188体育

Thank you. It鈥檚 good to be here.

Child protection is barely out of the news at the moment. It seems hardly a week passes without children鈥檚 services splashed all over the papers and TV bulletins.

Now it might feel like media attention makes discussion of child protection impossible: that calm debate suffers under the intense glare of a media frenzy.

But some things remain the same.

The sober work of child protection goes on, regardless of the headlines.

The job of safeguarding children is no less critical.

And in fact, this increased scrutiny might even be an opportunity.

Maybe now we have a better chance than ever to explain how the system should work.

Surely, more interest in the child protection system means that it鈥檚 more important than ever to discuss, openly and publicly, how that system operates - where it鈥檚 working well, where it鈥檚 not - and be honest about how we make it better.

And if public attention has never been higher, maybe that鈥檚 a reminder to all of us that actually public views matter: that people need to have faith in the system, and trust it is capable of doing what it鈥檚 supposed to do - protecting children.

Importance of LSCB chairs

And in that context, the importance of the LSCB is unchanged.

And in particular - your role, the role of the chair - has never been more significant.

Now LSCBs are diverse bodies - that鈥檚 only right, so they can respond to different needs in different areas.

But across all of them, we can see that the best LSCB chairs have some things in common.

A good LSCB chair is well connected and well respected. You鈥檙e in a unique position to bring together a range of local institutions.

A good LSCB chair is resilient. It鈥檚 a job that demands good judgement and wise decisions on the most delicate subjects, often based on imperfect information.

A good LSCB chair is independent. And I mean truly independent: not just formally separate from other services, but clear in mind and spirit that they serve not local bureaucracies or vested interests or political powers - but children.

And a good LSCB chair is proactive.

Perhaps more than anything, that鈥檚 what matters. The best chairs are leaders, not spectators. They don鈥檛 sit passively, but want to use their position to achieve something - to improve the lives of children.

And they know it doesn鈥檛 take legal powers to achieve that goal.

If you want a comparison, look elsewhere in children鈥檚 services - at the Family Justice Board, say, or the Cabinet Committee on Care Leavers.

Neither has any direct statutory powers. But both show will and a desire to leave their communities and their society better than they found them.

The board is leading the improvement of the family justice system, while the committee has overseen new rights and funding for care leavers across Whitehall.

Where there is will, there is progress.

That鈥檚 what the best LSCB chairs recognise, and I know there are many in this room: who are connected, respected, resilient, independent, proactive, and are already using LSCBs鈥� unique position to make real improvements to child protection.

Importance of serious case reviews

That鈥檚 what we want to see. And if we think about the specific responsibilities of a chair, there鈥檚 one that鈥檚 particularly important.

Namely, serious case reviews.

Of course, we need to see SCRs in their proper perspective.

We shouldn鈥檛 confuse a good SCR with protecting children. They鈥檙e a sign something has gone wrong. We shouldn鈥檛 ever see them as adequate compensation for the children who suffered. They never can be.

But they still play a crucial role in understanding what鈥檚 happened, and working out if and how we can prevent it from happening again.

That鈥檚 really the minimum that the public can expect. When something goes wrong, the most natural reaction is to say - why?

SCRs are the formal mechanism for pursuing that basic human instinct to ask - what happened? Why did a child die? Why was a child abused?

Those are difficult questions. That鈥檚 exactly why they鈥檙e the right questions.

So if chairs are essential people, SCRs are an essential process.

Now they鈥檝e already been around for years.

Yet time after time, it seems that their conclusions are placed on a shelf, tidied away, and barely looked at again - and nothing actually changes.

Again and again, we see the same patterns of failure - lack of leadership, poor information sharing between services, an acceptance of low standards.

So we should ask why we see repeat patterns in their results. Why are their findings so often ignored or left hanging in the air?

Why are lessons sometimes ignored?

It can鈥檛 be because so few are published, surely.

Ever since this government came to office, we鈥檝e made it absolutely clear that we want every SCR to be published as a matter of course.

Unless there are really good reasons, they need to see the light of day. That鈥檚 the only way their findings can be shared.

And I鈥檇 like to thank you for your support on this issue. The association have been firm advocates for publication too, and that鈥檚 welcome. We鈥檝e still got to be vigilant - but now, more reviews are published.

But still, we all know that lessons are not always learned. So could that be because SCRs are too hard to find?

Well, again, that鈥檚 changed. NSPCC now have an online library of SCRs. It鈥檚 easier than ever to browse SCRs in one place.

So it鈥檚 not lack of access to SCRs, or ability to compare them, that鈥檚 the problem.

So what is it?

Problem of quality

The real problem is a simple one.

Too many SCRs still not getting to the root of the problem.

Many of you will have seen the letter I wrote to Coventry LSCB following their review into the death of Daniel Pelka.

I thanked them for a swift review.

That in itself is important.

And I thanked them for publishing straight away.

That鈥檚 also important.

But I explained that the review also lacked a full analysis or attempt to explain what caused the starvation and murder of a four-year-old boy.

The SCR was clear about the facts of the case: about what people did and didn鈥檛 do - but it fell far short on asking why.

It鈥檚 not enough to note that information wasn鈥檛 shared between agencies. We need to know why.

It鈥檚 not enough to note that four separate assessments by children鈥檚 social care failed to identify the risk to Daniel. We need to know why.

It鈥檚 not enough to find that Daniel was 鈥榠nvisible鈥� to public services. We need to know why.

Coventry recognised, in response to my letter, that SCRs must have depth, and will make further investigations.

That鈥檚 welcome, because it鈥檚 the only way SCRs can be of use: if they really get to grips with what has gone wrong, if other LSCBs look at them - if other professionals access their findings, digest them, and apply them to their own practice.

SCRs have to give a meaningful account - to explain, not just to expose.

Central government support

Now of course, SCRs are one of your principal duties.

But you鈥檙e not alone in carrying them out: we want to support you.

That鈥檚 why we established the National Panel of independent experts on SCRs, for example, to give an extra level of advice.

When you make decisions about the process for SCRs, you will inform the panel. They may well challenge you if you plan not to initiate a SCR, or not to publish one - but will offer their views and comments when there are constraints or real doubts about the practicality of a SCR.

The panel is meeting regularly - including this morning - and I鈥檓 delighted that we have such experts offering their time and experience and we鈥檝e already seen some useful exchanges of opinions since the panel was formed in June.

And that鈥檚 in a wider policy context based on 2 main principles.

First, that child protection is an absolute priority. We changed the reporting line for LSCB chairs, from Directors of Child Services to Chief Executives, for example - because child protection issues need to go straight to the top.

Second, our entire approach places faith in professionals.

That鈥檚 why our guidance on child protection is slimmed-down - because we don鈥檛 confuse length of guidance with clarity of guidance.

It鈥檚 why we haven鈥檛 imposed specific reporting methodologies, or particular governance arrangements, on LSCBs.

And it鈥檚 why we recently announced a new Innovation Programme, to identify and support new ideas from the profession that can radically improve the life chances of vulnerable young people - and I would encourage you to submit proposals.

Better accountability

Putting more trust in professionals, though, means that we need better accountability.

We鈥檙e less prescriptive about how you work - and we鈥檙e putting more trust in your experience to work that out - but, to balance that, we鈥檙e clearer and more open about measuring what you do. That鈥檚 the deal, and I think it鈥檚 a fair one.

I know that many of you will have seen Michael Wilshaw speak last month about a new regime that will be harder on underperforming local authorities.

He also called for the role and function of LSCBs to be reviewed. I can confirm that there will be no change in LSCBs鈥� functions for the immediate future, but that we remain committed to the OFSTED review coming in from November.

I鈥檓 glad that the association welcomed the intention to inspect LSCB effectiveness, and offered some constructive suggestions to improve how it could work.

An OFSTED review is a key part of accountability: it鈥檚 the necessary complement to giving you greater professional autonomy.

But I don鈥檛 want anyone here to obsess about the inspections regime.

Improving services isn鈥檛 just about inspectors storming in and whipping everyone in to shape.

Think about that ideal LSCB chair. They鈥檒l see the introduction of the OFSTED review as a good thing: as a chance to show how their approach is working - and for a national inspectorate to take that good work and share its findings.

Now there鈥檚 a suggestion that some chairs of LSCBs will resign when the move to OFSTED reviews goes ahead.

I refuse to credit it with even the possibility of being true. Because it can only call into question why Chairs do the job. It surely implies motives less noble than wanting to protect children and I don鈥檛 believe that is an accurate picture.

I know that what really motivates LSCB chairs is the possibility of making things better.

You can challenge and inspire your local authorities, schools, hospitals, care homes, police and crime commissioners, counsellors, and more. You are the lynchpin of child protection. I believe that鈥檚 why you鈥檙e in it. And that鈥檚 what should drive you to improve services - not just because OFSTED are coming to town.

And this, more than anything else, is what I want you to understand: this government sees you as the critical individuals responsible for child protection, and wants you to be proactive.

I know that鈥檚 not an easy job. In an environment of media scrutiny, I understand it means pressure and attention.

But when LSCBs get it right, the real-world impact is immense.

And regardless of what鈥檚 on the front pages, you鈥檙e important.

For vulnerable children, you鈥檙e the frontline, relying on you to help keep them safe. So I want you to know that I see your success is crucial in making that happen, and your willingness and desire to achieve the best possible protection for your children will be met with my full support.