To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies had been received from Cllr Ivan Powell (Cabinet Member Children and Young People), Tina Russell (Corporate Director Children and Young People).

To receive details of members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the committee.

There had been no named substitutes.

To receive declarations of iInterests from members of the committee in respect of items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2026.

The minutes of the previous meeting were received.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2026 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairperson.

To receive any written questions from members of the public.

No questions had been received from members of the public.

To receive any written questions from members of the council.

No questions had been received from members of the council.

A report for the committee to note, advising of the Herefordshire Safeguarding Children Partnership’s response to neglect.

The Service Director, Early Help, CIN and Safeguarding, Detective Superintendent West Mercia Police and Associate Director for Nursing, Quality and Safeguarding provided an overview of the report and answered questions from the committee:

1. Regarding data sharing and GDPR constraints, officers advised that national guidance made clear there should be no barriers to sharing information where a child was at risk, and highlighted that Herefordshire operated strong multi-agency data sharing arrangements through quality assurance groups and benchmarking with neighbouring authorities. A comprehensive dataset, incorporating inputs from health, police, and other partners, was reviewed on a quarterly basis to identify trends and support informed decision-making.

2. In relation to communications around child neglect, partners explained that substantial work had been undertaken to promote early help and improve access to support services, including awareness forums and partnership initiatives. It was noted that a national focus on neglect in 2026 would further strengthen messaging, and that the service adopted a restorative approach in the first instance, moving to more directive intervention where improvement was not achieved.

3. A question was raised regarding whether limitations on confidentiality within schools prevented children from disclosing concerns when compared to school nursing services. Officers outlined that confidentiality could not be guaranteed in safeguarding situations, as professionals were required to escalate concerns where necessary. They added that differences in disclosure often reflected the nature of relationships, with school nurses typically engaging children in more holistic conversations.

4. The committee heard that private nurseries were subject to the same inspection regimes and statutory safeguarding requirements as maintained settings and received appropriate support from the local authority. However, they acknowledged that detailed data on training uptake across all settings was not yet fully available and was being developed.

5. It was explained to members that the Graded Care Profile 2 provided a structured framework centred on the child’s lived experience, but it was noted that, while effective, the tool was time-intensive and subject to ongoing review and adaptation.

6. The committee asked if the Integrated Care Board might consider an adaption of the Graded Care Profile 2 antenatal toolkit and training to make it more easily accessible to midwives. Partners explained that feedback from midwives had indicated they felt the toolkit was more aligned to community roles, such as health visiting and school nursing. However, the partnership was aware that accessibility of training presented a challenge and was prioritising how it could address this moving forward. 

7. Partners highlighted a sufficient volume of practitioners trained in the Graded Care Profile, but acknowledged that there was currently limited ability to measure how training translated into practice. Further work was planned to align training data with usage and outcomes.

8. A member asked how families who avoided engagement with services could be identified. Officers reported that most such cases were detected through contact with hospitals, community reporting, or multi-agency intelligence, including the use of a public helpline. It was recognised that families entirely outside services could be harder to identify, although forthcoming legislative changes were expected to improve this area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

An update from Superintendent Leanne Lowe of West Mercia Police detailing the progress and actions the police have taken in response to the Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy (PEEL) inspection findings.

The Detective Superintendent West Mercia Police provided an overview and update on the force’s response to the inspection findings, and, along with partners, answered questions from the committee:

1. The Detective Superintendent explained that HMICFRS was due to return in May 2026 to reassess progress against the accelerated cause of concern, following submission of evidence indicating that some recommendations had been met. It was further noted that a national child protection inspection was scheduled for 13 July 2026, with the force currently engaged in the data-gathering phase.

2. Regarding system assurance, the committee asked how partners could evidence a transition from crisis recovery to consistent safeguarding practice. Partners explained that that there was currently no backlog in Herefordshire, and that assurance was provided through multi-agency audits, quality assurance processes, and regular dip sampling of cases. This included reviews of decisions not to refer cases onward, monthly sampling of approximately 25-26 cases, and strengthened partnership communication enabling swift verification of concerns.

3. A member queried what circumstances led frontline officers to undertake child risk assessments, whether this represented a recent development, and how such work fitted within broader policing priorities. The Detective Superintendent clarified that staff were expected to consider the presence and safety of children at every incident, applying professional curiosity where necessary. Safeguarding was confirmed as a high organisational priority supported by significant resourcing.

4. The committee asked what tangible benefits improved practice would deliver for children and young people in the county. It was explained that, while most children would hopefully not require police contact, those who did would experience a timely and appropriate response, with effective partnership intervention and improved identification of vulnerability by trained officers.

5. The committee enquired about risks associated with the revised system, alongside mitigation measures. The Detective Superintendent identified potential risks such as the re-emergence of backlogs and system pressures, but highlighted safeguards including: real-time performance monitoring, weekly senior oversight, strengthened governance structures, and ongoing collaboration with partners to mitigate these risks.

6. Members questioned whether feedback from families and children was actively gathered regarding their experience. It was acknowledged by the partners that this had not yet been implemented, but it was recognised as important and would be considered once current system improvements were fully embedded.

7. In relation to quality assurance, the committee asked whether the impact of changes and the voice of the child were captured through existing processes. It was confirmed that triangulated quality assurance arrangements include feedback from families on multi-agency working. To date, no concerns had been identified regarding police involvement.

8. The committee proposed that a follow-up report be provided to review progress. This Statutory Scrutiny Officer suggested an update and, where available, findings from the national child protection inspection be added to the committee’s work programme longlist for consideration.

9. The committee discussed operational arrangements within the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), the position across partner authorities, and risks of regression. Partners confirmed that the police retained a presence in MASH through daily “floor walkers,” ensuring visibility and responsiveness. All four local authority areas  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

To consider the work programme for the committee.

The committee reviewed its work programme and suggested several additions:

·       An update from West Mercia Police following its next safeguarding/PEEL inspection.

·       An update on pupil referral units (PRUs), particularly around plans to relocate provision to a single site (a Cabinet decision was expected around 4 June 2026).

·       To explore issues from a public health perspective.

The committee noted the early help task and finish group’s engagement with the Vennture service; members were assured that leadership changes and staff wellbeing concerns were being managed, with no adverse impact on service delivery.

Resolved that:

The committee approve the work programme as set out at Appendix 1, with agreed additions and actions.

Wednesday 22 July 2026, 10am.

Wednesday 22 July 2026, 10am.