ents must be put in place to ensure effective and quick identification and management of escalating risk. Must outline in which circumstances families would continue to be held by a social worker and which may be held by other practitioners. The lead practitioner should always be a social worker for children subject to a child protection plan. [N.B. Working Together 2023 says that “the lead practitioner for section 47 enquiries should be a social worker” (p87). The LCPP will be an experienced social worker and the majority of FHLPs will likely also be social workers. Our working assumption is that the FHLP must always be a social worker from the point a decision is made to create a child protection plan. We will explore this further with LAO and Ofsted and revert.] Explore the most suitable role for LCPPs in child protection conferences, including whether they act as chair. MACPTs must trial chairing child protection conferences from within the team (moved to MACPT section). [N.B. The rationale for situating this within the multi-agency context is that it addresses the ‘loss of independence issue’ given the responsibility is shared across agencies, as well as the LCPP, in addition to the team and LCPP having a deeper expertise and knowledge of the family.] 77 Parental representation Wave 1 expectation Wave 2 expectation Must offer parental representation (interpreted as ‘advocacy’) to all parents from the point a section 47 enquiry is initiated. Local areas must provide information and support to all parents at the point a section 47 enquiry is initiated. Must offer parental representation to all parents at the point in which a section 47 enquiry is initiated. Must offer parental representation at initial child protection conference. Updated draft FFCP design specificat