Agenda item - Response to the Scrutiny Panel Report: Services for Children with Autism

The Board will consider a proposed response from Pinaki Ghoshal, Executive Director for Children’s Services to the findings of the Council’s Scrutiny Panel on Autism Services for Children in the city (copy of the report attached).

Introduction

16.1    The Board considered a report of the Executive Director, Children’s Services which set out the initial response to the Scrutiny Report into services for children with autism and detailed progress to date.

16.2    A Scrutiny Panel comprising of cross-party City councillors was set up in July 2013.  The Scrutiny Panel’s report was published in April 2014, setting out 20 recommendations for further development of services for children with autism across health services, the council and schools.  A response to each of the 20 recommendations in the Scrutiny report was summarised in Appendix 2. The report was presented by the Assistant Director of Children’s Services. 

16.3    Councillor Jarrett addressed the Board as Chair of the Scrutiny Panel on Services for Children with Autism.  He welcomed the fact that some of the proposals had already been implemented.  Parents had felt that change was overdue and that there was a need for increased home support.   An issue had been raised concerning the monitoring of schools to see if they were taking up training.  Councillor Jarrett asked for this issue to be investigated.

          Questions and Discussion

16.4    Dr Jonny Coxon raised queries about compulsory training and having a second autism champion (in addition to the Director of Children’s Services).  The Assistant Director of Children’s Services replied that the local authority did not have the power to insist on compulsory training for schools. However, school heads had agreed to take up training. 

16.5    Pinaki Ghoshal explained that the issue of an autism champion had been fully considered.  There was a need to consider exactly what a champion did and what powers a champion would have.  Mr Ghoshal considered that it was his statutory duty to be a champion for all children.   There was also a need to consider who else might need a champion.  There were a range of different groups with different needs.  For example, Trans Children and Young Carers.  Was the local authority expected to have a champion for each different group of children?  Mechanisms were in place to ensure the local authority met the needs of children with autism.  Meanwhile, the Disability and Special Educational Needs review would be focusing on all aspects disability and SEN.

16.6    The Chair expressed concern that champions were being increasingly asked for in many areas.  There was a need to think about what champions were for and why they were needed.

16.7    Frances McCabe felt that the paper was education oriented rather than health orientated.  She considered that there were examples where champions had a specific and successful role.

16.8    RESOLVED – (1) That the responses to the individual recommendations as set out in Appendix 2 be agreed.

(2)  That it is noted that as the Disability & Special Educational Needs Review will be focused on all aspects of disability & SEN, the report will include further recommendations that respond to the scrutiny panel report.