Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 June 2025.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2025 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive an update on recommendations and actions following the previous Committee meeting.

Members reviewed the actions from the previous meetings. No further updates or comments were received.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

No declarations of interest were received.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

Purpose: To present the Youth Justice Annual Plan, which is due to go to Executive for Approval on 25 September 2025.

Dave Wraight presented the Youth Justice Annual Plan (Agenda Item 6).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Members praised the quality of the report.

·       It was noted that the report included a large number of acronyms.

Action: Include a glossary to explain acronyms used.

·       Members noted the increase in suspensions/exclusions from schools. It was acknowledged that there was a clear link to offending. Schools could refer pupils at risk of offending to the Positive Intervention Programme (PIP). This sought to divert young people from crime and reduce suspensions/exclusions. Also, a focused diversion pilot to target children suspended from school was about to be rolled out with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC).

·       Concern was expressed about the increase in incidents of violence perpetrated by girls. This was not unique to West Berkshire, and the problem seemed to have its origins in online activity. Despite the increase, most violent offences were still committed by boys.

·       Members asked if officers worked with children aged under 10 years. It was confirmed that 10 was the age of criminal responsibility. Younger children could be referred to Children’s Services as a safeguarding issue. It was considered important not to give young children a criminal identity and to support them in a positive way.

·       It was noted that food was being offered to young people/their families. Officers had found that children were coming to sessions hungry and were unable to concentrate. Referrals were also made to food banks.

·       It was explained that the cohort of children engaged by the team fluctuated year-on-year, but overall numbers were relatively small. 

·       Members noted the increase in drug use. The Youth Justice Team was co-located with The Edge and there were good synergies between the services. Also, a drug diversion programme was being delivered in conjunction with Thames Valley Police (TVP), which connected young people into The Edge.

·       It was acknowledged that there had been an increase in the number of girls referred to the Youth Justice Team. This mirrored the national trend, but the increase had been more pronounced in West Berkshire/Thames Valley. The reasons for the increase were unclear.

·       Clarification was sought regarding the terms ‘gravity’ and ‘substantive outcomes’. It was explained that each offence was given a gravity score related to its seriousness. Substantive outcomes were appropriate for more serious crimes and were recorded on the national police system. Informal outcomes were not recorded and would not appear in DBS checks.

·       Members asked if the 2025/26 priorities for education, training and employment were sufficient, or if there was more that could be done. Officers indicated that they worked closely with colleagues in Education, schools and colleges and advocated for young people to sustain their education. Some children had speech/language difficulties, and the team had a therapist who could support them. However, there was always more that could be done and there was a clear case for early investment.

·       It was noted that some primary schools had very low numbers of exclusions but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Purpose: To present the Children's Social Care Complaints Annual Report for 2024/25, including feedback from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Sue O’Brien (Complaints and Access to Records Manager) presented the Children’s Services Complaints and Compliments Annual Report 2024/25 (Agenda Item 7).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       The Committee welcomed the fact that complaints from children and young people were always prioritised and congratulated officers on the number of compliments received.

·       Further detail was sought regarding the ‘information’ outcome as set out in paragraphs 5.46-5.48 of the report. It was explained that previous analysis had not considered whether complaints were upheld or not – the focus had been on responding. However, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) was clear that local authorities should acknowledge where they were at fault and show how they were learning from mistakes. This approach had now been adopted.

·       Members asked about action to address criticism concerning the lack of sincerity in responses. It was explained that LGSCO training was being rolled out, which stressed the importance of acknowledging where things had gone wrong and admitting fault. Learning opportunities were being identified and shared within teams, with changes made to policies and processes where appropriate.

·       Presentational issues were highlighted. Officers explained that the Communications Team would tidy up the report prior to publication.

Action: Officers to amend charts in sections 5.35 and 6.7 of the report to make them easier to read.

·       There was discussion about the staff resources used to create the Central Team. It was confirmed that the existing East and West Teams had been made slightly smaller, but transformation funding had been used for assistant team managers to improve oversight and line management.

·       Members asked about common themes in complaints. Officers indicated that communication was a common issue (e.g., not keeping the customer updated, not responding to queries in a timely manner, etc). It was recognised that it was important to build trust and develop relationships with families from the outset. The work often involved difficult conversations, so how the service was delivered was key.

·       In terms of changes made, there had been a focus on training. Also, cases were reviewed where things had gone wrong to learn lessons, and new policies were often developed in response to findings.

·       Officers were asked about how they were reducing delays in handling complaints. This was achieved through regular reminders and training.  Realistic timescales for responding were set and clearly communicated with the customer. Customers were also given information on where they could go for independent advice.

·       Members asked for details of specific complaints that had led to service improvements. It was confirmed that the main improvement had been around timescales for responses. Also, the service was working better with fathers. Training had been provided for staff around why and how fathers should be informed and included, particularly where they did not live in the same household.

·       There was discussion about how children were supported to make complaints. It was confirmed that advocates were used, and children could speak to any member of the team. The complaints process and pathway options were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Purpose: To report upon the performance of services for children and young people subject to a child protection plan between 1st April 2024 and 31st March 2025, providing breakdown and commentary regarding the quality of practice within West Berkshire’s child protection conference process and to make recommendations for any required remedial action.

Nicola Robertson (Service Manager – Quality Assurance and Safeguarding) presented the Child Protection Annual Report 2024-25 (Agenda Item 8).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       It was not known why West Berkshire had a higher number of children on protection plans than the national average. There had been an upward trend since the Covid pandemic. Cases were more complex and there were more issues around financial hardship, as well as drug and alcohol abuse, which often accompanied issues around neglect and physical harm. Discussions with other local authorities in the South East suggested that similar trends had been observed elsewhere. It was noted that national statistics lagged behind local reporting.

·       Members asked if schools were employing officers to get absent pupils back into school. It was confirmed that attendance was highly scrutinised, involving multi-agency child protection conferences. Schools had pastoral support workers and designated safeguarding leads, and headteachers and tutors attended child protection conferences.

·       There was discussion around the approach to preventing and tackling domestic abuse, and the links to mental health. Officers stated that frontline staff followed the family safeguarding model. Domestic abuse workers and adult mental health staff were co-located within these teams. Social workers sought to work with families to break the cycle of domestic abuse. In some cases, levels were insufficient to go through the courts, and people could not be made to engage. Often, perpetrators did not have sufficient insight to accept that they exhibited that behaviour, which could lead to repeating patterns. Women were encouraged to use Clare’s Law to check their partner’s history, but some chose not to. In some cases, women were being convinced that they were to blame. It was noted that children growing up in homes where domestic abuse was present may believe that such relationships were normal.

·       Members asked why 80% of repeat child protection plans were considered unavoidable and what more could be done. Officers indicated that there were only 10 families where repeat plans were applied. The challenge was where the non-abusive partner formed a new relationship with a new abuser. Officers confirmed that cases remained open for 3 months after a child protection plan was closed, and contact was phased down in this period. Decisions to close were evidence based and were taken when professionals had done all they could for the family. They made sure that families knew where to go for support if they needed it. Officers were considering how they could work in different ways with victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse.

·       Concern was expressed about staff welfare and whether additional support was needed. It was confirmed that all staff had daily contact and monthly supervision with their manager. There was a good staff support system available, and staff could access counselling and confidential support. It was recognised that conferences could be emotional, so debrief sessions were held with staff afterwards. It was suggested that additional business support staff would be helpful due the rising caseload.

Action: CYPSC Chairman to ask  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Purpose: To provide an update on SEND High Needs Block and the effectiveness of actions set out in the SEND Strategy Delivery Plan.

Hannah Geddert (SEND Strategy Officer) presented the report on SEND High Needs Block and Implementation of the SEND Strategy Delivery Plan (Agenda Item 9).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       It was confirmed that officers were working with schools to help them self-assess for the Dyslexia Friendly Award.

·       Expansion of provision at the Castle School was welcomed.

·       Members asked about what could be done to address capacity constraints affecting annual reviews. It was noted that two interim officers had been appointed to support the annual reviews, particularly around Years 6 and 11 transitions.

·       There was discussion about the review of the Capita One system. There were concerns as to whether this would be able to meet the Council’s needs, and so alternative systems were being reviewed. A business case was being developed for an EHCP Hub, which would reduce administration time, while providing access to necessary data.

·       Members asked if the SEND Youth Forum would be re-established. This had previously been run by SENDIASS. It had subsequently been brought in-house and had been run by an apprentice, but the apprenticeship had come to an end and there had not been capacity to maintain it. SEND children in care still had their voices heard through separate participation networks. A retendering exercise was planned, and a market engagement exercise was underway. It was hoped this would pick up the Youth Forum aspects.

·       There was a question around local special education capacity. It was noted that Interim Special Education Development Officers were undertaking analysis regarding special education needs vs provision in West Berkshire. Castle School had already expanded and work was ongoing with other schools regarding possible new units for autism and SEN.

·       Members asked how the strategy’s priorities had been chosen. It was explained that there had been a lot of surveys and co-production work undertaken. Although priorities had changed slightly for the current version of the strategy, previous work had not been lost. Task Groups had been set up to look at emotional based school avoidance and short breaks.

·       Increased SEND was noted, but officers were asked if there was evidence to show that this was leading to better outcomes. Officers confirmed that this would be picked up through the annual review process.

·       Members asked how young people were supported into employment and independent living. It was explained that Internship Work Grant had been used to fund the supported employment provider, Ways into Work. A SEND Employment Forum had been created in West Berkshire and work was ongoing to create something at the Berkshire level. Ways into Work were working with Newbury College to deliver supported internships, and WBC was looking to offer supported internships too. An employer event had been organised to provide information on supported internships which had attracted over 80 attendees and featured a case study of a young person who had been helped into permanent employment through the scheme.

·       Members asked about learnings from the recent Ofsted review. It was confirmed that the SEND Delivery  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Purpose: To seek feedback on the proposed process for recruiting, appointing, and supporting young people as Co-opted Members of the CYP Scrutiny Committee.

Gordon Oliver (Principal Policy Officer – Scrutiny and Democratic Services) presented the report on Young Person Co-opted Members (Agenda Item 10).

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Members welcomed the proposal.

·       It was suggested that the iCollege be approached for nominations.

·       Members asked how the two co-optees would be selected. It was confirmed that this would be done via interviews. Interviews would be good preparation for transition to adult life.

·       It was suggested that young people may need advocates to help them articulate their views. It was noted that this would be part of the role of the organisation appointed to provide support for the co-optees.

·       Members noted the safeguarding issues and asked if it would be better for the co-optees to join remotely or to attend meetings in person. Officers suggested that the needs of the individual should be considered (i.e., whether they had a quiet space at home). It was also noted that there were practical/safeguarding issues with ensuring they were able to get home safely after the meeting. However, Members felt that it would be better for the young people attend in person if possible. It was noted that this happened at Corporate Parenting Panel.

Action: Officers to review whether the young people could attend in person rather than remotely.

·       It was suggested that the requirements for co-optees to be bound by the Members’ Code of Conduct and to sign a Declarations of Interest form were too onerous. Officers confirmed that the Monitoring Officer had been consulted. However, all co-optees needed to be clear that there were certain standards of behaviour expected at meetings.

·       Members questioned whether the co-optees should be ‘non-political and independent’. It was suggested that if they were formally affiliated to a particular political party, then this may affect the political proportionality of the committee. However, it was highlighted that the co-optees would be non-voting, so they would not impact on political proportionality. It was suggested that the advert could simply say that this is not a political role. However, the important thing was for the arrangement to work successfully.

Action: Officers to check the requirement for co-optees to be ‘non-political and independent’ with the Monitoring Officer.

·       There was a question about parental consent. This had been covered in the report as part of the proposed safeguarding protocols. In addition to seeking parental consent for their child to participate, parents would also be copied in on all correspondence.

·       Members asked about the allowance for the co-optees. Officers stated that this would be paid pro-rata depending on the start date. Normally, it would be paid in 11 instalments.

·       It was suggested that nominees be encouraged to watch recordings of previous meetings.

·       Officers were challenged to ensure that the young people had real impact. It was noted that there would be training for Members and the co-optees. Also, it was proposed to check-in with the co-optees after each meeting to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Purpose: To advise the Committee of items due to be considered by West Berkshire Council’s Executive, and for Members to decide whether they wish to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

The Committee considered the West Berkshire Forward Plan for the period covering September to December 2025 (Agenda Item 11).

Members did not ask to review any reports before they went to Executive for decision.

RESOLVED that the Forward Plan be noted.

Purpose: To receive new items and agree and prioritise the work programme of the Committee.

The Committee considered the proposed work programme (Agenda Item 12).

It was suggested that the Youth Council report should come to the December meeting to coincide with the proposed Youth Takeover Day.

It was noted that a report on mobile phones policies for schools had been proposed previously. This had originally come from the Children and Mental Health Task Group. There had been media reports of students doing much better at schools where mobile phones had been banned.

Members queried if the Children and Mental Health Task and Finish Group report needed to come to Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee.

It was also suggested that the committee could look at making more effective use of school buildings in school holidays and options for reducing the cost of holiday activities.

Members highlighted that a number of suggestions had been made at the previous meeting, which had not been incorporated into the work programme.

It was proposed that the Ofsted Children’s Social Care report be pushed back to December.

Action: Officers to update the work programme and circulate to Members for comment.

RESOLVED to note the work programme.