Agenda item

Resolved: to receive the information presented at Committee for the review.

This item was considered after item six on the agenda.

3.1      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced the report; the following key points were noted:

·         The Committee had previously received information about action being taken to tackle violence against women and girls in Lewisham.

·         In response to the Committee’s request for information about work in schools, an overview of awareness-raising and prevention activities had been provided.

·         At the last meeting representatives from the Safer London Foundation had provided information about work taking place across London.

·         Building on past initiatives, such as the Met Police’s Heart programme – the Council sought to support the development of healthy relationships work in schools.

·         Work was also being carried out to further understand the impact of early childhood trauma on young people.

·         The Safer Lewisham Partnership also supported efforts across the criminal justice system to secure convictions against perpetrators of abuse and exploitation.

·         The Council and its partners were in the early stages of developing an approach to online protection.

·         A major project had recently been initiated to engage in an online conversation with children about being safe online.

·         Innovative work was also taking place in the borough with parents to help young people to stay safe. The ‘parents standing together’ project was supported by the Cabinet Member for Community Safety.

3.2      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) responded to questions from the Committee; the following key points were noted:

·         The Council intended to engage with its partners in the future to further understand the issues of online grooming and exploitation experienced by boys and young men.

·         Officers from the Council’s Community Services Directorate worked with officers from Children and Young People directorate as well as the police to deliver support to schools when it was required.

·         There was pressure on the school curriculum from a variety of different sources to deliver a range of different initiatives and activities.

·         Officers in Community Services worked with all heads in the borough to support the Prevent (prevention of extremism and terrorism) programme.

·         Take up and support from schools for the Prevent programme had been good.

·         This approach to work in schools had demonstrated that professionals had to be empowered to have conversations with children and young people about difficult issues at any time.

·         The Council would not lead on every agenda – but it could signpost teaching staff and schools to specialist support and advice, when it was required.

·         The Council would also continue to bid for external funding to deliver training for professionals in schools.

·         Building the resilience of children and young people – so that they could recognise risks and seek support – was a fundamental part of awareness raising and prevention work.

·         It was recognised that the rapidly changing nature of online communication made all young people vulnerable.

·         The more people who were able to engage in conversations with children and young people about staying safe, the better.

·         The work that was currently being developed around online safety would also engage with children in primary school.

·         Conversations would take place with whole families about the range of issues raised by online safety.

·         A number of the initiatives highlighted in the report were available in Lewisham schools. Funding had been received to deliver Growing Against Gangs and Violence training in all Lewisham secondary schools.

·         Rape Crisis sessions were not currently being delivered in Lewisham schools – but there was a programme in place and funding from London councils had been secured.

·         Education on gang violence and sexual exploitation was not included in personal social health and economic education (PSHE) as standard.

·         There were no national requirements for PSHE. Each school was required to develop and deliver its own programme.

·         The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime was trying to ensure that awareness raising and prevention activities were made available on a consistent basis to schools across London. The Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting people sat on the group to represent local authorities.

·         The mayor’s office for policing and crime intended to use Home Office innovation funding, if successful in its bid, to deliver a ‘menu of support options’ to schools that required specialist provision in future.

3.3      The Committee discussed the pressures facing schools to deliver PSHE on a range of topics and agendas. Members also discussed the possibility of inviting a head teacher from a borough secondary school to talk about the difficulties of developing and delivering a broad PSHE curriculum, in the context of competing pressures from different agendas.

3.4      The Cabinet Member for Community Safety advised the Committee that it would be problematic to ask a head teacher in the borough to attend a meeting of the Committee because of the difficulty of asking a single teacher to give an overview of general experiences in the borough. She recommended that Members engage with schools in their wards about the scope of their PSHE curriculum.

Resolved: to receive the information presented at Committee for the review.