Cyngor Gwynedd have finally published their -
Scrutiny Investigation Report into Safeguarding Arrangements in Schools
https://democracy.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/documents/s50904/Safeguarding%20Arrangements%20in%20Schools%20Scrutiny%20Investigation%20Report-.pdf
A reminder that this investigation was initiated by the Education and Economy Scrutiny committee in early 2025, yet makes no mention of the committee's own failings and missed opportunities to stop Neil Foden.
Wasn't Dewi Jones, the cabinet member for Education, originally part of
the investigation?
Did he excuse himself..?
This report was intended to be published in 2025, but had to be delayed because the investigating team had not included the voice of the child...
The children's voice...
It is of high concern that the council
did not utilise the recognised 'provider' due to the provider having
fears that the council's 'remit' did not go far enough.
Ignoring the concerns of the independent provider, cyngor Gwynedd chose instead to appoint Dr Ceryl Teleri Davies, a former senior officer within the council's SS department - on the initial remit that others had considered insufficient.
Only 57 pupils were engaged...
Her 'Pupil Voice Report' can be found in appendix 7 here -
https://democracy.gwynedd.llyw.cymru//documents/s50889/Appendices.pdf
The schools chosen by the council for the sample were -
Davies includes four bite sized quotes from the children...
Why Ysgol Friars, and Ysgol Dyffryn Nantlle (the main schools where Foden was found abusing) were not included is not known...
The most vulnerable children...
Ysgol Pendalar in Caernarfon is a special school yet Davies does not give any detail of how these children were engaged with. There is no information to what measures are in place for ALN/disabled or how they are kept safe from predators and abuse...
What of the 21% of children in mainstream schools with ALN?
From reading the report there is no mention of how these pupils are engaged with in an appropriate manner and how their understanding is checked. How are pupils with speech and language and other communication issues supported in all of this?
Protect the higher pay-grades...
A reminder that everyone knew Neil Foden was an abusive bully...
Safeguarding arrangements did not fail - the toxic culture within schools and the council protected him from censure.
The Ffordd Gwynedd way...
The Safeguarding Arrangements report is not comprehensive and like many of the documents written
by cyngor Gwynedd appears to be yet another exercise in tick boxing and
marking the officers homework...
The report is to be presented to the Education and Economy Scrutiny committee on the 14th, July, 2026. The webcast of the meeting will be found here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/1109262
5 comments:
After reviewing the scrutiny report in detail, one issue stands out above all others.
This report was produced in the aftermath of the Neal Foden case, yet it provides only limited assurance because it relies heavily on interviews, presentations, questionnaires and school visits rather than independent examination of safeguarding case files, complaints, allegations, decision making and governance records. In the context of such a serious institutional safeguarding failure, that distinction is critical.
The report itself identifies significant governance weaknesses, including uncertainty over allegations involving headteachers, governors feeling "out of their depth", inconsistent recording and referral practices, and the absence of robust systems for identifying patterns of lower-level concerns about adults. Those are not merely operational issues. They are governance and accountability issues.
It is therefore particularly significant that Welsh Government is currently undertaking a wider review of safeguarding governance and accountability. The scrutiny report itself refers some of its most important recommendations to Welsh Government, including the governance of schools, accountability of headteachers and the recording of concerns about adults. That raises an obvious question: if these structural issues are still the subject of national review, how can the report provide more than limited and provisional assurance that Gwynedd's safeguarding arrangements are adequate?
The omission of schools most closely associated with the Neal Foden case from the sample also deserves a clear explanation. Even if there were legitimate reasons, transparency is essential if public confidence is to be restored.
Ultimately, the question is not whether policies now exist or whether staff understand safeguarding procedures. The question is whether the governance framework itself has changed sufficiently to detect and prevent another institutional safeguarding failure. That is precisely the issue Welsh Government is now examining, and until that work is complete, the conclusions of this report should be treated with appropriate caution.
After reading both the scrutiny report and "Our Bravery Brought Justice", another issue appears to deserve much closer examination.
The scrutiny report discusses safeguarding structures within schools but gives little attention to how specialist education safeguarding services were actually integrated into those arrangements.
One example is Tîm Emrallt. Public information and the team's own leaflets present it as an education-facing specialist service established in 2019 to support schools in relation to problematic and harmful sexual behaviour. Yet an FOI response indicates that Ysgol Friars had no recorded involvement with Tîm Emrallt until 2025.
This is not to suggest that Tîm Emrallt should have investigated Neil Foden. That was never its role. The more important governance question is different.
If Gwynedd had already established a specialist education safeguarding resource in 2019, why was there apparently no recorded engagement with Ysgol Friars during the very period examined by "Our Bravery Brought Justice"?
Was the service offered to all schools? Was engagement expected or optional? Were governors and headteachers aware of it? Did the Education Department monitor which schools accessed specialist advice and training? If a school never engaged with the service, who was responsible for identifying that gap?
There is also an interesting governance point regarding Ysgol Friars itself. During much of the relevant period, the governing body included Chief Inspector Essie Ahari, who later became Chair of Governors. This should not be interpreted as implying any personal wrongdoing. However, "Our Bravery Brought Justice" concluded that governance at the school lacked sufficient challenge and had become overly dependent on the headteacher.
That raises a legitimate question. If a governing body included a senior police officer with extensive safeguarding and risk-management experience, why did the governance weaknesses identified in the Child Practice Review still develop? Was this simply a matter of training, or does it point to deeper structural problems where institutional power, information flow and governance arrangements prevented effective challenge regardless of the professional experience available?
Taken together, these issues reinforce the impression that the fundamental problem was not a lack of safeguarding organisations, policies or specialist expertise. Rather, it was a failure to connect those resources into a governance system capable of identifying patterns, challenging powerful individuals and acting decisively.
In that context, the ongoing Welsh Government review into safeguarding governance and accountability becomes even more important. The central question is no longer whether safeguarding services existed, but whether Gwynedd's governance framework ensured those services were effectively integrated, monitored and capable of preventing another institutional safeguarding failure.
Indeed - the recent suspension of a school staff member in the county shows there are still problems within schools -
https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/news/999/school-staff-member-suspended-as-police-investigate-alleged-grooming-928348
Isn't Tim Emrallt a specialist, multi agency advisory service that supports kids who display PHSB? They use AIMS alongside the 'Risk Model'.
I think that point can be made, but it should be framed carefully because it is necessarily hypothetical. We cannot say that earlier intervention **would** have enabled victims to disclose sooner. We can legitimately say that one purpose of safeguarding education, specialist consultation and early intervention is to improve recognition of harmful behaviour and create opportunities for disclosure.
A response along these lines would be both balanced and consistent with safeguarding principles:
I think that's a fair clarification, Ray, and I certainly wasn't suggesting that Tìm Emrallt should have investigated Neil Foden or individual allegations.
My interest is in what difference a specialist education-facing safeguarding resource is intended to make at a system level.
One of the aims of specialist safeguarding advice, education and consultation is to help children and the adults around them recognise problematic and harmful behaviours, understand when something is not normal or acceptable, and know how to seek help. It also helps schools develop the confidence to identify concerning patterns and respond appropriately.
None of us can say that earlier engagement by any particular service would have changed what happened at Ysgol Friars. That would be speculation. However, it is equally difficult to ignore the possibility that, had safeguarding awareness and specialist support been more deeply embedded, some victims might have recognised sooner that what they were experiencing was wrong and felt able to disclose it at an earlier stage.
Ultimately, that is why I think the governance question matters. The issue is not whether Tìm Emrallt was responsible for investigating abuse. It is whether Gwynedd's safeguarding system ensured that the expertise it had developed was effectively connected to schools, monitored, and capable of strengthening the conditions in which children could recognise abuse, speak up and be heard.
Post a Comment