The virtual meeting of Cyngor Gwynedd's council's cabinet took place on the 21st January.
First up was the report to close the day centres Y Ganolfan, in Blaenau Ffestiniog and Encil y Coed, in Cricieth.
Dilwyn Morgan, the cabinet member for Adults, began his presentation of the report by reading from a prepared statement 'for clarity'. He began by apologising that part of the report is incorrect or as he put it 'a bit ahead of the game'.
We are also aware that there is a new hub development set up in Porthmadog very recently and we are very keen to collaborate and learn more about this new development.
Why was it not deleted? Its retention within the report gives the impression that those with profound needs and dementia will not miss out, indeed it informs that these very people are by now enjoying numerous and varied support services in their own communities, the report also states that in some cases people are having to travel out of their local area for support/services.
But in the meeting, Aled Davies, the Head of Adults SS could not guarantee that support services would be available...
One day centre building also houses the local library, which presumably closes too?
Members of the cabinet voted for the closures anyway...
The response to the Neil Foden's offending plan was also passed. It has been 16 months since Foden's arrest and Gwynedd council's "commitment to apologise sincerly to the victims and survivors and their families for what they have had to suffer" will be seen as disingenuous by many - and way too late.
The webcast of the meeting can be found here - https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/947749/start_time/0
Instead of 'commiting to apologise' perhaps people would prefer the
council took action on the officers who failed the children?
There were ample opportunities for school governors and council officers to stop Foden - they all failed. In addition to these failures, it is still not known who the safeguarding officer was that advised Garem Jackson to simply have a word with Foden when concerns were raised in 2019. Is that officer still in post?
No concerns raised with regard to Jackson giving Foden the name of the teacher who whistleblew in 2019, nor mention of the class action being taken against Gwynedd council.
The cabinet, which includes a school governor at Ysgol Friars in post during Foden's reign of terror, also missed an opportunity to discuss claims that some pupils received undeserved examination passes. That particular councillor did not speak during the discussion... No mention was made of the missing money either...
Not one cabinet member enquired if a 'critical incident' had been declared after Foden's arrest which would have preserved the integrity of the evidence...
The Education and Economy Scrutiny committee are also to hold an investigation into Neil Foden. This is the same committee that twice failed to hold him to account in the past....
The cabinet member for education did not ask questions of the safeguarding complaint that appears to have avoided any scrutiny, nor query the complaint about the assessment from the meeting he missed previously.
Nor did he ask for more information on the cohorts of children excluded from schools such as those with ALN and also council 'looked after children'.
A full public inquiry is needed - which covers the failures of council officers also.
Cyngor Gwynedd council have published a 'Response To Offending Plan'
with regard to Neil Foden, to be presented to cabinet members on the 21st
January, 2025 - item 10 on the agenda - https://democracy.gwynedd.llyw.cymru//documents/g5261/Public%20reports%20pack%2021st-Jan-2025%2013.00%20The%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10
The cabinet meeting is usually a hybrid meeting held both in the council chamber and online simultaneously allowing for people to attend in person. This meeting is to be held virtually only...
Officers ask members to accept the plan to
" provide assurance and clarity that our response to the offending of
the former head of Ysgol Friars is being properly addressed and is a
main priority for the Council."
It goes on -
But the situation is not unprecedented... There is a long history of child sexual abuse and exploitation in Gwynedd and North Wales. The North Wales Safeguarding Board, councillors
and senior officers in particular must be familiar with the Waterhouse
report, the Jillings report and the Lost In Care report.
Then there was the Macur review.
Other investigations have been undertaken by North Wales Police,
including Operation Pallial. The NSPCC has also investigated the abuse of children in North
Wales.
On a national level, there has been the Clywch Inquiry
which also involved a headteacher abusing children, not forgetting the
more recent Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).
Many of these reports will have resulted in recommendations to safeguard children...
In these cases, many of the children abused were in local authority care.
At the end of last year, Dafydd Gibbard, the CEO of the council,
commissioned work to 'better understand' the 'looked after children's'
care situation.
It was believed that this was in response to the costs
of 'out of county placements', were
any of Foden's victims in Gwynedd looked after children?
Neil Foden was allowed to gather his own team around him - The National Education Union (NEU) told Newyddion S4C,
that data it had seen showed Foden had not consulted governors or even
advertised nearly half of the roles he recruited for between September
2021 and January 2024. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rjykg4p07o
Why the school governors at Ysgol Friars did not intervene is not known...
With
its history of interference in 'independent' investigations and senior
officers writing reports in spite of the evidence, can officers of
Gwynedd council be trusted with yet another investigation?
Pre
pandemic, Ysgol Friars had healthy financial reserves of around £500,000 After Foden's arrest, it is believed that there was a one million pound
deficit. The council has used public monies to replenish the school's
funds. But where did this money go and is anything being done to recover the money?
Some years ago, there were claims that some children
at the school received examination passes that were not deserved. Have
these claims been investigated?
The council's 'response' also mentions Freedom of Information requests received by the council.
Gwynedd
council do not have a good record when it comes to dealing with FOI's
and this statement could be considered disingenuous. One example of delay and obfuscation is - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/neil_foden
This request was submitted on the 22nd May, 2024 and the council assured the requester that - You should therefore receive the information you
have requested, subject to the application of any exemptions permitted
under the Act, by 20/06/2024
On the 1st August, 2024, because of the delay, the requester complained asking for an Internal Review. The corporate support officer replied with - Your email has been referred to the Monitoring Officer to conduct an
Internal Review. You should receive a response within 20 working days.
On
the 8th October, the same officr - not the monitoring officer - replied
that answering the FOI would exceed the £450 cost limit (equivalent to
2.5 working days) and suggested the requester limit the time period. The
requester did so...
The officer returned with a long winded reply but is summed up with - Confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would
constitute disclosure of third party personal data; and providing this
confirmation or denial would contravene one of the data protection
principles.
The requester once again asked for an internal review. On the 14th January, the monitoring officer finally responded to the complaint with -
I refer to your request for an internal review of the Councils decision in
relation to your Freedom of Information Request. Can I first of all
apologise for the delay in responding . I understand that your revised
request is framed in the following terms:
1. Since January 1, 2014, how many reports were made to Cyngor Gwynedd
regarding Mr Foden's conduct?
2. If possible, for each of these reports made, could Cyngor Gwynedd also
disclose the date the report was made, the nature of the report, and what
action, if any, was ultimately taken?
I have reviewed the Councils response to you request and have reached the
following conclusions:
Section 12 Excluding child protection matters it is the school’s corporate
responsibility to deal with complaints/concerns raised about it’s work
and staff . According to the schools system in Wales any complaint or
concern about a member of staff is the responsibility of the Headteacher.
Any complaint or concern about the Headteacher goes to the chair of
Governors as set out in Welsh Government guidance School complaints
procedures: [1]School complaints procedures: guidance [HTML] | HELM.
WALES. Information about complaints and concerns coming to a School would
not be held or collected by the LEA except for a few exceptions. As a
rule information received which should be directed to a school would be
forwarded there as it is their responsibility . It would not be
investigated by the Authority other than where system allows for it.
Having regard to your request we have available information as to the
number of what might be classified as “reports” about NF in the period
2018/19 to 2022/23 there were less than 5.
The collection of the released data was the result of existing research
and work across records and information held by the Education Department.
A further search would necessarily involve searching paper and electronic information back to 2014 involving different staff members and personnel
changes and filing arrangements. As the matters would not have been
dealt with under the Councils complaints processes their recording would
invariably vary. It is of necessity difficult to give an estimate of time
to do this nor would it be possible to give a guaranteed figure. This is
not a reflection of record keeping but the fact that it can be surmised
that the nature, substance and import of these matters could vary
significantly, be dealt with as correspondence or forwarded as e-mail.
I have concluded therefore that Section 12 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 applies . The Section provides that the duty to respond to a
request does not apply “if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit”. The
“appropriate limit” is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data
Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 calculated by
reference to a rate of £25 per hour which is 2.5 working days. The
activities which may be included in estimating the cost of compliance
includes:
“ (a) determining whether it [the authority] holds the information,
(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the
information,
(c) retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the
information, and
(d) extracting the information from a document containing it.”
The requirement in the Act is for a decision based on an estimate of the
likely cost. It does not require a detailed analysis of the process.
However, it does require a decision reasonably based on evidence and
cogent assumptions.
I am therefore of the view that the grounds in Section 12 are made out.
Section 40. There is a general emphasis in the Freedom of Information Act in favour of
disclosure but that is not at the expense of individuals' fundamental
rights to privacy and the protection afforded by data protection
legislation.
Disclosure could not only reveal information about the headmaster but
also lead to the identification of the above individuals who made
complaints, their circumstances and their families. .
I am therefore of the view that the relevant exception is section 40(2) of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which states that information may be
excluded if it is the personal data of an individual other than the
enquirer and where one of the conditions listed under 40(3A)(3B) or 40
(4A) is met.
In this case the relevant condition is in section 40(3A)(a). This applies
where disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles
listed in Article 5 of the UK GDPR.
In order to use the exception it must first be demonstrated whether
providing a response would constitute disclosure of personal data about an
individual.
In previous decision notices the Information Commissioner's Office has
explained that they are using a test called the motivated intruder test to
judge on this. This means that basic anonymisation is insufficient and if
release of information allows for collation with other available data (
which may require research) then it is capable of falling with the
definition of personal data.
[2]ic-238266-j5b8.pdf (ico.org.uk)
A similar situation exists in this case. The Education community in
Gwynedd is quite small with a number of links between the public and
schools. Releasing the information could lead to speculation about who
those individuals were. As the request relates to a principal school and a
short period at a related school it may involve specific pupils.
I am therefore of the opinion that any who had complained would be
identifiable indirectly and therefore fall under the definition of
personal data. Providing details of the substance, dates and outcomes of
complaints would run a real likelihood that individuals concerned would be
identifiable. Releasing the data under FOIA is effectively publication.
Secondly, it must be determined whether disclosure would contravene any of
the Data Protection Principles. The most relevant principle in this case
is principle (a)
Article 5(1)(a) of the UKGDPR states;
"Personal data will be processed lawfully, fairly and
transparently in relation to the data subject"
The legal basis most relevant is Article 6(1)(f) which states;
"Processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests
pursued by the controller or by a third party except where such interests
are overridden by the fundamental interests or rights and freedoms of the
data subject which require the security of the personal data especially
when the data subject is a child".
When considering Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR in the context of a
request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the
following three-part test needs to be considered: -
Testing Legitimate Interests: whether there is a legitimate interest in
the request for information
Test of necessity: whether disclosure is necessary to satisfy the
legitimate interest involved
Balancing Test: Whether the above interests override legitimate
interests(s) or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.
It is agreed that there is a legitimate benefit in understanding the
situation in this case as there is an understandable public interest in
the subject. In relation to the necessity test, it is stated that this is
the way to achieve the legitimate benefit i.e there is no other way to
achieve this. However, moving to the question of weighing legitimate
benefits against the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, I
consider that disclosing information about the substance of any complaints
or concerns to the public would not be within the reasonable expectations
of individuals. Lodging a complaint or concern is inherently highly
sensitive and there would be an expectation that this is dealt with in
strict confidence and in accordance with data protection legislation.
Disclosure would constitute a significant infringement on the privacy of
the individuals and may adversely affect them. Consequently, the argument
put forward as to the necessity of openness and the public interest does
not outweigh the rights and privacy of the individuals and therefore there
is no legal basis for disclosing the information.
Something is very, very wrong within Gwynedd council...
