►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Welcome
to
today's
meeting
of
the
children
and
family
scrutiny
board,
my
name
is
councilor
Alan
Lam
I
represent
the
Weatherby
Ward
and
I'm
the
chair
of
the
board.
Firstly,
sincere
apologies
for
the
late
start,
which
is
not
our
usual
habits,
but
we
had
a
particularly
enthusiastic
pre-meeting
in
advance,
so
I'm,
sorry
that
we've
We've
not
been
on
time.
A
So,
as
is
our
customer
practice,
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
ask
our
board
members
to
introduce
themselves
first
I'll:
ask
that
the
guests
and
partners
to
introduce
themselves
one
week
once
we
come
to
the
the
relevant
item,
so
I'm
going
to
go
to
my
left,
starting
with
Cassie.
Please.
A
Okay,
so
thank
you
and
welcome
everybody,
so
we'll
get
straight
to
the
agenda
so
item
one
Cassie
to
have
any
appeals.
Please.
B
A
Okay,
any
items
for
exclusion,
no
okay
item:
three
I
have
received
a
request
to
take
a
late
item
of
business
by
email.
We've
had
a
discussion
about
that
in
the
pre-meeting.
My
decision
is
that
we
won't
take
that
item.
Although
I'm
aware
all
members
have
had
copies
of
it,
so
it's
there,
but
I'm
gonna
stick
with
what
we've
set
out
in
the
agenda
and
the
way
that
we're
going
to
to
run
the
meeting
this
morning.
So
that's
my
decision
on
that
item.
Four.
A
B
Yes,
we
have
apologies
from
councilor,
Bethel
and
councilor.
Lennox
is
attending
as
a
substitute.
We've
had
apology
from
councilor
Reagan
and
councilor
Tudors
attending
as
a
substitute
we've
had
apologies
from
councilor,
Richard
and
counselor.
A
cart
is
attending
as
a
substitute
and
we've
also
had
apologies
from
councilor
senior
counselor,
Hawley
and
Helen
Bellamy.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
Cassie,
so
move
on
to
item
six,
which
is
the
minutes
of
the
meeting
from
the
25th
of
January,
can
I
just
ask
if
everyone's
happy
to
take
those
as
an
accurate
record.
A
Thank
you.
If
we
can
check
and
we'll
make
the
adjustment
if
necessary,
then
matters
arising.
We
have
minute
number
57
on
the
initial
budget
proposals,
just
to
confirm
that
the
ball's
deliberations
did
inform
a
composite
report
from
scrutiny,
which
was
acknowledged
by
the
executive
board
during
its
meeting
on
the
8th
of
February,
and
the
report
also
formed
part
of
the
agenda
papers
for
consideration
at
full
Council
last
week.
Are
there
any
other
matters
arising
that
anyone
would
like
to
bring
up
that
we're
not
covering
in
the
agenda?
A
Okay?
In
which
case
we
will
move
to
our
substantive
item,
which
is
item,
seven,
the
lead,
safeguarding
children,
partnership
updates,
to
which
we
have
firm
a
number
of
guests
attended.
This
is
our
main
Standalone
item
for
the
day.
I'm
just
going
to
flag
up
at
this
point
for
my
own
personal
needs,
I
will
need
to
take
a
break
at
some
point
a
moment
for
probably
around
quarter
past
a
half
past
11
at
a
suitable
Point
for
about
10
minutes.
A
Just
so,
people
don't
get
upset
if
I
Stoppers
in
but
I'll
try
and
find
an
appropriate
point
to
to
do
that.
So,
as
I
said,
this
is
our
main
substantive
item
for
consideration
today,
board
members
have
felt
it
was
important
to
dedicate
a
meeting
of
the
scrutiny
board
around
the
issue
of
safeguarding
children.
The
introductory
report
on
page
15
of
the
agenda
pack
helps
to
provide
some
background
context
to
the
work
that
was
undertaken
by
this
board
last
year.
A
A
So,
if
I
can
ask
all
of
the
the
guests
this
morning
to
to
introduce
themselves
in
turn,
I
particularly
like
to
welcome
Farrakhan
as
the
newly
appointed
chief
officer
for
family
helper,
so
we'll
introduce
herself
as
well,
but
you're
very
welcome
and
congratulations
on
your
new
post
and
as
you're
first
in
line,
you've
seen
the
right
spot
to
start
with
introductions
and
we'll
we'll
go
around
that
way.
O
G
Sorry,
good
morning,
everybody
I'm
jaswinder
sangara,
an
independent
chair
for
the
Leeds
children,
safeguarding
partnership
and
I'd
like
to
wish
all
the
men
and
women
in
the
room
happy
International
women's
day.
P
C
A
Hey
good
morning,
everybody
and
thank
you
to
to
all
of
you
for
coming
just
if
we
note
at
the
start
that
the
Partnerships
provided
us
with
three
separate
update
reports
within
the
agenda
pack,
and
so
my
proposal
this
morning
is
we're
going
to
deal
with
each
one
in
turn.
A
So
we'll
have
one
introduction
on
the
reports
rather
than
doing
everything
at
once
then
we'll
have
questions
and
answers,
then
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
theme
and
so
on,
and
so
on
and
I've
also
been
asked
to
highlight
that
the
lscp
report
at
appendix
one
has
the
incorrect
date
and
should
read
the
8th
8th
of
March
2023.
A
So
if
I
can
ask
councilor
Bennett,
please
just
if
you
have
any
introductory
comments
and
then
I'm
going
to
bring
in
jazz
vinder
to
take
us
through
the
first
part
of
the
report
and
we'll
go
into
questions
then
so
Council
Vena.
S
Please
thank
you
chair,
so
this
report
is
following
the
review
of
the
notification
review
of
the
notification
process
following
discussion
about
this
at
scrutiny
last
year
in
February
and
May,
and
this
support
reflects
the
work
that's
been
undertaken
by
the
three
statutory
safeguarding
Partners.
So
that's
the
local
Authority
health
and
the
police,
and
this
review
was
led
by
the
police
and
the
purpose
of
the
review
was
to
develop
a
more
robust
process,
around
notification
of
serious
incidents
and
I.
S
Think
the
report
very
much
reflects
how
open
and
reflective
the
partnership
has
been,
and
the
amount
of
input
that
we've
had
from
the
national
panel
and
from
the
national
facilitators.
There's
three
National
facilitators,
one
from
the
police,
one
from
health
and
one
from
social
care
and
the
partnership
of
work
with
them
in
this
process
and
I
feel
I
mean
Justin
will
talk
about
this
in
more
detail.
S
G
Thank
you
councilor
winner,
I'll
I'll.
If
you
look
at
appendix
one
then
on
the
paper
here
that
you
have
in
front
of
you,
I'll
talk
through
this
report,
so
at
page
19
in
your
papers.
G
So
the
history
of
this
report
is
that
the
notification
systems
and
processes
was
a
process
that
I
raised
concerns
about
in
terms
of
not
being
assured
about
the
processes.
This
was
as
a
result
of
a
case
which
I
won't
discuss
the
case.
However,
it
was
a
serious
incident
whereby
two
partners
believed
that
it
was
it
well.
It
met
the
criteria
for
a
serious
incident
and
wanted
to
notification,
but
one
partner
did
not
believe
that
was
the
case,
and
as
a
result
of
that,
we
had
many
conversations
about
that.
G
It
was
the
view
of
the
local
Authority
that
that
particular
case
should
not
be
notified
as
a
result
of
that
I
was
concerned,
because
I
did
believe
that
it
was
a
serious
case
and
as
a
result
of
that,
that's
what
made
me
look
closely
at
the
notification
systems
and
processes
so
that
that's
the
background,
actually
that
I
wanted
to
put
here
and
it
was
escalated,
conversations
were
had
and
thankfully
the
result
was
that
it
did
become
a
notification.
We
were
able
to
learn
lessons
from
that
very
serious
case.
G
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
also
did
was
we
had
a
conversation
around
the
notification
systems
and
processes,
because
what
was
clear
to
me
was
that
the
review
Advisory
Group,
which
I
chair
and
that's
where
we
have
conversations
about
the
most
serious
instances.
So
if
there's
a
child
incident
out
there
today,
where
there's
a
serious
case
and
a
practitioner
believes
it
warrants
further
discussion,
because
it
merits
that
level
of
seriousness,
it
will
go
to
through
a
process.
That
is
the
process
that
we
looked
at.
G
We
would
have
a
conversation
at
the
review,
Advisory
Group
and
ultimately,
that
discussion
would
inform
whether
or
not
it's
notified.
G
So
given
the
fact
that
the
feeling
at
that
time
was
that
the
law
states
it
is
the
due
to
the
local
Authority,
the
important
point
was
that
all
Partners
felt
that
they
could
equally
contribute
to
that
decision.
Making.
Okay,
so
on
page
21,
you
will
see
there
are
three
options
that
we've
been
discussing
in
light
of.
G
Well,
actually,
this
system
doesn't
feel
very
fair
because
if
two
partners,
the
whole
point
of
child
safeguarding
and
the
partnership,
is
that
there's
an
equal
responsibility
on
all
Partners
across
the
city
to
safeguard
children
and
young
people.
So
you
come
to
this
particular
part
of
decision
making
and
if
the
local
Authority
decide
it
doesn't
warrant
a
notification.
Well
then,
what
happens
to
the
two
where
they
have
different
views
that
that's
where
we
were?
G
So
we
looked
at
those
three
options
and
we
had
big
conversations
about
that,
and
our
health
and
policing
Partners
wanted
a
system
actually
where
it
was
fairer
and
more
Equitable
and
the
local
Authority,
with
their
legal
advisors,
took
the
view
that
the
law
states
we
have
to
stick
with
option,
one
which
is
on
there.
G
So
what
developed
from
that
was
a
review
Into
the
systems
and
processes,
and
what
I
can
say
is
I'm
really
pleased
to
see
that
the
pros
the
review
has
allowed
us
to
look
and
speak
with
our
partners
about
the
system,
whether
it's
fair,
whether
we
are
also
escalating
serious
concerns
into
the
rapid
review
process
Etc,
because
what
we
have
to
be
assured
about
is
that
the
most
serious
cases
are
being
looked
at
and
considered
to
learn
lessons
from
them
that
that's
what
we
need
to
be
assured
about.
G
So
we
Karen
will
go
through
a
presentation,
but
what
we
do
have
now
is
we
have
a
process
whereby
we
have
a
very
clear
system
where
more
people
feel
able
to
contribute
to
that.
We
have
rapid
review
meetings
where
scoping
authors
are
invited.
So
it's
not
just
the
three
Partners
there.
G
Importantly,
we
have
a
system
in
a
process
whereby
the
rationale
for
decision
making
is
documented
and
recorded
in
good
time
and
all
Partners,
since
this
review
have
all
able
to
make
those
contributions.
So
there
has
been
a
system
change
without
I
would
say
that
and
I'm
I'm
definitely
assured
about
that.
I
think
where
we
we
need
to
really
think
about.
The
review
is
in
terms
of
escalations.
G
You
know
being
assured
that
our
practitioners
out
there
who
are
on
the
ground,
understand
the
processes
and
the
systems
and
how
to
escalate
a
serious
case,
because
what
we're
identifying
is
that
sometimes
all
the
red
flags
are
there,
but
there
is
still
this
sense
of
what
should
I
should
I
escalate
it
or
not?
Does
that
make
sense
in
terms
of
that,
so
there's
still
more
work
to
do
on
that.
G
In
terms
of
the
option,
one
two
and
three
as
a
city,
what
I
did
say
was-
and
we've
been
invited
by
the
national
panel
and
by
government
to
write
to
government
the
executive
board
were
invited.
We
all
were
I,
did
write
to
ministers
at
the
department
for
education
to
talk
about
were
the
experiences
in
Leeds
which
actually
are
not
isolated.
To
leads.
G
You
know
this
is
this
is
happening
across
tables
across
other
local
authorities
as
well,
and
in
fact
only
last
week,
I
received
a
responsible
Department
of
Education,
because
at
the
present
moment
they
are
rewriting
working
together.
So
I
saw
it
as
an
opportunity
and
so
they'll
be
updating.
G
The
guidance
consultation
will
be
in
Spring,
but
what
they
have
told
me
is
that
on
notifications,
they
are
going
to
be
providing
a
link
and
working
together
to
the
panel's
practice
guidance
which
encourages
the
use
of
appointed
Independence
routineers
to
help
resolve
differences
when
making
the
decision
to
notify.
So
they
are
planning
to
work
alongside
the
panel
to
test
with
the
sector,
definitions
for
serious
incident,
notifications
and
they're
going
to
test
further
solutions
to
resolve
disagreements
when
making
notifications.
G
So
the
point
I'm
making
is
the
conversation
here
has
impacted
nationally
and
that's
for
me
is
a
positive
thing
and
it
has
been.
It
has
been
a
journey
for
us
and
I
would
say
that
we're
still
in
that
place
and
where
I
would
say
there
is
a
need
for
more
progress.
For
me,
it
would
really
be
to
ask
the
question
around
Assurance
on
the
safeguarding
child
incidents
has
been
escalated.
G
Are
we
assured
that
our
practitioners
know
how
to
do
that
and
are
confident
to
do
that
and
where
the
review
wasn't
able
to
look
was
those
decisions
where
the
local
Authority
may
decide
not
to
notify
they
need
to
be
documented.
We
need
to
know
those
that
haven't
come
to
the
table
and
why
I
would
say,
and,
furthermore,
in
terms
of
learning
you
know
all
of
you
would
have
heard
nationally
and
that
even
locally
that
that
saying
lessons
learned,
we've
learned
lessons
from
this
review:
Etc.
G
It's
embedding
that
learning
and
disseminating
that
learning
and
doing
that
learning
in
a
timely
way.
How
are
we
assured
that,
as
a
result
of
a
tragic
incident,
be
a
child
death
or
a
serious
incident?
Something
has
changed
in
the
system
and
it's
been
able
to
monitor
that,
and
that
is
that
is
the
piece
of
work
that
does
need
to
be
done.
So
I
think
I'll
end
it
there
for
now,
but
from
my
perspective
we
have
come
a
long
way.
G
A
Okay,
thank
you
Jasmine.
That's
very
helpful
and
yeah
really
good
update,
so
can
I
ask
if
any
members
have
got
questions
or
comments.
I'll
just
find
her
at
this
point.
So
counselor
Carter.
M
Thank
you
chair,
yes,
Jazz
Linda,
we
first
met
on
the
domestic
violence
board.
Actually
and
I
was
very
impressed
by
your
integrity
and
your
will
to
do
the
right
thing.
M
But
I
asked
you
a
question
about
the
notification
system.
You
mentioned
a
serious
case
review
and
how
well
do
you
think
learning
has
been
embedded
since
that
case
review,
and
can
you
assure
us
that
the
proposition
procedures
are
now
in
place.
G
So
that
that
particular
case
results
in
a
child
safeguarding
practice,
review,
of
which
The
Abridged
version
is
on
the
website.
It's
a
public
document
now
and
it's
important.
We
share
that
learning.
So
what
I
understand
now
is
there
is
an
action
plan
being
developed,
but
this
is
my
point
in
terms
of
learning,
from
reviews
and
being
assured
that
that
learning
is
being
actioned,
implemented,
disseminated
and
weak
and
evidence
a
change
in
the
system
as
a
result
of
that.
So
where
I
stand,
I
suppose
I
would
say,
there's
ongoing
work
happening.
G
Clearly,
there
were
question
marks
around
risk
assessments
and
the
risk
assessments
of
all
organizations
and
the
consistency
around
that,
and
certainly
around
risk
assessments
of
those
sexual
offenders
that
are
placed
with
children
and
young
people.
That's
that's
on
the
public
website.
You
know
this
was
a
case
where
a
young
child
was
placed
with
a
registered
sex
offender,
and
that
raises
a
number
of
questions
in
terms
of
risk
assessment
and
needing
to
do
a
piece
of
work
around
the
monitoring
of
sex
offenders.
G
And
how
can
it
be
that
a
child
can
be
placed
with
somebody
who
is
on
a
register
for
sexual
offenses?
So
there
is
still
a
lot
more
work
to
do,
I
mean
and
that
that's
all
I
can
really
say
to
you.
There
I
mean
my
view
is:
is
that
there's
a
need
to
ensure
that
learning
dissemination
from
serious
instances
is
timely?
G
It's
evidence-based
and
I
actually
think
it
should
be
incorporated
into
the
Performance
Management
framework,
which
should
combine
learning
improvements
from
all
reviews
that
we
do,
because
there
needs
to
be
a
very
strong
arm
to
ensure
that
when
these
tragic
incidents
are
happening,
a
we're
listening
to
the
voice
of
the
child
that
B
from
that
tragic
experience,
some
think
is
changing
and
I'm.
Saying
I
feel
there's
still
more
work
to
do
on
that.
M
Thank
you
chair.
You
you've
raised
something
that
concerns
me
a
little
bit
and
you
may
not
be
able
to
answer
this
just
vendor.
Perhaps
another
professional
may
be
able
to
answer
it.
I
wonder:
do
you
think
pedophiles
can
be
reformed?
I
think
that's
an
important
question
because
clearly
in
the
past
children
have
been
placed
with
pedophiles
and
if
that's
the
case
they
can't
be
reformed.
Then
we
should
look
at
you
know
they
should
never
be
placed
with
pedophiles.
G
I
think
I
can
answer
the
question.
The
question:
can
they
be
reformed?
That's
a
huge
question.
I
think
the
question
is
how
we
risk
assess
those
individuals
whereby
we
place
children
and
you
have
to
remember
this
placement
was
done
with
the
authority
of
the
court
that
would
have
been
informed
by
assessments.
That's
where
the
Assurance
comes
from.
G
G
No,
you
should
not
Place
children
with
registered
sex
offenders.
That's
my
personal
view
and
I
raised
this
case
because
it
was
a
serious
incident
and
I
think
the
bigger
question
is
if,
if
one
doesn't
think
this
is
a
serious
incident,
then
what
is
so
I
think
it's
a
difficult
I,
don't
know
if
I've
answered
your
question,
but
that's
where
I
stand
on
it.
A
K
Can
I
just
sort
of
bring
the
questions
back
to
the
notification
process
itself?
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
reports.
I
found
them
really
informative
and,
in
addition
to
that,
I
took
the
opportunity
to
read
chapter
four
of
working
together
and
I'm
very
pleased
to
hear
that
that
is
going
to
be
updated
because
I
think
it's
a
document.
That's
probably
long
overdue,
an
update
in
relation
to
the
notification
process
within
working
together.
K
It
obviously
sets
out
very
clearly
the
criteria
for
a
notification
which
is
obviously
set
down
in
legislation
and
obviously
the
duty
upon
the
local
Authority,
and
it's
encouraging
to
hear
how
the
outcome
of
the
review
has
been
that
there
have
been
changes
to
the
way
in
which
decision
making
sits
behind
a
notification
and
the
involvement
of
all
three
partners.
K
K
If
I'm,
if
I've
read
correctly
so
I
just
wondered
about
decision
making
in
respect
of
area
reviews,
because
there's
obviously
the
potential
for
disagreement
in
respect
of
a
decision
on
an
area
review
as
well
and
also
within
the
chapter
four,
it
does
also
state
that
sometimes
it
may
be
decided
during
the
course
of
an
area
review
that
there
should
still
be
a
notification
made
off
the
back
of
further
information
that
might
come
to
light.
K
G
I
think
colleagues
may
want
to
come
in
on
this
as
well,
but
but
what
you
have
to
remember
is
that,
even
if
there
is
not
a
notification,
learning
will
stay
still
take
place
yeah.
So
you
know
the
forms
of
learning.
There
will
be
decisions
around
that
and
from
each
individual
case,
because
when
you
come
around
a
table
you're
discussing
yes
best
practice,
but
also
what
have
we
missed,
and
we
also
consider
that
in
the
context
of
other
reviews.
G
So
if
there
is
a
if
there
are
any
consistent
themes
coming
out
of
the
reviews,
then-
and
Karen
is
going
to
present
those
consistent
themes
to
you,
then
we
have
to
think
about
those
themes
in
the
context
of.
Is
it
in
an
area?
Is
it
a
national
concern?
Is
it
so?
We
think
in
that
space
like
that
I
mean?
Interestingly,
you
know,
since
May
2021
to
December
2022,
we've
done
11
rapid
reviews,
which
is
a
huge
increase
in
comparison
to
where
we
sat
pre-may
2021,
but
we
would
notify
a
notification
to
National.
G
But
in
answer
to
your
question,
anyone
can
raise
around
that
table,
but
they
believe
that
this
is
a
contained
to
a
particular
area
and
we
need
to
have
a
review
about
this
Etc
so
that
that's
like
an
open
discussion.
I'm
quite
sure.
K
The
decision
making
as
in
regards
to
the
need
for
an
area
view,
is
there
any
room
for
improvement
in
regards
to
that
process
as
well
I
mean
I
would
assume
that
if
there
were,
it
would
have
been
highlighted,
but
I'm
just
curious.
Has
this
this
sort
of
review
led
to
you
thinking
more
about?
Is
there
anything
we
could
do
to
improve
that
also.
G
I
think
when
we
considered
that
space
of
where
there
is
disagreement,
we
have
come
a
long
way
and,
and
now
there
is,
there
are
very
every
practitioner
if
they
believe
something
warrants
discussion
at
the
rapid
review
meeting,
they
will
fill
out
the
form
they
will
present
their
case
and
we'll
have
that
discussion.
G
The
point
is
an
independent
chair
will
sit
in
that
meeting
and
also
ensure
everybody's
listened
to
fairly
Etc,
and
then,
if
there
is
disagreement
at
that
point
and
this
regardless,
if
it's
area,
if
it's
National,
whatever
a
recommendation,
will
go
to
the
executive
board
and
the
executive
board
will
have
that
discussion.
That's
is
there.
They
have
to
ratify
that
decision.
So
you're
going
through
that
process
of
having
an
independence
scrutiny
at
that
table.
Who
facilitates
that
conversation?
You
know,
I'm,
not
a
decision
maker
at
that
meeting.
G
I
ensure
people
are
heard
Etc,
and
if
there
is
disagreement
it
will
go
to
the
executive
board.
It
will
be
ratified
there
and
I
will
present
it
there.
So
you
would
want
them
to
make
those
decisions
at
that
space
and
to
hear
what
the
disagreement
is
and
to
make
decisions
around.
That
and
that
that
that's
for
me,
is
a
sound
system.
R
Yes,
please
thank
you,
I
suppose
it
was
just
to
reinforce
the
fact
that
we
now
we
have
the
lscp
exec,
but
underneath
the
lstp
exec,
we
do
have
the
review
Advisory
Group,
which
jazz
vinder
is
referring
to
in
which
Jazz
vinder
cheers
that
review.
R
Advisory
Group
consists
of
senior
colleagues
from
Health
police
and
children's
social
care,
and
there
has
been
a
lot
of
progress
as
Jazz
vinder
has
described
as
a
result
of
the
review
of
the
notification
process
that
rapid
review
that
review
Advisory
Group
now
will
come
together
and
to
look
at
notifications.
So
once
the
decision
has
been
made
to
notify
or
even
in
discussing
whether
a
case
should
be
notified,
that
review
Advisory
Group
are
key
now
to
those
decisions
and
those
robust,
clear,
challenging
discussion
that
takes
place
there,
as
husband
says,
with
an
independent,
sheer
scrutineer
present.
R
R
So
not
only
do
they
come
together
to
discuss
whether
notification
has
been
made,
whether
a
notification
should
be
made,
but
equally
we
have
communicated
right
across
the
partnership
where
any
colleague
in
any
organization
is
concerned
about
any
child
or
any
family
and
the
way
in
which
Services
have
responded
that
they
can
refer
to
the
review
Advisory
Group
for
there
to
be
an
open
discussion
at
that
group
about
the
concerns,
and
actually
we
have
seen
that
work
in
practice
and
some
of
the
learning
that
Karen
is
going
to
share
later
in
this
meeting.
R
The
other
thing,
I
think
just
to
say,
is
that
you
know
I
suppose
I
would
go
back
to
the
strength
of
the
partnership
actually
and
again
just
thinking
about
the
arilac
inspection
last
year
and
where
the
inspectors
said
that
the
Strategic
partnership
is
strong.
They
themselves
said
that,
although
there
have
been
some
professional
challenges,
these
are
resolved
through
the
strength
of
the
partnership
and
the
restorative
culture.
R
They
also
talked
about
the
fact
that
we
do
have
a
strong,
continuous
learning,
culture
and
again,
I
think
the
the
the
work
that
we've
done
through
the
review
of
the
notification
process,
the
journey
and
it's
a
continuous
Journey
that
we
are
on
as
a
partnership
in
terms
of
best
practice
and
that
commitment
to
continuous
Improvement.
That
is
a
day-to-day
Journey
that
we
are
all
on
together.
I
just
want
to
come
back
to
the
learning
and
the
embedding
of
the
learning,
because,
again
the
whole
point
of
the
national
child
safeguarding
review
new
panel.
R
The
whole
point
of
child
safeguarding
practice
reviews
is
about
learning,
is
about
ensuring
that
we
are
learning
those
lessons
and
the
review.
Advisory
Group
that
jazz
vinda
cheers
tracks
through
a
number
of
action
plans
which
have
come
from
reviews,
formal
reviews,
more
informal
learning
activities.
So
there
is
that
scrutiny
in
terms
of
how
that
learning
is
being
embedded
within
Children
and
Families.
As
an
example,
we,
you
know,
we
have
our
Advanced
practitioners
who
take
that
learning.
We,
our
managers,
take
that
learning
into
the
supervision
of
Staff.
R
We
take
that
into
our
Workforce
Development
program.
We
also
have
a
specific
capacity
and
change
team
which,
as
an
example,
give
a
share,
a
quality
assurance
and
a
learning
bulletin,
every
quarter,
which
again
highlights
the
learning
that
has
come
from
these
reviews.
We
have
specific
action,
learning
sex
action,
learning
sets
breakfast
forums
so
there's
a
range
of
activity
going
on
across
the
director
and
across
the
partnership.
You
know
we
also
have
the
lscp
put
on
their
own
Workforce
Development
sessions,
for
the
partnership
will
never
be
done.
R
You
know
this
is
a
constant
Journey
for
us
to
identify
the
learning,
identify
the
lessons
identify
where
we
could
be
doing
better.
So
you
know
I,
just
I
just
wanted
to
to
reassure,
hopefully
that
there
is
a
lot
of
work
going
on,
but
it
will
never
be
done.
This
is
something
that
we,
you
know.
I've
got
to
have
a
constant
focus
on.
A
Okay,
councilor
Stevenson,
please.
L
L
L
So
at
present
your
reviews
outline
that
you've
got
multiple
agencies
using
different
tools.
I
think
probation
use,
Oasis
offender
management
use,
Matrix
Systems
and
those
assessment
tools
deliver
different
responses,
so
you
could
have,
as
I
think,
you've
outlined
in
one
specific
case,
the
same
the
same
child,
sex
offender
being
assessed
and
two
separate
tools
delivering
two
different
outcomes
of
risk.
One
saying,
for
example,
medium
one
saying
hi.
L
So
in
your
discussions
with
national
government
and
locally,
have
you
he's
anybody
exploring
the
potential
of
having
one
risk
assessment
system,
that's
accessed
and
understood
by
all
agencies?
So
there
isn't
any
confusion
between
the
risk
outcomes
and
any
opportunity,
therefore,
for
failings
in
cases
to
occur.
G
Karen
is
going
to
present
because
within
the
presentation
there
is
a
section
on
page
29
that
discusses
the
themes
that
have
come
out
of
our
learning
reviews
and
one
of
the
themes
is
in
relation
to
different
agencies,
risk
assessment
processes
and
clearly
you
know
it
is
identified
that,
through
reviews
that
practitioners
not
always
fully
aware
of
fully
understand
the
risk
assessment
processes
used
by
different
agencies,
what
the
idea,
identifier
risk
levels,
assessment
outcomes
mean
that
that
has
been
picked
up,
and
this
was
particularly
evident
in
relation
to
the
assessment
and
management
of
registered
sex
offenders.
G
You
know,
so
that's
the
piece
of
work
that
we
have
identified,
that
we
need
to
consider
I'm,
not
aware
councilor
Stevenson
nationally
whether
anybody
is
considering
this
I
have
not
raised
that
personally.
But
if
we
look
at
this
in
terms
of
case
specific
you're
right,
you
know
some
people
in
the
particular
case
that
we've
learned
from
what
we
have
to
remember
is
I
mean,
for
example,
the
Lucy
faithful
Foundation,
you
know
is,
is
an
organization
that
assessed
the
risk
in
this
particular
case.
Unfortunately,
that
assessment
was
being
used
and
it
was
outdated.
G
It
needed
to
be
updated.
That
was
the
issue,
so
you
know
there
are
many
issues
here
in
terms
of
risk
assessment,
but
also
practitioners,
relying
upon
risk
assessments
that
are
not
up
to
date
and
particularly
in
terms
of
registered
sex
offenders.
One.
We
understand
the
monitoring
of
them,
and
we
understand
that
you
have
to
have
up-to-date
risk
assessments
for
those
sex
offenders,
especially
if
they're
going
to
be
a
place
with
children.
L
On
the
back
of
that,
can
I
ask
further
to
counselor
Carter's
question
question
to
councilor
venner
in
terms
of
I'm
asking
this
in
the
base
of
article
6
of
The
Constitution
accounts
Constitution,
so
on
a
policy
point
in
practice
of
policy
in
the
council
on
the
back
of
that
Anton
risk
assessments.
Is
it?
Is
it
your
view
that
convicted
sex
offenders,
child
sex
offenders
can
be
rehabilitated.
S
That's
not
something
I'm
qualified
to
answer
or
would
ever
be
asked
to
answer.
I'm,
not
a
practitioner
I'm,
the
political
lead
for
children's
safeguarding,
but
I
don't
sit
on
the
rad
group.
I,
don't
sit
on
the
safeguarding
executive
for
children
and
I'm
never
going
to
be
in
a
position
where
I'm
personally
risking
assessing
risk
around
sex
offenders.
So
I'm
not
in
a
position
to
answer
a
question
about
whether
or
not
sex
offenders
can
be
rehabilitated.
L
But
chair
6.3
of
the
Constitution
says
that
scrutiny
board
rule
is
to
question
members
of
the
executive
about
their
views
on
issues
and
proposals
affecting
the
area.
I
can
answer
that
question
as
an
act
collected
member
I,
don't
believe
a
convicted
pedophile
can
ever
be
rehabilitated
and
I
certainly
don't
believe
that
a
charge
will
ever
be
put
in
their
care.
S
It
would
be
to
inform
me
it
wouldn't
be
to
ask
my
professional
view
because,
as
I
said
again,
I'm
the
political
lead
for
safeguarding
children,
but
I'm,
not
a
practitioner,
I,
don't
have
the
operational
detail,
I
don't
sit
on
the
rad
group
or
on
the
safeguarding
executive.
So
I'll
I'm
just
going
to
repeat
my
previous
response:
counselor
Stevenson,
okay,.
D
S
Is
that
it's
not
it's
not
my
position
to
make
those
kind
of
comments
which
are
out
of
a
very
a
very
I
think
whether
sex
offenders
can
be
rehabilitated
is
a
very
a
specialized
area
of
work
around
working
with
sex
offenders.
That
I
don't
personally
work
in
so
I'm
not
going
to
answer
that
question
other
than
how
I
have
previously
okay.
L
Let's
move
on
in
terms
of
the
notification
system,
then,
when
we
discussed
this
at
previous
boards,
we
had
a
lengthy
discussion
around
serious
harm
and
what
the
threshold
was,
and
that
was
basically
the
base
of
discussion
of
of
how
we
move
that
that
forward
or
whether
notifications
made
so
a
year
down
the
line,
given
the
outcomes
that
have
been
a
thematic
outcomes
that
come
out
of
several
reviews
and
what
we've
heard
from
the
the
board
today
could
I
ask
Julie
Longworth
in
terms
of
the
the
reason
this
came
here,
the
initial
discussion
we
had
about
the
the
complaint
that
there
was
a
disagreement
in
the
case
that
Jasmine
has
just
mentioned.
L
R
I
think
the
lscp
exec
has
made
clear
its
position
and
that
it
doesn't
think
it's
appropriate
to
discuss
individual
cases
in
public
scrutiny,
but
what
I
would
say
is
that
and
as
Jazz
vinda
has
outlined
at
the
beginning
of
this
meeting,
that
I
think
that
the
work
that
has
been
done
through
the
review
of
the
notification
process
has
been
a
really
positive
piece
of
work.
R
I
think
it's
significant
that
actually
we
have
not
had
a
situation
either
in
the
review,
Advisory
Group
or
the
lscp
exec,
where
there
has
been
a
disagreement
and
actually
I,
think
you
know
that
reflects
the
strength
of
the
partnership
and
also
I
think
it
reflects
the
discussions
that
we've
had
as
an
lscp
executive
as
a
review.
Advisory
Group
with
the
national
safeguarding
facility
status,
I
think
they've
been
very
clear
that
this
is
about
judgment.
You
know
every
decision
that
we
make
around
a
notification
around
the
cspr.
R
I
am
really
reassured
and
I
think
I'm.
A
super
exec
colleagues
may
want
to
may
want
to
come
in,
but
I'm
really
reassured
that
we
are
in
a
different
place
actually
in
terms
of
how
we
approach
those
discussions
and
I
think
just
the
maturity
as
a
partnership.
You
know
I
think
we
have
had
new
colleagues
join
and
I
think
it
takes
time
to
develop
those
relationships
and
those
trusting
relationships,
but
I
think
what
we've
got
is
a
an
up,
transparent
and
strong
partnership.
That
is
a
able
to
give
sound
challenge.
L
Well,
thanks
thanks
Julie
and
final
question,
counselor
again
on
on
the
16th
of
February,
taking
Julie's
party,
not
not
care
specific
up
on
the
16th
of
February
I
asked
you
that,
if,
in
any
case
where
there's
Child
Protection
involved
and
there's
a
case
of
serious
child
sexual
exploitation,
that
whether
you
believe
that
a
notification
should
be
made,
we
understand
from
previous
boards
that
you
were
involved
in
decision
making,
then
but
aren't
now
in
terms
of
these.
These
reviews.
L
S
S
I
would
defer
to
the
Judgment
of
the
safeguarding
partners
from
Health,
the
police
and
the
council,
and
the
local
Authority
has,
as
you
know,
the
final
decision
and
whether
a
case
is
notified,
so
it
will
be
their
decision
and
not
mine.
Whether
case
is
a
sexual
exploitation
or
other
incidents
are
reported
to
the
National
panel.
So.
S
As
you
were
aware,
I
previously
sat
on
the
Leeds
safeguarding
executive
board,
not
as
a
statutory
partner.
It's
not
usual
for
my
post
to
be
on
that
board.
I
was
on
that
board
during
a
period
of
transition
when
we
were
implementing
the
changes
from
the
wood
review
and
when
the
DCS
and
the
chief
superintendent
and
the
safeguarding
show
were
changing.
So
I
was
on
the
board
to
provide
some
continuity
and
to
help
implement
the
new
structures
when
I
was
on
the
board.
S
I
was
therefore
involved
in
the
safeguarding
executive,
which
ratifies
decisions
made
at
the
rag
or
formally
approved
decisions
made
at
the
rag
as
to
whether
cases
are
notified
or
not
so,
yes,
I
have
had
some
previous
involvement
I
no
longer
do
when
those
structures
were
embedded.
I
came
off.
The
safeguarding
executive
I
no
longer
have
any
involvement
in
making
decisions
about
whether
cases
are
notified
or
not.
L
Of
a
final
follow-up
chat
is
just
because
from
the
answer
that
that
means
some
of
the
reports
that
we've
been
referred
to
in
this,
the
Thematic
outcomes
have
come
from.
You
would
have
been
involved
in
the
in
the
discussions
around
them
at
the
time.
So
just
to
finally
repeat
of
the
question
on
a
general
principle.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
couple
of
questions
myself
following
on
from
jaswinder's
comment,
so,
firstly,
to
say
that
there
was
some
criticism
of
whether
it
was
right
to
bring
this
at
all
to
the
scrutiny
board
last
year
and
I
think
everything
that's
happened
since
has
utterly
Vindicated
that
it
was
right
that
we
discussed
it
and
brought
it
here
and
I'm
really
pleased
to
hear
of
the
the
positive
changes
and
the
national
implications.
A
Since
then,
the
the
bit
that
I'm
interested
From
scrutiny's
perspective
is
about
what
you
said
about
practitioners
having
the
knowledge
to
escalate,
and
it's
really
about
how
we
get
that
rapid
learning
to
be
shared
rapidly
with
practitioners
on
the
ground,
rather
than
it
just
being
learning
that's
been
done
and
high
level
discussions,
but
actually
it's
quickly
disseminated
and
what
is
the
role
then
for
this
board
in
terms
of
moving
forwards
of
us
being
assured
that
that
is
happening
and
it
is
happening
quickly
and
and
how
do
we?
A
What
measurements
are
in
place
for
us
to
be
able
to
see
that
that
that's
happening,
because
that's
the
key
to
it?
A
It's
it's
one
thing:
what
are
the
decisions
made
by
the
partners
at
the
executive
around
the
table,
but
the
key
is:
how
do
those
things
get
there
in
the
first
place
and
how
quickly
a
practitioner
is
feeling
confident
to
say
that
that's
the
issue
with
a
lot
of
these
cases
that
are
example,
there
were
red
flags,
but
they
weren't
picked
up
on
and
that's
how
they
became
serious
cases,
and
they
didn't
necessarily
need
to
be
so
it's
really
what
what
what's
our
role
and
what
are
the
next
steps
from
this
Julius
reading?
R
Yeah
I'm
happy
to
come
in
first
I.
Think
I.
Think
the
issue
of
escalation
is
a
really
important
issue.
As
jaswinder
has
said,
it's
an
issue
that
we
have
focused
on
as
the
lscp
executive
and
we
have
had
discussions
with
the
broad
children
and
young
people's
partnership.
So
that's
a
broad
Partnership
of
organizations
right
across
the
city
who
seek
to
support
children
and
families
to
remain
them.
But
we
do
have
a
concerns
resolution
process
in
place
across
the
city
where
any
practitioner
can
escalate
an
issue
if
they
feel
that
is
necessary.
R
I
think
some
of
the
learning
and
I
think
some
of
the
really
significant
learning
for
me
and
it's
come
about
through
the
discussions
that
have
been
had
again
within
the
review.
Advisory
Group
within
the
exec
is
I.
Think
there's
almost
a
bit
before
that
that
we
do
need
to
focus
on
and
I
think
you
know
what
we've
seen
is
that
at
times
in
some
of
the
incidents
that
we've
been
looking
at,
perhaps
practitioners
have
felt
a
little
bit
uncomfortable.
R
Perhaps
they've
had
a
gut
instinct
that
something's
just
not
quite
right,
but
at
times
they've,
maybe
not
felt
that
that's
been
strong
enough
to
actually
escalate
or
to
to
to
initiate
that
concerns
resolution
process.
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
having
to
look,
we
need
to
look
around.
That
is
I,
suppose
how
do
we
have
explicit
conversations
with
our
Workforce
about
that?
You
know
across
the
partnership
again
thinking
about
some
of
the
Workforce
Development
opportunities
that
the
lsdp
business
unit
provide
thinking
about
our
own
supervision.
R
You
know
so
you
know
again
that
outcome
focused
reflexive
supervision,
which
is
given
by
our
own
managers
and
again
speaking,
particularly
in
Children
and
Families,
to
to
explore
and
to
reflect
with
practitioners.
You
know
about
actually
what
is
their
gut?
What
is
their
Instinct
and
the
importance
of
acting
on
that
so
I
think
there's
something
about
developing
confidence
across
the
workforce
and
across
the
partnership,
the
voluntary
sector,
the
community
sector,
Universal
Services,
you
know
about
what
do
they
do
when
they
have
that
gut
and
that
instinct
and
where
do
they
go
with
that?
R
You
know
and
they're
supposed
to
have
the
confidence
that
that
is
really
really
important,
so
I
think
there's
something
about
colleagues
being
clear
and
I
think.
Sometimes
it
is
clearer
when
there's
something
that
you
really
disagree
with
or
something
that
you
have
an
absolute
clear
issue
with
in
terms
of
initiating
the
conflict
resolution,
but
I
think
as
I've
said,
there's
a
point
before
that
which
we
need
to
focus
on
about.
G
I
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
in
relation
to
the
next
steps.
Actually
I
mean
the
key
thing
here
is.
Are
we
assured
that,
if
there
is
a
serious
case
out
there
today,
our
practitioners
will
know
what
to
do
in
terms
of
escalation
collectively?
You
know
they
may
do
things
differently
in
each
organization,
but
are
they
fully
appraised
of
the
fact
that
it
may
have
gone
past
concerns
resolution?
You
know
it
may
have
escalated
and
we've
seen
cases
where
that
has
happened.
G
It
may
be
that
that
question
that
Julie
poses
you
know
what
do
they
do
if
there
is
this
feeling
of
I'm,
not
sure
or
there's
a
lack
of
professional
curiosity
are
we
assured
that
they
know
what
to
do
I
keep
it
back.
There
I'll
put
it
back
right
back
there
and
that's
the
next
bit
we
need
to
do
you
know.
Are
we
assured
that
they
know
what
to
do
when
it's
serious,
as
opposed
to
not
serious,
and
that's
where
we
have
to
be
assured
that
they
understand
the
escalation
processes
within
their
organizations
as
a
partnership?
G
The
role
of
the
review,
Advisory
Group
Etc,
and
to
be
able
to
have
those
conversations,
because
in
some
of
the
cases
that
we
looked
at,
you
can
see
the
red
flags
were
there,
but
people
were
not
taking
them
up
there.
Well,
why
is
that
and
I
think
that's
an
important
conversation
that
we
need
to
be
assured
about?
G
There
are
so
many
processes
whereby
we're
getting
the
learning
I
have
no
doubt
about
that.
You
know
it's
the
dissemination
of
that
learning.
Embedding
that
learning
in
evidencing
that
something
in
the
system
has
changed
as
a
result
of
that,
so
we
are
assured
that
something
has
changed
and
that
isn't
that
that
is
unlikely
less
likely
to
happen
again
and
I
believe
there
needs
to
be
an
assessment
of
that.
G
We
need
to
be
stronger
at
that
so
and
we
need
to
be
timely
with
that
as
well
and
maybe
that's
the
role
of
scrutiny
in
relation
to
coming
back
and
monitoring
that
action
tracker,
which
I
have
looked
at,
and
we
do
look
at
that-
a
rapid
review.
You
know-
and
it
may
be
capacity-
maybe
other
things,
but
but
some
of
these
are
some
of
the
learning
is
not
timely
enough
and
being
picked
up
quick
enough,
and
we
need
to
have
that
assurance.
A
F
Yeah,
thank
you
very
much.
Chair
and
I
I've
been
I've
been
listening
intently
throughout
the
the
the
time
I've
been
in
the
meeting
and
I
will
come
to
the
the
point
that
was
that
was
made
specifically
that
both
Julian
Jazz
vindra
have
spoken
about
in
a
second,
but
just
a
few
observations
from
me,
I
think
I
think
it.
F
It's
been
a
a
a
challenging
time
for
the
partnership
in
terms
of
moving
through
this,
but
I
absolutely
hold
and
Echo
the
the
comments
that
Julie
made
a
few
minutes
ago
around
the
the
improvements
both
in
in
terms
of
openness
and
transparency
of
that
decision-making
process
and
the
changes
to
that
structure
around
the
rag
meetings
certainly
give
me
confidence
around
the
decision,
making
the
the
recording
of
the
views
of
the
three
statutory
Partners
around
that
table
and
how
that
is
then
escalated
to
ensure
that
an
open
and
transparent
record
of
that
decision
making
is
made
is,
is
made
and
taken
forward.
F
So
I
think
that's
the
first
point.
I
think
Judy
spoke
a
little
bit
about
the
strengthening
partnership
and,
and
certainly
we
have
taken
a
number
of
steps
over
the
time
that
I've
been
part
of
the
exec
and
I've,
been
in
in
Leeds
as
the
Leeds
District
Commander
around.
F
Not
only
increasing
the
frequency
of
the
discussions
that
the
the
exec
are
having
and
but
also
as
well
bringing
in
national
facilitators
to
to
to
look
at
the
way
in
which
we
work
and
to
start
to
build
and
towards
that
and
I
think
the
point
that
was
made
around
the
difference
between
locally
and
nationally
the
the
decision
to
to
refer
I
think
it
is
absolutely
vital
at
a
a
local
level
that
every
body
has
a
seat
at
that
table
has
the
opportunity
to
raise
an
issue
because
I
think
we
would
all
agree.
F
It
would
be
wholly
wrong
for
us
as
a
partnership
if
it
was
left
to
one
agency
to
decide
which
issues
were
were
labeled,
so
I
think
it's
absolutely
right
and
proper
and
I
think
we're
in
agreement,
certainly
as
an
exec
around
that,
and
so
the
the
the
differences
in
in
local
versus
National
notifications,
I
think
are
there
and
the
national
bid
is
is
very
much
Guided
by
the
legislation.
F
That
is
that
is
in
place,
and
we
must
work
to
that
legislation
that
is
unhelpful
in
in
in
some
of
the
definitions
it
gives
particularly
around
serious
harm,
and
so
that
will
always
be
a
subjective
discussion,
which
is
why
it
has
got
to
be
a
case-by-case
consideration
and,
and
that's
a
firm
view
that
that
I
I
hold
and
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
learning
I
think
that
is
the
most
important
thing
that
comes
out
of
any
of
this,
and
it's
clear
that
this
process
is
about
not
apportioning
blame,
not
finding
finding
fault
but,
more
importantly,
around
finding
the
learning
points
and
acting
upon
those
and
then
the
case.
F
In
point
of
the
questioning
point
that
was
made
around
around
the
ability
to
raise
issues
and
I'm
just
going
to
give
a
couple
of
really
practical
examples
from
a
policing
point
of
view,
but
it
links
into
the
partnership
around
how
some
of
that
is
changing
so
and
I
think
it's
absolutely
vital
the
the
example
of
that
four
o'clock
in
the
morning
situation
where
a
practitioner
is
is
there
and
and
knowing
that
they
can
raise
their
hand
and
say
I'm,
not
happy
with
this
there's
an
issue
here:
I
need
to
do
it.
F
We've
moved
to
an
electronic
system
where
now
officers
through
the
mobile
devices
that
they
carry
operationally
can
make
a
a
referral
there
and
then,
which
goes
in
through
the
open
door
and
then
into
child
social
care.
So
we
recognize
that
need
for
practitioners
to
to
suppose
have
a
voice
and
that
voice
to
be
heard,
and
it's
important
that
that's
recorded,
but
it
recorded
in
an
auto
auditable
way
as
well.
So
that's
in
place
absolutely
at
that
that
practitioner
level
of
a
more
specialist
sit
see
we
need
to.
F
F
Looking
at
the
the
the
the
learning
points
that
have
come
back
from
the
national
reviews,
but
also
as
well
to
share
information
around
how
different
groups
work
and
there's
an
example
of
that
happening
in
May,
where
there'll
be
a
practitioner's
event
at
Ellen
Road
police
station,
where
we
will
bring
in
representatives
from
the
police
public
protection
unit
to
work
with
practitioners
from
health
and
from
the
local
Authority,
just
to
really
show
what
the
role
of
of
police
protection
is
and
how
that
links
in
and
to
learn
from
each
other
and
so
I.
F
Think
in
closing
I
I
think
it's.
It's
been
a
useful
discussion
for
me
so
far
today
and
I
I
would
just
Echo
that
I
think
the
partnership
because
of
the
journey
we've
been
on
over
the
recent
year
or
so
and
and
working
through.
This
are
in
a
much
stronger
position
going
forward
and
I'm,
certainly
reassured
by
the
structures,
are
in
place
now
around
decision
making
for
National
referral.
A
Thank
you
so,
on
this
section,
I've
got
Kate
and
then
councilor
Carter
and
then
I'm
going
to
take
a
short
break
before
we
move
on
to
the
to
the
next
section.
So,
okay,
please.
K
Sorry,
thank
you.
It's
really
helpful
to
hear
the
information
about
this
sort
of
cross
partnership.
Working
that's
been
arranged
at
a
more
practitioner
sort
of
level,
because
that
was
one
of
my
questions
really
in
terms
of
how
much
individual
professionals
are
sort
of
empowered
to
feel
that
they
can
escalate.
K
K
In
terms
of
the
opportunity
to
work
closely
and
alongside
colleagues
and
speak
to
colleagues
about
individual
cases,
I
just
wondered
what
work
was
being
undertaken
just
to
sort
of
strengthen
that
cross
agency
working
because
quite
often
I
think,
particularly
maybe
newly
qualified
or
recently
qualified
staff
may
may
feel
the
pressure
of
being
doing
that
on
their
own.
And
what
opportunity
do
they
have
to
be
able
to
discuss
that
with
other
other
professionals
and
other
agencies
that
might
be
involved
with
the
family?
K
Has
supervision,
guidance
and
supervision,
Arrangements
being
strengthened
and
also
just
sort
of
reflecting
on
in
terms
of
like
learning
lessons
and
embedding
change
and
things
as
well
in
in
the
case
that
has
led
to
sort
of
us
discussing
this
at
board,
there
was
an
issue
around
professionals
not
being
comfortable
about
the
decision
of
a
court.
K
With
regards
to
I
mean
some
of
the
thematic
sort
of
outcomes
around
like
disguise,
compliance
and
professional
curiosity,
I
mean
I,
think
they've
been
there
for
a
long
time.
For
my
own
professional
experience
and
I
I'd
be
really
interested
to
know
how
much
of
this
is
fed
into
the
university
courses.
You
know
how
much
are
you
know,
trainee
social
workers
being
sort
of
taught
about.
You
know
the
importance
of
these.
K
These
themes
at
a
very
early
stage
in
their
career,
so
that
that's
already
kind
of
ingrained
in
them
when
they
actually
start
on
their
their
professional
Journey,
so
they're,
obviously
sort
of,
like
that's
obviously
more
of
a
national
kind
of
policy
consideration
but
be
helpful
to
hear
your
thoughts
on
that
as
well.
R
Yeah
I'm
happy
to
come
back
in
the
first
instance,
I
think
I
think
just
in
relation
to
that
multi-disciplinary,
Service
delivery.
So
again,
if
we,
if
I,
think
about
the
early
help
hubs
which
we
now
have
in
the
city
and
in
those
hubs,
we
have
police
colleagues,
we
have
domestic
violence
coordinators,
we
have
substance,
misused,
coordinators,
social
care,
practitioners,
family
support
workers,
early
Health,
practitioners
and
again
I.
R
Some
of
the
other
things
that
we
do
have
in
the
city
is:
we
have
what's
called
a
rethink
formulation
forums
so,
as
part
of
our
leads
practice,
model
rethink
plays
a
keep
out
of
that
and
it's
it's
a
method
by
which
professionals
can
come
together
and
they
work
through
a
specific
methodology,
and
so
they
work
through
six
P's.
So
they
have
a
conversation
about
as
an
example.
What
are
the
protective
factors
in
this
case?
R
What
are
the
predisposing
factors?
It's
a
it's
a
helpful
structure
to
help
them
have
a
conversation
about.
Actually
what
do
we
think
is
going
on
for
this
child
or
for
this
family
to
hypothesize?
What
do
we
think
are
the
real
issues,
and
what
that
leads
to
is
a
really
outcome,
focused
plan.
Now
we
have
those
rethink
forums
right
across
the
city,
so
any
you
know,
Partners
across
the
city
can
take
part
in
those,
so
it's
another
far
and
whereby
people
can
come
and
asked
to
talk
about
a
specific
child
or
a
specific
family.
R
Raise
concerns
have
a
conversation
if,
even
if
they're
feeling
a
little
bit
stuck,
you
know
with
a
particular
issue.
One
of
the
things
that
we
want
to
progress
through.
The
learning
that
we've
had
recently
is
peer
group
supervision.
So
in
leads
within
the
director
we
have
a
number
of
restorative
early
support
teams
and-
and
they
have
they've
been
researched
and
there's
been
some
research
into
those
and
they've
really
been
effective
in
reducing
the
number
of
children
needing
to
come
into
care.
But
a
key
part
of
the
way
in
which
they
work
is
peer.
R
Group
supervision
so
provide
and
again
that
protective
space
for
professionals
to
come
together
in
a
place
that
they
feel
is
safe,
where
they
can
be
very
open
and
honest
about
the
concerns
about
that
gut
instinct
about
perhaps
their
own
like
a
confidence
there
are,
you
know
whatever
it
is
that
they
can
have
those
conversations.
What
we
want
to
do
and
we've
had
the
conversation
at
the
review,
Advisory
Group
and
at
the
lscp
exec
is:
how
do
we
broaden
that
out?
R
R
So
thinking
about
the
recommendations
from
the
Josh
McAllister
review
and
the
recommendation
about
having
multi-disciplinary
teams
who
will
deliver
Family
help
so
early
help,
you
know
support
to
families,
but
also
that
child
protection
again
I
think
you
know
we
are
having
those
conversations
as
a
partnership
about
what
will
that
look
like
you
know.
What
does
that
multi-disciplinary
working
look
like
and
so
there's
an
awful
lot?
You
know
there's
an
awful
lot
going
on.
R
You
know
an
awful
lot
of
positive
work
going
on,
but
I
come
back
to
the
point
that
will
never
be
done.
You
know
we
can
we're,
never
gonna
sit
on
our
Laurels.
You
know
this
has
got
to
be
a
constant
journey
of
continuous
Improvement
and
Workforce
Development.
We've
got
to
ensure
that
the
workforce
rate
across
the
partnership
is
given
the
right
environment.
The
right
support,
whether
that's
as
I've,
said
supervision,
Workforce,
Development
opportunities
and
to
be
their
best,
so
that
we
can
help
children
and
families
to
be
their
best
to.
O
Council,
thank
you.
It
was
just
to
respond
to
another
couple
of
points
really
that
you'd
made.
So
one
was
really
on
the
back
of
Steve's
comment
around
that
joint
working
with
the
police
and
we've
also
got
a
new.
The
police
are
doing
some
training
sessions
this
year
and
social
care.
Colleagues
are
contributing
to
that.
O
So
we've
got
social
workers,
Social
Work
managers,
sort
of
coming
to
look
at
key
themes
so
again,
I
think
that's
going
to
be
a
really
good
opportunity
to
have
those
really
key
discussions,
and
the
other
question
was
around
and
professional
curiosity
disguise
compliance.
O
So
in
terms
of
social
care,
we've
already
commissioned
some
extra
kind
of
master
classes,
which
we
do
a
lot
of
anyway.
In
terms
of
you
know,
up-to-date
research,
key
themes,
etc
for
social
workers,
and
but
within
that
we
have
really
close
relationships
with
our
universities,
because
that's
your
other
point,
which
is
a
really
good
point
about
students
and
how
they're
picking
up
on
those
key
themes-
and
we
have
a
lot
of
our
really
experienced
staff
who
go
in
and
support
lectures.
O
And
you
know
we'll
work
really
closely
with
lecturers
on
some
of
those
some
of
those
areas,
so
I
think
like
Julie,
says,
there's
always
more
to
do,
but
I
think
we've
got
some
a
really
good
basis
for
really
feeding
in
that
learning
and
working
as
a
partnership
at
that
level.
At
practitioner
level,.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
listen
longer
and
longer,
but
I've
got
used
to
Council
Carter.
Please.
M
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
is
around
the
voice
of
the
child
uminder.
Please
I've
long
been
concerned
that
children
have
consistently
not
been
listened
to
and
in
fact
I've
raised
this
with
you
councilor
burner
in
a
meeting.
M
G
I
think
the
first
thing
to
say
is
that
the
the
lived
experience
of
children
families
place
play
a
crucial
role
in
understanding
our
safeguarding
system,
and-
and
you
know,
we
will
discuss
every
review-
Advisory
Group
when
a
case
comes
to
us
the
voice
of
the
child
and
where
it,
where
is
the
voice
of
that
child?
G
In
that
case,
that
is
being
presented
to
us
and
where
there
may
have
been
missed
opportunities
or
or
it
has
been
heard,
and
without
a
doubt
we
have
got
some
improvements
to
make
in
that
space
and
that
will
be
part
of
the
Improvement
plan
moving
forward.
G
We
have
the
children,
young
people's
partnership,
meeting
that
myself
and
councilor
then
a
co-chair,
and
we
have
a
standing
agenda
item
on
there
with
regards
to
voice
of
children
and
they
present
and
partners.
We
hold
them
to
account
in
asking
the
question
around
how
they
ensure
within
their
services,
and
this
group
is
made
up
of
very
senior
people
that
they
are
also
ensuring
their
services
or
listening
to
the
voice
of
the
child,
so
pain.
I
would
say
you
know
this
is
an
ongoing
conversation.
G
There
needs
to
be
a
plan
and
that
absolutely
needs
to
be
part
of
it
in
terms
of
children
and
hearing
their
voice
when
doing
assessments,
and
it
being
assured
that
their
voices
are
being
heard
in
not
in
the
presence
of
those
that
they
may
be
at
risk
from
or
is
from
I,
don't
know.
If
that
answers
your
question
again,
it's
has
to
be
part
of
that
learning,
Improvement
and
embedding
that
learning
and
that
that
needs
to
be
part
of
monitoring
the
plan
that
we're
going
to
be
developing.
A
S
I
just
wanted
to
respond
generally
on
that
this
point
that
while
there
were
always
room
well,
there's
always
room
for
improvement.
The
voice
of
the
child
is
really
really
Central
to
the
whole
of
the
children
and
families
directorates.
So
we
have
lots
of
mechanisms
through
the
voice
and
influence
team
whereby
children
and
their
families
are
listened
to.
That
includes
some
of
our
most
vulnerable
children.
So,
for
example,
we
have
a
very
active,
have
a
voice
Council
for
children
who
are
looked
after.
We
have
a
care
leavers.
S
Council
I
met
with
I
met
with
them
last
night,
because
they're
part
of
the
corporate
parenting
board.
It
was
a
really
lovely
part
of
the
ofsted
report
that
we
got
a
year
ago
that
the
voice
of
children
was
seen
by
Austin
is
so
essential
to
our
work.
That's
shown
out
of
the
report
that
we
listen
to
children
and
they're
essential
to
what
we
do.
S
That's
not
to
say
we
can't
improve,
there's,
always
room
for
improvement
in
this
area,
but
it's
a
really
central
part
of
everything
that
we
do
across
children
and
families
that
children
and
families
are
at
the
heart
of
our
work.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I'm
just
constantly
I've
got
various
people
that
have
wanted
to
come
in
and
respond
can
I
just
text.
We've
still
got
two
sections
to
go
out.
Are
your
points
specific
to
this,
or
would
you
be
happy
to
to
make
them
as
we
move
along
in
the
in
the
discussion?
A
It's
about
the
review?
Okay
same
okay,
so
well,
in
that
case
it's
Council
Linux.
First
then
Castle
Renshaw
thank.
D
You
I
won't
be
too
long.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
everybody.
Who's
who's,
updated
us
about
the
review,
there's
some
really
key
things
that
have
come
through
and
it's
been
as
as
a
member
who's
not
on
this
board,
but
sat
on
a
couple
of
these
meetings.
The
reassurance
that
we've
had
from
Steve
that
and
just
finder
and
all
of
the
partners
involved
about
their
confidence
that
this
review
has
led
to
an
improvement,
is
really
good.
D
I
think
what
has
also
come
out
is
the
fact
that,
in
in
in
putting
in
in
shining
light
on
all
of
on
all
of
the
things
that
contribute
to
a
decision
about
whether
or
not
to
notify
nationally
the
fact
that
learning
is
always
taken
away,
whether
or
not
National
notification
happens
is
also
reassuring,
and
so
that
was
really
helpful
to
hear
as
well
and
and
to
to
be
reminded
of
ofsted's
comments
on
the
on
the
strength
of
the
partnership.
D
My
question
is
off
the
back
of
Kate's
question
about
the
fact
that
the
practitioners
and
professionals
here
were
left
dealing
with
the
decision
of
a
court
in
in
one
of
the
pieces
and
could
the
partnership
and
or
the
or
Julie
and
Council
of
Anna
expand
on
whether
there's
been
National
learning
or
like
national
results
from
the
review.
I
know.
It
was
mentioned
briefly
be
interesting
to
hear
what
national
outcomes
may
come
from.
What
we've
learned
in
Leeds.
R
So
I
think
I
think
essentially,
when
we've
had
the
individual
reviews
and
individual
sort
of
learning
activity,
I
think
the
key
issue
is
there
is
there's
a
lot
of
work
done
with
children
and
families
in
the
main
before
something
gets
near
the
court
Arena.
So
actually
our
real
focus
and
I
think
it's.
The
right
Focus
has
got
to
be
on
supporting
Partners
professionals
right
across
the
partnership
to
raise
those
concerns
at
the
earliest
opportunity.
R
So
in
some
ways
I
suppose,
we've
not
focused
as
much
on
the
court
aspect,
because
the
court
is
the
court
and
that's
you
know:
they've
got
the
legal
jurisdiction
in
the
league
of
power
and
it's
apparent
Authority
what
we
have
really
focused
on
and
I
think
it's
been.
The
correct
Focus
has
been
to
enable
and
encourage
our
practitioners
at
every
level
to
raise
the
concerns
at
the
earliest
opportunity,
because
actually
I
think
and
I
think
Steve's
mentioned
it.
R
R
It's
about
people
feeling
empowered
confident
to
share
those
concerns
to
share
that
gut
instinct
at
the
earliest
opportunity,
and
what
I
would
say
is
you
know
there
is
focus
again
within
the
national
Josh
McAllister
review
about
the
court
and
proceedings
and
actually
how
that
can
be
less
adversarial?
R
How
that
can
be
more
open
really
in
terms
of
the
family
courts
being
more
open
and
in
Leeds
we
do
have
the
a
family,
drug
and
alcohol
court
system,
which
is
you
know,
it's
an
excellent
system
and
what
that
enables
is
for
there
to
be
a
lot
more
open
discussion
in
a
less
formal
environment
with
the
judge,
who's,
presiding
and
we've
also
had.
R
We
are
part
of
a
small
group
of
local
authorities
in
Leeds
who
are
looking
at
how
we
do
and
again
make
our
court
system
and
those
proceedings
more
transparent
and
more
open.
So
I
think
there
will
be
opportunity.
There
is
opportunity
for
us
again
to
feed
in
some
of
the
learning,
from
the
reviews
that
we
have
had
into
some
of
the
conversations
that
are
going
on
nationally
around
the
courts
and
how
the
courts
are
administered
and
but
also
at
a
local
level
through
some
of
the
well
the
region.
A
It
says,
judge,
Fender
and
then
councilor
and
I'm
gonna
have
to
once
we
take
those
programs.
I'm
gonna
have
to
stop
for
a
browse.
How
can
we
get
to
then
this
item
but
I
think
we'll
just
have
to
run
it
across
if
that's
all
right,
so
Jasmine.
G
G
But
equally
what
I
will
say
is
that
Kafka
at
the
table,
and-
and
is
the
court
going
to
hear
about
this
learning-
is
what
I
would
say
are
those
judges
in
Leeds
who
made
that
decision
going
to
get
to
her
about
this
learning,
because
my
view
would
be
they
need
to
hear
about
this
learning.
That's
that's
the
point.
I
want
to
make.
S
I'll
be
really
brief,
as
well
chair
as
I
think
the
board
now
I
sit
on
the
children
young
people's
board
nationally,
which
is
the
local
government
Association
board,
which
is
one
of
the
many
ways
that
we
as
a
council
are
able
to
feed
into
what's
happening
nationally,
and
that
board
has
considered
obviously
Joshua
canister's
review,
but
also
the
national
panel
reporting
to
Star
and
Arthur's
deaths,
and
some
of
the
learning
from
that
report
is
very
similar
to
some
of
the
learning
we've
had
so
disguised.
S
Compliance
and
professional
curiosity,
for
example,
are
themes
which
are
being
discussed
nationally,
so
I
just
wanted
to
give
the
board
that
additional
reassurance
that
there
are
because,
because
of
our
place
as
an
outstanding
Authority
and
because
we're
a
large
we're
a
large
Children
and
Families
director,
we
do
have
a
number
of
ways
that
we
can
influence
the
development
of
of
policy
and
practice
nationally.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
so
I'm
just
going
to
pause
for
a
break
if
we
could
be
ready
to
go
again
at
five,
two
and
then
I'll
be
starting
off
with
councilor,
Renshaw
and
councilor
Hazelwood,
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
bring
in
Karen
and
then
Phil's
sections
and
we'll
go
from
there.
So
thank
you.
Everybody.
A
Okay
right,
thank
you.
Everybody
we'll
we'll
get
by
I'm.
Sorry
I
didn't
manage
to
bad
sharing,
but
we
didn't
get
to
a
neat
stopping
point,
but
we'll
pick
up
where
we
left
off.
So
the
next
contribution
was
from
councilor
wrench
or
please.
G
Thank
you,
chair
I'd,
just
like
to
refer
to
page
31,
where
it
explains
about
the
two
external
reviews
from
offstad
over
the
past
five
years,
which
are
supporting
and
endorsed
the
initial
findings
of
the
lscp
annual
report,
confirming
Innovative
and
outstanding
practice
and
Leadership
and
that'll
referring
to
the
city
councils,
Children's
Services.
As
far
as
I'm
aware
and
the
years
annual
report
acknowledges,
the
latest
off
study
report
and
I'm
sure,
with
the
biggest
cost,
is
to
the
outside
of
London.
That
has
had
two
consecutive
outstanding
Children's
Services
reports.
G
However,
I'd
like
to
go
on
a
bit
further
down,
as
it
mentions
that
police,
offensiveness
and
efficiency,
which
has
had
a
good
report
and
also
it
goes
on
to
mention
poverty
which
Remains
the
key
area
that
can
impact
on
outcomes
of
Children
and
Families
and
I.
Just
wondered
if
council's
Council
Pryor
could
give
us
any
information
as
to
how
what
effects
poverty
is
add
on
the
children,
families
in
Leeds
and
what
increasing
the
risks
that
has
brought
with.
S
Yeah
I'll:
do
it
really
briefly
because
I
know
the
child?
The
Thrive
report
was
due
to
come
to
your
meeting.
Wasn't
it
and
hasn't,
because
we're
discussing
safeguarding
instead
so
we'll
come
to
a
future
meeting
I
see
him
councilor
Lam
and
that
at
that
meeting,
I'll
be
able
to
talk
in
more
details
about
what
we're
doing
to
allevia
alleviate
the
impact
to
child
poverty.
S
But
actually
there
is
a
really
really
well
evidenced
link
between
poverty
and
being
taken
into
care
and
between
poverty
and
being
in
childhood
needed
Child
Protection
plans,
so
part
of
the
hugely
increased
Demand
on
children's
services
across
the
country
is
directly
linked
to
the
rise
in
child
poverty.
So
that's
that's
the
relevance
to
the
discussion
around
safeguarding
that
children
are
less
safe
as
a
direct
result
of
poverty
and
that's
because
most
children
come
into
care
because
of
neglect
rather
than
abuse.
So
most
parents,
you
know,
want
to
care
for
their
children.
S
Fortunately,
in
terms
of
the
cases
we
deal
with,
as
you
know,
systematic
deliberate
harm
of
children
is
actually
really
rare.
Most
people
who
have
their
children
removed
from
them
are
actually
trying
to
look
after
them
and
for
lots
of
reasons
are
unable
to,
and
poverty
is
a
big
factor
in
that.
So
we
know
that
poverty
causes
an
increase
in
domestic
abuse
in
mental
health
problems
and
substance
use,
and
that
leads
to
Children
needing
to
be
subject
to
statutory
social
work.
S
C
A
G
Always
I'd
just
like
to
say,
chair
that
I'd
like
to
thank
the
executive
board
member
and
their
team,
who
are
all
up
there
for
the
outstanding
of
stud
report
this
year,
which
reflects
the
improvements
which
have
been
made
are
continued
within
Children's
Services.
Thank
you
to
everyone
down.
There
that's
been
involved.
J
J
That's
taking
place
and
I
just
wrote
down
where
you
said:
the
constant
journey
of
continuous
Improvement
that's
happening
within
the
service,
which
is
is
really
good
to
hear
and
and
one
thing
that
Justin
mentioned
was
that
learning
will
be
undertaken
even
if
a
case
isn't
notified
so
basically
to
say
that
we
will
be
learning
and
and
undertaking
that
learning
from
all
cases
for
that
continuous
Improvement
Journey
that
that
we're
on
and
I
wanted
to
ask.
J
Has
that
always
happened
so
basically,
have
we
always
used
every
opportunity
to
inform
that
learning
and-
and
not
just
as
part
of
this,
that
you
know
our
review.
R
Thank
you
and
yeah,
absolutely
and
I
think
that's
been
a
critical
part
of
the
Journey
of
improvement
that
children
and
families
in
particular
have
been
on
since
2009..
R
You
know
that
whole
culture
of
you
know,
openness
and
I.
Suppose
Steve
touched
on
it
earlier.
You
know
creating
the
conditions
where
practitioners
feel
safe
to
be
able
to
talk
about
their
practice,
to
be
able
to
talk
about
the
decisions
that
they
have
made.
What
led
them
to
make
particular
decisions
at
a
particular
time,
and
that's
where
that
real?
You
know
the
key
to
that
is
that
real,
high
quality
supervision
that
is
provided
to
our
practitioners
right
across
the
director.
R
So
we
have
a
lot
of
Workforce
Development
in
relation
to
supervision
and
I
suppose
best
practice
around
supervision
and
then
I
suppose
the
the
method
of
supervision,
if
you
like
and
I,
think
the
other
area
for
me
and
maybe
just
to
highlight,
because
I
could
go
on
because
there's
a
whole
range
of
quality
assurance
work
that
goes
on
right
across
the
director
and
also
the
partnership
and
I've
had
a
given
example.
So
the
lscp
business
unit
will
facilitate
a
number
of
multi-agency
audits
across
any
given
year.
R
They
might
be
themed
audits.
So
again,
you
know
it
might
be
that
as
some
of
the
learning
or
some
of
the
particular
points
that
have
come
out
of
reviews
are
actually,
you
know,
just
queries
you
know
and
that
actually
we
will
focus
that
audit
activity
on
particular
areas
and
again,
like
I,
say
that's
a
multi-agency
audit.
Again
we
will
undertake
dip
sampling
and
within
Children's
Services
and
again
as
a
partnership.
R
We
have
a
group
which
is
called
the
jti
group,
so
it's
The
Joint,
targeted
area
inspection
and
and
we
they
meet
together
regularly
and
again
they
will
audit.
They
will
review.
They
will
look
at
individual
pieces
of
work
and
to
get
the
learning
from
that
and
I
suppose
it
goes
back
to
the
point
that
jazz
vinder
perhaps
made
earlier
about.
Actually
how
do
we
know
that
things
are
improving?
You
know
and
again.
Audit
audit
within
the
children
and
families
direct
trip,
but
also
audit,
is
a
multi-agency.
Partnership
is
absolutely
critical
to
that.
R
Again.
You
know
when
we
have
a
weekly
review
as
an
example.
So
Farah
Khan
who's
here
and
today
chairs
a
weekly
review,
so
that
takes
place
every
Monday
afternoon.
It
includes
police,
it
includes
Health,
it
includes
children
and
families,
and
that
meeting
as
an
example,
looks
at
all
of
the
referrals
and
the
work.
That's
gone
through
our
front
door,
so
Duty
and
advice
in
the
previous
week,
and
that
multi-agency
group
applies
scrutiny
in
terms
of
the
decision
making.
R
That's
been
made
so
whether
it's
strategy
discussions,
whether
it's
and
the
decision
that's
been
made
to
either
refer
something
into
statutory
social
work
or
something
into
early
help.
That's
great
litany
takes
place
every
Monday
if
it's
felt
through
that
discussion,
oh
indeed
through
any
of
the
audit
work
that
actually
things
could
have
been
different
should
have
been
different,
could
have
been
better.
This
individual
conversations
that
take
place
with
the
practitioners
involved
immediately
and
again.
This
is
something
about
ensuring
that
we
get
that
the
timely
learning
in
the
timely
ways
possible.
R
No
matter
what
review
we
do,
whether
it's
a
child
safeguarding
practice
review
or
whether
it's
some
sort
of
different
type
of
learning
activity,
where
we
have
those
conversations
in
the
review,
Advisory
Group
again,
we
will
take
those
conversations
straight
directly
to
the
practitioners
who
are
involved
so
we'll
have
conversations
with
their
managers.
We'll
have
conversations
with
them,
we'll
ask
for
it
to
be
a
feature
of
their
supervision
and
again
we'll
have
discussions
about
actually
do
we
need
to
do
some
breakfast
meetings
around
this.
R
You
know
so
again
and
I
suppose,
maybe
just
going
back
to
to
the
ofsted
inspection
last
year
and
the
comments
made
there
by
the
inspectors
who
did
say
that
we
did
have
a
strong,
continual
learning,
culture
and
I
think
that's
based
on
the
evidence
that
they've
seen
of
some
of
the
things
that
I'm
just
describing
to
do.
But
again,
I've
got
to
say
it's
a
continuous
Journey.
A
Okay,
thank
you
right.
Last
Point
Council,
Stevenson
and
I'm
going
to
bring
Karen
in
to
introduce
the
next
part
of
the
report.
Yeah.
L
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
go
back
to
a
comment
that
jaswinder
made
at
the
very
beginning
regarding
a
National,
Review
I
think
General.
You
mentioned
that
you
had
submit
submitted
a
response
to
a
National
Review
on
working
together
and
National
practices.
L
Can
you
confirm
that
that
that's
my
understanding
is
correct
there
and
then,
secondly,
to
Julie?
Has
the
local
Authority
submitted
a
formal
response
to
that
review
and
are
we
part
of
it.
G
Okay,
so
the
first
thing
to
note
is
the
conversation
around
notifications,
the
systems,
the
processes
we've
been
having
National
conversations
with
the
national
panel
Annie
Hudson,
and
it
was
Annie
Hudson
who
informed
us
that
working
together
has
been
Rewritten.
So
we
were
aware
of
that,
but
invited
us.
The
national
facilitators
advice
invited
us
all
executive
board,
myself
included,
to
write
to
the
national
government
ministers,
Etc
department
for
education
and
Annie
Hudson
to
talk
about
our
journey,
the
Improvement
Journey.
So
the
consultation
is
happening
in
Spring.
G
However,
we're
invited
to
write
to
them
before
the
consultation,
which
is
what
I
did
so
and
that's
the
response
I've
given
you
today
in
terms
of
the
changes,
but
that's
my
perspective,
I'm,
not
sure
where
the
executive
are
at
in
terms
of
writing
to
people
nationally,
but
we're
all
invited.
R
I'm
happy
to
come
in
so
the
lscp
exec,
the
three
key
statutory
Partners
haven't,
given
our
views
or
contributed
to
the
consultation
as
yet
I
think.
The
reason
for
that
and
I'm
sure
Steve
will
be
feel
free
to
to
come
in
is
I
think
that
we
wanted
to
have
those
conversations
with
the
national
safeguarding
facilitators
because
actually
I
think
the
conversations
with
the
three
facilitators
have
been
really
helpful
again
in
helping
us
to
continue
the
discussion
and
our
thinking
around
this
and
so
I'm,
confident
that
we
will
I
think.
R
P
A
Okay,
thank
you
right,
I'm,
going
to
move
on
to
to
the
next
section
so
Karen.
If
you
would
like
to
introduce
the
next
bit
of
the
report,
please.
T
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm,
going
to
be
talking
to
the
reporter
appendix
2
of
your
papers,
which
gives
an
overview
of
the
cross-cutting
themes
that
we
have
identified
in
our
review
processes
over
the
last
18
months.
T
I
think
one
of
the
key
things
to
say
is
that
we
always
start
from
a
strength-based
process
so
very
much
when
we're
looking
at
learning.
We
want
to
look
at
what
has
worked
well,
where
we
can
build
on
good
practice
where
we
can
replicate
that
and
learn
from
that,
as
well
as
the
areas
that
maybe
need
to
improve
and
maybe
look
at
systems
and
processes
that
need
to
improve.
So
our
learning
is
is
based
on
those
areas
as
well,
and
we
look
at
that
always
in
that
process.
T
There
are
presentations
at
multi-agency
forums
such
as
our
biannual
Network
meeting,
which
is
a
meeting
for
practitioners
and
safeguarding
leads
across
the
city
to
attend,
but
I
think
we
would
absolutely
acknowledge
and
recognize
the
conversation
we've
had
today
about.
How
do
we
monitor
that
dissemination
within
our
partner
agencies?
We've
heard
some
really
good
examples
from
colleagues
today
about
how
they
disseminate
that
internally,
but
we've
got
quite
a
large
partnership
across
the
city.
T
So,
as
a
partnership,
how
do
we
ensure
that
that
dissemination
is
taking
place
right
across
our
partner
agencies
and
down
across
all
of
our
work
for
simulation
to
that
and
has
been
acknowledged?
That
is
a
piece
of
work
that
we're
looking
at
both
within
the
review:
Advisory
Group
and
the
partnership
and
the
business
unit
as
a
whole.
T
The
report
itself
provides
an
overview
of
the
cross-cutting
themes
that
have
come
from
our
review
activities
as
I
say:
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
those
in
detail
partly
for
time,
but
partly
because
you've
had
the
report
in
advance.
But
what
I
would
like
to
pick
out
is
that
you
will
see
that
within
all
of
those
cross-cutting
themes.
T
What
our
reviews
have
showed
us
is
that
we
have
seen
some
excellent
practice
and
some
really
good
practice
in
those
areas
as
well
as
areas
that
we
can
improve
upon
and
also
the
the
areas
there
Identify
some
of
the
work
that
we
are
doing
in
relation
to
some
of
those
theories.
We
talked
about
how
we
are
responding
quickly,
an
example
of
a
quick
response.
T
There
is
in
relation
to
the
learning
in
relation
to
cases
where
there
are
complex,
Health
needs
for
children
and
one
example
of
a
quick
response
in
relation
to
that
is
that
we
have
looked
at
our
policy
for
children
with
complex
Health
needs
who
travel
abroad
and
ensure
that
they
have
the
right
support
and
health
services
available
to
them
and
that
travel
one
of
our
reviews
identified
that
actually,
that
is
a
continuing
need
when
children
are
moving
across
areas
within
the
UK
not
just
abroad.
So
we
have
reviewed
and
adapted
that
policy.
T
A
Okay,
thank
you
Karen,
so,
and
any
questions
on
on
camera
stage.
L
Thank
you
in
the
context
of
those
cross-cutting
themes.
L
T
Yes,
so
we've
looked
at
all
the
reviews
and
the
review
work
that
we've
done
across
that
period
of
time
and
we've
looked
at
those
themes
that
are
reoccurring
and
that
are
cross-cutting
across
our
our
processes.
L
So,
although
counselor
then
referred
to
a
specific
case
of
star
Hobson
I'll
take
your
earlier
instruction
chair
and
not
to
mention
specific
cases.
But
if
you
look
through
the
all,
those
cases
are
publicly
available.
Anybody
can
go
on
the
Leeds
grandchildren
partnership
website
and
and
look
at
those
review
cases
anywhere.
L
L
Quite
rightly
in
that
all
of
the
previous
conversation
we've
had
about
risk
assessments,
all
feed
into
that
section,
7
report,
which
is
where
the
local
Authority
go
to
court
and
say
to
court
here-
is
our
evidence
whether
we
think
a
child
or
if,
for
example,
if
it's
a
custody
court,
whether
we
think
this
person
is
a
suitable
person
to
have
custody
of
a
vulnerable
child,
and
the
court
makes
this
decision
based
on
that
section,
7
report.
L
Indeed,
in
one
of
the
cases,
it
specifically
says
that
the
section
7
report
is
one
of
the
sources
guiding
the
course
the
courts
deliberations.
So
it's
evidently
clear
that,
although
we're
right
to
say
that
the
the
courts
ruled,
we
can't
do
anything
about
that.
That's
that's
that's
a
fact,
but
the
courts
made
its
decision
based
on
information
with
a
local
Authority
provided
to
it
in
conjunction
with
Partners
and
additional
to
that.
L
One
of
the
themes
that's
been
picked
up
is
that
even
after
that
Court's
decision,
no
professional
actually
lodged
any
concern
about
about
outcomes.
So
there's
two
themes
that
seem
to
be
missing
in
the
report,
which
is
any
mention
of
involvement
around
section,
7
reports
and
then
also
the
ability
of
professionals
to
raise
concerns
afterwards
or
during
about
the
decisions
that
have
been
made
on
the
base
of
the
section
7
reports.
So
my
first
question
to
jaswinder
would
be
on
throughout
all
the
multiple
cases
that
you
and
your
executive
deal
with.
L
Q
Apologies
jasmindra
I,
just
thought
it
might
be
helpful
for
the
the
board
to
have
a
little
bit
of
a
insight
into
what
a
section
seven
report
is
so
that
they
understand
I.
Suppose
the
context
of
that
question
that
a
section
Seven
direction
is
section
seven
of
the
children
act
1989.
it's
where
an
application
has
been
made
under
Section
8
of
the
children,
Act
for
and
and
usually
those
sorts
of
applications
are
made
between
private
individuals.
Q
So
maybe
a
mother
and
a
father
or
a
grandparent
and
and
a
parent
for,
what's
called
a
private
excuse
me
a
colloquial
private
law
order,
often
a
child
Arrangements
order
and
a
child
Arrangement
sort
of
might
make
arrangements
for
where
a
child
lives
or
who
they
spend
time
with
so
I
think
when,
when
cancer
Stevenson
is
talking
about
section,
seven
reports,
it's
where
a
court
makes
that
direction
in
a
private
law
case
for
there
to
be
a
report
to
be
undertaken
which
is,
in
effect,
the
court
report
to
assist
the
court
when
it
comes
to
its
decision-making
and,
more
often
than
not,
that
report
is
undertaken
by
kafkas
and
that's
their
role
and
to
be
the
court
reporter,
but
sometimes
where
perhaps
there's
been
recent
very
recent,
that's
with
perhaps
within
only
months
or
weeks
of
involvement
of
a
local
Authority.
Q
G
Thanks
Rebecca,
that's
helpful.
Karen
might
be
able
to
help
me
in
terms
of
the
number
of
section
7
reports
that
have
come
to
the
review
Advisory
Group,
because
when
we
we
call
a
review
advisory
groups,
do
a
rapid
review.
G
G
I
can't
remember
the
section
7
report
coming:
we've
only
ever
had
I,
don't
know
how
many
we've
had
come,
one
just
the
one:
okay,
just
the
one
and
yeah
you
know
we
would
have
to
look
at
that
and
scrutinize
it
and
ask
questions
of
it,
which
is
what
we
we
do
in
all
the
cases
in
terms
of
what's
presented
to
us
and
we'll
have
a
conversation
about
that
and
in
cases
where,
in
in
I,
don't
want
to
get
kids
specific,
but
where
we
have
real
concerns
where
Court
decisions
have
been
made,
you
know
we
will
look
at
the
risk
assessment
behind
that
and
that's
that
report
I
feel
like
I'm
waffling
counselor
Stevenson,
but
from
my
time
I've
been
in
this
role.
R
Yeah
I
think
the
report
that's
been
presented
today
and
that
Karen's
just
gone
through
highlights
the
Thematic
learning
so
I
suppose,
patterns
of
learning
that
have
come
from
a
number
of
reviews,
be
that
and
child
safeguarding
practice
reviews
other
learning,
equality,
Assurance
activity.
So
there's
not
been
a
thematic
learning
in
relation
to
section
7
reports.
R
What
there
has
been
is
that
thematic
learning
in
relation
to
assessments
and
how
I
suppose
multi-agencies
work
together
in
terms
of
whether
it's
individual
agency
assessments,
whether
it's
multi-agency
assessments
and
you
know,
as
it's
set
out
in
the
report,
what
people's
understanding
of
that
is
and
actually
what
those
individual
assessments
are
assessing,
because
sometimes
it's
you
know
it
can
be
assessing
different
things.
R
So
that's
why
the
Thematic
learning
is
in
relation
to
assessments
rather
than
section
7
reports,
because
we've
not
seen
a
pattern
in
relation
to
the
learning
Act
activity
that
we've
had
across
the
city
and
what
I
would
say
is
just
in
terms
of
the
the
the
learning
that
we
have
had
in
relation
to
section
seven
reports.
One
of
the
changes
that
we
have
made
within
the
children
and
families
directorate
is
that
we
have
now
ensured
that
any
section
7
report
is
now
actually
signed
off
approved
by
a
service
delivery
manager.
R
K
Q
Thank
you
very
much.
Yes,
a
section
37
report
is
also
a
direction
made
under
that
section
of
the
children
at
1989,
where
there
are
private
law
proceedings,
as
I
say
usually
before
between
private
individuals.
Therefore,
there's
no
State
intervention
at
that
stage,
but
where
the
court
has
identified
that
there
there
is
a
likelihood
of
significant
harm
for
the
subject.
Q
Children
and
they
direct
a
section
37
report,
be
prepared
by
a
local
authority
to
look
into
the
circumstances
of
the
children
and
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
court
as
to
whether
or
not
Public
Law
proceedings
ought
to
be
initiated
and
I.
Don't
know
if
I
can
assist
further
Julie,
but
in
Leeds
any
any
report
that's
prepared
in
conjunction
with
section
37
is
actually
signed
off
by
a
head
of
service.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
any
more
questions
or
comments
upon
Caster
Carter.
M
I've
got
a
question
around
disguised
compliance,
because
if
you
asked
any
ordinary
person
in
the
street,
if
you
thought
a
pedophile
or
a
criminal
might
not
be
telling
the
truth,
it
would
give
you
a
very
straight
answer.
So
it
concerns
me
that
this
even
has
to
be
put
into
the
report.
So
can
you
reassure
me
now
that
people
who
have
been
committed,
who
are
sex,
offenders
or
pedophiles,
are
being
viewed
with
some
sort
of
Suspicion?
Now.
R
R
Again
this
is
you
know
this
has
got
to
be
an
ongoing
Focus
as
part
of
our
basic
Workforce
Development
again
that
focus
in
supervision
that
focus
in
training
and
as
we
speak
this
week,
actually
we
there's
a
as
I
understand
it.
There's
a
number
of
master
classes
going
on
right
across
the
region
in
relation
to
disguised
compliance,
I.
Think
it's
fair
to
say
you
know,
and
it's
true
to
say
that
individuals
across
the
partnership
will
be
at
different
stages
in
their
own
professional
development.
R
I
think
that
goes
back
to
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
earlier
around
training
around
the
fact
that
we
now
input
into
those
university
courses
where
we
can
highlight
some
of
the
issue
use
some
of
the
learning
that
we
have
had,
but
it's
a
Mainstay
of
our
offer
to
the
workforce
in
terms
of
Workforce,
Development
and
ongoing
supervision.
You
know
and
we
we
will
take
the
opportunity
as
a
partnership.
R
You
know
to
revisit
this
in
a
number
of
different
forums,
but
will
never
be
done.
We
will
always
have
people
joining
the
workforce.
As
I
say,
we
will
always
have
people
at
different
stages
in
their
professional
development.
So
it's
got
to
be
an
ongoing
Focus.
G
Some
practice,
practitioners
disguise
compliance,
is
quite
a
new
word
actually
and
it's
the
awareness
of
that
as
well.
It
is
you
know
it's
under
the
understanding
behind
it.
You
know
what
is
it
and
what
does
it
mean?
You
know,
do
it
you
know:
do
we
need
to
have
a
definition
of
that
to
be
able
to
disseminate
that,
and
and
also
it
there
is
a
link
here,
in
my
view
of
the
voice
of
the
child,
because,
ultimately,
who
is
disguising
compliance
is
very
often
the
caregiver
or
the
parent
or
a
perpetrator?
F
F
Is
we
have
a
a
Workforce
that
that
works
across
a
number
of
fair
incidents
and
areas
of
business
across
this
so
from
from
its
most
simplest
form,
it's
around
ensuring
that
our
training
absolutely
is
around
around
the
the
new
University
entrance
routes
for
for
police
officers,
but
also
our
general
training
is
around
understanding
the
different
facets
that
come
to
the
multifaceted
incidents
that
that
police
officers
attend
and
and
just
really
equipping
our
offices
with
some
of
the
what
seemed
like
quite
simplistic
approaches
at
times,
but
things
like
splitting
parties
at
involved
in
incidents
to
get
differing
accounts
and
to
understand
what's
going
on
so
there's
lots
of
things
that
go
on
from
a
practical
point
of
view
there,
but
then
that
is
that
is
reinforced
by
the
work
that
Specialists
within
policing
do.
F
Public
protection
is
a
prime
example
of
that,
where
our
public
protection
officers
in
their
interaction
with
them
registered
sexual
offenders
are
looking
at
how
the
interactions
were,
what
the
responses
are,
and
even
the
use
of
polygraph
testing
around
some
of
those
responses
as
well
to
try
and
understand
what's
coming
back
from
from
those
individuals.
So
absolutely
it's.
M
F
I
think,
at
a
more
practical
level,
it
is
about
having
Common
Sense
conversations
with
with
operational
police
officers
in
in
my
sense
and
police
staff
members
around
what
that
means
and
how
to
deal
with
that,
and
it
absolutely
doesn't
escape
people
in
my
line
of
work
that
there
is
always
a
number
of
different
angles
and
elements
to
a
an
account,
and
we
need
to
try
and
get
to
the
the
root
of
that
and
understand
what
the
truth
of
that
situation
is
so
I
think
it
is
about
keeping
it
as
simple
as
possible.
A
Thank
you,
so
just
Linda
was
going
to
come
in
and
then
pharah
and
then
Kate
Scott
at.
G
The
regional
focus
of
the
master
classes
has
been
around
professional
curiosity
and
almost
the
jigsaw
puzzle
of
a
child's
life,
so
one
professional
might
go
in
and
just
see
a
little
Glimpse
about.
How
do
we
fill
those
other
pieces
and
the
voice
of
the
child,
so
the
focus
has
been
around
understanding
behind
those,
because
often
we
get
into
jargon-
that's
not
helpful,
especially
across
different
roles,
and
we
had
a
master
class
yesterday.
G
Practitioners
across
the
partnership
across
the
region,
attended
and
took
away
lots
of
learning
from
that
and
shared
lots
of
learning.
So
it's
really
important
that
we
do
move
away
just
from
language
I
suppose
they
help
us
understand
the
themes
and
how
we
pull
them
together.
But
it's
about
equipping
practitioners
who
knock
on
doors
whatever
their
role
to
understand
the
importance.
K
Yeah
I
mean
just
non-disguise
compliance.
It
may
seem
sort
of
obvious
to
board
members,
but
actually
I
think
you
know
when
individual
professionals
are
on
the
ground.
You
know
cases
are
increasingly
complex
and
in
order
to
sort
of
fully
appreciate,
disguise
compliance,
often
it's
necessary
to
look
right
across
a
case
and
look
at
history
and
identify
themes
and
it
you
know
yeah.
The
jargon
is
sometimes
not
helpful,
but
equally
the
very
phrase.
Disguised
compliance
I
think
underlines
the
the
complexity
of
of
Disguise
compliance
itself.
K
K
So
I
just
wanted
to
ask
in
terms
of
risk
assessments,
often
in
complex
cases,
cases
involving
sexual
offending
it's
necessary
to
look
to
specialist,
independent
assessments
and
I.
Think
I
read
that
one
of
the
outcomes
had
been
that
you
know
those
assessments
are
very
much
a
point
in
time.
K
A
given
point
in
time
relating
to
particular
circumstances
and
the
need
to
understand
and
appreciate
that
that
can
be
dynamic
and
changing
so
I
just
wondered
what
the
department
was
doing
in
terms
of
embedding
that
that
knowledge
and
understanding
within
the
workforce
and
ensuring
that,
in
future,
its
own
assessments
reflected
upon
whether
there
was
a
need
to
update
a
independent
assessment
that
might
have
been
undertaken.
Historically.
What
what
sort
of
quality
assurance
is
being
put
in
place.
In
relation
to
that.
R
I'm
happy
I'm
happy
to
come
that
so
I
suppose.
As
with
all
aspects
of
the
learning
that's
been
set
out
in
the
paper
before
scrutiny
today
and
there's
a
range
of
you
know:
actions
within
the
children
and
families
director
about
how
that
can
be
disseminated
and
embedded.
But
part
of
that
is
discussion.
R
You
know
it
is
about
having
those
discussions
so
again,
whether
that's
in
supervision,
which
is
key
to
this,
whether
it's
in
peer
group
supervision,
whether
it's
back
to
those
rethink
formulations,
whether
it's
back
to
groups
of
staff
that
are
Advanced
practitioners,
pull
together
using
a
case
study.
R
You
know
to
perhaps
sort
of
explore
issues
explore
and
the
use
of
Assessments
and
the
point
that
you
make
just
in
terms
of
Assessments
being
Dynamic
and
actually
only
being
used
for
the
specific
context
in
which
they
have
been
developed
is
key,
and
so
that
message
is,
you
know,
absolutely
has
been
cascaded,
embedded
reinforced
not
just
within
the
children
and
families
director,
but
across
the
partnership.
You
know
the
conversations
that
the
review
Advisory
Group
the
conversations
with
the
lscp
executive
and
how
to
support
it
that
but
again
it's
they
have
to
be
constant
conversations.
R
You
know
so
again.
All
of
this
learning
directs.
As
I've
already
said,
you
know
the
focus
of
supervision,
the
focus
of
those
rethink
formulations.
You
know
it's
about,
as
we
are
going
about
our
day-to-day
work,
no
matter
who
we
are,
whether
it's
myself
as
interim
director,
whether
it's
a
chief
officer,
whether
it's
a
newly
qualified
social
worker,
that
actually
these
points
of
learning
are,
in
our
mind,
the
shaping
the
influencing
the
very
conversations,
the
lens
through
which
we
are
looking
today
at
a
particular
child
or
a
particular
family.
R
But
that's
got
to
be
constantly
reinforced.
You
know
again
through
formal
Workforce
Development
offers
through
our
master
classes.
It's
just
you
know
it's
it's
an
ongoing
constant
Focus.
O
And
just
just
to
add
to
that
chair
and
Kate,
so
we've
done
and
Pharaoh
might
want
to
come
in
afterwards,
so
we
have
done
an
extensive
review
of
our
Workforce
offer
and
we
review
that
on
an
annual
basis
anyway,
but
in
particular
around
assessments.
So
we've
done
a
particular
program
of
assessment
and
decision
making
training
and
development
for
our
team
managers.
So
again,
it
picks
up
on
all
these
key
areas
that
we've
been
discussing
today,
but
particularly
around
assessing
sexual
abuse,
the
impact
of
sexual
abuse,
assessing
sex
offenders.
O
We've
done
a
particular
piece
of
work
with
a
an
external
agency,
particularly
for
our
Advanced
practitioners,
who
then
work
really
closely
with
our
social
workers.
So
again,
thinking
about
the
importance
of
updating
assessments,
reviewing
assessments
having
them
contemporary
understanding
that
Dynamic
nature
of
Assessments
and
I
would
also
say.
Link
to
that
is.
O
We've
got
a
piece
of
work
that
started
very
recently
with
probation
again
around
getting
practitioners
together
to
start
to
understand
that
difference
of
the
different
assessments
and
actually
what
they're,
assessing
and
being
able
to
have
those
really
confident
conversations
about
what
they're
actually
assessing
and
then
what
the
outcome
is
and
how
that
impacts
on
children
and
their
safety.
O
So
they're,
just
kind
of
programs
of
work
that
are
ongoing.
Some
of
some
have
concluded
and
some
are
will
come,
will
continue.
A
G
Actually
have
a
question:
I
was
just
thinking
and
I
know
that
the
work
with
the
police
in
terms
of
the
practitioner
event,
that's
going
to
happen.
We'll
explore
these
sort
of
themes
as
well,
which
is
helpful,
but
in
terms
of
policy
in
a
change
in
policy.
Is
it
now
policy
that,
where
we
consider
children
who
are
living
in
households
or
placed
with
registered
sex
offenders,
that
all
their
assessments
are
up
to
date?
G
Is
that
now
the
case?
Because
what
we
know
is
is
that,
in
relation
to
the
case,
where
we're
learning
lessons
from
one
of
the
issues
was,
practitioners
were
relying
upon
an
assessment
that
was
out
of
date.
So
what
I'm
asking
is?
Is
there
now
a
policy
decision
or
in
the
structure
of
the
system
whereby
you're
relying
upon
these
assessments
where
children
are
placed
or
where
there
are
richer
sex
offenders?
G
R
Yeah
I
suppose
really,
that
is,
you
know,
that's
the
day-to-day
nature
of
our
work
in
terms
of
whatever
assessment
you
know,
we're
currently
working
to
has
got
to
be,
has
got
to
be
in
the
hearing
the
now
it's
as
we've
just
said,
they
are
Dynamic,
you
know
so
where
we
are
involved
with
a
child
or
a
family
where
they
are
receiving
and
support
from
the
director.
You
know
that
focus
on
the
assessment
on
the
needs.
The
changing
needs,
the
emerging
needs.
R
The
changing
context
of
the
family
is
obviously
you
know
under
review
and
under
scrutiny.
One
of
the
things
that
I
did
just
want
to
come
in
and
say
which
I
meant
to
say
earlier
was
that
we
have
a
set
of
practice
standards
which
our
social
work
colleagues
work
to,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
do-
and
we
have
done
recently-
is
that
we
revise
those
practice
standards
in
following
on
the
learning
that
we
have
made
and
where
we
feel
that
need
to
be
adjustments.
R
A
E
You
chair,
I,
I,
just
think
it's
worth
I
think
it's
important
just
to
give
you
some
context
on
the
role
of
the
lscp
business
unit
within
the
the
partnership
Arrangements
Karen
and
I.
We
both
manage
the
lsap
business
unit
and
we
are
commissioned
by
the
three
statutory
Partners
to
support
the
lscp
multi-agency.
Safeguarding
arrangements
within
leads
I
think
what's
important,
Within
These
Arrangements
is
the
business
unit's
Independence.
E
Our
work
is
directed
by
the
Partnerships
needs.
We
also
work
with
the
independent
chair
to
inform
the
lscp
executive
in
The
Wider
partnership
on
our
position
in
terms
of
the
effectiveness
of
the
safeguarding
system
through
our
quality
assurance
role,
and
this
means
looking
at
what's
working
really
well,
but
also
looking
at
different
parts
of
the
system
that
may
need
to
strengthening
as
well.
So
a
lot
of
our
work
sort
of
is
around
supporting
subgroups
that
sit
within
animal
chair
and
she's
safeguarding
Arrangements.
E
We
provide
advice
on
statutory
elements
of
working
together
to
safeguard
children.
2018
such
as
undertaking
child
death,
reviews
and
child
said
getting
practice,
reviews
and
quality
assurance
or
quality
assurance
audits.
So
we
are
quite
independent,
but
we're
there
to
support
the
partnership
in
in
their
arrangements
and
thinking
about
what
needs
to
grow
and
develop
in
terms
of
strengthening
those
arrangements,
so
I'm
quickly
going
to
move
on
to
the
some
of
the
sort
of
the
the
key
highlights
from
the
annual
report
and
I.
E
Think
some
of
the
key
highlights
is
not
just
about
the
safeguarding
system.
It's
about
everybody
that
works
with
children,
young
people
and
families
in
Leeds,
and
we
are
responsible
for
bringing
a
lot
of
our
findings
together
and
some
of
the
things
that
cause
children,
young
people
to
be
sort
of
safe
or
you
know,
have
their
needs
and
met.
Sometimes,
and
one
of
those
key
issues
which
was
which
was
mentioned
earlier,
is
around
poverty.
E
Poverty,
Still,
Remains,
a
key
issue
that
could
impact
on
children
and
families,
and
it
should
be
no
surprise
to
anybody
that
has
Family
Resources
reduce
the
cost
of
living
crisis.
It
is
a
big
impact
on
families
in
Leeds.
We
know,
as
I
said
earlier,
parents
want
to
be
good
parents,
but
with
the
financial
challenges
they
face,
you
can
have
a
significant
impact
on
parenting.
On
their
own
mental
health,
the
cost
of
food
and
rents,
family
relationships
can
break
down
very
quickly.
E
It's
a
whole
dimension
of
additional
stress
that
families
are
experiencing,
and
especially
post
covered
and
with
the
cost
to
living
crisis.
So
for
us,
it's
really
really
important
that
the
child
poverty
strategy
mitigates
some
of
these
risks
in
Leeds,
and
that
has
got
a
full
backing
from
all
concerned
and
that
we
ensure
that
there's
a
way
of
measuring
the
impact
of
that
strategy
as
well.
E
A
second
point
I'd
like
to
bring
to
the
to
the
board,
is
about
the
importance
of
recognizing
children.
Families
needs
earlier
and
as
early
as
possible,
as
we
know
that
family
circumstances
can
escalate
quickly
without
support.
It's
important
that
families
needs
are
identified
early
and
that
families
are
aware
of
the
support
and
that
can
be
offered.
It
requires
again
everybody
that
works
with
Children
and
Families
to
identify
when
a
child
or
family
is
in
need,
and
again
that's
broader
partnership
working.
That's
everybody
that
works
for
children,
young
people
and
Families.
E
The
refresh
of
the
early
help
strategies
welcome.
It
will
require
again
the
commitment
of
the
partnership
to
make
sure
that
it
is
implemented
effectively
and
again.
The
partnership
will
play
a
key
role
in
challenging
that
strategy
and
providing
evidence
that
the
strategy
is
working
for
Children
and
Families.
E
On
our
previous
annual
report,
we
did
highlight
the
need
for
the
city
to
focus
on
responding
to
trauma
that
some
children
people
experience
in
their
lives.
This
may
be
through
experiencing
trauma
through
domestic
abuse
through
Child
Protection
concerns
things
like
the
death
of
a
family
member,
all
of
which,
if
he's
not
dealt
with,
we
know
that
trauma
can
manifest
itself
later
on
in
life,
and
the
trauma-informed
strategy
is
a
significant
direction,
ensuring
that
leads
as
a
trauma-informed
city.
E
This
was
confirmed
in
the
Austin
report,
which
was
mentioned
earlier
and
again.
We
we
get
some
confirmation
of
that
through
other
inspections
or
inspectors
that
come
into
the
City
and
challenge
some
of
our
partners
and
again
I
think
it
was
mentioned.
The
peel
report
undertaken
on
the
police
as
well,
where
the
response
to
vulnerable
people
was
was
good.
E
So,
in
terms
of
my
view
and
the
view
of
the
business
unit
and
as
we
are
independent
and
my
experience
leads-
is
very
much
a
place
where
senior
senior
managers
welcome
Challenge
on
any
part
of
the
safeguarding
system
and
also
encourage
practitioners
to
have
a
voice
to
help
shape
and
improve
Services.
The
Executive
also
funds
the
the
independent
chair,
which
provides
that
other
layer
of
scrutiny
on
the
safeguarding
arrangement.
Again
this
this
demonstrates
that
they
are
open
to
challenge
and
scrutiny
moving
forward.
E
There
are
some
things
coming
down
the
tracks
that
the
lscp
partnership
need
to
consider
and
the
arrangements
that
we've
got
now
have
been
in
place
for
three
years
and
I'm
aware
that
the
executive
are
looking
at
to
reset
some
of
the
parts
of
the
safeguarding
system.
Think
about
what's
working
things
where
that
might
need
more
more
strength
put
in
place
and
to
identify
opportunities
to
again
strengthen
the
safeguarded
system,
which
will
reflect
that
we
do
have
an
impending
new
version
of
working
together
coming
down
the
track.
E
So
we've
got
to
make
sure
that
everybody's
ready
for
that
and
everybody's
ready
to
support
them,
and,
of
course,
what's
been
mentioned
earlier,
is
the
independent
review
of
social
Care
by
Josh
McAllister
and
which
was
undertaken
last
year
and
I
believe
in
February
2023.
The
government
has
already
responded
to
that
that
review
so
anyway,
again,
any
recommendations
from
this
review
will
require
the
commitment
and
support
of
all
our
partner
agencies
that
make
up
the
safeguarding
system.
Thank
you.
A
I
Thank
you
very
much
feel
for
for
that
that
presentation
and
it
was
reassuring
again
to
find
your
independent
conclusions
that
senior
managers
welcome
challenge
that
we
fund
an
independent
safeguarding
chair
in
in
Leeds,
which
isn't
a
statutory
requirement.
I
And
in
your
report
you
say
that
poverty
is
a
key
area
that
impacts
on
children's
outcomes
and
that
that
Echoes,
what
councilor
Venice
said
when
she
outlines
some
of
the
specific
effects
of
poverty
on
children
now
immediately
after
the
safeguarding
sorry,
after
the
out
after
the
ofsted
report
was
presented
to
this
board,
the
the
the
director
of
children's
services
highlighted
poverty
as
being
the
single
most
damaging
factor
for
children
and
young
people
in
this
city,
and
so
I'm,
really
not
looking
forward
to
but
I'm
just
awaiting
this
scrutiny
boards
opportunity
to
look
at
that
strategy
on
child
poverty,
which
was
delayed
from
this
meeting
and
and
will
be
coming
to
the
the
next
meeting.
I
E
I
Yeah,
okay,
good
because
you
know
that
that's
a
big
jump
on
the
on
the
number
that
that
I
was
aware
of
previously
now
I'm
aware
of
the
national
statistics
for
children
not
just
living
in
poverty
but
child,
but
living
in
destitution
and
I.
Just
wonder
whether
the
the
the
the
the
thing
that's
coming
to
the
next
meeting
can
look
at
the
numbers
if
we
possibly
can
of
children
living
in
destitution
in
this
city.
I
So
that's
children
living
without
enough
food
or
enough
money
to
stay
warm
and
keep
clean,
let
alone
poverty,
which
is
awful.
Thank
you.
A
L
Yeah,
thank
you
can
I
just
I
know.
L
This
is
a
summary,
but
one
thing
that
stands
out
to
me
is:
we've
just
had
an
early
three
hour
debate
on
safeguarding
procedures,
around
notifications,
Etc,
which
has
been
a
body
of
work
done
by
the
partnership,
and
yet
it's
not
even
mentioned
in
the
sort
of
ongoing
responses,
so
I
mean
I
I,
agree
with,
what's
being
said,
around
poverty
remaining
a
key
area,
but
you
don't
have
to
be
poor
to
be
a
pedophile
and
you
don't
have
to
be
in
poverted
to
be
a
victim
of
sex,
offenses
or
failures
of
safeguarding.
E
Yes,
of
course,
give
you
that
Assurance,
you
know,
we've
talked
already
about
the
notification
process
and
some
of
the
things
that
we've
been
learning
as
we
go
along,
so
that
will
also
be
included
in
the
full
annual
reports
as
well.
That's.
L
Really
welcome.
Thank
you.
My
last
question
directed
to
it
says
in
here
that
the
annual
report
is
an
objective
analysis
and
we've
heard
how
it's
independent
so
am
I
right.
Therefore,
to
deduce
that
as
the
independent
chair,
you
write
the
report
and
what
impact
do
the
other
partners
have,
including
a
local
Authority
who
you
are
effectively
objectively
analyzing,
have
to
instruct
changes
and
has
that
ever
happened.
G
Thank
you,
councilor
Stevenson,
it's
actually
the
report
of
the
executive
board.
It's
not
my
report
and
my
role
is
to
independently
scrutinize
the
report,
and
that
is
what
is
expected
of
the
national
panel
expert
that
as
well.
This
is
a
real
opportunity
for
an
independent
scrutiny
to
look
at
the
work
of
that
time,
scale
to
be
able
to
independently
scrutinize
it
and
to
provide
a
very
objective
forward.
G
So
that
is
my
intention,
and
the
full
report
is
now
completed
and
I
will
have
a
look
at
it
with
my
eyes
and
provide
an
opinion.
A
Okay,
thank
you
Jackie.
Please.
H
I
I'm,
just
looking
at
the
Child
Protection
Systems
there
and
I
I
think
we're
doing
fairly
well
indeeds
compared
to
some
some.
You
know,
councils
and
various
place
around
the
country,
but
I
think
for
me
is:
does
the
training
go
to
all
people,
especially
on
the
ground?
H
H
Now
they
do
have
a
police
presence
in
each
school
and
I'd
like
to
say
that
that
is
a
good
thing,
because,
as
a
you
know,
governors
in
schools
and
stuff,
you
know
children
tend
to
see
police
now
as
not
a
in
order
to
get
into
trouble
with
they
they're
also
people
you
can
go
and
ask
things
to
and
I
think
that
that
nice
face
of
that
police
officer
within
school.
You
know
they
go
into.
You
know
they
do
different
schools
and
different
things,
but
there
is
police
presence
and
I
think
that's
quite
good.
H
For
for
everybody,
you
know
parents
and
children,
I
I.
Think
for
me,
as
a
parent,
so
I'm
speaking
as
apparently
like
that
I
am
so
happy
with
with
what
I've
read
here
today
that
at
least
I
know.
If
my
children
were
you
know,
or
maybe
they're
friends
or
or
people
that
are
getting
into
dangerous
situations,
at
least
there
is
the
you
know,
there
is
the
the
services
there
and,
of
course
we
need
to
put
it
down.
So
where
do
parents
get
the
information
from
maybe
a
user-friendly
area?
H
E
I'll
just
quickly
come
in
on
that
point
and
the
leadership
academy,
children
partnership
website
has
sections
for
Professionals
for
children
and
young
people
and
for
parents,
and
some
of
the
key
things
that
we
might
be
learning,
especially
around
child
death
reviews
where
we
will
use
social
media
to
Target
parents
around
sort
of
safety
and
Welfare
issues
as
well.
F
Yes,
thank
you.
Josh
wanted
to
pick
up
the
the
point
that
was
made
around
around
schools.
Yes,
we
do
have
presents
in
in
a
number
of
schools
across
the
The
District
in
Leeds.
We
have
safer
schools
offices
where
they
are
part
funded
by
that
school
with
with
police
officers.
But
then
we
have
aligned
pcsos
to
all
other
schools
across
across
the
district
and
I
think
it
is
really
really
important.
F
There's
two
there's
two
examples
that
I'd
just
like
to
to
feed
in
to
reassure
the
the
board
around
some
of
the
work.
That's
going
and
probably
comes
into
the
the
comments
that
were
made
around
the
voice
of
the
child,
and
so
a
really
practical
example
in
the
last
week
is
one
of
my
safer
schools.
Officers
was
engaged
by
a
child
in
their
school.
F
That
was
asking
some
quite
concerning
questions
around
violence
and
what
the
police
response
to
that
violence
was
the
the
fact
that
the
safest
schools
officer
was
there
was
that
it
was
able
to
engage
with
that
child
disclosed
domestic
violence
and
an
abuse
at
home
and
allowed
us
to
to
make
the
the
necessary
referrals
and
take
the
necessary
positive
action
in
relation
to
that.
So
that's
one
really
practical
operational
example.
The
other
really
good
example
is
is
around
the
West.
F
Yorkshire
police
are
engaged
in
developing
a
a
product
known
as
polled
so
Paulette
is
a
an
educational
tool
written
by
teachers
and
developed
by
West,
Yorkshire
police
and
provided
free
of
charge
to
every
school
in
West
Yorkshire.
F
At
the
moment,
in
Leeds,
around
60
of
all
schools
are
are
signed
up
to
that
that's
a
a
product
that
is
based
around
the
national
curriculum
for
pshe,
so
it
tackles
a
number
of
issues,
but
one
of
the
Prime
drivers
within
that
process
is
around
signposting
children
and
young
people
into
seeking
help
around
abusive
relationships,
domestic
abuse,
domestic
violence
and
criminal
exploitation
and
child's
sexual
exploitation,
and
and
really
really
positive
step
forward.
F
In
the
in
the
last
few
days,
in
that
we've
been
supported
by
Leeds
city
council
in
that
Deborah,
jobson
who's,
the
education
safeguarding
manager
for
the
for
the
district
has
just
underwritten
poll
Ed
and
and
written
out
to
schools
to
say
that
the
the
situation
and
The
Stance
of
the
school
should
be.
They
should
adopt
that
and
that
they
should
provide
a
reason
why
they're
opting
out
if
they
don't
want
to
use
the
polid
product.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Councilor
Renshaw,.
G
Thank
you,
Council
on
I'd,
just
like
to
ask
well
if
it
could
give
me
any
information
on
when
a
child
gets
spoken
to
our
other
things.
G
Certain
factors
in
that
chance
player
are
how
that
child
is
acting,
that
classes
around
in
schools
are
anywhere
really
and
they
get
referred
on,
but
that
child
goes
quiet
and
you
you
relate,
you
relate
information
about,
our
child,
might
leave
it
sort
of
dormant
and
it
shows
up
years
later,
I'll
on
those
records
kept
regarding
that
child's
incident
before,
because
it
might
be
longer
than
seven
years
after
that
child
starts
to
show
any
signs
of
the
reaction
of
what's
happened
in
their
earlier
days.
E
It
is
quite
a
difficult
question
for
me
to
answer
in
terms
of
the
details
of
that,
but
what
we
do
know
is
when
there
is
an
incident,
for
example,
in
primary
schools,
that
the
child's
records
are
then
passed
over
to
the
to
the
school
that
they're
moving
into.
So
if
there
are
any
concerns
in
those
transitional
Arrangements
between
junior
school
and
primary
school
and
should
be
there
and
all
teachers
should
know
the
issues
that
previously
happened
for
that
child.
Thank.
A
Okay,
councilor
Stevenson,
you
get
the
final
point
to
them,
we'll
we'll
summon.
L
Just
pick
up
on
the
back
of
that
question
that
comment
there
about
I
think
he
said
it's
called
poll
Ed.
L
L
Some
schools
can
do,
and
so
what
typically
happens
is
the
the
attendance
officer
will
go
to
a
house
knock
on
the
door
and
in
his
words
the
upstairs
window
will
open
and
the
parent
will
tell
them
to
expletive
away
and
that's
it
and
I
want,
and
what
this
school
have
asked
for
is
a
collaboration
with
the
local
police
so
that
when
those
attendance
officers
are
visiting,
the
presence
of
a
police
officer
would
air
probably
assist
getting
access,
but
also
would
help
pick
up
instances
where
there
might
be
safeguarding
concerns
that
wouldn't
otherwise
be
seen
because
the
attendance
office
didn't
allowed
to
go
in.
L
So
in
that
context,
what
you've
just
described,
would
the
polled
system
assist
with
that
and
is
there
any
anything
you're
aware
of
that
might
help
tackle
that
front
door?
Issue
of
starting
with
attendance,
for
example,
as
an
insight
as
to
why
and
think
about
that
disguised
compliance
in
a
way
that
it's
actually
sort
of
it's
very
open,
it's
non-compliance,
but
then
nothing
seems
to
happen
when
the
upstairs
window
shows.
F
Yeah
and
I,
thank
you
for
your
points.
I
think
I
think
we
need
to
be
be
very,
very
careful
around
a
a
movement
into
roles
and
responsibilities
and
statutory
responsibilities
of
of
the
police
and
I,
certainly
wouldn't
advocate
for
the
police,
providing
police
officers
to
go
to
every
single
education
welfare
visit.
The
police
are
there
in
cases
of
serious
welfare,
serious
harm
issues
and,
and
we
have
powers
that
help
us
around
around
that
sort
of
thing
in
terms
of
Paulette.
F
The
the
poll
Ed
is
a
is
a
curriculum-based
lesson
plan
based
product
that
will
hopefully
allow
confidence
to
be
built
with,
with
children's
they
develop
through
their
their
education,
to
allow
them
to
understand
and
recognize
behavior
that
is
maybe
out
of
the
norm,
or
is
that
is
detriment
to
their
development
and
and
well-being
and
and
then
create
for
them
a
knowledge
of
support
and
people
that
they
can
go
to
to
raise
concerns,
whether
that
be
a
police
officer,
whether
it
be
a
teacher
or
someone
else
that
can
undertake
that
role
and
support
the
the
child.
F
That's
in
in
crisis,
so
yeah.
R
Yeah
I
suppose
I
just
wanted
to
come
back
on
the
the
question
from
councilor,
Ryan
and
I
suppose,
just
to
sort
of
reiterate
and
reinforce
that,
if
you
know,
if
anybody
of
any
partner
has
got
a
concern
about
the
welfare
of
a
child,
then
you
know
really
they
have.
They
need
to
have
that
conversation,
whether
it's
with
early
Health
practitioners
at
a
local
level,
whether
it's
with
the
early
help
Hub.
R
So
if
they
have-
and
you
know
if
they
think
that
the
child's
welfare
is
at
risk,
then
obviously
there's
that
referral
to
the
front
door.
A
Okay,
thank
you
right.
Thank
you
very
much,
everybody
and,
first
of
all,
thank
you
for
the
way
the
debate
has
been
conducted.
There's
been
a
lot
of
issues
to
get
into
and
and
I
think.
We've
made
good
progress.
The
the
recommendation
is
to
consider
the
content
of
the
attached
reports,
which
we've
done
and
then
to
determine
appropriate
next
steps,
which
is
the
key
thing
so
I
I'd
like
to
put
a
proposal.
A
There
are
five
things
that
I
think
that
have
come
out
of
out
of
the
meeting
and
I
welcome
any
further
contributions
and
note
that
the
notification
interim
process
in
line
with
option
one,
is
to
be
reviewed
after
12
months,
which
is
July
2023.
So
I
wonder
if
it
would
be
useful
if
this
board
could
get
an
update,
perhaps
in
September
or
October
around
that,
but
the
there
are,
as
I
said,
there
are
five
things.
I
think
that
have
come
out
to
this
morning
that
we
really
need
to
look
at
I.
A
Think
it's
heartening
to
hear
the
progress
that's
been
made
since
we
first
discussed
this
issue
a
year
ago,
but,
following
on
from
the
comments
made,
I
think
one
of
the
key
things
is
around
practitioner
escalation
and
getting
some
some
further
Assurance
about
that
and
getting
an
update
to
the
board.
It
might
be
something
that
a
successor
board
wants
to
look
in
more
detail.
At
second
part,
is
the
voice
of
the
child
and
just
getting
some
assurances
for
the
board
that
that
is
being
being
captured
within
this
I.
A
Think
the
to
me,
the
biggest
thing
that's
come
out
of
this
is
making
sure
bearing
in
mind
this
whole
process
is
about
the
most
serious
cases
of
harm
to
children,
young
people
and
we've
got
to
try
and
prevent
that,
and
it's
getting
that
rapid
learning,
which
is
happening
shared
rapidly
to
practitioners
and
to
make
sure
that
actually
that's
been
acted
upon.
A
I
think
the
point
about
jargon
is
really
important
and
I
think
that's,
perhaps
something
that
needs
to
be
reviewed
and
brought
back
to
the
board,
so
things
are
being
done
in
in
plain
English
and
the
fifth
one
that
I
have
is
around
risk
assessments
and
getting
some
assurance
that
there
are
up
to
date
when
they're
being
considered
around
decision
making
and
we're
not
relying
on
old
risk
assessments.
A
So
they're,
the
five
things
I've
captured
I
would
suggest
that
perhaps
this
board
would,
or
the
successor
board
would
be
looking
at
an
update
in
September
and
October
with
those
five
key
things
and
an
update
on
the
review
from
the
lscp
executive
about
the
the
interim
processes
for
notifications.
So
I
don't
know
Julie
or
if
any
of
the
partners
or
just
vinder,
if
you've
got
any
comments
or
that,
if
anybody
else
has
got
any
anything,
they
wanted
to
to
add.
If
that
seems
a
sensible
approach.
G
Yeah
I
would
agree
as
well
I
think
in
terms
of
the
learning
share
that
the
point
really
is
around
measuring
the
impact
of
the
learning
that
includes
data,
qualitative
and
quantitative.
You
know
how
to
that
that
piece
around
that
yeah.
A
Yeah
I
think
that's.
The
key
thing
is
how
how
do
we
measure
that
that's
happening?
It's
a
tricky
thing,
because
really
what
we
need
to
do
is
measure
what
didn't
happen
because
of
the
interventions
that
took
place
and
that's
difficult
to
do,
but
if
you're
not
having
to
discuss
serious
cases
on
whether
to
notify
or
not,
that
tells
us.
We
are
learning
lessons
and
we
are
making
progress
so
I
think
finding
those
key
indicators
are
crucial.
G
The
only
other
thing
I
would
add
is
working
together
is
being
Rewritten
and
there's
a
real
opportunity
to
consult
on
that
now
and
that
all
partners-
and
you
know
we
raise
awareness
about
that,
because
we
I
think
leads-
can
influence
that
already
have.
But
further.
A
L
I
had
four
recommendations
of
which
you
covered
one
and
a
half,
and
that
has
been
as
covered
at
the
other
half
so
I
do
think
it's
important
that
the
local
Authority
formally
submit
a
response
that
National
consultation
and
is
a
review
of
working
together
and
as
a
formal
recommendation
of
this
board,
I
think
that
will
be
supported.
L
I
would
suggest
that
we
go
just
a
step
further
on
the
issue
of
risk
assessments.
So,
whilst
I
agree
with
you
chair,
we
want
an
assurance
as
a
scrutiny
board
that
those
updates
have
been
made.
I
think
one
of
the
key
things
to
come
out
and
clearly
because
it's
thematic
is
that
the
where
the
risk
assessments
operate
is
not
working
and
that
the
multiple
different
tools
isn't
working
so
I
would
suggest.
L
The
further
recommendation
is
either
by
the
board
or
by
the
council,
that
we
we
write
to
the
Department
of
Education,
requesting
a
National
Review
of
of
how
those
risk
assessments
are
used
by
agencies
with
a
view
of
exploring
one
uniform
system
for
all
the
agencies.
That's
not
in
the
control
of
this
Council.
L
It's
a
national
government
issue
that
needs
to
happen,
but
I
think
that's,
what's
glaring
out
of
what
we've
seen
today
to
me
that
that's
what
needs
to
happen
National
to
have
some
significance,
and
the
final
point
I
made
here-
was
that
throughout
all
of
this
I've
been
thinking.
How
do
we
know?
L
How
does
the
executive
board
know
what's
happening
and
the
only
way
we
know
and
can
question
is
from
what
comes
out
of
the
child,
Safeguard
and
practice
reviews
and
in
that
context,
I'm
thinking
that
whenever
a
case
goes
to
the
ombudsman,
the
ombudsman's
report
has
to
go
to
the
executive
board
for
consideration
and
I
mentioned
this
in
the
pre-meeting,
but
what's
been
playing
on
my
mind
as
an
elected
member
and
therefore
a
corporate
parent
is
one
of
the
key
findings
in
the
independent
inquiry
into
child
sexual
exploitation
in
Rotherham
by
Alexis
Jr
was
they
know.
L
She
noted
that
Rotherham
scrutiny
bought
had
several
meetings
where
a
large
amount
of
time
was
devoted
to
individual
cases.
They
refer
to
child
S
Series
case
review.
Now
you
know
fair
enough
this.
This
board's
taking
decision
today
that
we
don't
want
to
do
that
as
a
board,
but
one
of
the
things
that
Alexis
Jeff
found
was
that
even
more
significant
is
the
apparent
lack
of
effective
scrutiny
exercised
by
councilors
and
executive
members,
so
I
I
think
a
key
recommendation
would
be
and,
however
they
want
to
do.
L
That
would
be
that,
where
we
have
a
child,
a
safeguarding
practice
reviews
linked
to
cases
that
have
been
notified
nationally,
that
they
should
always
be
referred
to
the
executive
board
for
consideration.
Because
then
we
we
have
a
layer
of
executive
oversight
and
scrutiny
so
that
counselors
decision
makers
can
say
they
know.
What's
going
on.
They
know
what
improvements
are
being
suggested:
they're
learning,
because
it's
formally
being
reviewed
and
considered
it's
for
the
executive
board,
whether
they
do
that
in
a
closed
session
or
otherwise.
L
But
I
think
that
would
be
a
key
recommendation
from
us
today
to
ensure
that
there
is
and
the
same
way
as
ombudsman's
reports
go
to
Executive
Board.
There
is
a
clear
proven
link
that
there
is
oversight,
which
is
the
feedback
from
the
Alexis
J
report,
but
also
aligns
with
national
legislation.
R
Come
back
on
a
couple
of
those
points:
I'm
not
sure
that
we've
seen
evidence
of
Assessments
not
working
across
the
board,
as
perhaps
as
being
described,
I
haven't
seen.
R
Evidence
of
you
know:
systemic
evidence
of
Assessments
not
working
systematically
in
children,
families
or
across
the
partnership,
so
I
suppose
I
just
need
to
respectfully
challenge
that
view,
because
and
I
don't
know
if
other
colleagues
want
to
come
in,
but
I
haven't
seen
evidence
of
that
in
relation
to
the
proposal
in
terms
of
the
executive
board,
I,
do
wonder
whether
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
some
further
advice
on
that
and
and
specifically
some
advice
from
our
legal
advisors
under
this
foreign.
F
Yeah,
thank
you,
chair
and
yeah.
I
would
I
would
just
back
at
what
what
Julie
says:
I,
don't
I,
don't
I,
don't
recall
within
within
this
meeting,
they're
being
specific
evidence
or
conclusions
around
that
risk
assessment
in
the
way
that
it
was
presented
and
I
I
think
there
is
a
a
risk
of
going
down
at
a
route
that
is,
is
not
evident
in
in
the
reporting.
That's
been
done
so
I
support
that
I
think
as
well.
F
The
other
point
I
would
make
is
we
need
to
be
clear
around
child
safeguarding
there's
been
a
lot
of
references
to
child
sexual
abuse
and
exploitation
in
this
meeting
today,
but
there
are
a
number
of
other
elements
that
feed
into
child
safeguarding
and
we
need
to
be
mindful
and
aware
of
that
and
I
think
again
as
an
exec
board.
F
Member
I
would
like
to
to
to
take
some
further
advice
in
relation
to
the
the
scrutiny
of
the
the
the
reports
that
are
coming
back
from
those
National
notices
applications.
Thank
you.
S
Yes,
I
just
like
to
add
to
that
as
well:
I,
don't
think
any
comparisons
have
oblique
redundant
rather
a
tall,
appropriate
or
relevant
I.
Don't
think,
there's
any
evidence
that
myself
and
other
elective
members
don't
have
the
level
of
oversight
of
Children
and
Families
that
we
need
to
have.
In
fact,
the
ofsted
report,
which
was
only
a
year
ago,
singled
out
myself
and
Tom
Reardon
for
having
in
there
was
an
impressive
level
of
operational,
detailed
knowledge.
So
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
evidence
that
the
oversight
and
the
scrutiny
isn't
there.
S
We've
got
a
really
robust,
safeguarding
partnership.
You've
seen
evidence
of
that
today,
you've
seen
in
the
report.
How
reflective
the
partnership
is,
how
open
to
learning
and
how
it
open
to
external
scrutiny
and
input,
including
from
the
national
panel
I,
would
support
I,
don't
think
anyone
has
said
they
would
support
the
recommendation
that
child's
child
safeguarding
practices
go
to
exec
board
and
I
I.
My
view
is
that
there
isn't
any
evidence
there
isn't
the
required
scrutiny.
Thank
you.
L
Just
on
risk
assessments
first,
because
it
it
is
in
the
report
that
a
thematic
approach
has
come
out
of
this-
is
different
agencies
using
risk
assessment
processes.
That
is
in
the
report
that
we've
been
presented
with.
Furthermore,
it
is
written
and,
and
truly
knows,
who've
had
a
conversation
offline
about
this.
It
is
written
in
some
of
those
reports
that
that
was
a
failure.
The
different
risk
assess
the
usage
different
risk
assessments,
so
it
is
an
obvious
point,
I
think
of
discussion.
L
We've
all
had
and
that's
why
it's
in
the
report
that
the
report
outlines
that
staff
being
aware
of
how
the
different
processes
work
is
a
weakness.
That's
what's
in
this
report
here,
I'm
really
going
a
step
further
to
say
that
one
of
the
problems
is
that
one
agency
will
use
the
Oasis
risk
assessment
which
might
present
a
medium
risk.
Another
agency
might
use
the
metric
system,
which
might
present
high
risk
same
individual
two
different
outcomes.
That
is
clearly
a
problem.
L
So
all
our
suggestion
is
that
that
is
looked
at
a
request
that
that
is
reviewed,
not
that
a
decision
is
made,
but
it
is
reviewed
nationally
to
ensure
that
those
systems
are
given
the
same
outcomes
across
all
the
agencies
and
that
failures
don't
make
in
future,
so
that,
just
to
clarify
that
point,
my
recommendation
came
from
the
discussion
we'd
had
today
on
the
report
and
just
on
the
the
part
of
it
going
to
Executive.
Nobody
can
say
that
the
child
safeguarding
practice
reviews
have
been
scrutinized
by
any
elected
member.
L
L
L
So
anyone
who
has
a
view
that
we
should
be
open,
transparent
in
a
way
all
I'm
saying,
is
that
documents
that
are
already
in
the
public
domain
accessible
today
for
anybody
on
the
Safeguard
insurance
partnership
website
formally
goes
to
the
executive
board
in
some
form
and
the
same
way
that
ombudsman's
reports
do
so
that
they
can
be
considered,
and
that
is
minuteed
and
therefore
it's
there
for
for,
if,
if
I'm
sure
we
never
will,
but
hopefully
ever
will.
If
we
get
into
trouble
in
the
future,
we
can
say
that
we
are.
We
have.
L
G
G
There
is
no
comparison
being
made
here
to
Rotherham
and
with
all
due
respect
to
Alexis
J,
whom
I
know
no
one
is
comparing
leads
to
Rotherham,
but
her
observations
are
a
point
of
learning
and
you
know,
openness
and
scrutiny
should
be
welcomed
and
I
know
you're,
making
reference
to
a
particular
case,
I'm
not
making
reference
of
that.
But
the
point
is:
when
things
are
in
the
public
domain
and
they're
about
your
city
as
an
executive
board,
you
should
be
discussing
them.
If
it's
a
point
of
learning,
that's
my
view.
G
In
terms
of
the
risk
assessments,
we
have
presented
a
report
to
you
today
on
appendix
2
on
page
29,
where
we
are
saying
there
is
some
learning
to
do
around
different
agencies,
risk
assessments
and
processes.
Nobody
is
saying
it's
an
issue
and
it's
a
problem
here
in
Leeds.
What
we're
saying
is
there
needs
to
be
an
improvement
now
that
Improvement
comes
directly
out
of
cases
that
we
have
looked
at,
where
we
have
consistently
considered
them
and
unfortunately,
in
relation
to
a
very
tragic
case.
G
S
S
That's
part
of
the
process,
so
in
terms
of
scrutiny,
they're
getting
scrutiny
at
the
most
senior
level
that
they
could
be
scrutinized,
they're
being
scrutinized
by
the
most
senior
professionals
working
in
children's
safeguarding.
So
to
suggest
there
isn't,
like
a
scrutiny,
isn't
appropriate
and
I.
Think
we've
demonstrated
today
our
openness
and
our
transparency.
S
In
the
reports
we've
presented
in
our
description
of
the
journey
we've
been
on.
As
Council
Martin
pointed
out,
we
have
an
independent
chair
which
isn't
a
statutory
of
climate.
That's
about
us
wanting
to
have
that
at
that
external
independent
scrutiny.
S
So
I,
don't
think.
There's
just
any
evidence
that
we're
not
we're
not
being
open
and
transparent,
yeah
I
think
that's,
probably
the
the
point
that
I
wanted
to
make
yeah
I'll
come
I
might
come
back
to
it.
G
Thank
you,
chair,
I'd,
just
like
to
go
back
into
when
we're
having
discussions
and
the
officers
were
saying
what
their
duties
were,
and
they
did
say
that
the
working
Mark
collaboratively
they're
working
off
the
same
system,
which
councilor
Stevenson,
has
just
contradicted
and
said
that
they're
all
working
off
their
own
systems,
they're
quite
easily
said
today
that
the
work
in
more
collaboratively
and
doing
things
together.
So
you
know
going
on
what
Jewelers
a
little
bit
about
it's
a
it's,
a
lifelong
learning.
It's
it's
an
ongoing
thing.
A
A
To
make
that
just
one
second,
okay,
yeah
so
I
think
I
think
you've.
Actually
it
probably
wasn't
even
attention
I
think
you've
made
councilor
Stevenson's
point
for
him.
That's
the
point
of
this
is
to
keep
learning
and
to
take
Julie's
Point
earlier.
This
work
is
never
done.
It's
never
done.
We've
got.
A
Him
improving
sorry,
it
is
I'll,
bring
you
in
a
minute,
so
I'm
conscious
of
time
as
well.
So
I
do
want
to
move
things
on
so.
S
Yeah
sorry
I
lost
my
train
of
thought
halfway
through
my
previous
point,
I
made
the
point
I
wanted
to
make
about
the
national
scrutiny
with
that
we
get
through
the
national
panel,
but
also
as
we've
demonstrated
today
we
disseminate
learning
and
that's
a
really
that's
the
important
thing
about
the
information
that
comes
out
of
case
TV
is
not
the
detail
of
individual
cases,
but
the
learning
that
comes
from
them
and
we've
demonstrated
today
how
that
learning
is
disseminated.
S
You
know
it's
disseminated
from
the
safeguarding
executive
through
the
children
and
young
people's
partnership
that
I
co-chair
with
just
vendor
and
then
the
safeguarding
unit
look
at
the
way
they're
going
to
disseminate
that
out
to
practitioners
through
training
through
briefings,
Etc,
so
we're
getting
really
comprehensive.
Learning
I
agree
with
points
Josephine
dismayed
that
we
need
to
really
evidence
how
we're
embedding
that
learning
and
the
difference
it's
making,
but
I,
don't
I,
just
don't
think,
there's
any
evidence
that
we're
not
either
scrutin
like
getting
appropriate
scrutiny
of
serious
cases
or
disseminating
learning.
S
That
requires
safeguarding
practices
to
go
to
our
executive
board.
Thank
you.
G
Quickly,
because
it's
on
that
point,
I'm
not
sure
that
the
national
panel
provide
the
level
of
scrutiny
that
counselor
vener
is
referring
to,
we
send
them
the
rapid
review.
They
give
us
recommendations,
they're,
not
scrutinizing
the
case
that
we
have
looked
at
at
the
review.
Advisory
Group,
so
just
be
mindful
of
what
we
mean
by
scrutiny
of
national
panel
they're,
not
looking
in
depth
at
a
case
that
has
happened
in
Leeds
that
has
been
notified
to
them.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
point.
R
So
I'd
just
like
to
come
back
on
on
a
number
of
points
and
in
terms
of
scrutiny.
The
the
national
child
safeguarding
practice
review
panel
get
a
range
of
information.
So
the
point
when
we
make
a
notification
and
then
that
takes
us
into
what's
called
a
rapid
review
process
and
that's
where
the
review
Advisory
Group
comes
together.
They
receive
a
host
of
information
from
all
of
the
agencies
who
have
been
involved
with
that
child
or
family.
R
They
then
complete
a
form,
a
report
records
and
they
then
make
a
recommendation
to
the
lscp
exec
as
to
whether
there
should
be
a
National
Review,
a
local
review,
no
review
or
some
other
form
of
learning
activity
that
comes
to
the
lscp
exec
there
has
to.
We
have
to
give
a
very
clear
rationale
on
that
form
as
to
why
we
are
making
the
decision
and
the
recommendation
to
the
national
panel.
At
that
point.
R
R
Following
on
from
that,
where
a
decision
is
taken
to
undertake
a
child
safeguarding
practice
review
when
that
report
is
produced.
That
report
is
sent
to
the
National
panel
before
it
is
publicized
and
again
the
national
panel
will
write
to
give
the
local
Authority
the
lscp
exec
feedback
on
the
review
and
on
the
report.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
those
points,
because
I
think
that
is
very.
R
The
purpose
of
the
report
is
to
highlight
areas
where
we
feel
there
can
be
further
and
there
should
be
further
learning.
It
is
not
to
say
there
is
systemic
failure
and
that's
not
actually
what
the
reviews
you
know.
That's
not
the
language
are
not
what
the
reviews
have
found.
The
reviews
have
found
that
there
is
learning
to
be
had
and
that
learning
is
being
actioned
and
implemented
across
the
partnership
and
the
way
that's
being
described
today,
working
really
closely
with
police
colleagues,
Health,
colleagues
and
other
partners
across
the
city.
A
Okay,
thanks
to
just
on
the
first
point
and
I
think
I
don't
know,
maybe
to
put
words
in
his
mouth
but
I
think
the
The
Missing
Link
and
what's
highlighted
in
the
J
report
and
what
Jazz
vinder
has
said
is
where's
the
Democratic
oversight
of
all
of
that
you've
described
your
robust
process,
but
nothing
in
what
you
described
was
a
democratic
oversight
of
of
that
I
think
that's
what's
been
suggested
and
what
I've
put
forward
is
not
that
we're
making
a
decision
right
now
about
how
and
what
that
looks
like,
but
that
there's
time
to
go
away
and
look
at
these
issues,
including
the
ones
Council
Stevenson's
highlighted
and
come
back
to
the
board
in
September
and
October,
with
an
update
and
some
comment
and
some
thoughts
on
how
to
take
this
forward.
A
In
the
spirit
of
what
you've
said
that
this
work
is
never
done,
we've
heard
significant
progress
today,
which
is
really
pleasing,
but
it's
about
how
do
we
keep
doing
it
better
and
I?
Think
I.
Think
that's
that's
the
point.
That's
been.
L
Just
about
whatever
personal
explanation
chair
just
to
age
counselor
ensures
understanding
of
the
process.
It's
quite
clear.
It's
quite
clear
in
the
late
item
that
I
put
forward
explains
it,
but
obviously
you
you
said
you
didn't
want
the
layer
time
to
come
forward.
So
you
can't
see
it,
but
I
just
want
to
get
a
clarification
for
you
Julie.
Could
you
just
confirm
to
us
that,
in
terms
of
the
risk
assessments
used,
it
is
not
the
case
that
all
the
agencies
use
the
same
risk
assessment.
R
R
Think
that's
the
point
that
you're
making
councilor
Stevenson
I
think
the
point
perhaps
councilor
Renshaw
is
making
is
about
the
fact
that
the
learning
you
know
has
been
identified
and
that
actually
there
is
work
underway
across
the
partnership
to
deal
with
the
themes
that
have
been
highlighted
in
the
report
today,
whether
that's
assessments,
whether
that's
professional
curiosity
and
disguised
compliance,
you
know
all
of
the
areas
that
have
been
highlighted.
They
are
all
areas
that
are
being
progressed
and
through
the
partnership,
work,
I.
L
I
agree
entirely
Julie
and
that's
why
my
suggestion
was
and
to
be
clear.
This
is
a
not
a
criticism
of
the
council,
it's
a
criticism
of
national
government,
which
is
why
I
suggested
that
we
should
ask
national
government
to
instigate
a
review
you
into
how
those
risk
assessments
are
used,
because
our
learning
here
in
Leeds
has
shown
from
from
the
case.
L
That
cannot
be
mentioned,
that
that
was
an
issue
and
therefore
all
I'm
saying
is
we
know
we
noticed
it
in
here
as
a
learning
point
and
therefore
we
should
write
to
national
government
and
say:
look:
we've
got
this
as
a
thematic
issue.
We
think
that
you
now
need
to
do
a
National
Review
into
those
practices
to
make
sure
that
Country-Wide
and
their
authorities
don't
make
the
same
in
states
that
have
happened
here.
A
P
It
was
just
to
add
in
terms
of
scrutiny
that
any
child
safeguarding
practice
review
overview
report
goes
to
the
executive,
safeguarding
lead
for
every
organization.
That's
contributed
to
that
review
and
for
sign
off,
and
if
the
executive
lead
has
concerns,
then
that
will
be
fed
back.
Thank
you.
K
That's
the
area
where
I
think
there's
room
for
improvement.
That's
been
identified,
so
for
me,
what
we
could
do
is
where
we're
looking
to
feed
into
government
about
our
experience
of
this
review
process.
That
could
be
one
of
the
things
that
we
could
identify
because
I
think
trying
to
go
to
national
government
and
say
all
these
different
risk
assessments.
You
know
it's
not
working
I,
don't
think
we're
going
to
be
in
a
position
to
necessarily
influence
because
they
relate
to
statutory
functions
and
purposes.
You
know
the
different
tools
for
different
and
you
know
outcomes.
K
So
it's
about
maybe
feeding
into
the
learning
into
the
the
update
of
the
working
together
to
save
our
children
to
see
if
there's
a
way
that
we
can
influence
that
in
terms
of
assisting
professionals
to
understand
and
interpret
other
risk
Assessments
in
order
to
improve
their
own
assessment
when
they're
making
safeguarding
decisions
about
children
and
on
the
other
point
I
mean
I
think
it
would
certainly
be
helpful
to
say,
take
some
some
more
advice
in
relation
to
that.
K
R
Thank
you,
chair
I,
suppose
I
was
just
mindful
of
the
Josh
McAllister
review,
so
the
current
the
review
that's
been
undertaken
nationally
into
children's
social
care
and
I
referenced
it
earlier
in
the
meeting
in
terms
of
the
recommendations
there
to
have
a
multi-agency
approach
to
Service
delivery,
both
in
relation
to
child
protection
and
early
help.
That
recommendation
really
I
suppose
arises
around.
R
You
know
the
need
again
to
look
at
how
partner
agencies
share
information,
share
intelligence
share
data,
how
they
come
together
to
do
that
at
a
local
level,
so
actually
I
think
in
some
ways
the
conversation
that
we
have
had
today
around
information
sharing
around
the
use
of
Assessments
and
I'm,
really
confident
that
that
will
be
a
feature
of
discussions
locally.
As
we
begin
to
think
what
does
Our
Family
Health
Service
look
like
in
Leeds.
R
There's
a
national
implementation
board
who
are
overview,
overseeing
the
implementation
of
the
review,
they're
actually
due
to
have
their
meeting
in
Leeds
tomorrow
and
they're
meeting
with,
albeit
if
it
happens
in
terms
of
the
snow,
but
the
plan
is
that
they
will
be
meeting
with
professionals
across
the
partnership,
both
in
terms
of
early
health
and
also
our
statutory
intervention.
So
again,
these
these
conversations
about
multi-agency
working.
What
does
that
mean
in
terms
of
information
sharing
in
terms
of
assessments
are
conversations
that
are
very
alive
at
the
moment
nationally
and
as
it
stands,.
Q
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
councilor
alarm,
and
it
was
just
really
a
few
observations
really
and
I'm
very
conscious
that
I'm
I'm,
not
here
I'm,
not
in
attendance
today
as
a
legal
advisor
to
the
committee
as
such
I'm
here
in
my
role
as
the
legal
advisor
to
the
lscp.
That
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
couple
of
three
observations.
Q
If
I
may,
in
relation
to
those
recommendations
and
firstly,
just
to
confirm
that
the
consultation
window
on
the
on
working
together
hasn't
opened
yet
so,
of
course,
that
recommendation
perhaps
should
be
subject
to
the
consultation
window.
Opening
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
the
child's
safeguarding
practice
review
process
is
set
out
in
a
legislative
framework
and
the
children
at
2004
as
a
as
amended
and
when
Ombudsman
reports
come
to
the
executive
board.
Q
It's
because
usually
there's
been
a
recommendation
made
to
the
council,
and
so
that's
not
I,
don't
think
a
light
for
like
comparison
in
this
situation
and
and
then
in
relation
to
just
the
role
of
this
committee
and
the
fact
that
you
are
very
much
entitled
to
scrutinize.
Whatever
decision-making
processes,
you
think
it's
appropriate
to
scrutinize,
so
I
would
say
when
s
child
safeguarding
practice
review
comes
to
this
board.
What
is
it
that
you
are
scrutinizing?
Q
What
decision-making
are
you
scrutinizing,
rather
than
it
just
being
another
level
of
you
know,
quality
assurance
of
the
report
itself,
which
you've
heard
goes
through
so
many
other
processes
before
it
gets
to
the
final
position
of
publication
and,
of
course
it
goes
to
the
National
panel.
At
that
point,
and
within
that
legislative
framework,
there
wasn't
him
built
that
Democratic
involvement,
as
there
may
well
be
in
other
processes.
Q
A
A
Where
does
the
Democratic
oversight
come
into
the
serious
case,
reviews
and
learning,
and
then
the
working
together
contribution
when
that
window
opens
that
we
think
the
council
should
be
contributing
to
that?
Have
I
missed
anything?
Yes,.
L
I
formally
moved
the
the
csprs
be
referred
to
executive
board
for
their
consideration.
I
formally
moved
that's
okay,.
L
A
A
Okay,
well,
unfortunately,
once
a
vote's
done
and
put
that's
that's
that
I
I
would
yeah
I
mean
that
should
the
most.
L
Clearly,
that's
that's
fine,
so
subject
to
16.5
of
the
council
procedure
rules
please
could
I
require
that
my
vote
in
favor
is
formally
recorded
in
the
minutes.
Yeah.
H
A
Now,
I'd
still
recommend
that
that
comes
back
to
us
in
September
or
October
to
look
around
whether
we
can
how
we
can
establish
some
democratic
oversights
so
well.
This
is
not
made
today.
I
still
think
it's
something
that
we
need
to
to
look
at
and
explore
and
again
it's
got
National
significance.
A
N
Yeah,
thank
you
chair
as
you,
as
you
said,
to
those
Five,
Points,
yeah,
I,
think
you've
already
given
I
think
on
the
on
the
last
part,
and
obviously
we
required
that
in
the
minutes.
But,
as
you
say,
chair,
it's
it's
picking
up
about
that.
The
querying
about
the
Democratic
accountability
element
as
well,
and
that
coming
back
as
part
of
an
updated
report
that
we're
looking
to
schedule
about
September,
October
time
being
mindful
again
that
we
we
do
sort
of
relate
this
to
when
they
were
working
together.
N
A
So
is
everyone
happy
with
that
approach
for
moving
forward
yeah?
Thank
you,
okay
right.
So
that's
the
end
of
item.
Seven
we've
got
two
items
to
go.
It
should
be
very
quick,
but
thank
you
to
everybody.
Who's
contributed
really
grateful
for
the
amount
of
time
you've
given
us
today
and
really
hard
to
hear
the
progress.
That's
made
and
look
forward
to
hearing
from
you
again
in
in
due
course
and
so
item.
Eight
is
the
work
schedule
which
I'll
hand
over
to
Angela.
N
Thank
you
chair,
so
this
report
relates
to
the
work
the
latest
work
schedule
with
the
latest
version
set
out
in
appendix
one
for
members
consideration.
N
A
key
point
to
know
within
the
report
is
that
it
is
being
proposed
at
the
barge
defers
receiving
an
update
report
on
the
youth
Justice
plan
and
the
future
of
Mind
strategy
until
the
new
Municipal
year,
and
the
reasons
for
this
are
set
out
in
paragraph
six
of
the
report.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
sorry,
councilor
Martin
here
thank.
I
You
just
quickly
in
response
to
the
government's
proposed
changes
in
people
trafficking
law
where
traffic
traffic
people
will
be
exempt
from
Modern
slavery.
I
Legislation
I'd
like
to
propose
that
this
board
look
at
how
this
would
affect
traffic
children
and
and
also
including
writing
to
swella
Brave
them
in
to
us
for
clarification
on
how
it
might
affect
those
traffic.
Children.
A
Okay
right,
rather
than
having
a
debate
on
this
now,
given
we
only
have
one
meeting
of
the
municipal
year
and
we've
got.
We've
got
to
defer
things
to
the
next.
One.
I
would
suggest
that
that's
something
to
to
put
to
the
the
first
meeting
of
the
successor
board
to
for
something
that
could
be
considered
next
year.
If
you
wanted
to
do
that
sure,
okay
item,
nine
is
the
date
and
time
of
the
next
meeting,
which
is
Wednesday.
The
29th
of
March
at
10,
with
a
pre-meeting
at
9,
45.
A
I'll,
try
and
keep
it
a
bit
more
on
track
than
I
have
this
time,
but
important
things
to
discuss
and
I'm
very
grateful
to
everybody
for
your
contributions,
so
see
you
next
time.
Thank
you.