Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
These were received from Councillors R.R. Thomas (Chair) and J. Lynch-Wilson and L. Barrowclough (Parent Governor – Primary Sector).
RECOMMENDED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 7th July, 2025 be approved as a correct record, subject to a change under Agenda Item 6 - Task and Finish Review Activity, with the word ‘subject’ amended to ‘following’.
No declarations of interest were received.
The Democratic and Scrutiny Services Officer confirmed those items for which the Co-Opted Members with voting rights were eligible to vote. It was confirmed that Dr. M. Price (Roman Catholic Church), K. Riddick (Parent Governor – Secondary Sector), and M. Werrett (Church in Wales) were in attendance and were therefore eligible to vote on Agenda Item 5 – Consultation on the Proposal to Create New Delivery Models for Enhanced and Sustainable Specialist Provision. G. Scott (Welsh Medium Education) stated that as a Co-Opted Member without voting rights and as a representative for the Welsh language, a review of voting rights should be undertaken. Dr. Price commented on the previous meeting held on 7th July, 2025 and the subsequent decision of the Council’s Monitoring Officer to discard the votes of the Co-Opted Members in relation to the selection of the task and finish review topic to be progressed by the Committee. Dr. Price disagreed with the Monitoring Officer and considered that voting on the task and finish suggestions for the Scrutiny Committee was an educational matter. Councillor E. Goodjohn stated that as part of the Reshaping Scrutiny agenda, he hoped that they could be a wider review of the role and participation of Co-Opted Members, interested partied and the public within the Council’s Scrutiny process. RECOMMENDED – T H A T the Head of Democratic Services be requested to consider the voting rights for non-voting observers of the Start Well Scrutiny Committee. Reason for recommendation In order to ensure that the voting rights for members of the Start Well Scrutiny Committee are robust and appropriate.
The reference from Cabinet of 17th July, 2025 as contained within the agenda was presented by the Head of Additional Learning Needs and Wellbeing. In response to a query from Councillor S. Haines as to whether support was always on a one-to-one basis, the Head of Additional Learning Needs and Wellbeing advised that the service was moving away from children having an adult by their sides at all times as a main aim was creating independence. The support to children was flexible. In up skilling staff in mainstream schools the hope was that less and less children would need to access specialist resource bases. It was also important to recognise that the support at the base was interim, but if needed children could access the support for extra terms. Dr. M. Price commented that he was pleased to see that the EIB was working very well at St. Joseph’s and the Roman Catholic Church was supportive of the changes. M. Werrett also supported the proposals and queried as to whether there was a referral process to access the base. The Head of Additional Learning Needs and Wellbeing stated that there would’ve followed an agreed strategy and advise provided from the Engagement Service. The school would then put a ‘Consideration’ in to the Admission’s Panel to look at all the evidence such as reports from Educational Psychologists and various other sources that would be gathered and available beforehand. Councillor H. Payne queried the role and involvement of parents. In reply, the Head of Additional Learning Needs and Wellbeing advised that views of parents would be gathered, and parents were invited to attend pupil centred meetings. Communication with parents was a main aspect. Councillor. S. Hanks stated that it would be useful for the Scrutiny Committee to receive feedback and a brief report of the outcomes of the consultation. Subsequently, it was RECOMMENDED – T H A T the proposal to create new delivery models for enhanced and sustainable specialist provision be supported, and the Scrutiny Committee to receive a report on the outcomes of the consultation exercise. Reason for recommendation Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
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.