Agenda item

To consider the contents of the Report and to make comments, ask any relevant questions, propose any amendments, and approve the Report.

DECISION

 

•           To approve the report.

•           To ask for an update from the Cabinet Member for Education on the implementation per recommendation in approximately six months.

The Chair of the Scrutiny Investigation presented the report and thanked all those who took part in the investigation. It was explained that this was not a specific case investigation or a statutory investigation, and that its purpose was not to reconsider matters that had already been examined through the Child Practice Review. It was noted that the question posed to the Panel was whether the safeguarding arrangements in the county's schools were appropriate and consistent, with the Panel being responsible for gathering evidence, drawing conclusions and making recommendations to the Cabinet and, in some cases, to the Welsh Government.

It was stressed that the reopening of the Foden case was not within the remit of the investigation, as the Child Practice Review had already considered the case. It was explained that the intention of the investigation was to look ahead and consider what else could be done to strengthen safeguarding arrangements in schools. It was noted that the scrutiny investigation was one of the work streams in the Council's Response Plan following the Child Practice Review, and that the Response Board, the Child Practice Review and the Scrutiny Investigation had different but complementary functions. It was explained that the Child Practice Review had looked back to understand what had gone wrong and the lessons to be learnt, that the Response Board was leading and overseeing the implementation of the corporate response, and that the Scrutiny Investigation had provided an additional layer of independent challenge by focusing on the arrangements in place in schools today and considering how to strengthen them further.

It was reported that a wide range of evidence had been considered over a period of several months. 11 schools were visited and discussions had been held with headteachers, governors, staff and pupils, as well as taking evidence from officers and experts and considering national guidance, policies and Estyn's work. It was noted that the investigation had found a lot of good work taking place in Gwynedd's schools, but it was emphasised that having good policies on paper was not enough in itself and that it needed to be ensured that they were implemented consistently in all schools, by all members of staff and at all levels.

It was elaborated that the 22 recommendations formed the basis of a work programme rather than a list of individual proposals. It was noted that some of the recommendations related to people, ensuring that staff, governors and those with safeguarding responsibilities received the necessary training, support and clarity; that others related to systems, including strengthening arrangements for recording, monitoring, sharing information and ensuring greater consistency between schools; and that others were culture-focused, ensuring that pupils knew who to turn to for help, that their voice was heard and that everyone understood that safeguarding was the responsibility of each individual. It was noted that the recommendations had been grouped under nine strategic themes, namely training, pupils' understanding, support and well-being, the voice of pupils, review and learning, systems and information sharing, parents, safeguarding visibility, and governance and accountability.

It was stressed that one of the strengths of the report was that it did not rely on one major change, but recognised that effective safeguarding depended on a number of elements working together in a coherent manner. It was recognised that no system could guarantee complete safety, but it was noted that risks could be reduced, systems strengthened and concerns could be identified and responded to earlier, more consistently and more effectively. It was emphasised that the report alone would not make children safer, and that the action taken following the report would make the difference. It was therefore noted that the submission of the report was not the end of a process, but the beginning of the next stage, and that the actual success of the investigation would be measured by the implementation of the recommendations and the difference they would make in practice.

During the discussion, the following observations were made:

It was noted that the investigation had been conducted in a constructive spirit and that members had understood the importance of safeguarding children and the reason for carrying out the work. It was explained that the randomly selected schools worked well together once the purpose of the investigation was explained. It was noted that the 11 schools were located across the county and included a special school, primary schools and secondary schools, giving a broad cross-section of Gwynedd schools. It was reported that the response and information received from the visits had been valuable, and it was recognised that the support of officers in co-ordinating the visits and recording the evidence had enabled the members of the Panel to focus on the scrutiny.

Reference was made to the recent criticism of the report in the press, and the Chair of the Investigation was asked to respond to the comments made. In response, it was acknowledged that criticism had been submitted before the report was considered by the Committee, and it was emphasised that it was important to respond to the criticism as the correct implementation of the recommendations was essential to make a real difference to the safeguarding of children in Gwynedd and beyond. It was noted that the recommendations would be more likely to be implemented effectively if the report and the process that led to it were understood and taken seriously.

It was noted that the criticism had been presented by Ms Yates, who represented some of Foden's victims along with other victims. It was acknowledged that she had represented some of the victims for years and that it was understandable that she was keen to see rapid, robust and meaningful change. It was emphasised that the same aim was shared, namely to do everything possible to ensure that children in Gwynedd would not experience failures similar to those seen at Ysgol Friars again.

It was reiterated that the Scrutiny Investigation was not a statutory investigation or a public inquiry, but an investigation carried out within the terms of reference approved by the Education and Economy Scrutiny Committee. It was reiterated that the reopening of the Foden case or the allocation of individual responsibility was not within the remit of the investigation, as that had already been dealt with by the Child Practice Review. It was explained that the task was to look ahead and consider what else could be done to strengthen safeguarding arrangements in Gwynedd schools in the future, noting that attempting to fulfil both functions at the same time would have created a risk that neither would have achieved effectively.

Reference was made to criticism regarding the use of the word "should" rather than "must" in the recommendations. In response, it was clarified that the use of "should" reflected the nature of a scrutiny investigation, as a scrutiny committee did not have the power to impose statutory duties. It was noted that the Committee's role was to make recommendations and then hold the Cabinet to account for the implementation of the recommendations. It was stressed that this did not make the recommendations any less important, but that it reflected the democratic framework within which scrutiny operated.

Reference was made to sample size and the voice of pupils' work, and it was recognised that a larger sample would always be desirable. However, it was emphasised that the voice of pupils' work was not the only basis for the report, but that it was part of a wide range of evidence which had included visits to 11 schools, discussions with governors, headteachers and staff, evidence from Estyn, officers and experts, as well as the statutory framework. It was noted that the Panel had reached its conclusions on the basis of all the evidence.

It was pointed out that too much emphasis had been placed on the voice of the child. In response, it was explained that including the voice of the child had been a deliberate decision by the Panel from its first meeting, before any evidence had been gathered. It was noted that not including the voice of pupils would have been subject to harsh and appropriate criticism. It was emphasised that the Panel did not see a choice between the voice of the child and adult accountability, as children needed to feel safe and confident enough to raise concerns, but that the adults who served them needed to have the training, knowledge and accountability to respond appropriately. It was noted that neither element could work effectively without the other.

It was explained that the order of the recommendations did not reflect the order of their importance, as they were grouped by theme, and it was emphasised that each of the recommendations was important. Reference was made to the accountability of governors, and it was noted that the Panel had carefully considered the matter. It was explained that this was why the report included recommendations to strengthen the training for governors, clarify responsibilities and call on the Welsh Government to reconsider the national framework. It was therefore expressed that the difference between the criticism and the Panel's position was how far the recommendations should go, rather than the principle itself.

Reference was made to a criticism that the report did not contain anything new. In response, it was reiterated that the purpose of the Scrutiny Investigation was to build on the lessons of the Child Practice Review rather than repeat or replace it. It was noted that the Scrutiny Investigation had asked a different question, namely whether the safeguarding arrangements of Gwynedd schools at the time were appropriate and were being implemented consistently. It was explained that a number of the recommendations went beyond what was included in the Child Practice Review, including calls for greater national standardisation, strengthening governance arrangements, improving recording and monitoring arrangements and ensuring greater consistency between schools. It was emphasised that the two reports fulfilled different but complementary functions, with the Child Practice Review looking back at the failures and the Scrutiny Investigation looking forward to strengthening the existing systems.

Reference was made to a criticism that action was needed rather than producing another report. There was agreement with that principle, emphasising that the end goal was not the report  but the action that would follow. It was noted that the Scrutiny Investigation had seen the report as a single step in a process, and that success would be measured not by the number of recommendations but by the actions taken by the Council and the Welsh Government in response to them.

It was acknowledged that the Panel had not claimed to have all the answers, and that the members had been very aware of the seriousness of the matter and their responsibility. It was emphasised that the intention was to make a constructive contribution to the wider work of strengthening safeguarding arrangements in Gwynedd, and that any constructive comments or criticisms that resulted in the action plan being strengthened or further improving arrangements would be welcomed. It was reiterated that the actions taken jointly, rather than words in a report, would make the difference to the safety of children.

The contents of the report were welcomed and it was noted that new elements had emerged. Reference was made to the recommendation regarding ensuring that the names of the Designated Safeguarding Person and the Designated Safeguarding Governor are displayed on posters in the school. The view was expressed that the information should be visible outside the school building and on the school website, and that relevant contact details should be provided within the Council. It was emphasised that if the concern related to someone within the school, it was important that children and other people knew how to contact someone outside of school.

Reference was made to digital systems for recording concerns, including MyConcern. It was questioned whether it would be possible for an appropriate officer from the Education Department to access the system to be able to see patterns, especially in a situation where the headteacher was overseeing the system. The view was expressed that such access could assist in identifying patterns and ensuring that information followed a child when moving between primary schools or in the transition from the primary to secondary sector. In response, it was noted that:-

•       The Committee had previously raised the matter of displaying safeguarding details, and that a team of four officers visited schools annually to check the arrangements and ensure that the relevant requirements were in place. It was explained that the team was relatively new but that it was now ahead of schedule in terms of visiting all the schools.

•       The recommendation to display the details of the safeguarding persons, including on lanyards, was considered good practice and that that practice would be added to the criteria used by the safeguarding team. It was noted that some schools in Gwynedd were already doing this.

•       The Department could not force a school or governing body to implement an arrangement that was not a statutory requirement. Frustration was expressed about the limitations of the education authority's powers, noting that recommending, asking and highlighting good practice were the methods that were often available.

•       The review being carried out by the Welsh Government needed to clearly consider where the different powers and responsibilities lay, expressing the view that officers of the Education Department did not have sufficient powers to demand that certain arrangements be implemented.

•       The Council had invested in a new Bromcom digital system, with more progress being made in the primary sector than in the secondary sector. It was noted that moving between systems was challenging, but that the work was ongoing.

•       School autonomy meant that it was difficult to ensure that all schools used the same system. It was noted that seeking agreement across North Wales, Powys and Ceredigion would be even more challenging, and therefore support was expressed for the Welsh Government to mandate a single national system for Wales.

•       More than one individual may have access to safeguarding records and that several persons needed to be able to access MyConcern.

•       The authority had commissioned one new system for managing information about children across the county, for the primary and secondary sectors.

•       The process of moving from the old system to the new system had been very challenging, but it was noted that the aim was to ensure one record for each child that would transfer easily from primary to secondary school. It was noted that, with the school's consent, the authority could have an overview of the safeguarding records on the system.

•       Access to MyConcern was possible but more limited and depended on the school's permission.

•       There was close and constructive collaboration between the Education Department and Gwynedd schools, and that schools rarely refused to act on new guidelines or requests, particularly in the safeguarding field.

•       However, as more additional requirements were introduced, schools in the future may be more reluctant to implement non-statutory arrangements due to the additional workload.

It was questioned what specific safeguards the Education Department would like to have the power to make mandatory, beyond consistency in terms of the recording system. In response, it was explained that schools were already required to record concerns and changes in children's behaviour, but that the nature and level of the concern could be interpreted in different ways. It was noted that Gwynedd's schools tended to be cautious and recorded the vast majority of issues of concern. It was emphasised that one of the most useful changes would be to have a single national system for Wales, as children were able to move between local authorities during their education and there was no consistent system to ensure that a single safeguarding record followed the child throughout their education. It was noted that more than one system was being used even in Gwynedd, as the choice of software remained in the hands of individual schools and headteachers.

It was emphasised that the fact that schools had autonomy did not mean that they did not listen or co-operate with the Education Department. It was noted that there was close collaboration between headteachers and education officers, and that different views were naturally present in a system involving a large number of schools. It was explained that the role of the Cabinet Member for Education and the Head of Education was to listen to those views and, at times, to come to a decision on what was considered most appropriate for the county. The view was expressed that the Welsh Government had a similar role at a national level, and that schools could find it easier if some decisions, such as the choice of a national system, were made at a Wales level rather than by each individual school.

Reference was made to the accountability of headteachers, noting that school headteachers were accountable to their Governing Bodies and that the Chair of the Governing Body was their line manager, not the Head of Education. It was noted that this was related to the review of school governance. It was reported that the importance of the review had been raised directly with the Minister for Education, stressing the need for it to be a genuine and fundamental review where no option had been ruled out. The view was expressed that the review went to the heart of the arrangements of the education system in Gwynedd.

The report and the emphasis on the voice of child were welcomed, noting the importance of ensuring that children were able to approach an adult they trusted. It was emphasised that safeguarding was a responsibility for the whole community and not just the school. However, the view was expressed that the role of the education authority did not appear to be strong enough in the recommendations. It was acknowledged that officers were visiting schools and recommending practices, but the view was expressed that more robust guidance was needed in some fields. Reference was made to the investment in Bromcom and it was noted that not all schools involved in the investigation had been using the system. The view was expressed that the Department may have more influence over schools than it acknowledged, noting that schools would not be expected to refuse additional support to strengthen child protection.

Particular reference was made to the consideration in the report as to whether the Education Department should take responsibility for providing training to all teachers. The view was expressed that the Education Department could play a stronger role in this field rather than leaving the responsibility to school headteachers, and the wish was expressed to see the education authority act more prominently as a co-ordinator for the arrangements.

In response, it was explained that Bromcom had been commissioned for every school in Gwynedd and that it was intended to be rolled out in all schools. It was noted that the transfer of all primary schools was a significant task over a number of terms, and that the work was intended to be completed by the end of March 2027. It was emphasised, however, that although the system was provided free of charge, schools still had the option not to use it and that the Head of Education did not have the power to force them to do so.

As for supply teachers, it was explained that it was the schools, and not the education authority, that employed them. It was noted that some schools used private supply agencies that provided lists of teachers who had completed DBS checks and safeguarding training. It was reported that Gwynedd maintained a list of supply teachers, although no specific resource was available to maintain it. It was explained that the list was compiled annually and updated where possible, and included teachers who wished to carry out supply work in Gwynedd and who had completed the relevant DBS checks. It was noted that training had been offered to them, but that they were not obliged to attend as they were not employed by the authority.

It was emphasised that it was the responsibility of the school to ensure, when using a supply teacher, that they received the appropriate safeguarding training and knew who to turn to in the school should a concern arise. It was noted that the authority was able to commission systems and provide support, but did not have the power to force a school to use a particular system or to force supply teachers to attend training with no certainty of work.

Support was expressed for the report and recommendations, and it was suggested that a summary copy of the recommendations should be sent to all school headteachers, including the foreword by the Chair of the Investigation. Reference was made to Recommendation 1, which was to ensure that training of an appropriate level is offered annually to all school staff and governors. It was questioned whether this suggested that the Investigation had found a weakness in the current training. In response, it was clarified that there was no strong evidence of a specific shortcoming in the training, but that the Panel wished to emphasise the principle that safeguarding was everyone's responsibility. It was noted that there was a need to ensure that the training provided was of high standard, consistent, and completed by all.

Reference was made to pupils' understanding of the safeguarding system and the Child Protection Policy 2025. It was noted that the policy should be approved by the Designated Safeguarding Person, the Designated Safeguarding Governor and the Headteacher, but there was no reference to the Chair of the Governing Body or the Chair of the School Council on the pupils’ part. It was noted that a promise had been made at a previous meeting that an easy-to-read version of the policy would be available to pupils, and that it should have been published alongside the policy in October 2025. It was questioned why that version had not been provided so far. In response, it was confirmed that an easy-to-read version for children and young people would be published alongside the revised policy in September.

Reference was made to Dr Ceryl Teleri Davies' work on the voice of pupils, noting that she had met with 57 pupils and acknowledged that there had been no opportunity to involve older pupils. It was highlighted that eight areas for improvement or development had been identified in primary schools, while ten strengths had been identified in the secondary schools with no areas of development. It was noted that this seemed inconsistent. Reference was made to the fact that the Investigation involved a number of key stakeholders, including headteachers, safeguarding co-ordinators, staff, governors and pupils, but it was questioned why the voice of parents had not been included. The view was expressed that a questionnaire or survey could have been used to gather parents' views on how clear and consistent safeguarding arrangements were across schools.

In response to the comments regarding training, it was explained that a range of training was provided in accordance with Welsh Government requirements and at different levels according to the relevant responsibilities. It was noted that ensuring that individuals committed to completing the training was a different matter. It was explained that one of the lessons learnt from the investigation was the need to monitor more carefully that Chairs of Governing Bodies, for example, completed the mandatory safeguarding training in a timely manner, and to ensure that the training had an impact.

The Cabinet Member for Education noted that a culture change had already begun, with the Council seeking to be more open to external scrutiny, comments and suggestions on how arrangements could be improved. Reference was made to the establishment of the Response Board following the publication of the Child Practice Review, chaired by Professor Sally Holland, the former Children's Commissioner for Wales. It was noted that members of the Council, officers, along with observers from Estyn, Care Inspectorate Wales, the Welsh Government and the Office of the Children's Commissioner were part of the Board. It was explained that the Board was scrutinising over 57 work streams, not including the associated sub-streams.

It was reported that several quarterly reports had been submitted by the Chair of the Board to the Cabinet and were publicly available, along with the Board's papers. It was noted that the Chair had reported that he was satisfied with the progress being made, that the work was being carried out in a timely manner and that a number of the tasks had already been completed. Reference was made to a joint report by Care Inspectorate Wales and Estyn which had looked specifically at safeguarding arrangements. It was noted that the recommendations of that report were being implemented and that the recommendations of the Scrutiny Investigation would be considered alongside that work.

It was reported that initial work had been undertaken to assess the status of the 22 recommendations, with seven, according to the initial assessment, fully completed, 12 partially completed and three not yet implemented. It was noted that some of the recommendations that had not been implemented depended on the Welsh Government, including the need for a single national recording system across regions and authorities. It was explained that a similar situation existed in relation to the recommendations of the Child Practice Review, as some of them were matters for the Welsh Government to act on.

It was noted that a further update would be presented to the Committee in the autumn on the work of the Response Board, to provide assurances that the work was progressing thoroughly. It was reported that the Assurance Board established with the Welsh Government continued to meet regularly. It was noted that the arrangement would continue following a change of Government, and that a further meeting had already been scheduled.

It was emphasised that significant work was being carried out and that the Council was not ignoring the recommendations or failing to act. It was noted that a clear decision had been made to change policies, procedures and culture to do everything possible to prevent failures similar to those seen at Ysgol Friars from happening again. Reference was made to public criticism that the Council had not acted, and that suggestion was rejected stating that a number of the recommendations of the Child Practice Review and the Scrutiny Investigation had already been implemented.

It was reported that significant progress had been made over the previous 18 months in terms of safeguarding and well-being arrangements in schools. It was noted that a new Education Safeguarding and Well-being Team had been established and expanded, with the intention of visiting each school annually in relation to safeguarding. It was explained that support for governors had been strengthened through a training programme, a new handbook and the appointment of an additional officer to support them, and that safeguarding training had been updated to include awareness of grooming. It was noted that there was a new Headteacher and management team at Ysgol Friars, along with changes to the Governing Body and a new Chair of Governors.

Reference was made to the processes of Part 5, Safeguarding Procedures for Wales, and it was noted that the arrangements had been strengthened to ensure that safeguarding decisions were not made by just one individual, and that records and historical information were checked each time a safeguarding referral was received. It was reported that a retrospective audit of referrals had been carried out over a number of years to ensure that another similar pattern had not been missed. It was noted that work was underway to move all schools to a single electronic system for recording information about children, which would strengthen the ability to share information across the county and improve consistency.

It was stressed that the voice of the child was central to the new arrangements. It was reported that a social worker made a proactive effort to speak to each child who was subject to a safeguarding referral, to ensure that the child's views were part of the decision-making process. It was noted that these developments demonstrated a commitment to strengthening safeguarding arrangements, improving governance arrangements and ensuring the best possible support for children and young people in Gwynedd. It was emphasised that the field was being taken seriously and that there was a commitment not to shy away from any work that needed to be done.

 

RESOLVED

 

·       To approve the report.

·       To ask for an update from the Cabinet Member for Education on the implementation per recommendation in approximately six months.