Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the Committee reviewed the Corporate Safeguarding Annual Report for 2021-22 and whilst a number of requests were made for additional information, no suggestions for improvement were made at this time.
RESOLVED That the Committee accepted the latest Cyber Security update and on considering the progress made, wished to highlight the continuing need for all Authority staff and elected members to be vigilant and undertake all suggested training.
RESOLVED That the Committee noted the information contained within the draft minutes of the Partnerships Panel meeting which took place on 28 November 2022.
RESOLVED (a) That the Committee accepted the proposed forward work programme for 2023-24. (b) That an informal session be arranged to further consider the Committees forward work programme to ensure the programme of scrutiny reflects Members priorities and to discuss any additional topics Members may want to scrutinise.
The Chair sought nominations for the role of Vice-Chair. Councillor Michael Williams Moved that Councillor Michael Stoddart be duly elected; Seconded by Councillor Andrew Edwards. The vote, by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That Councillor Michael Stoddart be duly elected as Vice-Chair.
There were no declarations of interest received.
Moved by Councillor Jonathan Grimes; Seconded by Councillor Alan Dennison The vote, by way of show of hands, was carried. AGREED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2023 be approved as a correct record, in both English and Welsh.
The Chair stated that no public submissions or items of correspondence had been received for this meeting and highlighted that following discussions at previous meetings, press releases had been published to encourage public participation in Scrutiny.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee reviewed the Corporate Safeguarding Annual Report for 2021-22 and whilst a number of requests were made for additional information, no suggestions for improvement were made at this time.
The Committee considered a report by the Director for Education on the Whole Authority Safeguarding Group Annual Report for 2021-2022. The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Social Care and Safeguarding outlined the main points of the report and highlighted the importance of the work being owned by the whole Authority. Feedback and any suggestions as to how the Authority can continue to strengthen the safeguarding arrangements across all areas of the Council were welcomed from Members and a reminder was given for any safeguarding concerns to be raised with the appropriate teams who would provide advice, direction and take further action if required. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the key points were highlighted as follows: · The Chair sought clarification on a sentence from the report which stated that ‘The situation at beginning of the year, June 2020, was that around 1,050 posts were non-compliant which was below the level the Group thought was acceptable’. The Director further explained the sentence recognising that it could have been worded better, but stated it was implying that in June 2020 1,050 posts had not completed the mandatory training which the group felt was unactable and which led to follow up action being sought via Directors, which proved to improve figures and it was noted that the matter would remain monitored. · In response to concerns raised by the Chair and Councillor Jonathan Grimes in relation to using a hybrid approach for meetings and how this could lead to some crucial signs being missed, the Director advised that offering a hybrid approach had seen the engagement from professionals and other agencies increase and the Cabinet Member assured Members that the Authority fully recognised the importance of families being seen in person and advised that a hybrid approach was referring to strategy meetings and not for assessment matters. It was noted that the matter would be kept under review and that the Cabinet Member would seek further assurance from Officers if required. · Councillor Simon Hancock made reference to the backlog of Liberty Protection Safeguards assessments and queried how the backlog data was now looking. The Cabinet Member advised that she did not have the data to hand but would have it circulated to all Members following the meeting as it had recently been reported to another scrutiny meeting. · In response to a question from Councillor Simon Hancock, the Cabinet Member advised that her biggest safeguarding concern was that of school attendance, particularly since the pandemic, as although work was continuous to ensure all pupils attend education, it tended to be the most vulnerable who demonstrated ongoing absences. The Director highlighted the importance of education around safeguarding matters, ensuring that individuals know what to look out for and how to react and also to take accountability that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. He also highlighted the importance of the Authority conducting sound checks when procuring services externally. · Councillors Steve Alderman, Michael John, Michael Williams, Mike James and Tom Tudor highlighted ongoing concerns regarding Elective Home Education (EHE) and the need to continue to pressure Welsh Government to create a national database of learners. The Director outlined the current EHE figures for Pembrokeshire and the limitations the Authority faces when identifying EHE learners. The Authority’s support arrangements for EHE families were outlined and it was recognised that concerns had been raised by a number of overview and scrutiny Committees but despite numerous letters of concern being submitted to Welsh Government, they were still advising that they would not be taking action during the current Government term. The Cabinet Member agreed to find out if other areas held a database of EHE learners and also agreed to arrange for a chronology of action that has been taken by the Authority to be circulated to all Members to provide clarity of the concerns raised and the Governments response to the correspondence. · In response to a question raised by Councillor Michael Williams regarding the adequacy of response the Authority receive from the probation service, the Director advised that the Authority did receive the responses required but agreed that the service was under pressure which was causing noticeable gaps and remained an operational challenge. · In his capacity as Members Carers Champion, Councillor Mike James highlighted the importance of safeguarding both paid and unpaid carers to which the Cabinet Member provided assurance that all carers were protected and safeguarded under the Social Services and Wellbeing Act. · Councillor Alan Dennison requested clarification regarding the continuation of monitoring the effectiveness of the Authority’s anti-bullying strategies, to which the Director advised that monitoring would continue as part of the equalities strategy and to date the approach had been effective, although added that unfortunately the Authority did not have the power to fully eliminate bullying. The Director provided further information regarding the Authority’s contract with Stonewall which provides support and advice for schools with regard to LGBTQ+IA? advice and information. Moved by Councillor Simon Hancock; Seconded by Councillor Jonathan Grimes The vote, undertaken by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Committee reviewed the Corporate Safeguarding Annual Report for 2021-22 and whilst a number of requests were made for additional information, no suggestions for improvement were made at this time.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee accepted the latest Cyber Security update and on considering the progress made, wished to highlight the continuing need for all Authority staff and elected members to be vigilant and undertake all suggested training.
The Committee considered a report by the Director of Resources on Cyber Security. The Chair welcomed the Head of I.C.T. and the Cyber Security Officer to the meeting to partake in the item of business. The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Improvements and Communities outlined the main points of the report and highlighted that whilst not everyone can be a cybersecurity expert, it was everyone’s responsibility to remain vigilant and act on anything they feel may be suspicious. It was added that although he was content that the Authority had good mitigation in place, more could always be done. The Head of I.C.T. advised that all services have business continuity plans which include I.T. plans and outlined ongoing work which was being undertaken in relation to the effects national power outages could have on the Authority along with a range of other work. The Committee debated the contents of the report and the key points were highlighted as follows: · The Chair reiterated the training figures as outlined within the report and concurred with the Cabinet Members request for all staff and Elected Members to complete the training. The usefulness of controlled phishing exercises was also highlighted as it was felt this helped to educate Members on the potential emails which could be received as part of serious phishing attempts. · Councillor Jonathan Grimes raised concerns with a number of Elected Members using personal email accounts to receive emails from the Authority and the public and queried if them doing so was putting the Authority at an increased risk. The Head of I.C.T. advised that the Authority have a multi-phase approach to email security and advised that Members forwarding emails from personal accounts into their Authority email accounts is not recommended, but strong firewalls were in place to protect the Authority. · Councillor Alan Dennison made reference to the completion of training figures and queried if all Cabinet Members had completed the training, to which the Cabinet Member advised that he did not have that data but agreed to feedback comments to all Cabinet Members. · In response to a question from Councillor Mike Stoddart regarding the insurance situation for cyber security losses, the Head of I.C.T. advised that although work was ongoing with loss adjusters to understand the remit of cyber insurance, the Authority were currently not able to obtain such insurance so all costs would have to be covered by the Council at present. · Following a question from Councillor Alan Dennison, the Head of I.C.T. advised that currently cyber training had only been rolled out to Authority staff, not school governors. Moved by Councillor Alan Dennison; Seconded by Councillor Andrew Edwards The vote, undertaken by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Committee accepted the latest Cyber Security update and on considering the progress made, wished to highlight the continuing need for all Authority staff and elected members to be vigilant and undertake all suggested training.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee noted the information contained within the draft minutes of the Partnerships Panel meeting which took place on 28 November 2022.
The Committee received the draft minutes of the Partnerships Panel meeting of the 28 November 2022 and the Chair welcomed the Chair of the PSB, Councillor Neil Prior, and the Corporate Policy and Partnerships Manager to the meeting to partake in the item of business. The Chair of the Panel, Councillor Michael John, outlined the main points of the minutes and advised that a separate informal meeting was held in January where Panel Members collated a collective response in relation to the draft well-being plans statutory consultation. Details of the Panels response were outlined. The Committee debated the contents of the minutes and the key points were highlighted as follows: · Councillor Mike James made reference to the Partnerships Panel forward work programme and requested that the Poverty item scheduled for the May meeting includes child poverty. · Councillors Michael Williams and Michael Stoddart stated that whilst they understood the PSB was a statutory requirement, they were not clear on the benefits it brought to the Authority and requested clarification on the annual cost the Authority had to contribute. The Chair of the PSB outlined the priorities and three work streams of the Board and the progress that had been made so far. The Corporate Policy and Partnerships Manager clarified that the PSB was a virtual organisation with no budget and no direct cost being required from the Authority, but stated that the Authority contributed by providing officer time. Moved by Councillor Michael James; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams The vote, undertaken by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the Committee noted the information contained within the draft minutes of the Partnerships Panel meeting which took place on 28 November 2022.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That the Committee accepted the proposed forward work programme for 2023-24. (b) That an informal session be arranged to further consider the Committees forward work programme to ensure the programme of scrutiny reflects Members priorities and to discuss any additional topics Members may want to scrutinise.
The Chair outlined the items scheduled for the June meeting and suggested that a forward work programme planning session could be beneficial after Easter to further consider the 2023-24 work programme to ensure it reflects Members priorities and to discuss any additional topics Members may wish to scrutinise. Councillor Michael Williams requested clarification regarding which Committee’s remit scrutiny of Celtic Freeport matters would fall under, to which the Democratic and Scrutiny Services Officer advised she would seek clarification on and let Members know. Moved by Councillor Mike John; Seconded by Councillor Andrew Edwards The vote, undertaken by way of show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED (a) That the Committee accepted the proposed forward work programme for 2023-24. (b) That an informal session be arranged to further consider the Committees forward work programme to ensure the programme of scrutiny reflects Members priorities and to discuss any additional topics Members may want to scrutinise.
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.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.