Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
AGREED to note the update as provided.
None.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer, Mrs Patricia Armstrong reminded Members of the Code of Conduct and reminded councillors of their duties and to show respect and consideration to others when speaking. Councillors Endaf Edwards, Gareth Lloyd and Gwyn Wigley Evans declared a personal interest in relation to item 4. It was noted that all Councillors had a personal interest in item 4 as school governors.
The Chair expressed his condolences to Elen James on her recent bereavement. The Chair thanked Lisa Evans for her support during his time as Chair and wished her well in her role with the County Council.
Councillor Wyn Thomas, Cabinet Member for Schools, Lifelong Learning and Skills presented the report to the Committee. He reported that at the request of Councillor Elizabeth Evans, a Workshop for all Members was held on the 14 January 2025 to provide information and ensure a full understanding of the processes followed in relation to the School Organisational Code. At the Workshop, officers gave a comprehensive presentation that covered all areas of the process providing clear evidence that was conclusive proof of the integrity of the process and the thorough work carried out by the officers. The 25 Elected Members present spent an extended period questioning and challenging the officers on the specific details presented. Councillors confirmed at the end of the workshop they were completely satisfied that the correct processes had been followed and that they were re-assured that there was no evidence of misleading by officers. However, the Elected Members felt that the information should be presented to the Learning Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee (as the appropriate public forum) in order to share as much information as possible whilst also conforming with data protection guidelines. It was agreed at the Workshop that a joint statement from the three Leaders of the political groups would be released confirming that they were satisfied with the evidence received. Elected Members from across the political groups stated that they were fully satisfied that they had not been misled by officers prior to, during or after the Cabinet meeting of 3 September 2024. Councillor Thomas stated that the purpose of this session was to provide the public with an overview of the evidence presented at the workshop. The evidence would address several contentious issues raised during the process and subsequently demonstrate the factual accuracy of the information presented. The topics covered included: • Governance arrangements and the political mandate to undertake the work; • Legislative requirements(for school re-organisation); • Data accuracy; • PLASC; • School Capacity data; • School transport costs; • Complaint by ‘Cymdeithas Yr Iaith’; • The response by the Welsh Language Commissioner to the complaint; • The response by ‘Estyn’ regarding the processes followed. Barry Rees, Corporate Director stated that following the Workshop held on 14 January 2025, Members of the Independent Group had sent a letter to the Chair asking that representatives from Welsh Government be invited to attend the meeting to respond to the e-mails they had sent to Officers of the County Council regarding the process. In response, the Welsh Government had responded noting that they did not think Welsh Government officials should attend the Council’s scrutiny meeting. They noted that “we have no role in the process and our attendance could imply that we do. We are of course very happy to speak with officials from the Council about the School Organisation Code, but we cannot give legal advice, or can we endorse any proposal. I would be concerned that attending a meeting like this which is on the public record could blur the lines and appear that we have supported the council in its school organisation functions particularly if any proposals then need to come forward to Welsh Ministers for their approval.” Eifion Evans, Chief Executive thanked the Members for their request to present this information in a public forum in order that members of the public could see the same evidence that had been presented to them, noting that during the Workshop, Members had stated that they had been satisfied that Officers of the Council had not misled or deceived Members during this process. In relation to the accusations made against Officers, he stated that despite numerous requests for Members to provide evidence, none had been forthcoming. He noted the role of Members was to represent their electors and provide a strategic direction to the Council, in accordance with the aspirations outlined in their election manifestos which have been crystalised and encapsulated within the Ceredigion Corporate Strategy 2022-27 and approved unanimously by Members at a Council meeting in 2022. The function of Officers is to implement the strategy correctly, honestly and effectively on behalf of the Members. He noted that one element of the Corporate Strategy that had been approved was to continue to annually review school places, and Additional Learning Need provision, projections, standards, building condition and financial resilience to ensure a sustainable infrastructure aligned to the net-zero carbon agenda. This was the first mandate given to Officers. He noted that the next mandate resulted from to the ‘Principles for Ensuring Sustainable Education Infrastructure Policy’ which had been approved at the Cabinet meeting on 2 May 2023, referring specifically to point 6 of item 1.2 of the core principles which stated that the Council should “Make effective and efficient use of resources to ensure a sustainable infrastructure”. He also stated that a number of factors are included within the document such as school capacity, spare capacity, pupil numbers and projected pupil numbers. He noted that a significant amount of work had been done in order to enable Members to make decisions, noting that an important factor which has been the subject of much discussion for several decades is Head Teachers’ workload, especially in a small school when you factor in the Head Teachers’ teaching time, and several other roles that they have to take on. The Chief Executive noted that this mandate was further reinforced by the adoption of the Ceredigion County Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy which was approved by Cabinet on 2 May 2023 and stated the need in “Establishing a financially viable Education infrastructure”. He noted that it is not possible to fund every primary school equally as based upon this model, any small school of 90 pupils or less is not financially viable, however it had been agreed by the Council to adopt a funding formula whereby larger schools would subsidise the smaller schools. He also referenced the indicative 2025-26 savings proposals approved by the Council on 29 February 2024 as part of the 2024-25 budget setting process and it was approved that the Schools Service reviewed the future viability of the school estate and identify £335k of savings from the schools’ infrastructure. The Chief Executive referenced the Welsh Governments’ statutory guidance for the School Organisation Code, noting that when commencing any process, it is a requirement to comply with the wording of the Code. The School Organisation Code point 1.5 states that: “It is important that funding for education is cost effective. Relevant bodies should take into account the following factors in relation to the resourcing of education: • What effect proposals will have on surplus places in the area; Some spare places are necessary to enable schools to cope with fluctuations in numbers of pupils, but excessive numbers of unused places that could be removed mean that resources are tied up unproductively. Where there are more than 10% surplus places in an area overall, local authorities should review their provision and should consider whether to make proposals for their removal if this will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of provision. A significant level of surplus provisions is defined as 25% or more of a school’s capacity (as defined in Circular 21/2011) and at least 30 unfilled places.” He noted that some confusion may have arisen as a result of the misinterpretation of the wording in point 1.8 of this Code, which also demonstrates that it was the process as opposed to the proposal that was being discussed at Cabinet on 3 September 2024. Point 1.8 of the Code refers to making special arrangements in regard to rural schools establishing a procedural presumption against their closure. It states that: “This requires proposers to follow a more detailed set of procedures and requirements in formulating a rural school closure proposal and in consulting on and reaching a decision as to whether to implement a rural school closure proposal. This does not mean that a rural school will never close but the case for closure must be strong and all viable alternatives to closure must have been conscientiously considered by the proposer, including federation.” The Chief Executive explained the difference between the words ‘process’ and ‘proposal’ in relation to the Cabinet meeting on 3 September 2024. A challenge was received from ‘Cymdeithas yr Iaith’ based upon their interpretation of the process as the proposal; however the answers and evidence presented demonstrates that it was in fact the processes that were being discussed. The Corporate Manager, Accountability and Progress gave an overview of the annual statutory Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) data collected by the Welsh Government, which includes details on all pupils in schools in Wales. He noted that this data is a snapshot in time, and that it is the official data which informs the Revenue Support Grant, school budgets, free school meals etc. He described the model used for calculating pupil number projections, including the use of historical data and live data as of September of each year in order to incorporate any shift to the PLASC data, as well as birth rates within the County. It was noted that the birth rates for 2022 were the lowest that he had ever experienced, and that these figures would be impacting upon the pupil projection figures in the very near future. He provided a chart to demonstrate how volatile these figures can be using Ysgol Syr John Rhys as an example of this. In January 2024, there were 20 pupils registered at the school, and based upon the projection calculator, it was estimated that there would be 20 pupils registered in January 2025, however the actual pupil number for 2025 was 15 pupils. He explained that School Capacity data was determined by how schools use their classrooms and buildings, with changes being reviewed annually. He provided examples of how the school capacity figures change as a result of the re-organisation and classification of teaching spaces. The Corporate Director stated that there had been accusations of dishonesty and deceit made against Officers based upon data presented in the report presented to Cabinet on 3 September 2024. He noted that the agenda had been published five days prior to the meeting, which was prior to the commencement of the Autumn school term, therefore Officers would not have been able to provide updated data for September 2024 at the moment of publication. The Projects and Performance Manager provided information regarding the changes in transportation costs between the proposal paper and the consultation document outlining the accusation and questions regarding the source of the information. She noted that Officers had asked the Corporate Passenger Transport Unit (CPTU) to request estimated costs for transporting pupils from the school that was being reviewed to the alternative school. The CPTU has a good relationship with the providers and as such, they requested estimates from all 20 service providers. Although the proposal paper was dated July 2024, the estimated transport costs were received in March 2024, with only one quote received for Ysgol Syr John Rhys at a cost of £350 per day. However, at the time of producing the consultation paper in October 2024, transport costs were also received in October 2024 and two quotes were received for Ysgol Syr John Rhys with the lowest being £250 per day. The revised data related to a new academic year, and different cohorts of children, which explained the amendment to the costs as provided. The purchasing regulations stipulate that you cannot go out to tender until there is certainty that the route is required. She emphasised the importance of using accurate data to ensure the integrity of the consultation process. The Corporate Manager, Learning Resources confirmed that the process and content of the papers comply with the requirements of the school organisation code. She noted that an e-mail was sent to the Welsh Government stating that: “We are in the process of preparing proposal papers for Cabinet to seek their approval to proceed to a statutory consultation on the closure of rural schools – copies of the draft proposal paper and impact assessment are attached for information. Meetings have been undertaken with the Head teachers and Chair of Governors where the issues with regards pupil numbers, cost per pupil, building condition etc were shared and they were informed also that a proposal paper would be prepared for Cabinet approval to proceed to undertake a statutory consultation. I should be grateful if you can confirm that the process we have followed and the content of the attached comply with the requirements of the School Organisation Code with regards the proposed closure of a school designated as a rural school.” An e-mail was received from the Welsh Government which confirmed that ”You do need to satisfy yourselves with your legal team that you are complying with the Code. I can see that you are complying with Section 1.8 and making a proposal to the decision makers before going to consultation.” The e-mail goes on to confirm that they have read the document, and it includes recommendations to strengthen the case around surplus places which is significantly high. The Corporate Manager stated that following receipt of this information on 19 June 2024, internal legal advice was sought which provided an interpretation and set out the legal basis to be followed relating to the ‘presumption against the closure of rural schools’, and identifying reasonable alternatives to school closures.. At the meeting of the Cabinet held on the 3 September 2024, consideration was given the report of the Corporate Lead Officer for Schools, whereby Members approved the commencement of the statutory consultation process. The Corporate Director stated that following the Cabinet meeting an article was published in the Cambrian News under the headline of ‘Did Ceredigion Council Chief lie over Welsh Government ‘seal of approval’ for school closures plan?’ which alleged that the Corporate Director had misled the Cabinet during the meeting on 3 September 2024, by stating that the Welsh Government had given a seal of approval to the proposal. However, a verbatim record of the Cabinet meeting proves that the discussion at Cabinet referred to the process, not a proposal as follows: “As you can imagine, officers of the education department have been very careful as they formulated these reports. There was a period of drafting the reports, a period of contacting Welsh Government and we checked two things: the content of the reports and the process that we followed and both those issues have received a seal of approval by Welsh Government. Therefore, we are as safe as we can be that the process and content of the report is relevant“ The Corporate Director addressed a press-release issued by Cymdeithas yr Iaith which stated that during a meeting with Lynne Neagle MS, Education Secretary, that the then Director of Education had stated that “a presumption against closure means a presumption against closure.” Clarification was sought from Lynne Neagle who confirmed that the then Director of Education had been misquoted, and that he had stated that “a presumption against closure does not mean that a rural school will never close, but that the case for its closure must be strong and that all other practical options have been considered”. He also addressed the complaint made by the Chair of Governors of Llangwyryfon School to the Welsh Language Commissioner regarding the impact assessment upon the Welsh language. The Corporate Director noted that the requirements of the School Organisation Code do not comply with that of the Welsh Language Standards adopted by Ceredigion County Council, which have a higher baseline than most authorities in Wales. This complaint was addressed by Ceredigion County Council by amending the impact assessment and extending the consultation period accordingly. The Welsh Language Commissioner noted that she was satisfied by these actions and that she would not be conducting an investigation. Despite this, inaccurate articles appeared in the press, which included misquoting, serious allegations and claims that Welsh was not spoken on the schoolyard of a neighbouring school. An article which appeared in ‘Golwg’ also included errors such as the misidentification of Ysgol Syr John Rhys as a Church School. Lynne Neagle MS also noted that she was satisfied with the actions of Ceredigion County Council in committing to amend the Impact Assessment on the Welsh Language and in extending the consultation period. The Corporate Director also referred to a legal challenge received on 19 November 2024 in the form of a ‘Letter Before Action’, which proposed a claim for Judicial Review unless alternative measures were taken. The letter contained 7 potential grounds for challenge, submitted by 4 nominal representatives of their communities, all of whom were eligible for Legal Aid. The Corporate Director noted that Ceredigion County Council would not be able to reclaim legal costs even if it was successful in challenging the case, therefore it had to be prudent in considering its actions. He noted that the authority considered the 7 potential grounds for challenge and did not accept 6 of these. However, one of the grounds for judicial review related to the timing of the final decision in June / July 2025 ahead of the closure on 31 August 2025. It was challenged that there would be insufficient time for the transition of pupils generally and, in particular, pupils with Additional Learning Needs. He noted that any transitional arrangements made prior to the final decision on school closure could be viewed as a predetermination of that decision. He also noted that the snap General Election had delayed the initial commencement of the process. At the meeting of the Cabinet held on the 3 December 2024 it was agreed to treat the statutory consultation process to cease to maintain the provision at Ysgol Craig y Wylfa, Ysgol Llanfihangel y Creuddyn, Ysgol Llangwyryfon and Ysgol Syr John Rhys as an informal consultation on the reorganisation and future of the schools, as the timetable was deemed not to be achievable. It was also noted that the outcome of the informal consultation would be brought to the next meeting of the Learning Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and that a copy of the presentation would be sent to all Members together with a recording in an interview by Cymdeithas yr Iaith in which it states that they have never accused Officers of lying. However, the Corporate Director stated that the arguments have continued with accusations that the 5 officers presenting to the Scrutiny Committee have misled elected members and focussing specifically upon the Chief Executive and the Corporate Director. Serious allegations have been made in a letter from the Chairs of Governors of the 4 Schools to Cabinet Members on 1 December 2024, in which they stated that: • “we are deeply concerned that the damage done to our schools is the direct result of misrepresentations made to you by Barry Rees and Eifion Evans in your meeting on 3 September 2024. • In the meetings, several of you questioned the officers whether the required process had been followed according to the law. Mr Rees and Mr Evans both stated that assurances had been received that this was the case, indeed stating that “a seal of approval” had been given. As you will be aware, according to a letter by Welsh Government Education Secretary Lynne Neagle, no such assurances were given. • The misrepresentations made by Mr Rees and Mr Evans of these communications can be clearly identified in the recording of the meeting. This presents a clear violation of the Nolan principles, which requires that officers must act with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity. These misrepresentations and their consequences hugely undermine our trust and the trust within our communities in the leadership of the Council. If there are no disciplinary measures attached for those who have misled you, and us, it will also erode trust in you as those who should hold officers to account. Consequently, we ask you to instruct an independent, external investigation, both to unearth the role of different officers in this matter and to avoid a situation where if both officers were to blame, only one of them takes it, or a lower ranking officer is scapegoated. This should be led by someone who is fully independent and has no conflicts of interest (e.g. a London barrister). Those with a personal or working relationships with Mr Evans and Mr Rees (e.g. Chief Executives of other Welsh councils) cannot be considered independent.” The Corporate Director noted that this letter was sent to elected Members 2 days prior to the Cabinet Meeting and was quoted from by Members during this meeting as a matter of fact without seeking any evidence in support of these claims. As a result, this was reported in the local press, and the reputation of the Council and the Officers was dragged through the mud. The Corporate Director thanked the Cabinet for seeking the advice of a Barrister on this matter, and the following response was sent to the four Chairs of Governors: “It is clear from the documentation provided to me, which I understand to have been disclosed under the FOI procedure, that no misrepresentation took place and, despite requests that any evidence of misconduct be disclosed to the Council, none has been forthcoming. Having received the documentation referred to above, you have allowed false accusations, defamatory in nature, to be propagated further in the local press, which has served to seriously damage the personal and professional integrity of officers of the Council. You will understand that the propagation of such false information has the potential for causing severe reputational damage to the Officers in question but also renders you liable for a claim for substantial damages for defamation which would lie against you personally. You repeat the suggestion that not only have the Officers misled the Council by misleading it but go further to repeat the suggestion that the Officers have done so deliberately by lying. These are the most serious allegations and yet you make them without a scintilla of proof. You also, in calling for an Inquiry, suggest that the Officers would cover up wrongdoing by seeking to shift the blame or by scapegoating a lower ranking officer. You allege this with no evidence to justify your claim. All this has been disclosed to the local Press and it can only be assumed that your letter of the 1st December was leaked to the Press to further your own misguided ends. By so doing you have deliberately set out to damage the personal and professional integrity of the Council’s Officers.” To conclude, the Corporate Director noted that Ceredigion County Council had consulted with ‘Estyn’ upon the process, and that Estyn had confirmed that Ceredigion County Council had followed the correct procedures. Councillor Wyn Thomas noted the importance of this meeting to ensure a full understanding of the processes, and to demonstrate that the appropriate procedure had been followed. He thanked the Officers, noting that this had been a challenging time for staff and schools, and that support was always readily available to schools across the County. Recent Estyn reports had concluded that standards continued to be high in the County’s schools, whilst challenges remain in relation to attendance and additional education needs. He highlighted concerns regarding the reduction in births in the County and reduced pupil numbers that there were fewer teacher vacancies with schools cutting back on staff, that several schools were facing financial challenges, concerns regarding the condition of schools’ infrastructure, challenges in delivering the new curriculum and transport in a rural area. He stated that Ceredigion had led the way during the covid pandemic in terms of introducing virtual teaching and the ‘track and trace’ system. The Chair in response stated that this was an important meeting, in order that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could demonstrate that the systems are open to detailed scrutiny, and to provide reassurances to the public that the correct processes have been followed. He noted that the Scrutiny and Standards Officer had contacted the Welsh Government and had received a response, however he was disappointed that they chose not to attend, as it would have assisted in demonstrating the sincerity of the process. He acknowledged that local communities are passionate about their schools, but that it was important that they stick to the evidence whilst discussing the facts around this matter. Councillor Meirion Davies thanked officers for the presentation, however, he stated that this has been a difficult process for the schools, the children and the teachers. He asked Officers to confirm whether there would be any further considerations regard these schools due to concerns by parents and teachers. The Chief Executive in response stated that this is a political decision to be considered in its entirety by an appropriate forum, whilst complying with the democratic agenda in relation to the Principles of the Ensuring Sustainable Education Infrastructure Policy. He noted that the current infrastructure was not sustainable due to the reduction in pupil numbers. The Corporate Director noted that the consultation process had been changed to that of an informal consultation, and that they would need to restart from the beginning if this was to happen, and this would be a decision that would be made by the Cabinet. As stated at the beginning of the presentation, Members had provided Officers with a challenge to lead on this process as agreed in Medium Term Financial Strategy. There would be 300 fewer pupils in Ceredigion schools during the next academic year which was not sustainable. He stated that this process was also difficult for Officers, but that it had to be addressed as schools were struggling to manage within their budgets. He noted that the full Council would have the final decision on the closure of any schools. The Chair noted that this is a matter that needs to be reviewed constantly, ‘it’s like driving a car, you don’t just look at the road once’. Councillor Gareth Lloyd asked if there was an explanation or further information on the current position following an e-mail received the previous day from a complainant on behalf of one of the schools under consideration which referenced a complaint made against Officers on this matter. He queried if the complaint presented was being addressed and whether it was in the public domain. The Chair stated that he was not aware of the e-mail. Mr Barry Rees in response stated that he would be pleased to be given an opportunity to respond to the question. The complaint had been received and released to the local press at the same time, who published an article under the headline of “pants on fire” with a photograph of the Chief Executive and himself. The allegation was presented without any evidence attached to it, however as a complaint, it had to be actioned within a month of receipt of the complaint. He noted that a complaint had been made against the Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer and himself, and that the Investigation and Disciplinary Committee meeting was held last Monday. During the hearing the Committee methodically considered each element of the complaint, and the information provided, concluding that none of the allegations were upheld. The Chief Executive noted that he also received a letter personal to himself, which confirmed that none of the allegations were upheld. As there was no evidence to support any of the allegations, no record of the complaint would be held on their employee record; however, their reputation along with that of other members of staff involved in this process had been tarnished by the impact of these unfounded complaints made against them over the last seven months. He stated that he had asked on a number of occasions following the meeting in September 2024, if anyone had any evidence that officers had deceived, mislead or lied in this process, but that no evidence has ever been forthcoming. There had been several allegations but no evidence. If anyone searched their names on the internet these allegations would appear online. He noted that several communities over the last decade had experience the pain of closing small schools, and that staff had also suffered from this. The accusations had been considered in a Workshop for over 5 hours and now repeated in a public forum which was totally appropriate to alleviate all the allegations of lies and deceit against officers, and if no-one is able to provide any evidence in support of these allegations, then they can only be considered as libellous allegations. Councillor Gareth Lloyd noted that he appreciated that the process is confidential, however, he queried if the disciplinary committee had cross party representation, and whether there were officers present. The Chief Executive responded that there was cross party representation on the Committee, and that no Officers could sit on a panel to consider senior officers, confirming that this is a confidential process. Councillor Endaf Edwards stated that he was completely supportive of the Officers in relation to this matter and was totally adamant that nobody had been misled. He noted that outside bodies such as Estyn had also supported the views of the Council, which was an important factor for him. Councillor Euros Davies thanked Officers for their presentation which had reminded him of issues that had been raised at the Workshop and had been playing on his mind. He stated it was a responsibility of Councillors to protect staff and was concerned, as stated by the Chief Executive, that when their names were searched on the internet, these unfounded allegations would appear. This could also tarnish their prospects of applying for new jobs and therefore he suggested that an independent review be conducted in order to clear their names. The Corporate Director in response stated that this suggestion would undermine the Constitution and the decision of the cross-party Investigation and Disciplinary Committee. He stated that they had already gone through a process and had experience professional damage, and that their integrity had been questioned. If he wished to apply for a promotion at another authority, there was now a shadow cast over his name. If there was another review, he stated that his name would be damaged further; he stated that it was their decision as Councillors to proceed with this recommendation, however, being placed in a situation whereby he’d had to defend himself constantly had had a significant impact upon his reputation and integrity. Councillor Euros Davies stated that his aim was to clear the names of the Officers by considering the matter in further detail Mr Eifion Evans stated that Officers are answerable to the Members, and if they felt that the evidence provided to them was not sufficient, then that is for you to decide. During the Workshop, all Members agreed that they were satisfied with the evidence provided, and that Members needed to defend the Officers’ position publicly. It was stated at the Workshop that the public needed to hear the evidence, and this information has been provided on several occasions, and the Investigation and Disciplinary Committee has also agreed that the allegations against the Corporate Manager, the Monitoring Officer and the Chief Executive were without substance. He noted that Members have quoted unfounded allegations, and individuals have spoken to the press which has led to agitation and discontent towards members of staff, as well as abuse being thrown at them. If you believe that an investigation is required, Members were asked to consider what evidence presented would suggest that an investigation is required. Councillor Euros Davies stated that he had raised this to clear the name of the Officers, and that he was happy with the process that had been followed. Councillor Marc Davies thanked the Officers, noting that none of the Independent Group or Members of this Committee believed any of the allegations. He stated that if he had any allegations against Officers he would inform them directly rather than reporting it to the press. He stated that the correct process had been followed; however, as Councillors they were being questioned on a regular basis by members of the public on this issue. He stated that the press would not change and was disappointed that representatives from Welsh Government were unwilling to address the Committee, as this would be an opportunity for the public to hear the correct information and to quash the allegations. Dewi Siôn Evans (Parent Governor representative) thanked Officers for presenting the information and evidence in a manner that was concise and easy to understand, and he hoped representatives from the press were present to report back and clear the name of the Council. He noted that collating all of this information would have involved a lot of work and confirmed that he was completely satisfied that the processes followed had been correct, and that he respected the transparency of the evidence presented. He noted that it was evident that there would be difficult decisions facing the Council in terms of the educational provision for the whole county given the data presented on the decline in pupil numbers over the next five years and the financial pressures. He added that he was saddened to hear of the time and resources used to defend the process, as it was clear Officers had operated correctly, and that the Welsh Government had given their seal of approval to the process. Resources were scarce and he did not wish to see any further resources wasted on an external independent enquiry as today’s meeting had been more than adequate. Councillor Gareth Lloyd stated he could understand the view of Councillor Euros Davies as well as the responses from the Officers in terms of an independent enquiry. He noted that evidence had been presented to them, however there are some people out there that are asking us if a complaint had been logged with the Ombudsman. Within the e-mail he had received, there were allegations of maladministration, and a suggestion of a referral to the Ombudsman, although he was unclear whether this had taken place. He echoed Councillor Marc Davies’ disappointment that Welsh Government had not accepted the invitation to attend today’s meeting. He did not agree with their reasoning for not doing so as they could have supported the Officers’ in the presentation of evidence. He felt it was evident from the workshop and today’s meeting that the reasons for the current position on the matter were due to the terminology used (process, content, proposal, procedure), with different groups interpreting these words in a different way. In terms of the accusations, he was comfortable with the explanation of what had taken place and responses to the allegations and as the Chief Executive had indicated, this forum was the place to scrutinise, and similar to any process, there would always be different views. He explained that it was key to consider what could be learned from the process in the future. On behalf of the governing body of Talgarreg Primary School, he presented feedback that included a suggestion that if there were any changes to the process for schools in a similar position again, that they were provided with more detailed explanations. He also referred to the matrix used, the need for an explanation as to why some schools were on the list and other were not, to the concerns presented early on in terms of the timescales for implementing any changes, and that some schools were unaware of the possibility of presenting alternative options against the presumption of school closures. He noted that despite it being repeated time after time that all alternatives should be considered, he had spoken to several school who noted that there had not been sufficient discussion on the options put forward. He added that they had asked if the schools could be informed in advance if there was a decision after whether the respective school was to be presented to Cabinet for consideration (or otherwise). Barry Rees stated if the process commenced again, the difference between the terms ‘process’, ‘proposal’ and ‘procedures’ would be explained in detail and although the terms may seem to be interchangeable, their meaning was very different. He noted that it all came down to interpretation, and that despite numerous explanations, this matter just continued. He acknowledged it had been a difficult process from the outset following the first meeting in February 2024, and that the continued challenges and attacks on Officers’ professional integrity had been a barrier to communicating with schools. In relation to the matrix, there had to be a consideration of the criteria, and the weighting largely depended on pupil numbers since this was the main driver funding, however this is not a precise science. The situation and the sustainability of schools is dependent on pupil number, and where schools have low pupil numbers, the challenges are daunting which impact the schools' ability to allocate funding for maintenance, which can lead to the dispensing of caretakers and the deterioration of the buildings. It was noted that the General Election in 2025 had caused difficulties, and presenting the reports in September as opposed to June 2025 as intended had impacted upon the whole process. He explained if there was a statutory consultation again, the date for ceasing to maintain the provision at a school may possibly be open-ended, or the timeframe could be extended. Eifion Evans explained that when he had written the ’Planning Education Provision to 2020’ document in 2007, there were far more opportunities for creating a federation with other schools due to the high number of small schools that existed across the county at that time, which made it easier to discuss the various options. For example, there was an initial proposal to adapt Cwrtnewydd School and to close the Llanwennog and Llanwnnen Schools, however following proposals by communities and extensive discussions, a democratic decision was made to improve the provision in the area and to build a new area school. This was not contained in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy at the time, therefore Officers were not able to propose this, however it was Councillor Euros Evans that managed to persuade Cabinet to consider this proposal. This is how the Ysgol Dyffryn Cledlyn School and the Ysgol Bro Sion Cwilt area schools came about, with a slightly different process for Ysgol Dyffryn Aeron School and Ysgol Henry Richard School. He noted that there are far fewer options available today due to the reduced number of schools. He referred to the extreme pressures placed upon Head Teachers in small schools due to their reduced funding, whilst taking on responsibility for everything including administration, opening and closing, salaries and catering as well as teaching and emphasised that Ceredigion education infrastructure was unsustainable in its current form. He asked Members to consider their responsibility in terms of ensuring safety and the working conditions of the staff at these schools and asked what measures they wished to put in place in order to assist these Head Teachers, noting that it is the elected Members that set the agenda in terms of the educational infrastructure. Councillor Gareth Lloyd suggested whether it would be appropriate to discuss the education infrastructure under the Committee’s ‘Ensure an effective and efficient infrastructure to meet our priorities’ workstream as it would be key to learning from past experiences. He noted that he agreed that this not only affected the small schools, but also the medium size schools, where the Head Teachers are also teaching practically full-time, and that he acknowledged the need to look across all sectors. Eifion Evans explained that they are required to follow the framework [the School Organisation Code], and that 6 of the 7 legal challenges were not accepted. He noted that the process was long-winded and extremely frustrating, and that it needed to be reviewed as a matter of urgency in order to simplify the process. He added that medium and larger-sized schools suffered as a result of subsidizing the smaller schools to ensure adequate funding to maintain schools whose pupil numbers can be as little as under half a class in size compared to larger schools. In response to Councillor Gareth Lloyd’s question on the timeline for the Welsh Government’s consultation upon the School Organisation Code which had been considered at a recent Members’ Panel, the Corporate Manager for Educational Resources confirmed that no correspondence had been received to date following the submission of the response and the supplementary questions sent on 14.02.25. Councillor Elizabeth Evans stated she was satisfied following the workshop in January 2025 that the correct process had been followed and with what Officers had done, and that she had proposed at that workshop that the information be presented to the Committee today. She clarified that she remained satisfied having read all the information carefully and was still of the opinion that all Officers had done what was asked of them and had behaved with complete integrity throughout the process. She did not feel that an Independent Review was required as she trusted that everyone had scrutinised the papers and had the ability to read and analyse the information and come to a conclusion similar to what had happened at the workshop and again today. She also added that it was naïve to think that Civil Servants would have accepted the invitation to attend the meeting. Councillor Amanda Edwards echoed Councillor Elizabeth Evans' views and agreed and accepted the information presented. She added that she appreciated it had been a difficult time for all. Councillor Gwyn Wigley Evans stated he had received a letter to read on behalf of Councillor Hugh Hughes as he had been unable to attend the meeting. In the letter, Councillor Hugh Hughes had declared a personal interest in the matter due to his role as a Governor at Craig yr Wylfa Primary School and his connections to parents and supporters of the school. The letter referenced the Workshop held in January 2025 where Councillor Bryan Davies, Leader of the Council had expressed his wish to draw a line under the matter, which he [Councillor Hugh Hughes] had disagreed completely with this and had responded by quoting a member of the public’s words regarding how angry people were about the consultation. As a result, he had been interviewed three times by the Monitoring Officer. The statement also noted that he did not recall that there was agreement at the meeting as to the conduct of Officers during the Cabinet meeting on 3 September 2024. Given his extensive investigatory experience in policing, professional regulatory bodies and bullying and harassment in public services, he had grave concerns with the accuracy of the information presented today and did not agree that the that Members were in agreement, nor that leaders had agreed to sign a joint statement. From his understanding, the meeting was confidential, which he assumed was un-minuted and no vote was taken. The letter went on to say that there was a significant lack of public confidence in the Council and that the matter should be investigated in an honest, open and transparent manner. He respectfully requested that the Committee recommended that there is a need for an independent inquiry into the whole process to propose to consult on the closure of four schools along with the Officers’ comments at the Cabinet meeting on 03.09.24, and only then could they try and regain the trust of the public. Councillor Gwyn Wigley Evans concluded by adding that the letter conveyed the views of Councillor Hugh Hughes. Councillor Gwyn Wigley Evans declared a personal interest as he was a Governor at Llangwyryfon Primary School. He stated that the Members’ Panel [Investigating and Disciplinary Committee] held to consider the complaint should have included Elected Members as mentioned earlier by the Chief Executive, and an external person, stating that he was not sure if this was correct in terms of the Constitution. With regards to the [letter before action] Judicial Review, which he stated that he took no part in, and involved 4 representatives from each school, he noted that he had not received much information since, and he believed the slides presented at the workshop had more information than he had been aware of previously. He stated that without the [letter before action] Judicial Review, they would have continued with the process and the schools would have closed in August 2025, which he felt was bad timing and did not provide much time for the pupils and staff therefore he was pleased Officers had said the timeline would not have been possible to implement. He added that several things had not happened before the process commenced such as the consultation and a meeting with the school and the area. In relation to the Judicial Review, he noted that it would have shown any errors, if there were any, therefore the process would be better and more accurate next time. The point concerning timing in the Judicial Review was already an improvement, and ‘six-nil was six-nil’ and that if you are not of the same opinion as the lawyer, then he is happy to move forward on this. He noted that there had been no discussion with governors as far as he was aware, and that this was not correct. Barry Rees clarified that details of the consultation process had been explained and there was no requirement to hold discussions with communities as per the School Organisation Code, however, he appreciated there was an assumption that this was the case. He added that is was not his intention to raise the matter of ‘six-nil’ in order to avoid embarrassment to the Member, as this did not convey the true situation, as only one part of the [letter before action] judicial review had been accepted. Eifion Evans said Councillor Gwyn Wigley Evans had alleged there had been no effort to meet with Governors. He asked Councillor Gwyn Wigley Evans to forward evidence to prove this as Officers had evidence to the contrary. Councillor Gwyn Wigley Evans noted that as far as he was aware, that there had not been any recent meetings with the Chairs of Governors. Barry Rees clarified that Officers had offered to meet with the Chair of Governors at Llangwyryfon Primary School on several occasions, but this offer had not been accepted each time. He added that they were not in a position to investigate false allegations and that evidence would be provided to Members outside of this forum. Eifion Evans asked that the minutes include the allegations made against Officers by Councillor Gwyn Wigley Evans word for word. Councillor Gwyn Wigley Evans responded noting that he understood that the meetings mentioned were some time ago, and he was not aware of recent invitations. He apologised if he had misunderstood this. Councillor Gareth Lloyd queried whether representatives from the Cabinet had met with schools; Barry Rees clarified that a Senior Education Officer had met with schools specifically to discuss budgets and the financial pressures that they are facing. The Chair noted that the Committee had received a detailed presentation and that there had been detailed discussion also. He thanked the Members for their questions. He explained that he was happy with the information presented and it had given him peace of mind therefore he saw no purpose in prolonging the process. He indicated that if members had no trust in the process today, there was no purpose to the scrutiny committee. Councillor Marc Davies stated he was in complete agreement and was eager to draw a line under the matter. He proposed that a letter was sent on behalf of the Committee to Welsh Government expressing their disappointment with the response received and their refusal to attend today’s Meeting. Councillor Gareth Lloyd seconded the proposal. Following a vote, it was agreed that a letter be sent on behalf of the Committee.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
AGREED to note the update as provided.
It was AGREED to note the update as provided.
It was AGREED to confirm as a true record the Minutes of the Meeting of the previous meeting held on 6 February 2025.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.