The Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to discuss a call-in regarding a decision made by the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People concerning return home interviews for children in the care of other local authorities (SCOLAs). The committee ultimately recommended that the decision be referred back to the Cabinet for further consideration, with a suggestion for it to also be reviewed by the relevant scrutiny committee.

Children in Care and Return Home Interviews

The primary focus of the meeting was a call-in initiated by Councillor Humpherson regarding a decision by Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, Nicholas Lakin, to cease funding for non-statutory return home interviews (RHIs) for children in the care of other local authorities who are placed within Staffordshire. The decision also proposed to utilise the remaining funding for these SCOLAs to contribute towards Staffordshire County Council's statutory duty to provide RHIs for Staffordshire children placed outside the county.

Councillor Humpherson argued that ceasing RHIs for SCOLAs presents significant safeguarding, operational, and governance risks. He stated that although these interviews are non-statutory, the risks faced by these children are identical to those faced by Staffordshire children, as they live in local communities, attend local schools, and go missing within the county. Councillor Humpherson expressed concern that removing RHIs would reduce visibility of risk, weaken multi-agency intelligence, and undermine the council's ability to meet statutory safeguarding duties under the Children Act and Working Together guidance. He also highlighted that national and local inspections emphasise the critical role of missing episodes as a source of intelligence and RHIs as a key tool for identifying exploitation. Furthermore, he noted that Staffordshire's own Inspecting Local Authority Children's Services (ILACs) inspection identified weaknesses in partnership working and risk understanding, and that reducing RHIs would move the council further away from improvement. Councillor Humpherson also raised concerns about the lack of transparent performance data from the current provider, Trinity, stating that raw data, engagement rates, timeliness, outcomes, and evidence of impact on repeat missing episodes had not been provided. He argued that this lack of data prevents assurance that the service is effective or that reducing its scope is safe. He also pointed out that the proposal reduces the provider's workload without reducing contract value, creating a structural financial benefit and potentially leading to long-term costs and reputational risks. Finally, he stressed the importance of reciprocity with other authorities, noting that Staffordshire places many of its own children outside the county and withdrawing support for SCOLAs would weaken the principle of reciprocity that protects Staffordshire's own children elsewhere. Councillor Humpherson urged the committee to request full disclosure of data and advice underpinning the proposal, commission a review of the provider's data, request a formal written risk assessment, seek assurance that the proposal is safe and proportionate, and consider alternative options before withdrawing RHIs for SCOLAs.

Cabinet Member Nicholas Lakin defended his decision, stating that Councillor Humpherson's report was misguided and misinformed. He explained that the decision was based on extensive research, including reading Department for Education statutory guidance, working with officers, and discussions with Councillor Doherty. He asserted that the process had gone through the senior leadership team, Councillor Doherty, and the leader of the party before reaching him, with all parties in agreement after addressing initial concerns. Mr Lakin clarified that there are no cuts to funding for RHIs. He explained that under the current system, Staffordshire Police investigate missing children within the county, and if concerns arise, a multi-agency approach is taken. RHIs are an invitation, and children cannot be forced to participate. He stated that Staffordshire social workers currently conduct RHIs for Staffordshire children placed outside the county, which can involve significant travel time and cost. The proposal, he explained, would utilise an external provider, Trinity, for these interviews, which he believes would be more cost-effective and free up social workers to focus on children within Staffordshire. Mr Lakin also stated that under the current system, the council does not receive intelligence from RHIs conducted by Trinity for SCOLAs placed in Staffordshire, and this would not change under the new proposal. He emphasised that the new system would place more emphasis on other local authorities to interview children placed within Staffordshire.

During the question and answer session, Councillor Alex Farrell raised concerns about the inclusion and subsequent removal of certain councillors from the call-in list, which officers explained was due to constitutional rules preventing Cabinet members from calling in decisions. Councillor Wayne Luca expressed initial support for Mr Lakin's aims but sought assurance that information would not be missed. Mr Lakin reiterated that the council does not currently receive detailed information from Trinity's RHIs for SCOLAs. Councillor Farrell questioned why the decision was deemed essential given apparent disagreements within the Cabinet. Mr Lakin responded that Councillor Humpherson's advice was misguided and that the change was about reallocating resources and ensuring other authorities fulfilled their responsibilities.

Commissioner Philip White asked about the consequences for Staffordshire if the decision were rescinded, inquiring if it was about money or outcomes. Mr Lakin stated it was about providing the best service for Staffordshire children and utilising resources effectively, with no reduction in overall funding. He suggested that the current system meant Staffordshire residents were paying for other local authorities' responsibilities. He also indicated that the driving point was to ensure other authorities fulfilled their duties.

Councillor Farrell requested full disclosure of data and suggested the decision should go back to Cabinet for a full decision and then to the relevant scrutiny committee, citing concerns about potential data gaps and miscommunication between councils. Mr Lakin presented complex data regarding missing episodes and RHI offers, explaining that the intricacies of individual cases made simple figures misleading. He stated that the focus was on the current management of the process and that the policy change was about shifting the responsibility for external interviews to an independent company to free up social workers.

Councillor Antonia Orlandi-Fantini questioned the process of the decision, noting it was a delegated decision that went through Councillor Doherty. Mr Lakin explained that Councillor Doherty's concerns were addressed before the decision was made.

Councillor Jack Rose sought clarification on who would conduct RHIs for Staffordshire children living outside the county. Mr Lakin confirmed that under the new proposal, an independent provider would conduct these interviews, whereas currently, Staffordshire social workers would do so.

Councillor Luca, after hearing the explanations, stated that as Chair of Safeguarding and SEND, she was happy with the answers provided and did not believe the decision needed to go to a full committee, indicating she was happy to back the decision. However, Councillor Farrell proposed that the decision be referred back to Cabinet for a full decision and then to the relevant scrutiny committee. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Rose.

Following a discussion on the available recommendations, the committee voted on Councillor Farrell's proposal. The recommendation to refer the decision back to Cabinet for a full Cabinet decision, with a preference for it to also go through the relevant scrutiny committee, was put to a vote. Councillor Nicholas Lakin then stated his recommendation was that the decision should go back to the Cabinet member, not the full Cabinet. After clarification, the committee voted on the recommendation to refer the decision back to the Cabinet member. The vote resulted in the decision being agreed to go back to the Cabinet member, with the decision being fine.