Education Committee, 11 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Official Report 305KB pdf

---

Child Protection Inquiry

Good morning. I welcome everyone to this meeting of the Education Committee. We are in public session and I ask people to ensure that mobile phones and buzzers and things are turned off.

We welcome three representatives of the clerking department of the Assembly of the States of Jersey. I think that they are here to learn from us. I am not sure how much they will learn this morning, but never mind—we are very glad to have them.

Agenda item 1 is the committee's child protection inquiry. Members have received a paper—ED/S2/05/5/1—the purpose of which is to seek agreement on the terms of reference for the inquiry. Paragraph 3 of the paper refers specifically to a central point on which we agreed last time—that we should concentrate on the accountability of the Executive report, "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright". Paragraph 4 identifies one or two areas that we touched on in discussion. I am inclined to think that those areas should not go into our remit; they are either covered incidentally or would sit alongside the remit. However, we might want to consider the final bullet point in paragraph 4, on interagency working and early intervention. We will want to keep an eye on that.

Do members have any comments?

Integrated children's services will be covered by reports, but it would be interesting for the committee to consider them. We should also consider the role of the social work services inspectorate.

Yes, we touched on that. I think that that issue will be incorporated.

Can I suggest that the top line topic and scope is the right one? From that, we will want to consider all the different people and organisations that are involved in delivery.

I am sorry—what did you say was the right one?

The headline about looking at the recommendations. From that will follow the way in which we consider the social work services inspectorate, local authorities and other organisations, and the way in which we consider the comments that we heard from Children 1st and the wider public. We should take that headline as our broad remit. Part of what we look into will be the way in which all the agencies help to deliver the recommendations, to see whether there are any concerns. We should keep the headline on accountability and scrutiny of the Executive at the top.

I think that that is probably right.

I agree that that should be the focus of our inquiry. I have already had representations from constituents about this inquiry and I would like some clarification on how people can submit particular issues that they feel are relevant.

Assuming that the committee agrees the remit today, there will be a call for written evidence, as you can see from paragraph 6. In that regard, the inquiry would take the usual form.

I agree with everything that is in the paper, but we must ensure that we consider resources. I mean not only staff resources, but the resources that are needed to work with children and families. When I talk to people who work in that field, one of the things that they are concerned about is the fact that, at times, there are not enough back-up resources to do the job. That does not only mean staff resources, which we are already considering.

That should come out of the headline remit.

I hope so. We should also consider how risk assessment and management are carried out.

I support Rhona Brankin's call for the social work services inspectorate to be included.

Let me sum up: we propose to agree the remit as it is, but on certain understandings about the sort of issues that we will cover. If that is acceptable, the clerks will issue a call for written evidence after today's meeting. As you will see from paragraph 7, the Executive has been asked to provide a progress report in time for our meeting on 10 March—the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People is here to hear us make that request, so notice has been taken. Paragraph 8 suggests witnesses with whom we will begin the inquiry to get a flavour of some of the issues. That seems to be a reasonably sensible suggestion. Are members happy to kick off with those suggested witnesses? We will consider other witnesses after written submissions have been received and we have found out who has an interest in the matter. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.