Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
Resolved: subject to the above observations to receive the report and acknowledge the performance of the Adult Safeguarding Team in contributing to Denbighshire County Council’s corporate priorities.
Resolved: subject to a formal request being made to the Chair of Communities Scrutiny Committee seeking that Committee to receive the progress report on the Royal Alexandra Hospital Redevelopment at its October 2025 meeting, to confirm its programme of future work as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Williams and from Nicola Stubbins, Corporate Director: Social Services and Education. The Corporate Director: Governance and Business was in attendance in the role of Corporate Executive Team’s (CET) support for the Committee.
No interests of a personal, or a personal and prejudicial nature in any of the Committee’s business were declared. Prior to proceeding with the appointment of a Vice-Chair for the Committee for the remainder of the 2025/26 municipal year, Councillor Brian Jones explained that his intention had been to assume the Vice-Chair’s role solely for the May 2025 meeting in order to facilitate the meeting’s business in absence of the Chair. He had not intended for the appointment to be for the municipal year and had therefore resigned from the position. The Chair thanked him for undertaking the role for that meeting and for chairing a challenging meeting in her absence.
Nominations were sought for the position of Committee Vice-Chair for the remainder of the 2025/26 municipal year. Councillor Jeanette Chamberlain-Jones nominated Councillor Peter Scott for the role. Councillor Brian Jones seconded the nomination. No other nominations were received and the Committee unanimously: Resolved: that Councillor Peter Scott be elected as Vice-Chair of Partnerships Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the 2025/26 municipal year. Councillor Scott thanked members for entrusting him with the role and undertook to support the Chair and the Committee with its work.
No items of an urgent nature had been drawn to the Chair’s attention prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The minutes of the Partnerships Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 22 May 2025 were submitted. The Committee: Resolved: that the minutes of the Partnerships Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 22 May 2025 be approved as a true and accurate record of the proceedings. There were no matters arising from the contents of the minutes.
Decision as recorded
Resolved: subject to the above observations to receive the report and acknowledge the performance of the Adult Safeguarding Team in contributing to Denbighshire County Council’s corporate priorities.
The Lead Member for Health and Social Care introduced the report (previously circulated). She explained the report was the annual report which covered the period 2024-2025. It outlined the work of the authority during that period fulfilling its safeguarding responsibilities, reviewing local safeguarding activities and performance data and highlighted any developments and challenges that the service encountered in the year. She congratulated the team for the incredible achievements and performance they had completed during the year. She was proud to highlight the 99% rate of response in the 7-day timescale for safeguarding enquiries. It was to be commended. The Head of Adult Social Care & Homelessness Service thanked the Lead Member for her introduction and provided further information. She informed the Committee the team had lost 2 members of the team during the year. Some valuable knowledge had therefore been lost. Although two posts had been filled there was an internal vacancy that was still vacant. However, whilst it had not affected the performance of the team, but it was a challenge. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) was a challenge for the team, a challenge seen across other authorities. Members were advised that as soon as an individual entered care it triggered the DoLS procedure, and an assessment had to be undertaken. There was currently an assessment waiting list that the team regularly reviewed but it was often complex issues which took time. In response to members questions and comments the Lead Member and Officers provided further information on the following areas: • Officers reassured Members they were managing to run the Service with the current level of staff but were carrying a vacancy. The vacancy required specialist knowledge and training and was proving more difficult to fill. Officers were confident they would recruit to the position. • Officers, like members were pleased to note that Welsh Government (WG) funding had been secured to support the retention of the additional Best Interests Assessor (BIA) to carry out the assessments through the medium of Welsh. It was stressed it was difficult to predict if the funding would continue. The DoLS funding had been in place for some time with no additional funding received over recent years. If the grant funding was to cease the service would have to seek the required funds from another source. • Neglect had a very broad definition, which caused it to read as one of the highest areas of safeguarding incidents received by officers. The 40% figure as detailed in the report reflected the position across Wales and across the UK, in terms of neglect being one of the highest categories of abuse reported. Neglect was the perception of the individual reporting the concern. Members heard the data also included reports of self-neglect, and of individuals who lived in circumstances and conditions of concern to others. Training and support were being offered to staff to recognise neglect in the community. Officers stressed they preferred to see referrals of neglect, or any potential abuse being reported, as that enabled them to investigate appropriately. • Thanks was given to the Committee, for the feedback on the layout and readability of the report. Officers wanted to ensure it was clear and understandable for the reader, given the importance of the subject area. • Section 5 – person in a position of trust was a safeguarding allegation made against a professional. The concerns reported could be of different severities and were investigated through a variety of different processes including the criminal investigation path. Members heard that as soon as a Section 5 report was received a National process was followed. The Police were included in the initial strategy meetings to consider the information. The Safeguarding Team, under the powers of the Social Services and Wellbeing Act, worked to a balance of probabilities when making a decision, the Police worked to a higher threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. If the concern was not pursued by the Police, it was processed under the safeguarding process for Section 5 reports. • It was difficult to provide details for the statistics due to data protection. Information was stored internally for the retention period required. • Officers encouraged all individuals/members or professionals to report any concerns of safeguarding. The concern was reviewed and assessed to determine if it required escalating to a strategy meeting or resolved using an alternative process. • Members heard there was a formal complaints process that could be followed if an individual felt their concern had not been processed or considered properly. • The responsibility of safeguarding of individuals lay with the local authority. Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW) would be involved if multiple concerns were raised within a residential care home setting. • Safeguarding was everyone’s responsibility. The Team was responsible for investigating the reports and concerns, but the responsibility of safeguarding lay with everyone. • Any referral progressed to a formal strategy meeting would have initially been subject to a section 126 investigation. Any referral received by the department was allocated to a staff member to read the information and investigate to establish if it met the threshold to progress to a full strategy meeting. • If a complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome of an investigation, they could approach the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. If the Ombudsman deemed any concerns, they had the power to conduct an investigation. • Individuals had the right to representation at any meetings or disciplinary meetings. The meetings were usually conducted between the individuals and the Head of Service. The disciplinary process had been amended historically with the removal of Councillor involvement on disciplinary hearings agreed. There was also a right of appeal against the outcome of a disciplinary decision. The Chair on behalf of the Committee thanked the Lead Member and Officers for the transparent and readable report. At the conclusion of an in-depth discussion the Committee: Resolved: subject to the above observations to receive the report and acknowledge the performance of the Adult Safeguarding Team in contributing to Denbighshire County Council’s corporate priorities.
Decision as recorded
Resolved: subject to a formal request being made to the Chair of Communities Scrutiny Committee seeking that Committee to receive the progress report on the Royal Alexandra Hospital Redevelopment at its October 2025 meeting, to confirm its programme of future work as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.
The Scrutiny Co-ordinator introduced the report and its appendices (previously circulated), which sought the Committee to review its programme of future work. During her introduction the Scrutiny Co-ordinator explained that a request had been received from Betsi Cadwaladr University Hospital (BCUHB) officials to defer the presentation of the progress report on the Royal Alexandra Hospital Redevelopment from the Committee’s September’s meeting. The basis for the request was that a business case addendum on the project was due to be presented to the Health Board in late September, therefore officials would not be in a position to provide a meaningful update to the Committee ahead of the Health Board’s meeting. It was explained that whilst Health Board officials could attend the Committee’s October meeting to present an update the Lead Member for Health and Social Care and senior officers from the Adult Social Care and Homelessness Service would not be available due to them attending the National Social Care Conference. Committee members raised concerns about delaying the Royal Alexandra Hospital item until December’s meeting as they felt that they needed to be seen to be robustly challenging the Health Board to start delivering this much needed facility. Members were reminded by the Corporate Director: Governance and Business/Monitoring Officer that the Committee’s powers with respect of the Health Board, and other partners, only extended as far as inviting them to attend and participate in a meeting, they could not at any time compel them to attend. A number of potential solutions were discussed on how to facilitate scrutinising the matter as early in the autumn as possible. It was eventually agreed to utilise the flexibility of the Council’s thematic scrutiny committee structure and seek Communities Scrutiny Committee, on this occasion, to receive the update report at its October meeting, emphasising that Partnerships Scrutiny Committee members be permitted to speak at the meeting and also be permitted to attend the pre-meeting briefing session to provide relevant background information to Communities Scrutiny Committee members on the subject and brief them on pertinent issues. Members were advised that the Scrutiny Chairs and Vice-Chairs Group (SCVCG) at its June meeting had referred one subject to the Committee for detailed examination. It related to the Council’s duties in relation to the identification and remediation of contaminated land. Enquiries were currently underway with the relevant Service on when a report on this matter could be presented to the Committee, in the meantime the item had been listed under the ‘Future Issues’ section on the forward work programme. The Group was scheduled to hold its next meeting on 15 September and members were encouraged to complete the ‘Member Proposal Form’ at Appendix 2 to the report if they had any topics which in their view merited examination by one of the scrutiny committees. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee: Resolved: subject to a formal request being made to the Chair of Communities Scrutiny Committee seeking that Committee to receive the progress report on the Royal Alexandra Hospital Redevelopment at its October 2025 meeting, to confirm its programme of future work as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.
None. Meeting concluded at 11.10am.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.