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.
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A(4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act. Members considered the private appendix two. Resolved: Members resolved to suspend access to meetings. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Cllr Ceri Clarke declared a Professional non-prejudicial interest in item 5c – as she is a benefits adviser for a charity and the item discusses the welfare rights department and their work with Macmillan. And also, a personal non-prejudicial interest in item 6b - a close friend is employed by Adferiad.
The minutes were approved as an accurate record.
There were no items to consider from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.
The committee considered items from the scrutiny committee forward work programme.
The Head of Housing and Communities presented an update on the Wales Audit Office review of temporary accommodation and its role in tackling homelessness. The authority acknowledged ongoing challenges, including high demand and extended stays in temporary accommodation, largely due to difficulties in securing alternative tenancies. Reliance on bed and breakfast provision was noted as the most practical option for supporting vulnerable individuals and preventing homelessness. Members were advised that a clear strategy is in place to address these issues, with progress being made, although full transformation will take time. The audit’s timing was welcomed, as its recommendations align with the authority’s strategic objectives and transformation programme. A comprehensive response to the recommendations, detailed in Appendix 2, has been submitted and accepted. The report also referenced Neath Port Talbot positively in relation to improving local authority approaches. Members queried maintenance arrangements for council-owned temporary accommodation. Officers confirmed that the council owns and leases units from Tai Tarian and other Registered Social Landlords, with maintenance responsibilities defined within agreements. Some hostel buildings operate under management agreements, making arrangements more complex. Future property purchases will require ongoing work in this area. The Director of Social Services, Health and Housing highlighted that as the council moves towards owning more accommodation, an internal maintenance team will be developed. While this will incur additional costs, overall savings are anticipated. Additional staff will be employed to support this function. Members referred to the Rapid Rehousing Transition Plan and asked whether the authority had primary, secondary and tertiary approaches in place. Officers confirmed that a response had been provided and explained that the forthcoming prevention report would address this in detail, as prevention remains a key focus to avoid individuals entering temporary accommodation. The authority operates across three stages: early intervention, statutory duties, and progression where prevention is unsuccessful. Members commented that the Audit Wales Report focused on all councils and asked would it be more beneficial if the report presented to committee focused specifically on Neath Port Talbot. Officers explained that while the audit was national in scope, supplementary reports provide local detail. Concerns were raised regarding audit costs and whether similar reports were replicated across councils. The Director clarified that the audit was commissioned and funded by Welsh Government, not by individual councils, and was initiated due to concerns about homelessness across Wales. Neath Port Talbot was referenced positively within the report. The Chair of Scrutiny highlighted the Welsh Government’s “home for everyone” initiative during the Covid-19 crisis and questioned whether support has since improved, noting the absence of criticism of Welsh Government in the report. Officers explained that the audit focused on local authorities’ value for money. Welsh Government continues to provide support through measures such as the TACP fund, social housing grants, and additional capital programmes to increase affordable housing stock. Further funding has been committed to the Housing Support Grant, enabling local authorities to provide support services. Regular meetings with Welsh Government and the Housing Minister address ongoing pressures and statutory obligations. Members asked whether meetings with Welsh Government were a new initiative or had been in place previously. The Head of Service explained that quarterly meetings with the Housing Minister are a recent development, while other forums, such as the Housing and Leadership Group, have been established for some time and meet every couple of months. Additionally, relationship managers hold meetings with officers every six weeks to gather feedback, a practice introduced during the Covid period and maintained for the past five years. The Cabinet Member emphasised that homelessness legislation is not solely about resources but also about securing adequate funding to meet statutory obligations. The Covid-19 measures to prevent homelessness remain in effect under the new Housing Bill. Local authorities have sought assurances from Welsh Government regarding resourcing, but no definitive funding commitment has been provided. Welsh Government has outlined an integrated assessment process, and councils continue to press for sufficient resources to ensure effective implementation of the legislation. Members raised the following questions: • Are housing support services sufficient to support tenants in temporary accommodation, particularly the most vulnerable. • Will officers work with ward councillors on the purchase of homes within their areas? • Of the £219.5m funding provided by Welsh Government, what proportion was allocated to Neath Port Talbot and how this funding was used. The Head of Housing and Communities advised that housing support grant services, originally designed for past needs, are being reviewed to reflect changing population demands and increased complexity within homelessness services. The review aims to identify necessary changes to service models, improve outcome measurement, and ensure support is appropriately targeted. Findings will be reported upon completion. The Head of Service confirmed that the council has approval to develop its own housing stock to help address homelessness. A process is in place to notify ward members when property offers are accepted, and an all-member seminar on 6 November will provide further details and an opportunity for questions. Local members will be informed when properties are purchased within their ward. The Scrutiny Chair asked for clarification and stated that ward members should be contacted prior to a house purchase. The Head of Service advised that members would be contacted when an offer was made, and that offers could be withdrawn if further information was presented at that stage. Officers noted that approximately 150 properties had been viewed recently, the market was volatile, and swift action was often required. Members disagreed, suggesting that a telephone call at the viewing stage would allow earlier involvement. The Director emphasised the need for a balanced approach, advising that notifying members when an offer had been accepted was appropriate, as offers could still be withdrawn in exceptional circumstances, and alternative approaches might delay progress. Members expressed concern about the adequacy of support services. Officers confirmed that £845,000 had been received in housing support grants from Welsh Government, alongside other smaller grants, with details to be circulated following the meeting. Members reiterated the importance of consulting ward members when purchasing properties, noting that they may hold valuable local knowledge, such as flooding risks or areas of drug activity, and asked officers to reconsider their approach. Members queried whether any offers had been made without prior contact with ward members. The Head of Service confirmed that ten offers had been accepted and that ward members were contacted at the appropriate time, with no notable issues identified. Checks were carried out with Community Safety to ensure a good understanding of the area. Members commended the work of the Community Safety Team but emphasised that ward members are better placed to understand local issues. Regular meetings were held with the Police for ward members to update on issues within the ward. The Director reaffirmed his recommendation that members be informed once an offer on a property has been accepted, enabling ward members to provide relevant input. Cabinet members will review suggestions from scrutiny and determine an appropriate course of action. A seminar scheduled for next week will include a presentation on this matter, with feedback gathered before deciding next steps. The Scrutiny Chair highlighted the committee’s significant involvement in contacting Welsh Government regarding property purchases and sought the Cabinet member’s view on the approach taken within his ward. The Cabinet member for Housing and Communities explained that, in cases involving his ward, a colleague would act to avoid conflicts of interest. He stressed the need for a balanced approach, noting that once an offer is accepted and completion is likely, members can contribute relevant information. Assurance was given that support will be in place to ensure successful tenancies, with ongoing work to strengthen assessment and support processes. Confidence was expressed in officers’ diligence to manage this effectively. The Scrutiny Chair added that ward members could play a role in helping new tenants settle, though some members felt disconnected from the property purchasing process. Members discussed the most appropriate stage for engaging ward members in the property purchase process. Opinions varied: some advocated for earlier involvement, citing the resources committed before an offer is accepted, while others felt that engagement at the point of offer acceptance was sufficient. The Scrutiny Chair queried whether offers could be withdrawn if adverse information was provided by ward members. The Director of Social Services, Health and Housing advised that offers could be withdrawn in reasonable and exceptional circumstances where local members provided relevant information. The Director of Social Services, Health and Housing confirmed that offers could be withdrawn in exceptional circumstances where relevant information was received. The Head of Service explained that members would be contacted before any legal obligation to complete the purchase, but earlier engagement was impractical due to the fast-moving nature of the property market. It was reiterated that once an offer is accepted, members receive full property details by email and can raise concerns for consideration. Members would continue to monitor going forward. The Director acknowledged the strength of members’ views and assured that senior officers had taken these concerns into account. Members requested clarification on why certain properties are considered unsuitable for viewing. Officers explained that the Strategy Team identifies potential properties based on type and location, followed by an operational review of condition and maintenance requirements. Properties needing minimal work and allowing quick occupation are prioritised, while those in poor condition are excluded. Given the competitive market, the process requires rapid reporting and approval, as demonstrated by a recent case where an offer was accepted within 48 hours. Approximately 150–160 properties have been assessed to date, with checks including consultation with the Community Safety Team and consideration of transport links. Officers assured that purchased properties are of good quality, meet homelessness needs, and are unlikely to present future issues. Members asked whether probate had caused delays. Officers confirmed this has not been an issue and is checked with estate agents before viewing. Properties in chains are avoided unless ready to proceed. Many available properties are ex-rental and refurbished. Officers noted that the first property offered on in mid-June is expected to complete by mid-November, illustrating that conveyancing typically takes three to four months. Members referred to page 51 of the report and enquired whether a breakdown table of routes by which people access homelessness services was held for Neath Port Talbot. Officers confirmed that, for the year to date, there have been just under 1,400 presentations in the past six months, with 80% being self-referrals. Internal services accounted for 6%, and prison referrals approximately 4%. A more detailed breakdown can be provided if required. Members questioned the procedure if a resident is supported by the authority in a private rental but due to a change in circumstances, the property is no longer deemed suitable. Officers explained that applications are assessed individually based on suitability and reasonableness. Supporting evidence, such as Occupational Therapy reports, may be considered. If a property is deemed unsuitable, homelessness duty may apply, and assistance will be provided. Social housing tenants are also advised to contact their landlord regarding transfer options. Members enquired if many referrals were received internally. Officers confirmed that there were eighty-three referrals in the last six months from internal services and this was a regular occurrence. The Director commented that this cohort requires proper care planning, as there is both a housing issue and a care issue. He emphasised that the two sides of the directorate need to work together and confirmed that this approach is currently being progressed. The Scrutiny Chair noted the links between various service areas and suggested that it may be beneficial to consider certain linked items within the same scrutiny meeting. The Director agreed that this would be a positive approach; senior leadership across the region had recognised the need to integrate work on housing, substance misuse, care, homelessness, and mental health issues. Efforts are underway to review regional structures to enable this joined-up approach, and a report will be brought back to the Committee once this work has progressed. Members raised the issue of data analysis and questioned whether a system was in place to analyse data collaboratively. The Director confirmed that there are a number of data analysts working across different areas, but these need to be brought together, which forms part of the restructuring work currently being undertaken. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved: to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A(4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act. Members considered the private appendix two. Resolved: Members resolved to suspend access to meetings. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Officers presented the Rapid Rehousing Progress Report, confirming that over 150 properties have been reviewed, with just under fifty taken forward for viewing and twenty-three rejected at that stage. Ten offers have been accepted, and local members have been informed. Officers assured that discussions on these properties will remain transparent, with scope for reconsideration if significant issues arise. The work is being delivered collaboratively across internal partners, with members contributing to achieving the right accommodation mix. Purchasing these properties will enable individuals to move from bed and breakfast accommodation into suitable housing, reducing temporary accommodation costs. This forms part of a wider strategy detailed in the appendix. Officers also highlighted ongoing engagement with Welsh Government to address challenges and maximise funding opportunities, including recent increases in capital funding. Members raised concerns about individuals whose current homes are unsuitable due to disabilities and where a Disabled Facilities Grant is not viable. They asked whether purchasing properties for those wishing to move from private to social housing had been considered. Officers confirmed they are willing to review any suitable properties identified by members but noted that strict guidelines on property type may limit options. Members further asked whether there would be any legal implications if they discussed the possibility of selling with individuals before they approached an estate agent. Officers did not indicate any legal restrictions but confirmed this can be checked. Members queried whether this could be incorporated into the process if someone presented in such circumstances. The Head of Service explained that if Social Services were involved, the Housing Team would not necessarily be aware due to GDPR requirements. However, it was agreed that the matter could be explored further and suggested revisiting the issue as part of ongoing work. Members noted that ward members are often aware of residents in private accommodation who are actively seeking to move to alternative housing. It was emphasised that ward members’ local knowledge is a valuable asset in supporting this process. Members queried how, within the rapid rehousing approach, the authority ensures residents can move on from properties purchased for temporary use once alternative accommodation becomes available. Officers acknowledged this as a key challenge and explained that the scheme facilitates closer engagement with individuals to support a clear pathway into long-term housing. Work is undertaken with registered social landlords to ensure residents are placed on the housing register and opportunities for rehousing are maximised. Officers highlighted high demand for one-bedroom properties, contrasted with a stronger supply of two and three-bedroom homes in Neath Port Talbot. The property purchase project addresses the short-term shortage of one-bedroom units, with development forecasts expected to improve provision over the coming years. Officers stressed that multiple strategies must work together to achieve this aim. Members thanked officers for the response but emphasised the importance of ensuring, from a legal perspective, that residents do not remain in properties intended for temporary use under the rapid rehousing scheme. Resolved: to exclude the public for the following item(s) pursuant to Section 100A(4) and (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the relevant exempt paragraphs of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the above Act. Members considered the private appendix two. Resolved: Members resolved to suspend access to meetings. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Officers advised members that the report provided an overview of the work undertaken and the challenges faced by the Welfare Rights Unit. The Chair commended the team’s work, noting the significant benefits for residents despite the unit not being a statutory service. Members echoed this praise but highlighted that the report did not reference financial implications, stressing that any reduction in stakeholder revenue could impact the authority. Members queried whether data exists on the effect of residents not claiming entitled benefits, which could increase pressure on services. Officers confirmed the unit provides a preventative service that reduces demand on frontline services and promotes self-sufficiency. Further work is planned to assess the financial impact, findings can be reported to the committee, when available. Members also asked about referrals for complex conditions such as Parkinson’s. Officers advised that a directory for signposting exists and committed to further networking with charities and organisations to strengthen specialist referral pathways. Members questioned what was the current waiting time from a referral to an application or a benefits assessment? Officers confirmed that a benefits check was usually completed within 48 hours. Surgery waiting time, for support with an application was approximately two weeks. However, every effort was made to prioritise urgent cases. Following an application completion, the outcome waiting time was around three months. Members enquired if success rates for initial applications were monitored. Officers advised that this data was not available at present, due to capacity issues, but this could be looked into further as part of the Case Management system. The Scrutiny Chair agreed that, although time consuming to produce, data to explain the outcomes achieved by the unit would be beneficial. It was noted that the unit is well used and there was always a long waiting list, which showed the good work that was being undertaken on behalf of residents. The Director of Social Services, Health and Housing commented on the excellent work undertaken by the team which was important for the local authority area. It was noted that without the work of the unit, local people would lose out on £12.5m worth of support, to which they were entitled. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
The Committee considered the Performance Monitoring Items form the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme.
The Head of Children and Young People’s Services introduced the Adult Services Team Manager, deputising for the Principal Officer for Safeguarding following their departure. Members expressed best wishes and acknowledged the officer’s contribution. Officers reported that Adult Services referrals remain consistent, mainly concerning care homes and individuals over sixty-five. Of these, 13% progressed to Section 126 inquiries, with 25% requiring protective action, prompting consideration of intervention thresholds across agencies. Challenges with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were highlighted, including funding constraints and reliance on agency staff, contributing to delays and breaches. A spike in May was linked to backlog clearance, with improvements expected in the next CIW report. Officers welcomed the planned transition to Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS), which should ease pressures and improve protections, with consultation due early next year. In Children’s Services, referral rates have steadily increased, though numbers on the Child Protection Register and looked-after children remain stable. Officers stressed the importance of robust safeguarding systems and proportionate support for families. Work continues to monitor referral trends, train staff and partners, and strengthen early intervention through collaboration with health and education services. The Head of Children and Young People Services highlighted opportunities to improve safeguarding across the directorate by working more closely with partners. Future reports will explore how agencies can collaborate effectively, review case examples, and develop approaches to improving outcomes for children, families, and vulnerable individuals in Neath Port Talbot. Members referred to page 103 of the report, highlighting a gap in understanding between poverty and child sexual abuse and asked what work is being done to address this. Officers advised that while poverty can influence neglect, there is no proven link to child sexual abuse. Significant work has been undertaken on poverty’s impact on families, including welfare rights support to ensure correct benefits and income. The service has invested in specialist training, creating a cohort of child sexual abuse experts who work with partners such as Barnardo’s to improve understanding of abuse and its intersection with poverty. Members acknowledged the clarification but reiterated concern about the lack of a clear approach to addressing the gap. The Head of Service confirmed that data collation and analysis are ongoing, with findings to be reported in due course. The Scrutiny Chair asked what support is available for adults who disclose historic abuse but were not previously known to the service. The Head of Service explained that care-experienced adults often request access to their files, a process requiring sensitive handling. Support is provided during this process, with signposting to other agencies where appropriate. Officers noted that support depends on assessed care and support needs. If allocated a social worker, options are explored accordingly. New Pathways was highlighted as a specialist service for survivors of sexual abuse, alongside community mental health teams and counselling services. The Director of Social Services, Health and Housing added that third-sector organisations have significant expertise in supporting adults with historic abuse, and referrals to Social Services alone may not always be appropriate unless there are co-occurring issues, in which case an assessment of care and support needs would determine involvement. Members queried whether the service currently has specialists in child sexual abuse, as previous comments suggested this was a new development. Officers clarified that all social workers receive child protection training, which includes aspects of child sexual abuse. However, the service identified a need for more in-depth expertise and has therefore invested in specialist training. Members queried whether the data referenced in the report was previously collected or if this was a new initiative. The Head of Service explained that children’s services have always maintained strong performance information and data collection. However, the current focus is on dedicating more time and resources to analysing this data in greater depth, particularly in relation to complex issues such as poverty and child sexual abuse. Members expressed surprise, noting that corporate parenting previously received figures and questioned why this appeared to be a new development. The Director clarified that the service continues to hold and use data for day-to-day management of services. The new approach aims to go beyond existing practices by overlaying multiple datasets to understand broader determinants of health and wellbeing. For example, mapping poverty across the local authority and examining its correlation with different categories of abuse. This represents an enhanced analysis rather than a change in data availability. Members sought clarification on the reference to breaches with agencies, asking whether this related to paperwork breaches. Officers explained that the breaches referred to deprivation of liberty standard authorisations. When allocating cases, the service occasionally uses agency workers despite significant reductions in agency reliance and the development of a pool of sessional workers. Deadlines are set for the return of documentation, but delays by agency workers can result in a gap between the expiry of an existing authorisation and the approval of a new one. Officers assured members that a clear plan is in place to manage this process and ensure authorisations are completed promptly to minimise any risk of unlawful deprivation. Members asked whether a safety net exists to identify missing correspondence and enable follow-up. Officers confirmed that a robust audit trail is maintained, including prompts, reminders, and deadline tracking, which is accurately reflected in the authorisation process for deprivation of liberty forms four and five. Officers confirmed that data on children subject to child protection for sexual abuse is routinely captured. The report references the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Tracker (MAST) as a tool for overlaying datasets to identify trends, with recent work involving community safety partners to improve understanding and targeting of support. Members referred to page 92 of the report and queried the apparent inconsistency between increased contact and stable Child Protection Register figures, requested clearer separation of children’s and adults’ data, and sought clarification on MAST governance and the scope of improved data analytics. Officers were asked to expand on these points in future reports. In response, officers explained that the increase relates to referrals to the children’s front door, driven by early help and prevention services such as Team Around the Family. Work with partners has promoted Social Services as a supportive, preventative resource rather than solely statutory intervention. All preventative referrals are processed through Single Point of Contact (SPOC), and data shows a rise in self-referrals from families seeking support. Members referred to the 25% figure on page 97 of the report, noting that this includes child sexual abuse, domestic violence, and abuse, and queried why this increase does not appear to affect the Child Protection Register (CPR). Officers explained that CPR numbers are not static; they are continually reviewed as part of ongoing case management. Children may be added to or removed from the register depending on progress made by families and the level of risk identified. While the overall number may appear stable in quarterly or six-monthly reports, it fluctuates as plans are reviewed and updated. Officers further explained that referrals involving issues such as domestic violence or mental health concerns do not automatically indicate a safeguarding risk. Instead, these cases often reflect a need for support, and proportionate interventions are put in place to manage and mitigate risks while working alongside families. Members referred to the mention of child sexual abuse on page 97 and questioned whether such cases would automatically trigger consideration for placing a child on the Child Protection Register. The Head of Service outlined processes for assessing harm occurring outside the family home, noting that cases of sexual abuse by non-family members do not automatically result in registration if carers are not implicated. Decisions are based on risk and the involvement of those responsible for the child’s care. Members requested that future reports provide clearer explanations of proactive actions taken in such cases, particularly given the emphasis throughout the report on maintaining the lowest and most stable CPR numbers. Members also reiterated their earlier query regarding MAST, asking who holds ultimate responsibility for its governance and seeking further detail on the reference to improved data analytics. Officers were asked to clarify how data analytics will change in future reporting. The Head of Service explained that MAST was developed to address issues identified in inquiries, particularly poor information sharing between agencies. It is intended as a collaborative tool to improve safeguarding processes, though further investment and resources will be required for its long-term success. The Director confirmed that governance for MAST currently sits with the West Glamorgan Safeguarding Board. MAST remains in its early stages, with development work ongoing. The Director highlighted that the local authority is leading in Wales, and potentially the UK, in mapping wider impacts of factors such as poverty, drug use, and mental health on abuse of children and adults. This involves integrating data from multiple sources, including police, health, third sector organisations, and the local authority. While the concept of MAST is straightforward, implementation is complex. The aim is to create a system enabling all agencies to access information on involvement and concerns at any point, providing a clear picture of multi-agency engagement. Members referred to page 97 of the report and queried whether the content was connected to the Turning the Tide report, which will be considered by the Committee in March. Members emphasised that in order to work effectively with other agencies, a robust system is essential. The Director confirmed that there would be links between the two pieces of work. However, the development of MAST is innovative and highly complex, primarily due to GDPR considerations, which have historically prevented similar systems from being implemented. Members welcomed this development, commenting that such a system has been needed for many years. They acknowledged that legislation and technological advancements, including IT and AI, now make this possible. Members expressed the view that previous approaches had overcomplicated information sharing and suggested that tiered access systems, similar to those used by the police, could facilitate secure multi-agency collaboration while complying with GDPR requirements. Members referred to page 99 of the report, which states that families must agree to a partner agency referring them to preventative services. Members asked what happens if a need is identified but the family does not consent to the referral. The Head of Service explained that situations where families are reluctant to engage are common. In such cases, the service seeks to balance the need for understanding the family’s circumstances with respecting their right to decline involvement unless child protection concerns are present. Skilled workforce intervention often helps to shift families’ positions, particularly in cases that are harder to reach or borderline child protection. In the majority of cases, engagement is achieved through professional dialogue and reassurance. Where families continue to refuse and concerns persist, the service undertakes a professional judgement, consulting with relevant partners, to determine whether escalation into the child protection arena is necessary. This is the only circumstance under which the service can proceed without family consent. Members expressed concern and commented that if parents refuse to cooperate or make necessary changes, the approach must remain child-focused, and appropriate action should be taken to ensure the child’s welfare. Officers emphasised that consent is a key principle in their work, as better outcomes are achieved when families agree to engage and work alongside services. It was noted that the child remains the central focus of all actions and plans. Members referred to the table on page 100 of the report and asked in future could a summary of table one be provided rather than it being referred to as table two. Members questioned why there was a spike in July as no information has been provided and asked for this information to be provided to members outside of the meeting. Members referred to page 110 of the report concerning the Corporate Safeguarding Group. It was noted that a development morning had been held to revise the current Corporate Safeguarding Policy and the Group’s Terms of Reference. Members queried what revisions had been made and the reasons for these changes. The Head of Service explained that the Group is proactive and includes representation from all areas of the Council. The revisions were necessary because the existing Terms of Reference were outdated and did not accurately reflect current attendees or priorities. Members requested sight of the revised Terms of Reference and the updated Corporate Safeguarding Policy. Further discussion took place regarding page 98 of the report, which referenced a significantly improved uptake of safeguarding training across directorates. Members questioned whether the training is compulsory, and if not, why this is the case. The Head of Service confirmed that safeguarding training is mandatory. It was noted that following the Estyn Inspection, information had been shared with the Corporate Safeguarding Group concerning the low take-up of school governors undertaking safeguarding training, this issue will be monitored through the Corporate Safeguarding Group. Members expressed concern that the report’s reference to the improved uptake did not provide sufficient reassurance. Members requested clarification on how many staff (excluding governors) are yet to receive safeguarding training and the reasons for this. The Head of Service confirmed that all social workers have completed safeguarding training and undertook to bring back further information for members. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members discussed the West Glamorgan Safeguarding Children and Adult Board attendance figures, noting that while members agreed to attend 75% of meetings, records showed varied compliance, including some at 25%, one at 70%, most at 100%, and one at 0%. Members queried whether attendance was mandatory. The Director of Social Services, Health and Housing confirmed attendance is monitored and agencies are reminded when they fail to attend. Absences are often attributed to vacancies, but this is not considered an acceptable reason, and agencies are expected to meet their commitment. Members then considered safeguarding data on page 177, which showed 125 referrals for 2024/2025, with only 59 accepted. They asked if rejected referrals are signposted elsewhere. The Director explained the figures relate to the Area Planning Board and that referrals are reviewed with agencies to determine acceptance or signposting, accounting for the variation. Officers added that referrals originate from substance use service key workers and are assessed accordingly. While commissioners do not hold detailed outcomes, the data reflects this process. Members questioned whether agencies can appeal decisions and whether thresholds are clearly communicated. The Director confirmed escalation processes exist, allowing agencies to challenge decisions, though this is rare. Agencies receive guidance on referral criteria, and many contacts are for reassurance rather than formal referral. Members also asked if unaccepted contacts are monitored for resubmission. The Director confirmed they are recorded and reviewed, citing examples where contacts later progressed to referral. Members welcomed this assurance. Officers noted that substance use services receive safeguarding training and maintain strong partnerships with social services, with ongoing advice and guidance. The commissioning team audits training levels within services to ensure compliance. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
With the agreement of the Chair the following changes have been made to the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme: •Domiciliary Care Service Update Report – Moved from 30th October meeting to 25th November meeting. •Hospital Discharge Report – added to Forward Work Programme for 11th December 2025 meeting. •Update report on purchase of properties deleted from 11th December as information has been provided in today’s meeting. •Childrens Commissioned Services added for pre decision scrutiny on the 22nd January. •Trem Y Glyn Update report moved from 11th December to 5th March 2026 •Permission to tender for emergency accommodation Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse, Sexual Violence moved from 25th November to 5th March 2026 •Income Generation Report deleted. This will be covered in an information session for members which will take place in January. Further details to be provided. •Following the meeting of 14th October a Western Bay Drug Commission Update report has been added to 5th March. •Corporate Parenting –Added to the Forward Work Programme to receive a report in May 2026 The Forward Work Programme was noted.
There were no urgent items.
Access to meetings was not required at this point in the meeting. Private agenda items were considered under agenda item 5B.
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.