To receive any written questions from members of the public.

The Chair issued an apology regarding public questions submitted to the committee having only been made apparent on the morning of the meeting. It was explained that the questions would not be included on the agenda paper and would not be answered during the meeting. Responses to the questions would be sent out and recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Supplementary questions from those who had submitted questions would be accepted once initial responses had been provided.

 

 

Questions and responses:

 

Question:Has any Independent Reviewing Officer or the IRO Service Manager got responsibility for any work for other teams or managing teams other than those relating to IRO Service? If so, please give details e.g. how many IROs?

 

Ms Hannah Currie

 

Response:Thank you for your question.

 

The current establishment is 1 Service Manager (Independent Reviewing Officer Service), 6 Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) and 1 Fostering IRO (FIRO) whose role it is to quality assure the fostering review processes.

The Service Manager (IRO Service), IROs and FIRO do not have any additional responsibilities or work which does not relate to the IRO Service.

 

 

Question:Dear Sir/ Madam,

 

The public have previously asked for the FII audit data to back up the reassurances given by Cabinet members that the rate of FII allegations in Herefordshire are not higher than the national average. The public were told that the data would be available by 18 November.  That date slipped and we were told it would be available in January. Nothing has been published yet and we are now five months since the reassurances were given.

If the audit is now complete, please can we have the full data set so that we can understand how many families have been affected by an FII allegation and of these, how many have been substantiated and how many have been successfully challenged by innocent parents/carers?

 

Kind Regards

 

Ms Donna Conway

 

Response:Thank you for your question.

 

The audit is not yet complete and has taken considerably longer than was originally anticipated due to the need to check many cases manually.  It has not been possible to simply run a report and arrive at a number in this particular case.

 

Once we have concluded the activity we have made a commitment to making the findings public.

 

 

Question:Discrepancies  eg:

 

·         Response (PQ2, 11/10/22 CYPSC) states that 10 children were placed for adoption in 2021?22. However, the HSCP report and LAIT states 22 children.

 

·         Response (PQ18, 9/12/22 Council) gives average weekly cost in “residential” care as £3,249 ([£4,223,305 ÷ 50] ÷ 26) but FOI2022/01890 states £5,066.

 

Incomplete responses  eg:

 

·         The response (PQ2, 11/10/22 CYPSC) had missing data for Herefordshire (not for other areas).

 

Late responses to supplementary questions  eg

 

·         On 7/2/23 for 9/12/22 meeting (many questions were about Herefordshire Children’s Services).

 

Sometimes information requests by the CYPS Committee are not provided or not timely provided and sometimes the Progress Report is not up-to-date.

 

Please will the CYPSC escalate the above concerns about responses to public questions etc - eg to SMB, Chief Executive – an invaluable legacy for the future CYPSC members and others (eg public)?  If not, why not?

 

Ms Reid, Herefordshire

 

Response:Thank you for your question.

 

In respect of your suggestion of inaccurate data. In respect of information provided in answer to PQ2, 11/10/22 CYPSC and information in the Herefordshire Safeguarding Children’s Partnership (HSPC) report and the Local Authority Interactive Tool (LAIT):

 

PQ2, 11/10/22 CYPSC specifically asked for data in respect of Placement Orders.

 

This is not the same as the number of children being adopted in the year. There might be time elapsed (potentially several years) between the making of a Placement Order and the child being adopted. In addition to this not all children subject to a Placement Order will be adopted.

 

The HSPC and the LAIT report on the number of children adopted in the year. 

 

The council does not view that there were inaccuracies in this data.

 

As you point out the initial response to PQ2, 11/10/22 CYPSC did have missing data. This was an oversight and the data was provided in full in response to the supplementary question.

 

In respect of PQ18, 9/12/22 Council and FOI2022/01890.

For PQ18, 9/12/22, the average weekly costs in residential care value of £3,249 was calculated using the actual costs of Q1 and Q2 of 2022/23 divided by the total number of children who had been in residential care during that period. This included children who had received care not spanning the entire period in question.

 

For FOI2022/01890., the average weekly costs in residential care value of £5,066 was calculated using the actual costs of Q1 and Q2 2022/23 divided by the actual number of children in a residential placement on 12^th January 2023.

 

The council does not view that there were inaccuracies in this data.

 

In respect of the late responses to supplementary questions, the example noted by you is one where we would have wanted to provide you with an answer at an earlier opportunity. We apologise for the delay and note that answers to all your questions have been provided.”

 

 

Question:

“Did CYP Scrutiny committee ever get a satisfactory answer to its question posed in September 2020 on the back of public questions which was this: why was the decision was made to keep the existence of the CSO report and its advice on safeguarding victims of peer on peer sexual assault hidden from the Committee for over three years?”

 

(Name Provided)

 

 

Response:

“The question posed to scrutiny in Sept 2020 informed the scope of the subsequent VWV Report commissioned by and for Cabinet. Specifically in relation to this question, the review was asked to form an independent view on: “Item (e) - Why was the CSO report not made available to CYPSC when it undertook a spotlight review into PoP abuse in Herefordshire in the autumn of 2019?”.

 

In undertaking its investigation VWV considered the council’s handling of the CSO report from its inception through to the present date.

 

The final VWV report was received by the council in November 2022. The Leader at the time, Cllr Hitchiner, undertook to share the investigation outcome by briefing the then Chair of Scrutiny (Cllr Howells) on the entire report and providing all C&YPS scrutiny members with the entire Executive Summary with the offer to answer any questions they had.

 

The Chair of Scrutiny agreed that there would be no public debate of the report or its Exec Summary as all had been agreed as confidential from the outset so as to encourage the most open engagement of staff with the investigation and to achieve the widest possible organisational learning from its findings.

 

The previous Chair of S&YPS, Cllr Gandy, was also given a briefing on the report and specifically on the findings relating to item (e). These briefings took place in December 2022.

 

The then members of the Scrutiny Committee considered that:

 

·         the information they had been provided with to be satisfactory in explaining the council’s handling of the CSO report and the advice it contained;

·         the investigation captured the occasions when the council missed opportunities to make better use of the information in the council’s possession from 2017 onwards; and

·         these mistakes had had been acknowledged and opportunities to learn from this had been identified.

 

The lessons learned from the findings of the investigation continue to inform and shape improvements in Children’s Services and across other service areas of the council’s operation.”