Minutes
Stockport Safeguarding Children Board
Monday 14th March 2016
Present
April Higson (AH)
David Mellor (DM)
Deborah Woodcock (DW)
Duncan Weldrake (DWK)
Gaynor Mullins (GM)
Guy Barnard (GB)
Helen Harrison (HH)
Jackie Stewart (JS)
Jacqui Belfield-Smith (JBS)
Jane Connolly (JC)
Jenny Curzon (JCu)
Jill Sheldrake (JSh)
Jo Rogerson (JR)
Joe Barker (JB)
Julie Crowhurst (JUC)
Martine Webster (MW)
Nigel Elliot (NE)
Phil Beswick (PB)
Richard Moses (RM)
Rebecca Key (RK)
Sarah Johnson (SJ)
Sue Gaskell (SG)
Una Hagan (UH)
Viki Packman (VP)
Wendy Meikle (WM)
Director of Neighbourhoods and Support, Stockport Homes
Independent Chair
Director of Operations – Stockport Family
Public Health Specialist
Clinical Commissioning Group
Head of inclusion. Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form
SSCB Training Manager
Service Director Specialist Services - Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust
Integrated Children’s Service, YOS
Head of Safeguarding & Learning
Moorfield Primary School, Headteacher
Director of Social Care, Together Trust
Superintendent, Stockport Police
Headteacher, Marple Hall School
CSS Legal Recording Officer (Minutes)
Cheadle Hulme Independent School
Assistant Chief Executive, Cheshire & GM CRC
Service Director, Education
Head of Stockport & Tameside Probation Service (NPS)
Service Manager, Children's Social Care
Headteacher, Alexandra Park Primary School
Designated Nurse for Safeguarding
SSCB Performance & Development Manager
Head of the Integrated Children’s Service
Executive Councillor Children & Young People
Apologies
Andrew Webb (AW)
Ged Sweeney (GS)
Cath Briggs (CB)
Cath Millington (CM)
Chris McLoughlin (CMcL)
Gerard Sweeney (GS)
Ian Mecrow (IM)
Jenny Singleton (JSi)
Judith Morris (JM)
Mandy Low (ML)
Maria Greenwood (MG)
Mick Lay (ML) - Part
Sarah Leah (SL)
Sajada Zaman (SZ)
Corporate Director, Services to People
Service Manager, Safeguarding
Clinical Commissioning Group Director
Disability Partnership, Head of Service
Service Director, Children’s Safeguarding and Prevention
Service Manager, Safeguarding
Designated Doctor. NHS Trust Stockport
Principal, Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form
Director of Nursing and Midwifery, Stockport, Foundation Trust
NHS England
Lay Member
Independent CDOP Chair
CAMHS, Pennine Care NHS FT
Manager, Social Services Legal Team
Page 1 of 8
DM welcomed all and introductions/apologies were made.
1. Minutes of last meeting and matters arising
 DM noted thanks to Tina Cooper for her providing thoughtful and effective work to the Board and wished
her well in her new role.
 It was also noted that Anne Smith, a lay member, was now retiring and they wished her well.
 DW reported she had met with the Community Safety Unit to move things forward.
 SG stated that the Stockport Supporting Families Strategic Group will meet again to decide the direction
regarding multi-agency training.
 3. QA bullet point 5 - DM noted that this would be kept on the agenda and overseen by the DA group.
Action: UH
 DW asked for an amendment in 2. Stockport Family from ‘rubber stamp’ to ‘approved’.
Action: JUC
 CQC action plan has been circulated and will be discussed under item 8.
 6. Children with Disability Update Bullet point 11
‘SJ advised of increasing numbers of concerns being raised in respect of safeguarding especially around
autism.’
 amend to;
 ‘SJ said she had noted the length of waiting times for CAMHS assessment, particularly if children had autism.’
Action: JUC
 SJ advised she had concerns for children transitioning to secondary school who were vulnerable and had to
wait for a long period to access intervention from CAMHS.
 WM stated she had concerns for 16-18 year olds mental health, that if they do not attend one appointment
they are discharged from the service.
 JS asked WM to forward her details and she would bring the issue back.
Action: JS
7. Missing from Home Update
 Regarding the number of Missing from Home incidents, it was queried whether these figures showed the
same person multiple times or whether they were different people.
 It was noted that the figure was for incidents, not young people.
 PB stated the protocol was to take this forward to the Education Action Plan ;
1. To ensure information is passed on regarding MFH.
2. Joint training
3. Best practice
 These have been inserted into the Action Plan.
 JBS advised that regarding children missing from education, the Children At Risk Sub Group will consider the
data and report back to the Board.


9. Waiting Time Update – UH reported that this paper had now been circulated.
14. AOB - JS has not yet sent her observations on the review process.
Action: GY to remind


RISK LOG
4. SG reported that the Life Leisure Section 11 had been completed and representatives had engaged well
with the implementation group, so this item could be removed from the Log.
5. SG stated that this had been submitted and should have been heard at the last QA, however they had to
focus on the data, so a review is still needed and so this item needs to stay on until scrutinised at the next
meeting.
Page 2 of 8
2. Member updates on the impact of Government changes and financial decisions on safeguarding children






GM Review of services for children – letter and background information (AW)
DW reported that this was reaching finishing point, with business cases attached to 7 work streams. It has
been sent around the 10 Directors of Children’s Services. It is a large piece of work, with contributions
requested from across the Local Authority. There have been a good number of representatives at the
meetings, although the timescale is tight, it has been achieved to date.
DM noted that the Safeguarding Boards across Greater Manchester are seeing the result of this process.
JC stated she assumed so, as the partners are aware of this and information has been sent to the individual
Safeguarding Boards.
PB said that there was a difference of opinion of what is being asked. The document for education asks how
well aligned they are to meet the children’s needs, so Early Years and Early Help and schools should reflect
on that. They are driven by structural issues, so whether it is changed at this first stage is unknown, however
it needs to be factored in and vulnerabilities recognised in schools in Greater Manchester.
GM reported that the CCG had put in an application for Level 3, which had been approved. On the 1st April
the CCG will manage all contact for GPs and safeguarding responsibilities will change. This is a big change in
terms of arrangement; however it is unknown whether it will mean a big change in regard to safeguarding.
JS stated that the Youth Justice Board had devolved the budget to the Greater Manchester level. Whilst the
decisions are taking place it is anticipated that there will be a significant cut to the budget, which will not be
known until April. Currently it accounts for 50% of the funding and the custody budget will also be devolved.
3. SCRLA – V3 report





DM advised that they should focus on the recommendations.
a. Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting
91. Key people such as school teaching staff who were trying to respond to Jayden’s presentation of need
in school were largely unaware of much of this family hinterland.
WM stated that the police tend not to contact schools due to confidentiality issues, so strong views of this
girl were missed. She did not want the report changed, but wanted it noted that some schools were not
aware of the circumstances some young people were living with at home.
PB noted that there had been a number of conversations regarding data sharing being as good as it can be,
being easily accessed and understood by those who need it. It may need to be looked at as part of systems,
to ensure any barriers to information sharing are removed in order to keep children safe, which DW is
working on.
DW reported that one important development is having Stockport Family Link Social Workers in each school,
which offers another opportunity for best practice of information sharing where appropriate. In this
situation, good quality information could now be shared. At the time of incident things were different. The
Link Social Worker programme, and the impact it is having, will be heard at some point by the Board.
b. Ratification of recommendations
DM noted that the recommendations are largely approved, with some slight changes;
1. Unchanged.
2. Clear of purpose of discussion, the direction of Children’s Services and the process of reporting back. This
point is fine as refined.
3. Unchanged.
4. This is the Secondary Panel for Inclusion (SPI) meeting, which looks at pupils who are excluded or at risk
of exclusion. DM advised putting ‘Stockport Education Pathway’ to make it clear.
5. Unchanged.
6. Unchanged.
o DW stated she understood PM was going to include a further recommendation for disengaged
families and rules for this in Challenges.
Page 3 of 8
Approval of Report and Recommendations contained within it











DW noted that at the Extraordinary Meeting JW had made a comment of the use of a Legal Gateway
Meeting, which had not been changed in the report.
UH stated she had not checked the Minutes against the meeting.
DW said this was a significant point, which was featured in the challenge and recommendation and needs to
be right.
DM advised that DW should liaise with UH on 137, regarding the specific point of whether legal advice had
been sought at that meeting being correct or not.
Action: DW/UH
The recommendations were approved.
The action plan was presented for discussion. SG noted that the recommendations were wordy and open to
misinterpretation. The recommendation and actions need to be linked.
It was agreed that this was the SSCB multi-agency action plan and that there were single agency action plans
to be considered alongside.
RK stated that the Learning Circles were an effective way to get key messages out and have debate amongst
the workforce. A number of services in Stockport Family are co-located and are working together, so ways to
take the learning forward are useful.
SG agreed that Learning Circles were effective. The issue was how Stockport Family reaches the wider
agencies, such as health and education. There were other actions which needed to put against Sub Groups,
to include training.
PB said that feedback could be given through the sub-groups, as they have to get the values of Stockport
Family right.
Action: UH to complete Action Plan and bring to next Board
DM said that they would proceed to deal with the publicity in due course, however the Board needed to
work with agencies to agree a common plan and ensure the family were fully aware of the arrangements for
publication. It was agreed that a further attempt would be made to share the report with the stepfather.
Action: UH
4. QA and PM Sub Highlight and Exception Report






SG reported that one meeting of this group had been held on the 26.2.16. They looked at the data referred
into the LA Q3 dataset. The Sub Group have a better understanding of what the data means.
There are inaccuracies around Domestic Abuse data, which need to be addressed, as it looked like the
number had dropped. However, it was a recording issue, so the next quarter will give a more accurate
picture.
Stockport Family reducing high level intervention is a 2 year programme and it will take time to see the
results, but they will continue to monitor the data.
The MOSAIC annual report 14-15 was very comprehensive; however the data for 15-16 was not yet in. It had
been noted in the past that there was a lack of referrals from adult substance misuse to children’s services.
Due to lack of data it could not be discovered if anything has changed. They needed to pursue the interface
between Adults and Children’s Social Care and discover what was happening
JBS noted that there appeared to be an increase in the number of sex offenders under 18, which needs
clarification, whether this was in Stockport or the whole of GM.
SG advised that Stockport was the fourth highest LA within GM. This was from the Q3 dataset produced by
Debbie.
DM noted that there was an ambiguity in wording, which meant it could be read that it was higher than the
whole of GM. SG needs to change this to make it clearer.
Action: SG to amend wording
JBS asked whether the fourth number of missing from homes was nationally or in GM.
SG advised this was the fourth highest in GM.
Page 4 of 8






VP noted that for adult substance misuse they provide work with MOSAIC, and there are further
opportunities to ask further questions regarding pathways, which it would be good to take a fresh look at.
SG advised this was an area for their clarity, as this information was taken from the 14-15 report. The
representative said they had lots of engagement between two services then. They may have to wait 12
months for the next annual report or may have to ask for intermediate data.
JBS noted that they needed to put it into context.
DM asked that SG go ahead with this.
Action: SG to gain more data
DM asked about the Children In Need figure, which appears to show CSC holding Level 3 cases longer than
other LAs.
DW stated that the North West Dataset showed that out of 23 LA’s Stockport holds them the third longest,
which will have an impact on work and capacity. They will be looking at the issue of capacity very closely.
The Stockport Family SWs are on fixed term contracts and there is only another year, so it is critical to get
this right. The service managers will be looking at the allocation level of cases.
5. SSCB Action Plan and Strategy Review (UH)
 Human Trafficking will become more important in the Plan this year also learning from the SCRs and how
things could be done more effectively.
 DM advised that the 4 SCRs gave a window on the difficulties in the safeguarding system.
 UH reported that there was only one item outstanding and she agreed the multi-agency learning on the
cases had gone well and she still has the intention to work on the areas of best practice during the coming
year.
6. Participation Team Reports
a. Work of the participation team
Carolyn West reported that this was a new team, which had been set up in May 2015, with 5 workers, to try and
gain the wishes and feelings of children across the whole of Stockport, not just LAC. 4 of the workers work with
young people and their families and 1 worker is specific for children in the care of the council. Initially work was
concentrated on families subject to a Child Protection Plan, as it was realised that conference was not hearing
the voice of the child. Any child 5 and over is visited by a Participation Worker to gain their wishes and feelings,
not just on conference, but if they had worries or concerns. The Participation Team build relationships with the
children and are able to present a report to conference or support the child to attend, which has increased as a
result of their work.
The Participation Team also took over in July conducting the missing from home interviews from NACRO, as it is
a statutory requirement for missing from homes to be independently interviewed. They have put in place a
system to receive the reports as quickly as possible from the police and go out that day to see the young person.
It can be 10 young people in a day, which is a lot of work. They are trying hard to build good relationships with
the young people who going missing on a regular basis. This work is not just with Stockport young people, but
young people from other Authorities also.
A new piece of work has started with foster carers for their annual review, as the voice of the young person had
not been heard here before. Now their views of living with the foster carers are obtained and concerns dealt
with appropriately by the Social Worker.
There is also work amongst LAC in the care process, and one particular 5 year old did not want contact with their
mother, which was different to the care plan for them, so their views were presented to the Court by the
Participation Officer.
Page 5 of 8
b. School Survey Findings
Fiona Berry presented the report where the Participation Team had been to schools to gain young people’s
views of the local area they live. Year 11 students were asked about the services available to them and whether
they used them. Years 7 and 9 were also consulted.












DWe stated it was an interesting report, which had been clearly written.
SJ asked how a young person could be referred to the Participation Team.
CW advised that she could be emailed with details.
All Initial Child Protection Conferences where there is a child 5 or over are referred automatically to the
Participation Team by the Child Protection Unit and allocated to a team member.
Stockport Youth Partnership and North West Youth focus group are being consulted and there will be liaison
with safeguarding.
SG asked where the views gained were fed to, on whether GP practices and the CCG were young people
friendly.
CW advised it was to the North West Youth Partnership.
JCu asked whether it would be possible to extend this activity to primary schools
JC reported the possibilities for the Participation Team are endless, however their capacity is not, so the
steering group needed to be reconvened to discuss this.
PB advised that some combined working would be useful. A piece of work on transitioning and barriers to
transitioning in education was a key learning area.
JR stated it was useful to know young people’s views. It would be a useful opportunity to take this piece of
work and share it with local neighbourhood officers, so they were aware of how the young people were
feeling.
PB said that he would take the conversation on funding further and would be happy to meet with the
Participation Team on this.
WM noted that PB helped to raise £7,000 from the Mayor’s Charity Abseil, so well done.
7. Transitions Project (HH)
 HH reported that the SSCB and SSAB received funds to look at young people in transition, particularly
between children’s and adult’s services. The funding had not been received until July, so valuable time had
been lost. SSAB applied for an extension on the project but were advised all money had to be used by the
end of this month. It is an information gathering stage at the moment. How to roll out the findings moving
things forward needs to be considered. HH is focussing on LAC children; Helen Hayes (HHe) is focusing on 1425 agenda and how young people in that framework are moving between services and some interesting
learning points have been identified. A report will come back to the Board in May.
SG stated that in the current Domestic Homicide, there had been one recommendation in respect of risk
assessment around children transferring into adult services. It was a learning point identified in the review
and will go through systems shortly, once the final draft has been signed off by the Home Office.
A recommendation had been put to the CCG and should also go to the SSAB and SSCB, as multi-agency risk
assessments of children moving into adult services links to this piece of work.
DM asked whether Domestic Homicide Reviews were sent to Sub Groups.
UH advised that one action plan is being monitored in Sub Groups.
SG noted it was a safeguarding adult Domestic Homicide Review and this person was a long way off being a
child. It had been a joint review led by mental health.
DM noted that SG should make sure the draft report goes to the appropriate services in Stockport.
SG reported that it had gone to the Safer Stockport Partnership.
JR asked how this work could be taken forward and completed with the difficulties over funding. HH advised
that there is some capacity to move this forward. DM advised that there would be more information when
they have the report from HH.
Page 6 of 8
8. CQC Action Plan – for information (SG)
 SG reported a named GP has been recruited.
 AH noted that the dates had already passed.
 SG reported that the CQC would not sign it off unless there was evidence of embedding, recommendations
met and the actions completed.
 A re-audit is required seven months later.
 As this is their standard, 4 or 5 are still on amber.
9. Stockport Family – Support and Challenge Event Feedback (JC)
 Thanks were expressed to the Board Members who attended the event.
 JC stated that it had been a useful event and she had written up the report from the group work. It was
observed that people had a better understanding and empathy for different roles, prompt problem solving
and barriers had been broken down, with an early culture change.
 The MASSH is very strong and we have a highly skilled workforce who are able to transfer their skills, and
have a multi-agency disciplinary approach.
 New work needs to be developed with Stockport Together to embed complex safeguarding learning. Case
studies should be looked at, Learning Circles and more recognition of ‘on the job’ learning, not just in
classrooms, so more creative ways would be useful.
 The challenge is the wider children’s and adult’s workers, who are unsettled by the pace of change and who
needed to be listened to and their anxieties understood about information sharing. An understanding of
each other’s language, measure of outcomes and specific work on safety is needed.
 The report will be circulated to the Project Group of Stockport Family and also the Innovation Board.
 DM noted that three events had been agreed and they need to think about the next. The feedback so far
was positive and the implementation was not a big barrier, it was a process that would take a period of time
for some elements to be fully implemented. The final support and challenge event needed to be scheduled
for 9 months or even further.
JC advised that it would be mid January 2017.
10. Embedding Learning – Discussion - HH
 Una will take this to the implementation group for discussion.
11. SCR Update (JC,UH)
 The SCRs are well under way, with one draft and the second awaited, which will require an extra meeting at
the end of April/beginning of May.
 One SCR was a joint SCR/ mental health review and will come to the SCR panel in April.
 An author had been approached to do the new SCR; this is the 5th SCR.
 DM apologised for the number of extra meetings to accommodate feedback from the SCRs.
o 18th April at 9.30 to 11.30 – meeting has been CANCELLED due to AW unable to attend. A new date
will be sent out shortly.
o 26th April at 3.15 to 5.15 – draft of the SCR/mental health report will be presented.
12. A.O.B.
 DM noted that it was Viki Packman’s last Safeguarding Board Meeting, due to her retiring. On behalf of
the Board he offered her thanks for her excellent consistent high contributions to the Board and wished
her well.
13. For information
 Association of LSCB Chairs – DfE Review Interim Response.
 CAFCASS Correspondence.
Page 7 of 8
Next Meetings:
Monday 23 May 2016
Monday 18 July 2016
Monday 19 September 2016
Monday 21 November 2016
12.30 – 2.30pm
12.30 – 2.30pm
12.30 – 2.30pm
12.30 – 2.30pm
Conference room 1, Fred Perry
Conference room 1, Fred Perry
Conference room 1, Fred Perry
Conference room 1, Fred Perry
Page 8 of 8