Agenda item

To consider a report from the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development which gives Members the opportunity to ask questions of the Director(s) who chair the Corporate Priority Board which matches the Scrutiny Board's portfolio, or the Director's nominee

As prior notice had been received from Members, the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report which afforded Scrutiny Board Members the opportunity to put questions to the relevant Director, or the Director’s nominee.

Keith Burton, Deputy Director of Children’s Services, Commissioning and Partnerships, was in attendance to answer Members’ questions.

(a). In the light of the Unicef report that ranked the UK bottom of a league table for child wellbeing across 21 industrialised countries, do the officers think that we are setting our aspirations too low? Are there any plans for looking at best practice in the highest achieving countries (Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland)?

In response, the Deputy Director of Children’s Services, Commissioning and Partnerships, advised Members of what he believed to be the four main issues arising from the report in relation to the delivery of Children’s Services in Leeds. In summary, the four main issues were:-

·  The importance for a country to place a greater cultural emphasis upon children, young people and the family unit;

·  That those societies with low poverty levels, less inequality and greater social mobility tended to feature positively within the report, as such social conditions enabled the aspirations of children and young people to be maximised, which was in contrast to some countries where children’s aspirations were often eroded, due in part to the generations of poverty which often existed;

·  The emphasis placed in the UK upon narrow areas of academic achievement and standardised testing, which had resulted in a competitive culture being embedded within education, in addition to under achievement in certain areas;

·  The need to ensure that the aspirations of children and young people were maximised, a priority which the Deputy Director of Children’s Services, Commissioning and Partnerships, believed had been reflected in recent policy development, through the establishment of initiatives such as ‘Every Child Matters’.

A question and answer session resulting from the response then ensued. The main areas of debate were as follows:-

·  The need to ensure that the emphasis of any future initiatives was placed upon a child’s enjoyment in addition to achievement;

·  Members noted the general success in the report of countries with smaller populations;

·  The role of the Children and Young People’s Plan in helping to improve the services provided to children and young people in Leeds when compared to the rest of the UK;

·  The need to promote greater levels of peer support amongst young people in order to reduce problems such as bullying;

·  The actions which could be taken via the ‘Narrowing the Gap’initiative to address the culture of low level aspiration which had developed in certain communities and the importance of such projects as EASEL in this context;

·  The five outcomes which formed part of the Every Child Matters agenda, and the need to ensure that such outcomes were operational;

·  The social and economic pressures currently placed upon parents, and how such pressures impacted upon today’s children and young people;

·  The need to ensure that children were not viewed merely as economic units when considering the provision of services.

(b). What Contact Centre provision does Social Services fund to enable separated parents to exercise contact arrangements properly?

In response, Members learned that there was no direct Local Authority provision for those seeking advice following marital break up, and that involvement in parental contact with children only happened where Social Services was involved due to a child being at risk or in care.

Having noted the arrangements for the wider services provided in this field, in addition to the support provided by voluntary organisations, the Deputy Director of Children’s Services, Commissioning and Partnerships, noted Members’ concerns and undertook to investigate further whether an increase in contact centre provision might reduce the levels of delays which had been experienced in private law cases.

The Board acknowledged the response which had been submitted and requested that a response in relation to the further work requested was submitted to a future meeting of the Board, if possible prior to the end of the municipal year.

(Councillor Renshaw joined the meeting at 9.40 a.m. during the consideration of this item)