentage of children leaving care who were adopted.  A Member highlighted the performance relating to the number of children leaving care who had been adopted.  The Portfolio Holder confirmed that Medway was performing well in this area which was a difficult target to meet and Medway was running a campaign to actively encourage high quality adoptive parents to come forward. 

• De-planned child protection cases.  A Member asked what was meant by this terminology.  The Portfolio Holder for Adult Services and the Director of Children and Adults Services both confirmed that this referred to the number of children who cease to be the subject of a child protection plan and was official terminology, set by the Department for Education (DfE).  Members considered that this was not a helpful or meaningful way of referring to such children and suggested that the Committee provide written representation to the DfE to suggest reviewing this terminology.

Decision:

The Committee thanked the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services for his attendance and recommended that written representation be made to the Department for Education in relation to the official terminology ‘de-planned cases’, suggesting this be reviewed.

This report details the outcome of the consultation on the primary and secondary co-ordinated admission schemes and seeks views on the proposed arrangements for 2016 admissions.   

Discussion:

The Student Services Manager introduced the report, which detailed the outcome of the consultation on the primary and secondary co-ordinated admission scheme and sought the Committee’s views on the proposed arrangements for 2016 admissions, as set out in the report.

Officers then responded to questions and comments from Members, which included: -

• Medway University Technical College (UTC).  A Member asked if the UTC should be a change under the secondary procedures.  Officers confirmed that the UTC was its own admissions authority and therefore was responsible for its own admissions and would be open from September 2015 so was not a new addition for the 2016 admissions scheme.

• Distance.  Some Members raised an issue relating to the distance oversubscription criteria that was used for admission purposes and how this impacted on home to school transport.  They raised particular concern with the use of the M2 bridge as a safe walking route for home to school transport purposes.  Officers confirmed that the bridge was not currently being used as a safe walking route as a recent road safety assessment had determined that the pedestrian entrance and exit points to the bridge would benefit from some enhanced lighting.  The bridge was therefore temporarily not being included in safe walking route measurements until this issue was resolved.

Decision:

The Committee recommended the proposed admissions arrangements and schemes, as set out in the report, to the Cabinet at its meeting on 10 February 2015.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows the Committee to adjust it in the light of latest priorities, issues and circumstances. It gives Members the opportunity to shape and direct the Committee’s activities over the year.

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report and confirmed that a submission for the Care Quality Commission inspection of the Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust (provider of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services), referred to at section 7 of the report, had been made.  The Members were also advised that officers had added a report on sufficiency of placements for looked after children to the March meeting.

It was also noted that the Medway Youth Parliament representatives had requested to add an item to the work programme providing feedback on the 2014 MYP annual conference.  It was agreed this would be added to the March meeting of the committee.

The Democratic Services Officer also undertook to ensure that officers provide a briefing note relating to information about exclusions.

Decision:

The committee agreed to add the following items to the March meeting of the committee: -

• Sufficiency of placements for looked after children
• Outcomes of the Medway Youth Parliament Conference 2014