
REVIEW OF NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION GUIDANCE:
NATIONAL WORKING GROUP
TUESDAY 25 AUGUST, CONFERENCE ROOM 11, VICTORIA QUAY, EDINBURGH
Attendees:
Apologies:
1.
Anne Neilson
Anne Ritchie
Bill Eadie
Bill Mathewson
Boyd McAdam
Donald Urquhart
Gillian Buchanan
Helen Hunter
Jane Scott
Laura Jamieson
Lesley Boal
Lesley Fraser
Marc Hendrikson
Michelle Miller
Scott Wood
Tim Huntingford
NHS Lothian
West Dunbartonshire CPC
Stirling CPC
RCGP Scotland
Scottish Government GIRFEC Team
Glasgow Child Protection Committee
Scottish Government Child Protection Team
Community Care Providers Scotland
Multi-Agency Resource Service
COSLA
ACPOS Child Protection Working Group
Scottish Government Safer Children, Stronger
Families Division
SWIA
ADSW
Scottish Government Child Protection team
Renfrewshire CPC
Dawn Samson
Fiona Mitchell
Jaqueline Mok
Julia Swan
Kevin Mitchell
Safaa Baxter
COPFS
SCCPN
NHS Lothian
Falkirk Council
HMIE
East Renfrewshire CPC
Welcome & Introductions
Lesley welcomed the group and thanked them for taking the time to attend.
2.
Minutes of Last Meeting
The minutes were accepted as an accurate record of the last meeting. It was agreed
that any matters arising would be picked up in the course of the meeting.
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
www.scotland.gov.uk


3.
1998 Review Programme Planning: Workstream Update
Anne Ritchie offered a short update on progress with the two dedicated workstreams
set up to support the delivery of the revised guidance. Both working groups last met
in July, at which point participants agreed to develop exploratory papers focussing on
specific elements of the guidance which, it was hoped, would help to shape any
revised content. It was the intention that these exploratory papers be completed by
early September although it was recognised that these timescales would need to
extended into late September in some instances. Tim, Anne and Gillian took the
opportunity to thank the group for showing great enthusiasm towards the work.
Due to the increasing size and scope of the review, both Tim and Anne were of the
view that additional practitioners from a range of backgrounds would need to be
identified to support the work. The group agreed to consider potential participants
and feed their thoughts back to Gillian.
Whilst significant work was being undertaken in relation to large parts of the revised
guidance, it was recognised that there were still a number of areas of practice which
had yet to be considered. It was the intention that arrangements be made over the
coming weeks for these discrete areas to be the subject of detailed consideration and
discussion with professionals from within relevant sectors.
One of the areas yet to be considered was the protection of children in the online
environment (child internet safety). Lesley Boal suggested that Gillian contact Keith
McDevitt of the SCDEA when progressing work in this area given his specialist
knowledge of the subject.
Helen Hunter noted the importance of ensuring that children and families are
consulted as part of the review of guidance. The group agreed.
4.
1998 Review Programme Planning: Scope of Revised Guidance
Gillian tabled a paper which focussed on the proposed scope of the revised guidance
and sought views from the group around content for the document.
The group were clear that the guidance’s primary purpose was to explicitly outline the
core principles of child protection and the relationship between child protection and
other children’s services. The group were also clear of the need for the guidance to
clarify the required links between child protection services and public protection
services.
Gillian noted the importance of ensuring that clear direction was offered to
practitioners and managers around the sections of the guidance that were to be
relevant to them. This could be done by including an annex which signposted
professionals to sections of particular relevance. The group agreed that this seemed
sensible.
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
www.scotland.gov.uk


The group were clear that the guidance document should not be exhaustive in
respect of each element of practice relating to child protection. Guidance was
already offered on most areas of related policy and it would not be sensible to either
replicate or replace this. Instead, it was agreed that the new document should act as
a robust source of guidance around child protection processes and procedures and
as a reference document for guidance on related policy areas.
Boyd made reference of the clear need for the soon to be developed “Getting it Right
for Every Child” guidance to compliment any revised child protection guidance. The
group agreed that this was absolutely essential in order to ensure clarity amongst
professionals around the systems and processes they are being asked to deliver.
Gillian thanked the group for their thoughts on the paper and agreed to work closely
with Anne and Tim over the coming weeks to identify which areas of related policy
should and should not be referenced in the revised document.
5.
Principles of Risk Assessment
Gillian tabled a paper based on the work undertaken by Moira McKinnon which
began to outline the relationship between “Getting it Right for Every Child” and child
protection in respect of risk assessment.
The group recognised the need for progress to be made in the transition towards the
“Getting it Right for Every Child” approach to risk assessment but were absolutely
clear of the need to retain the rigour of child protection inspections. Boyd noted the
importance of ensuring that any approach to risk assessment be compatible with the
e-care system.
It was agreed that the findings of HMIE child protection inspections should be taken
into consideration when developing thinking around risk assessment and that work
would need to be undertaken to common use of language and terminology in this
area.
The group agreed that a common risk assessment tool should be developed for use
across the country. This recommendation was in keeping with the views of CPCs
and a number of other stakeholders in the child protection community. Whilst it was
recognised that such an approach would prove useful and should be developed, the
group were keen to clearly identify that any tool produced should not be seen by
professionals as a mechanism for assessing risk. Responsibility for the actual
assessment of risk would always clearly lie with professionals and be based on
decisions made on the basis of clear evidence and robust professional judgement.
The tool would simply assist in this process.
The group were keen to ensure that the revised guidance clearly differentiated
between risk assessment and risk management. Gillian agreed to take this into
account and would shortly be consulting members of the group about how best to
progress in this area.
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
www.scotland.gov.uk


6.
Underlying Principles of Revised Guidance
Gillian tabled a paper focussing on the context within which child protection services
were to be delivered in future. The paper was very much a work in progress and it
was agreed that comments would be sought on the content of the paper following the
meeting once group members had been given the opportunity to digest its content.
The group agreed the importance of ensuring that key messages and principles of
child protection and, indeed, services for all children, featured throughout the revised
guidance. Detailed comments on the content of the paper would be fed back by
Friday 4th September.
7.
Source reference Material
A CD-Rom was circulated to the group which included a range of local practice
documents collated for the purposes of informing the revision of national guidance.
The group felt that this would prove a useful resource as work was progressed. Boyd
and Gillian agreed to discuss the possibility of sharing the materials included on the
CD-Rom through the GIRFEC learning community.
Lesley asked whether it would be helpful to begin to share early outputs from the
work of the group with child protection stakeholders in order that they were kept up to
date with progress and offered the opportunity to contribute to the work. Lesley
suggested that the use of a secure website may be the most appropriate means of
sharing such information. The group agreed that this would seem sensible.
8.
Any Other Business
Brian Lister informed the group that SCRA had recently completed a piece of work
which considered the Baby P case within the context of Scottish child protection
services. It was the intention that the publication would be shared with all authority
reporters and CPCs in due course. Brian agreed to send the document to members
of the working group.
The next meeting of the group was scheduled for Thursday 29 October 2009.
Scottish Government
September 2009
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
www.scotland.gov.uk

