• Listen Again
• Membership
• Minutes
• Minutes of Evidence (Hansard)
• Press Releases
• Public Notices
• Research Publications
• Reports
• Forward Work Programme
• Committee Responses
• Responses to Committee
• Committee Inquiries
• Members' Attendance at Committee Meetings

HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland

Briefing Paper

Submission by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Northern Ireland (NSPCC) to the Assembly Health Committee on the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland

February 2010

Introduction

1. The NSPCC in Northern Ireland is grateful to the Committee for the opportunity to present evidence on the proposed legislation that will establish the Safeguarding Board. At the outset the Society would declare that we have worked very closely with DHSSPS in the development of the policy proposals and in working on a Private Member’s Bill that had been due to be introduced by Patricia Lewsley then MLA in 2002 to regulate Area Child Protection Committees. In the course of our submission we will address some of the history of this development and provide an analysis of current proposals under the questions asked.

2. In 2002 NSPCC had worked with Patricia Lewsley in the development of a Private Members Bill to place (as was then current) child protection structural arrangements, the Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs) onto a statutory footing. ACPCs in each Health and Social Services Board and Child Protection Panels in each of the Trusts were the main inter-agency vehicle by which child protection and safeguarding arrangements were undertaken in Northern Ireland. While these arrangements were covered by DHSSPS guidance Co-operating to Safeguard Children (2003) they had no statutory basis under the Children (NI) Order 1995 or any other piece of legislation. ACPCs had worked well but tended to have a focus on statutory child protection and not wider safeguarding issues. Agency membership and commitment to ACPCs was also variable. The opportunity to introduce a Private Members Bill aimed at regulating ACPCs presented itself in 2002. This included a number of public consultations and the development of a draft Bill that had been due for its first reading on the day Stormont was suspended.

3. In the development of legislative proposals NSPCC worked closely with officials from the DHSSPS with agreement of the then Minister of Health Bairbre de Brun MLA and while the Bill never progressed many of its concepts have been incorporated into current proposals. These had received overwhelming endorsements from consultees at the time. The ACPC Bill also predated the Victoria Climbie case and the report by Lord Laming that led to Children Act 2004 and establishment of Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards in England and Wales.

What are the essential elements that you would see to ensure a fully effective, integrated and co-ordinated response to safeguarding children?

4. The protection of children requires a multi agency multi faceted response and there is no one single structure or policy which will do this on its own. This is clearly set out in the OFMDFM safeguarding statement http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/ benchmarking what we are doing in terms of prevention and universal services, services for those who vulnerable and services to those who have been harmed . Structural arrangements for the co-ordination of safeguarding at a strategic and operational level play a key role both in the development of policy and delivery of services. Strong leadership across a range of organisations working together is needed to deliver safer systems that will effectively safeguard and protect children. We believe that a wider focus on safeguarding, as opposed to child protection, will help this process by promoting wider involvement in arrangements and a more strategic focus on prevention. Key developments for the role of SBNI will be the coordination of regional safeguarding initiatives leading to a more consistent approach. Key amongst them will be improved processes to learn from serious cases and near misses and the responsibility for a child death review system.

Are the functions of the SBNI as outlined in chapter 3 of the Policy Document adequate?

5. The challenges for a regional safeguarding body like that proposed for SBNI are immense such is the demanding and widespread agenda. We are of the view that that the functions, as proposed, are reasonable but would suggest any legislation allows for flexibility in the development or reformulation of these functions in the future.

Given that one of the roles of the SBNI is to secure accountability, how can one panel member hold another to account?

6. Interagency accountability is always very difficult when agencies operate under separate governance and legislative provisions. Governance is built into proposals in a number of ways:

• A duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children imposed on core members – and those with whom they have arrangements. This does not alter their legislative requirements on their own agency, rather to carry those out in way that safeguard and protects children;
• Lines of accountability through Panels to SBNI and through this to the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety on behalf of the NI Executive;
• Provision for independent chairing of SBNI and Panels;
• Provision for senior representation from key agencies;
• Structural involvement for other stakeholders through the provision of a Safeguarding Forum, Patient Client involvement and the development of measures to involve young people. The operation of a sub group structure should also help ensure that a wide range of stakeholders have the opportunity to be represented in the work of the SBNI; and
• Proposed mechanisms to ensure that agencies on SBNI audit and report on their safeguarding practice.

How representative is the proposed structure; are all aspects of child protection covered i.e. what about Courts and Judiciary. Does the essential wide representation come at the cost of unwieldiness? What level of senior representation should be represented?

7. One of the major challenges for SBNI arrangements in NI is membership and ensuring involvement of a wide range of bodies and organisations in the structure. Too many Board members will result in an unwieldy and unworkable structure. DHSSPS proposals include provision for Core members of SBNI (those with statutory functions for children and young people) and rolling membership by a range of non core members. Importantly, organisations and agencies will be able to plan a role in the subcommittee and Panel structure established. Core membership is probably at the maximum level to be effective and we support a review of arrangements after 12 months. While senior representation can mean different things dependant on organisational structure, we think it should be accepted as someone who is able to make operational and strategic decisions for the body or organisation involved and to commit resources if necessary. Courts pay an important role in protecting children and it would be important that the judiciary are Care Members of the Board.

How should the Chairperson of local safeguarding panels be appointed and should these be paid posts?

8. NSPCC is supportive of these being public appointed posts which are remunerated.

How clear is the interaction between the DHSSPS, the HSC Board and Trusts and SBNI regarding who will have primacy on policy issues /areas and who does what?

9. It would be our view that there is some outworking of roles and responsibilities yet to take place under RPA and with the new structures in place. It is hoped that the policy areas within the proposed functions of SBNI will become more settled within the new structures. The DHSSPS, Boards and Trust will however continue to have various levels of responsibly for the same issue. It may be helpful for member s to unpick these relationships further as they relate to SBNI.

Should there be a duty on relevant agencies to co-operate as well as safeguard?

10. There is some confusion on this issue. Under the Children Act 2004 which has acted a loose model for SBNI there are two separate duties relating to differing things. A Section 10 duty to ‘Co-operate to improve well-being’ deals with the requirement on a range of agencies to make arrangements to improve the well being of children relating to the 5 higher level outcomes in the Every Child Matters Strategy (in England).

11. Section 11 deals with the duty imposed on a range of named agencies to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. There is an interface between these two duties in that protection and safeguarding is an element of the Every Child Matters Strategy and a component of well being.

12. In terms of the SBNI legislation it is proposed by DHSSPS that a duty analogous to Section 11 of the Children Act would be created but not one relating to Section 10 which was ruled out by OFMDFM Ministers. We think this is a mistake and fails effectively to link in safeguarding to regional Children’s Services Planning and this to the wider 6 high level outcomes of the OFMDFM strategy for Children and Young People. We would recommend strongly that in addition to a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children the legislation should also deal with a well being duty that places the higher level outcomes of the Children’s Strategy onto a statutory basis. Members may wish to ask why OFMDFM Ministers felt it necessary to remove this duty from proposals notwithstanding widespread support for it.

Any opinions that your organisation may have on Serious Case Reviews and the single database?

13. The opportunity to review serious cases and use the learning that arises is a fundamentally important issue. Our current Case Management Review arrangements were established in 2003 when Co-operating to Safeguard Children was implemented. To date, some 20 reviews have been carried out but it is widely felt that the system is unwieldy and not working well; reports are of variable quality and there has not been universal buy in from agencies. While these reports are about learning there have been problems about taking a regional approach to recommendations and the interface with Inquests and HM Coroners has the potential to turn these into quasi -judicial enquires.

14. In 2008/2009 NSPCC, together with academics at Queen’s University, Belfast had the opportunity to evaluate the current CMR process on behalf of DHSSPS with the aim of proposing refinements. This evaluation made a number of recommendations for strengthening current arrangements which we hope will be taken forward under the auspices of the SBNI. Together with the same QUB research team, NSPCC is currently conducting the first ever regional overview of findings from CMRs. This will facilitate learning and dissemination of key findings from these tragic cases and which we hope will form the basis for future regional reviews. The Committee may be interested at a later date in this research.

15. It is hoped that one of the key tasks of SBNI will be to develop a new framework for reviews and audits. We would suggest the Committee notes this particular issue.

16. There is not a proposal in NI to go down the route as in England of an integrated children’s database and we will await to see how this development works out DHSSPS have recently consulted on guidance on generic information sharing as an important building block in inter professional communication. The SBNI policy document indicates that we will move in the direction of a regional child protection register in Northern Ireland. This relates to children who are at risk of abuse and for whom a child protection plan is required. We are supportive of linking up the Trusts child protection registers this is a very sensible proposal as it can provide an early warning mechanism for professionals in A&E, after hours GPs etc.

Where do you think the SBNI should be based?

17. We have no strong views on this and there are pros and cons to the SBNI locating in the Regional Health and Social Care Board or Public Health Agency. We do not want to create a stand alone body but arrangements that can work with a degree of autonomy and flexibility.

How can potential gaps or slippage between the current Regional Child Protection Committee and the newly formed SBNI be avoided?

18. We have taken advice from our SBNI Co-ordinator in England and Wales who has considerable experience of arrangements as they have developed there. It would be our best advice that both bodies need to operate in tandem for a period and that there is an overlapping but not identical agenda. It is important that a project planning approach is taken to ensure smooth transition arrangements. It is a challenge in compressing the business plan of 4 ACPCs into a regional Child Protection Committee and transition to SBNI.

Is the funding for SBNI clearly defined? The DHSSPS have indicated that £750,000 of funding is supplemented with existing funding. Does this arrangement work?

19. NSPCC is of the view that this is a very important issue. Our experience of cross government working arrangements where pooled funding is an issue is that it is problematic particularly where agencies retreat into statutory silos. The seed funding for the operation in SBNI by DHSSPS is not ungenerous by GB standards for local Authorities but whether the agencies work together and pool funding is less than clear. We would suggest that there is a pooled funding provision in the Bill and that further commitments are sought from statutory agencies to underpin that child protection is key priority in membership of SBNI. For example it is not unforeseeable that SBNI would wish to have an e- strategy and internet safety awareness campaign. Funding for this could easily consume operating capital without an injection from members.

Other issues

21. SBNI will face a challenging agenda and it is worthwhile commenting on a further few issues and developing themes they may play a part in the body’s work plan. These include:

• Development of a child death review process underpinned by SBNI secondary regulations. It would be helpful to ascertain where things are at with this as a protocol has been developed as a recommendation to the Inquiry into the death of David Briggs Inquiry but not yet agreed.
• Internet safety. Given the challenge of the internet it would be hoped that SBNI would develop as a matter of course a regional e strategy to complement the work of the DHSSPS on the UK Council on Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) and as part of wider cross-departmental initiatives.
• Trafficking and exploited children. There is some evidence of growing issues relating to immigration and trafficked and exploited children. We hope that the SBNI will examine this issue, indeed the regional nature of the body should facilitate a more regional approach to this type of problem .
• Communication. Awareness raising, PR and media management will be huge challenges for the new Board. It will be essential that it is properly resourced to deal with the need to communicate key messages about safeguarding to a wider public.
• Cross border safeguarding. The SBNI will need to keep an eye on GB developments and those on a cross border basis. On the issue of interfaces with ROI we have 2 very differing child protection and public protection systems . Much useful work has been under taken through the NSMC and through linkages between criminal justice agencies on both side of the border. We have work begun on sex offenders and public protection arrangements; vetting and barring and cross border information exchange. Overseeing this work and its development will be an important role of the Board.

Colin Reid Policy and Public Affairs Manager

Colm Elliott Assistant Director Children’s Services