Agenda item

12.20pm

This document provides a high-level overview of the initial implementation of Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH), the current landscape, emerging risks and opportunities for the future.

The PCC submitted a report which provided an overview of the initial implementation of Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH), the current landscape, emerging risks and opportunities for the future and TVP’s involvement in them.

The PCC referred to some of the benefits of robotic automation in relation to safeguarding and that Robotic Process Automation (RPA) was used to relieve demand on 101 (around 600 calls per month) and improve service delivery to partners by eliminating call waiting time. This worked very well as it sped things up and spotted things quicker, which was vital for domestic violence disclosures (Clare’s Law): RPA identified current or expired high-risk DA perpetrators in new or previously unknown intimate relationships to prompt a ‘Right to know’ disclosure to their partner.

Members’ Questions

(1)  There was concern expressed at the fragility of the MASH system in the Thames Valley, particularly with local authority’s changing their financial commitments, and the PCC was asked who was responsible to ensure the provision of the service was maintained?

[The PCC replied that he had the opportunity to bring partners together and on a political level, to make sure there were the right strategic partnerships. It was important that partners held each other to account, and he would be discussing MASHs with Chief Executives and Leaders of Councils. There were statutory duties for partners which had to be met. It was important that the correct rank of officer of the organisation was at meetings to ensure that key strategic decisions could be taken.

The Chief Constable expressed his concern at the situation and referred to the importance of partners working together and sharing information. There were differences across Thames Valley of how MASHs operated, with six MASHs in Berkshire and this was a challenge. It was important that MASHs continued because of the important work they carried out in terms of safeguarding children and adults.]

(2)  A Member referred to the national review which took place into the murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson which recommended that child protection practices are delivered at a local level and are multi-agency end-to-end in dedicated multi-agency child protection units in every LA area. The PCC was asked what were the implications for TVP and the local authorities that Thames Valley was at risk of not fulfilling the national recommendations or meeting partner expectations?

[The PCC replied that this was still an emerging picture, and it would be a challenge, however, he would expect TVP to meet the commitment to ensure there was maximum safeguarding but that discussions were required to address the issues. However, TVP were reliant on other partners to ensure recommendations were complied with. There was a need to know the timescales for meeting those recommendations and look at mitigations. Those recommendations would be monitored by the Deputy Chief Constable.]

(3)   The PCC was asked what arrangements and plans were in place in relation to child refugees who were placed in the Thames Valley area?

[The PCC replied that there was a challenge on where refugees were put but communication was important with the accommodation providers and the Home Office. There were robust processes in place to safeguarding of people that were known.]

(4)  When setting up MASHs, there was an emphasis on physical space for collaboration. However, since the pandemic there have been much more digital and virtual collaboration. Was there still a requirement for physical meeting for collaboration and information sharing?

[The PCC replied that there was probably a middle ground, however, physically meeting, engendered good relationships. Standardisation was important around safeguarding to ensure that everyone was protected to the same standard.

The Chief Constable replied that he agreed that there were many benefits of remote working but it was good practise to ensure that there was good team working.]

(5)  Reference was made to Operation Compass and the comment in the report that the current Information Sharing Agreements completed with 94% of schools force-wide only approve the date, time and location of the incident and not the parties involved, risk grading or circumstance. The PCC was asked to expand on this.

[The PCC said he would come back with more information on this.]

RESOLVED – That the report of the PCC and the information reported be noted.