The Safeguarding and Education Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to discuss deprivation of liberty safeguards, and a new online referral form for adult safeguarding. The committee agreed to add updates on both of these topics to the work programme for the April meeting. The committee also discussed safeguarding standards in extracurricular activities, elective home education, alternative education, and DBS checks for school visits.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)

Ruth Martin, Principal Social Worker and Safeguarding Lead, presented a report on the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).¹ DoLS are legal safeguards, incorporated as amendments to the Mental Capacity Act, to protect people who are confined to a care home or hospital and lack the capacity to consent to their care arrangements.

Ruth Martin explained that the DoLS process involves six separate assessments completed by at least two different professionals. The law states that these assessments should be completed within 21 days.

Ruth Martin reported that the local authority had a backlog of nearly 2,500 DoLS applications following a Supreme Court ruling in the Cheshire West case², but that this had been reduced to below 1,000, with assessments now being completed within 35 days.

The council receives around 800 applications for DoLS each month, and the number of referrals has been increasing by about 19% every year. The council aims to keep the total number of DoLS applications below 1,000, and the number of applications pending for more than 21 days below 400.

Ruth Martin outlined some of the improvements that have already been made, including shortening the assessment forms and commissioning additional capacity to complete the assessments. Further improvements under consideration include training additional in-house staff to complete DoLS assessments and utilising equivalent assessments.

Councillor Edgler asked what sort of complaints the council receives. Ruth Martin responded that they do not receive many complaints about DoLS directly, but that the situations often involve people with dementia residing in care homes who have lost the capacity to consent to their care arrangements.

Councillor Wallins asked how the council's performance compares to neighbouring authorities. Ruth Martin responded that the council is within the top three for how well it performs, and has some of the lowest numbers remaining in the country.

Councillor Wilson asked why the council is looking at shortening the application form if it is doing so well. Ruth Martin explained that the forms are designed by ADAS³, and that the forms can be repetitive. She added that the council completes monthly audits of BIA forms to ensure that they are in line with expected practice standards, and gathers feedback from families.

Reverend Metcalf asked what factors are driving the 19% annual increase in applications, and what plans are being made for the future. Ruth Martin responded that the increase is mainly due to the ageing population, increasing complexity of need, and increasing rates of dementia. She added that the council is projecting a 29% increase over the next three years, and is developing a plan to mitigate some of that increase.

Councillor Wilson asked if DoLS are ever lifted, and how that process works. Ruth Martin responded that it happens rarely, but that it can happen if someone who has sustained a head injury regains capacity over time. She added that there is a review process, and that the person has a representative who can request a review at any point. She also noted that the application has to be reviewed every year, and that 40% of all applications are renewals.

Councillor Wallins asked how the council ensures that shortening the assessment forms remains legally compliant whilst protecting individuals. Ruth Martin responded that the council works alongside its ADAS colleagues, and that the statutory guidance makes it clear what must be considered during the assessment. She added that each assessment has to be approved by the local authority, and that monthly audits are conducted.

Councillor Nixon asked about the training for additional staff, how long it is, how in-depth it is, and when the council expects to see results from that investment. Ruth Martin responded that the BIA training is a university-accredited course, and that the council is seeking to start training in the new year. She added that it is a six-month course overall, and that it would be 18 months to two years before the council has a fully-fledged and effective new cohort of BIAs.

Councillor Edwards asked for more background on the Supreme Court ruling in March 2014 and the huge increase in applications. Ruth Martin explained that the ruling concerned another local authority, and that it established that a gilded cage is still a cage . She added that before that ruling, assessors might have considered one-to-one support as a benefit, but that the ruling made it clear that if someone cannot consent to that level of restrictive practice, it is still a deprivation of liberty.

Councillor Wallins asked if there has been any external review to confirm the compliance in relation to shortening the assessment form, and whether the training would fully meet anticipated demands. Ruth Martin responded that she sees ADAS as being outside of the local authority, and that they are advised by legal experts. She added that the forms have already been tested through the courts, and that she feels confident that what the council is doing is legal.

Councillor Wilson asked if there is a significant cost attached to the training, or if it is negligible. Ruth Martin responded that it is manageable within the existing workforce development budget, and that she reckons it will be between £800 and £1,000 per person trained overall.

A councillor asked about the proposal to change the legislation around DoLS. Ruth Martin responded that the Liberty Protection Scheme (LPS) was going to lessen some of the bureaucratic nature of DoLS, and that it would have allowed the council to authorise a deprivation for up to a period of three years. She added that it would have also placed a responsibility on the NHS, and that it would have broadened it out to include people who are within supported living.

The committee agreed that they would like to receive a report about this at a later date, and it was agreed that this would be discussed during the work programme planning.

Safeguarding Online Referral Form

The committee then heard about the new online referral form for adult safeguarding. The Cabinet Member explained that the referral process into adult safeguarding has always been through telephone service, but that the council has recognised that there are a lot of services that work outside of normal working hours, and that referrals have been increasing.

The online referral form is primarily for care providers, as they provide about 70% of all referrals. The form is intended to support them in being able to refer in at the earliest opportunity, and to address their feedback about the length of time calls could take.

The Cabinet Member reported that 10% of all referrals are now made in this way, and that the next iteration of this will be to go out to all professionals, including health colleagues and the police.

A councillor added that the form is much easier and more robust than the telephone, and that it stops a lot of back and forth for information.

Councillor Wallens asked what early feedback care providers have given since the launch, and if there have been any initial issues. The Cabinet Member responded that there have been some early issues with people writing in capital letters or using commas inappropriately, but that these were all dealt with on the day they were picked up. Some providers have said that they found it a great way of being able to get the information sent in as soon as the incident happened, and to be able to upload documents straight away into the online form. However, some have also commented that it is lengthy and takes them time to fill in.

Councillor Wallens asked how the system handles urgent safeguarding concerns out of hours, and if there is any backup for system outages or technical issues. The Cabinet Member responded that the form is not to be used for urgent safeguarding, and that people should still use the telephone option or call EDS⁴ out of hours.

A councillor asked about cyber security and data protection. The Cabinet Member responded that the system is secure, and that it has been through all of the relevant checks through the council's digital team. She added that the online form doesn't enable you to retrieve information once you've submitted it.

Councillor Mullins asked if data quality has improved compared to email referrals, and if the council is seeing a reduction in incomplete or inaccurate referrals. The Cabinet Member responded that this is something that the council is monitoring, and that it is too early to say.

Councillor Edwards asked how much specific time is saved from the online referral to the phone call. The Cabinet Member responded that this is what the council is looking at at the moment, and that it hopes to have some data in three months.

The committee agreed that they would like to receive a report about this at a later date, and it was agreed that this would be discussed during the work programme planning.

Work Programme Planning

Helen Phillips then led a discussion of the work programme. She noted that the work programme follows on from the induction that was held in June, and that it has followed the committee's requests for items and scheduled those in throughout the year.

Helen Phillips noted that the committee had requested to move the February meeting out of half term, and that the youth justice item had been moved to the January meeting. She also noted that the committee had received the KC report and review, the previous working group report on elective home education, and links to the commissioner performance reports.

Helen Phillips reminded the committee that there was a briefing that afternoon on the mental health in schools team, and that they had already received a briefing on the school based overnight provision.

Helen Phillips noted that the committee had indicated that they wanted to bring back the DoLS update and the referral form update, and asked when they wanted to factor those in. It was suggested that the committee look at November for the DoLS update, but Helen Phillips noted that the November meeting was already quite busy. It was agreed that Helen Phillips would go back to Ruth Martin and suggest that they have an update on both of those at the April meeting.

Councillor Arnold raised an email she had received from Neil Harrison, the chief executive of Dance Sport Association, who was seeking support because he feels there is a gap for children and vulnerable adults in extracurricular activities such as dance, art, youth programs, and religious groups. He said that there is currently a lack of formal safeguarding standards, and that he feels it is a postcode lottery as to how they are dealt with.

Helen Phillips responded that she would look at what regulations are in place currently, and how those are implemented, and then email that information to the committee as a starting point.

A councillor mentioned that Tracey Doherty was interested in a further piece of work on elective home education. Helen Phillips responded that it might be worth understanding what the figures are now before members decide whether or not they want to do another piece of work on that.

A councillor added that they would like to include alternative education as well, such as forest schools.

A councillor asked if they have to have a DBS check to go into schools. Helen Phillips responded that she would check the rules as regard to county councils, and email everybody on the rules.

A councillor proposed a meeting about vape sales and vaping in underage kids. Helen Phillips responded that there is already an item in the work plan on age-restricted sales to children and young people ready for the 22nd of January.