Education, Youth & Culture Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Friday 6 February 2026
6 Feb 2026
Fran Lister
This post covers my appearance at Education, Youth & Culture Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Friday 6 February 2026.
Highlights
Highlight 1
Councillor Lister addresses a perceived conflict between the Council's positive self-evaluation and a negative Estyn inspection report.
Transcript generated by AI from meeting audio. It may contain errors, omissions, or misattributions. Please treat it as a convenience copy and refer to the original recording for the authoritative record.
| Timestamp | Transcript |
|---|---|
| 00:00:00 | Councillor Lister, please. Okay, a failure of this magnitude is not going to be the fault of just one person or a few people. For a school to fail in pretty much all its core duties, a systematic failure has taken place, and we, the local authority, are responsible for that system. |
| 00:00:23 | I'm sure it's no consolation to the people of Flint, but the portfolio counters that argument with 96% of our schools are in no follow-up category, and therefore there can't be a system's failure. I'm inclined to credit the headteachers and the governing bodies of those successful schools for their flagship practices |
| 00:00:39 | in the same way it is their responsibility when schools begin to fail. But it's the word begin that's really important because what Estyn describes at Flint High School didn't just happen overnight. Estyn explicitly states that in recent years, the senior leadership team has failed to provide Flint High School with adequate leadership. |
| 00:00:57 | That's on page three of this Estyn report, and that leadership has failed to establish an ethos of collaboration and support, and overall the school is notably dysfunctional. So where were the robust school improvement processes claimed in this document? Where was the support to prevent a school beginning to fail, |
| 00:01:18 | failing to these debts, and letting down a whole community in Flintshire? The ripple effect of these failures are deep-reaching and they'll be long-lasting in the community, and it's the Flint community that pay that price. So I do have sympathy with how difficult this persistent scrutiny |
| 00:01:34 | of the portfolio is, and I know officers and cabinet members have been able to express that in meetings, it's difficult, it's really stressful, but I also sympathise hugely with the families of the communities that have been badly let down, and speaking as a member of this committee |
| 00:01:49 | and an initiator of the call-in, I speak for those families who don't get the forum to voice their disappointment, they don't get to voice their hurt, they don't get to voice their worries about whether sending their child to school has actually done more harm than good, and that's what we're elected to do. |
| 00:02:04 | This is our role and this is why we're here with this call-in, but speaking up for children who are vulnerable and they're voiceless. So here we have a self-evaluation report, which says we know our schools well, we have robust monitoring and school improvement processes in place, and here we have a report that says we failed to provide |
| 00:02:23 | adequate safeguarding arrangements and learning experiences for our children. To have this report ratified by this cabinet the day after the release of this report is both dismissive of the Flint community and deeply disrespectful. I wonder how many of the cabinet read these reports side by side, because how can you possibly agree one with the presence of the other? |
| 00:02:48 | The argument has, and I'm sure will be made later on, that this evaluation report covers 2024-25 and this was released in 2025-26. So I will repeat that failures of this magnitude don't happen overnight, and I will also remind members of this committee that this report did not come to scrutiny in November because the portfolio was still working on it post-inspection. |
| 00:03:12 | There were opportunities to tweak the report, there were opportunities to ensure that what was being put in the public domain accurately reflects what we know, which is why the cabinet's position in rubber stamping of this document in the presence of this document is completely indefensible. It calls into question the integrity of all the decision-making |
| 00:03:34 | and the political leadership of this council. What is released in the public domain from this council, whether to the press or in report, implicitly implies it comes from us all. Well, with this call-in, I'm saying it does not come in my name, and I hope other people will join me in demanding honest, informed, intelligent and robust decision-making. |
| 00:03:52 | The people of Flintshire aren't stupid. They expect the cabinet, with the power they have to alter lives with the decisions they make, will do it understanding that responsibility and with the willingness to think independently, read a situation from more than one perspective and to challenge situations that seem to so many so obviously wrong. |
| 00:04:11 | We aren't going to prevent it happening again and we won't have a safety net to catch those schools beginning to fail unless there's clear acceptance that we are part of the cause and that is the purpose of this very document. So I don't believe it's appropriate to send this matter back to cabinet. Cabinet have already endorsed a report containing strong assurances |
| 00:04:30 | about oversight and safeguarding, despite those assurances now sitting in direct contradiction with a nesting report placing a Flintshire secondary school into special measures, citing safeguarding concerns and multi-year leadership failure. So for that reason, I recommend this matter be referred to full council |
| 00:04:48 | so the authority as a whole can decide whether this report should be amended, qualified or reissued to reflect the reality Eston has put into the public domain. |
Highlight 2
Councillor Lister questions the Cabinet Member for Education regarding specific data contradictions.
Transcript generated by AI from meeting audio. It may contain errors, omissions, or misattributions. Please treat it as a convenience copy and refer to the original recording for the authoritative record.
| Timestamp | Transcript |
|---|---|
| 00:00:00 | I don't think any of us are asking you to rewrite the self-evaluation. We're just asking you to tone down some of the claims that have been proven to not be the case. And I've got a couple of questions, please. Three questions. In the evaluation report, the council knows its settings and schools very well. The council has quality information about its schools and that this enables officers to provide robust and appropriate challenge alongside targeted support and intervention. It also states that powers of intervention are used |
| 00:00:36 | effectively where schools cause concern to ensure challenge and support is timely and effective. On the other hand, we have on the Eston inspection, in recent years, the senior leadership has failed to provide Flint High School with adequate leadership, line management processes a week, and leaders at all levels are not supported or challenged well enough. And it also describes the school as notably dysfunctional, with low trust between stakeholders. So my question to the cabinet member for education is, which of these claims is wrong? Was the |
| 00:01:09 | council's quality information not good enough to understand how badly things were failing at Flint, or were the council's powers of intervention not used in a way that was timely effective? Actually, councillor, I think your questions pre-empt the outcome of the investigation that's being undergone at the moment, doesn't it? I'm not in a position to comment on that, because we don't know yet, do we, or have not had independent verification that the local authority has acted appropriately and reasonably, or whether there's something we should have done |
| 00:01:49 | that we haven't done. Nobody knows that, and it would be inappropriate to have changed that, the existing report 24, 25, in light of speculation. So my second question is, the council's self-evaluation states attendance in Flintshire secondary schools was the highest level in Wales for this reporting period. Yet the Eston inspection report says there are inconsistencies in how attendance is recorded. Leaders do not have an accurate oversight of overall attendance or securing understanding of which pupils are in school at any given time. |
| 00:02:25 | So another question for the cabinet member for education, is the council's claim about having the highest attendance in Wales actually credible if a secondary school can reach a point where Eston says attendance recording is inconsistent and leaders do not reliably know which pupils are present? And then I also think it's reasonable to ask, what confidence should we have that similar weaknesses aren't present elsewhere? The self-evaluation report those figures are based on our understanding at the time, how and why Flint High School |
| 00:02:58 | did not record their attendance figures correctly will be a matter for the investigation that's currently undergone. Okay, and my third and final question, the self-evaluation states that political and, oh sorry, wrong one, the self-evaluation states that safeguarding arrangements are robust across the council, effective as at strategic support and operational levels and that safeguarding planning includes monitoring. Yet Eston states that senior leaders at Flint High School failed to secure a culture of safeguarding and that the safety of pupils is a serious concern. So is the |
| 00:03:37 | council's safeguarding assurance framework failing or is the self-evaluation simply not an honest reflection on what the council's actually knows about safeguarding in its schools? Again, we have school improvement advisors who go into schools and measure all aspects of the school life. What may or may not have happened at Flint High School and what we should have reasonably known or may not have known is going to be subject to that independent investigation. I'm sorry, and then will be addressed appropriately in the self-evaluation reports of 25-26. It's |
| 00:04:16 | simply too soon to comment on that. Intervention strategies were in place at Flint High School and a number of the concerns that had been identified by the Eston had already been identified and actioned by the local authority. Where there is a gap, there is going to be an investigation into it. If there are failings by the local authority, then that will be reflected in the self-evaluation report for next year. |
Highlight 3
The Chief Officer for Education and Youth responds.
Transcript generated by AI from meeting audio. It may contain errors, omissions, or misattributions. Please treat it as a convenience copy and refer to the original recording for the authoritative record.
| Timestamp | Transcript |
|---|---|
| 00:00:00 | please. Yes, I'm conscious of time and thank you chair and I just would like to say at this point that I absolutely respect the right of elected members to scrutinise the work of the education portfolio. That goes without saying. I also want to say I respect the calling process and the fact that it's a political matter really rather you know than a matter for officers. There have been a lot of things written in the call-in report. There have been a number of comments made in this meeting today and I feel that I need to put on the record that I consider some |
| 00:00:41 | of those comments to be defamatory, a defamatory slur on my professional reputation as the chief officer for education and youth and that of my school improvement team and that I will be taking some action in regard to that. In the eight years I have been chief officer I have never shied away from being accountable for my work but I am concerned about some of the comments that have been made today that I believe indicate a lack of integrity, a lack of honesty and a deliberate attempt to mislead this council. That's all I would like to say. Thank you chair. |
Full Session
Transcript generated by AI from meeting audio. It may contain errors, omissions, or misattributions. Please treat it as a convenience copy and refer to the original recording for the authoritative record.
| Timestamp | Transcript |
|---|---|
| 00:00:32 | Members online, we're going to look to start the meeting shortly, so if you're there. Well, another warm welcome to everybody here today. And to those online, my name is Theresa Carbric and I will be chairing today's meeting of the Education, Youth, Culture, Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It is in fact a call-in meeting, all two processes have been followed. I'm going to be AP assisted by Stephen Goodrum, the Democratic Services Manager sitting on my left, and he will guide us through the process. But we'll begin in the usual way. |
| 00:02:11 | Do we have any apologies, please? Chair, we have three substitutions for today's meeting. We have Councillor Alice Robertson substituting for councillor Andy Hughes, Councillor Richard Lloyd for councillor Gina Madison, Councillor David Evans for councillor Ryan McEwen. No further apologies received for this meeting, Chair. Thank you very much. Do we have any declarations of interest, including with the declaration? Mr Parkhurst, you wish to Councillor Parkhurst and Councillor Lister, you've both declared an interest. Thank you. |
| 00:02:46 | So we're moving on to Agenda Item 3, which Steve is... Oh, sorry. Sorry, the nature of your interest. Personal only, Chair. I declare a personal only interest. We'll move to Agenda Item 3, consideration of a matter referred to the committee pursuant to the call and arrangements. And Steve is going to take us through this. Thank you, Chair. Just to... Members will probably be coming more familiar with calling as we've done several over the recent months. But the process is quite a formulate one. It's very clear what the committee |
| 00:03:29 | are only here to discuss is that this one item on the agenda. So obviously I'm outlining the process now. That's the first part of the rules in terms of how callings operate. The Chair will then invite the initiators to put their case to the committee for consideration. They can have a spokesperson to present the case, or they can contribute individually. Decision makers will then have an opportunity to respond to those issues, addressed through the calling process and raised by the initiators. The members of the committee |
| 00:04:05 | then are invited to ask questions of both parties, so both parties can have an opportunity to respond to those questions. At the end of the questions, the Chair will allow the initiators to summarise their case, and then the decision makers will have the same opportunity to do the same. And then I will go through the options that are available to committee. So at that point is when we would take a recommendation for a motion from the floor to consider. Just very brief, there are only four possible of the motion that is put to committee. It has to have one of four |
| 00:04:40 | options. One is that the committee is satisfied with the inclination given, and therefore the decision can be implemented. The second option is that they are not minded to accept it, but do have any specific concerns, so therefore it will still be implemented. Option three, the motion needs to make some recommendation or can refer it to cabinet, and an option four, it would be moved as a recommendation back to full council. Now we will go into a bit more detail when we get to that point, Chair. So it is now over to you to firstly invite the initiators |
| 00:05:16 | to speak. Well, I would like to invite the initiators to speak. Would you refer to speak? Have you got a spokesperson or would you wish to speak? Right, thank you. So I will start with you, Councillor Coughlin's code. Thank you, Chair, and to make your life slightly easier, we have arranged ourselves in the row that I think I think I'm, yeah, there we go. I'm going to start first and you'll get on and then I'll cancel this to all sort of end. Thank you, Chair, and thank you everyone for coming in for the officers. I know this is an extra meeting, |
| 00:05:52 | especially on a Friday afternoon, but I just want to make clear from the outset this calling is not about blame, nor are we talking about technicalities over dates or reports either. This is about a bad judgment called by the cabinet. It's also looking at the two separate roles here. We have the professional officer call and the role of the democratic oversight. The fact that we've had to call this call in and we're here shows that the democratic oversight function is not working. We heard in the previous meeting, which I'm going to refer to in very circumspect terms, |
| 00:06:34 | about governing bodies not challenging facts as presented or not being inquisitive enough of the information that they are given. I suggest the same is happening with the cabinet. There is a lack of curiosity over the reports that have been presented. Cabinet was warned before their meeting that approving the self-evaluation report should not happen unless it was qualified in light of the damning Estyn report. Cabinet was asked to defer the report, not reject it, not dismiss it, just defer the report to give it proper consideration. The cabinet chose not to do |
| 00:07:11 | that and allowed the self-evaluation to stand unqualified. That was a conscious deliberate decision, not an administrative oversight. It's important to remind ourselves where responsibility lies in the words of one divisive and famous prime minister, officer's advice and cabinet's decide. Cabinet adopted the self-evaluation report wholesale. It's now the council's settled position on the education portfolio. The language in self-evaluation is not cautious, qualified, it is optimistic and absolute. The council knows its settings and its schools well |
| 00:07:52 | is absolute. That statement leaves no room for the scale of failure we have discussed early today and Estyn has identified. Safeguarding is where the cabinet's discretion should end. Allowing this self-evaluation to stand unchallenged and to become the final position of this council is unacceptable. Safeguarding failures cannot be brushed aside by simply pointing to dates on calendar. We've heard previously from the cabinet that 96% of schools are in no statutory follow-up, which does sound solidly reassuring, sounds excellent, but there's another statistic which |
| 00:08:32 | is that almost a fifth of Flintshire secondary schools are in special measures. That doesn't square with the glowing self-assessment report that cabinet passed not long ago. It directly challenges the misleading 96% figure. Large secondary schools and small rural primaries carry the same weight in that percentage. However, the risk profiles are wildly different. Secondaries are more complex, face more challenging safeguarding concerns, and affect more pupils. A single failing secondary school can affect more than 10 |
| 00:09:14 | times the amount of pupils in a primary school. That's why the 96% figure is misleading. Why doesn't the self-evaluation say what percentage of pupils attend schools in special measures? The cabinet's decision to rubber stamp the self-evaluation report undermines public confidence in the council. The issue here is that the cabinet made a decision to accept the report without even a scintilla of concern of how that report may appear to be undermined by Estyn. This is a failure of democratic oversight. In clearer terms, the cabinet has failed in its role to protect public |
| 00:09:55 | confidence in this council. Why was this committee convened for a special meeting just a day before the Estyn report became public? We'd already had sight, the cabinet, of the Estyn report. Committee members had not had sight of that, and yet, the day before, you were asked to approve the self-assessment. That's why we're here today. It's a failure of democratic oversight, and there we go. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Corbyn. Good. I'm now going to invite Councillor Swash. |
| 00:10:35 | Can you hear me? Yes, okay. So, my question is quite simple. Sorry, just to clarify, I thought it was Councillor Swash next. So, I'll just introduce you. Councillor Ayes, thank you. So, my question is quite simple, and it's to the committee. Would the committee have given the same answers on the self-assessment if they had sight of the Estyn report, which was published the next day, on the self-assessment? Would you have answered the same way? Had you have seen that report? And my other question is, why didn't the |
| 00:11:28 | include an urgent item on the agenda relating to the Estyn report that was published in the press the day after the committee? Because, surely, the Cabinet had seen sight of that report prior to that meeting. So, all that has happened is, when that has gone into the press the very next day, it's caused embarrassments for many councillors to be challenged as how that situation arose. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Ellis. Councillor Swash, do you wish to speak now? Thank you. Okay. Councillor Mackay, please. Thank you, Chair. My concerns are in relation to pages |
| 00:12:20 | 25 to 28 of the report. My concern is that some schools have been placed in special measures, which I contend indicate that the school's improvement system is not functioning as well as we would wish. I would like to take members back to the Flint Mountain Hotel meetings we held some months ago. And one of the things that I took out of that was that an ex-chief executive who was assisting there said repeatedly, in the case of local authorities, it's the process which matters. And I would like to talk about the process. I believe that the process for supporting schools |
| 00:13:20 | with the school starts with the school improvement advisor. They visit schools and produce a report which gives, I think, which goes to the local authority and certainly to the school. If a need for improvement is identified, objectives and support are agreed with the school. I hope in a nutshell, that's the scheme. Support could take the form of the school improvement advisor sharing their experiences and knowledge with the school so that the necessary improvement is achieved. And there is also the opportunity for school-to-school collaboration, where one school |
| 00:14:06 | shares good practice with another. Hopefully, that will achieve the necessary improvement objectives. But if not, further reports from the school's improvement advisor will inform the local authority that more support is required. In which case, a meeting of the school's performance monitoring group, SPMG, will be arranged where further support from the local authority may be proposed. I see that this is the process, but because of the information we have received earlier in this afternoon and from recent school inspections, I feel that process is not working as well as we |
| 00:15:00 | would wish. I propose that either internal audit or else a peer group from another Welsh local authority should be asked to check out that process. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Mackay. This call-in is not about questioning the commitment of officers, schools or elected members to improving education and flinchier, nor is it about denying that there are many strengths within the system. The purpose of this call-in is to test whether Cabinet exercised appropriate judgment and oversight when considering a key corporate assurance document. |
| 00:15:53 | The decision before us relates to Cabinet's resolution to note the Education and Youth Self-Evaluation Report for 24-25. While the wording of that resolution may appear procedural, the substance of the decision is significant. The report is presented as a rigorous evidence-based self-evaluation structured against Estyn's inspection framework, and it is intended to provide assurance not only to members but also to Estyn, Welsh Government and the public. The report makes strong and largely unqualified assertions that the council knows its schools |
| 00:16:34 | very well, that self-evaluation and improvement arrangements are rigorous and that leadership and safeguarding arrangements are effective. Cabinet was asked to consider those assurances in full knowledge of Estyn's inspection of Flint High School, which resulted in the school being placed into special measures and identified serious and systemic weaknesses in leadership, safeguarding culture, self-evaluation and improvement planning. Those issues fall squarely within the ambit of the self-evaluation report. They are not peripheral matters, nor are they |
| 00:17:13 | unrelated to the period covered by the report, as they concern weaknesses that develop over time. Prior to the Cabinet meeting, Cabinet members were explicitly alerted to the risk that allowing the report to stand unqualified could undermine the credibility of the council's assurance processes. Cabinet was invited to defer the item or to approve its subject to amendments or clarification. That chair did not happen. This calling is therefore concerned with three core questions. Firstly, whether Cabinet properly took account of the material consideration. Secondly, |
| 00:17:50 | whether sufficient executive challenge was applied to a corporate assurance document. And thirdly, whether allowing the report to stand unamended, exposes the council to governance and reputational risk. Scrutiny's role today is not to rewrite the report. It is to consider whether the decision taken was sound and whether further consideration, potentially by full council, is required to maintain transparency, accountability and confidence in the council's |
| 00:18:22 | self-evaluation and governance arrangements. That is the basis on which this calling has been brought forward. And I look forward to the discussion. Do you offer them? Thank you, Councillor Parker. Councillor Priest, please. Thank you, Chair. I am part of this calling with other members, not because I doubt the hard work of the officers, but because I believe that this self-assessment plan, as presented, does not meet the standards of transparency, challenge or credibility that this council |
| 00:18:57 | and our residents deserve. The Cabinet have proved this even in light of the Eston report. My concern is simple, but fundamental. There is no red ragging rating anywhere in this report. And if we go online just very quickly to have a look at the rag rating, so green means generally indicates good progress with strong evidence of improvement. Yellow indicates good progress with evidence of improvement in several areas. Amber indicates progress has been made, but with limited evidence of improvement. Red indicates little progress is being made. |
| 00:19:38 | Not that it is red, unbelievably red, that is what it means. So red is just an indication that little progress is being made. So if we carry on from there, we are asking to accept that within an education system facing unprecedented pressures, post-pandemic recovery, declining in attendance and levels of birth, increased ALN complications and we have seen a huge increase in ALN, workforce shortages, redundancy, reduced budget constraints and Eston follow-up areas. There are a school in special measures and now we had one escalating, |
| 00:20:24 | but then put into special measures as well, as well as 34 schools in deficit. And yet not a single area judged in red. I find that extremely difficult to reconcile with. The reality is being experienced with schools, staff and parents. That is the reality they're facing. RAYG rating exists for a reason. They are not about blame. They are about honesty, prioritization and enabling political oversight. If anything is yellow, amber, green or red, if it's just in those, nothing is truly prioritized. It blurs the line between what is going well |
| 00:21:13 | and what is not going well. A self-assessment report cannot identify at least one area requiring urgent or intense improvement. Risks being a reassurance document rather than a diagnostic tool. My second concern is the lack of clear linkages between evaluation and conception. We see many positive statements and it was very positive, but we do not consistently see clear evidence, thresholds, measurable impact or explicit statements of risk, where improvement does not occur. Without that, members cannot properly |
| 00:21:59 | judge whether the service owns their judgments and are robust. This committee's role is to scrutinize not to endorse and meaningful scrutiny requires confidence that the information before us reflects reality, warts and all. What leads me to my final point on governance and accountability, this document is strategically significant. It shapes, it improves the activity informed and the resources and the decisions and it will be relied on by external regulators. So take for example, Eston. You should be mirroring, so if Eston come in to do inspect anything, |
| 00:22:44 | they will expect what you've written in your self-assessment for them to have mirrored it themselves and it needs to be robust in that format. If it is understated, challenge or overstated, confidence, the consequences are quite serious. It means you have no reality on what or robustness of what you're saying. For that reason, I believe this report should be returned to Cabinet or potentially to full council with a clear request to revisit the ragging methodologically because we're looking at the Eston reports that we've received afterwards, it needs to include that |
| 00:23:28 | within it to ensure that the red rating are used where appropriate and to strengthen the evidence based behind the judgments. This is not a criticism of officers, it is a recognition that good governance depends on the constructive challenge. We owe it to our pupils and our schools and our communities to be honest about where we are struggling and where we are succeeding. For a self-assessment report that cannot say this is not good enough yet, is not a self-assessment report fit for purpose. For those reasons, I support this call in |
| 00:24:10 | and ask members to agree that the report be referred back for further work. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Priess. Councillor Lister, please. The alcohol chair. Okay, a failure of this magnitude is not going to be the fault of just one person or a few people. For a school to fail in pretty much all its core duties, a systematic failure has taken place and we, the local authority, are responsible for that system. I'm sure it's no consolation to the people of Flint, but the portfolio counters that argument |
| 00:24:47 | with 96% of our schools are in no follow-up category and therefore there can't be a system of failure. I'm inclined to credit the headteachers and the governing bodies of those successful schools for their flagship practices in the same way it is their responsibility when schools begin to fail. But it's the word begin that's really important because what Estyn describes at Flint High School didn't just happen overnight. Estyn explicitly states that in recent years, the senior leadership team has failed to provide Flint High School with adequate leadership. |
| 00:25:16 | That's on page three of this Estyn report and that leadership has failed to establish an ethos of collaboration and support and overall the school is notably dysfunctional. So where were the robust school improvement processes claimed in this document? Where was the support to prevent a school beginning to fail, failing to these debts and letting down a whole community in Flintshire? The ripple effect of these failures are deep reaching and they'll be long lasting in the community and it's the Flint community that pay that price. So I do have sympathy with how difficult |
| 00:25:51 | this persistent scrutiny of the portfolio is and I know officers and cabinet members have been able to express that in meetings. It's difficult, it's really stressful, but I also sympathise hugely with the families of the communities that have been badly let down and speaking as a member of this committee and an initiator of the calling. I speak for those families who don't get the forum to voice their disappointment, they don't get to voice their hurt, they don't get to voice their worries about whether sending their child to school has actually |
| 00:26:20 | done more harm than good and that's what we're elected to do. This is our role and this is why we're here with this call in but speaking up for children who are vulnerable and they're voiceless. So here we have a self-evaluation report which says we know our schools well, we have robust monitoring and school improvement processes in place and here we have a report that says we failed to provide adequate safeguarding arrangements and learning experiences for our children. To have this report ratified by this cabinet |
| 00:26:50 | the day after the release of this report is both dismissive of the Flint community and deeply disrespectful. I wonder how many of the cabinet read these reports side by side because how can you possibly agree one with the presence of the other? The argument has and I'm sure will be made later on that this evaluation report covers 2024-25 and this was released in 25-26. So I will repeat that failures of this magnitude don't happen overnight and I will also remind members of this committee that this report did not come to scrutiny in November |
| 00:27:26 | because the portfolio was still working on it post inspection. There were opportunities to tweak the report, there were opportunities to ensure that what was being put in the public domain accurately reflects what we know which is why the cabinet's position in rubber stamping of this document in the presence of this document is completely indefensible. It calls into question the integrity of all the decision-making and the political leadership of this council. What is released in the public domain from this council whether to the press or in report |
| 00:27:59 | implicitly implies it comes from us all. Well with this call in I'm saying it does not come in my name and I hope other people will join me in demanding honest informed intelligent and robust decision-making. The people of Flintshire aren't stupid, they expect the cabinet with the power they have to ultralize with the decisions they make will do it understanding that responsibility and with the willingness to think independently read a situation from more than one perspective and to challenge situations that seem to so many so obviously wrong. We aren't going to prevent it |
| 00:28:32 | happening again and we won't have a safety net to catch those schools beginning to fail unless there's clear acceptance that we are part of the cause and that is the purpose of this very document. So I don't believe it's appropriate to send this matter back to cabinet. Cabinet have already endorsed a report containing strong assurances about oversight and safeguarding despite those assurances now sitting in direct contradiction with a Neston report placing a Flintshire secondary school into special measures citing safeguarding concerns and multi-year leadership failure. |
| 00:29:04 | So for that reason I recommend this matter be referred to full council so the authority as a whole can decide whether this report should be amended qualified or reissued to reflect the reality Neston has put into the public domain. Thank you councillor Lister. Now I just want to confirm everybody within the initiators has had an opportunity to speak if they so wish. Okay thank you. I'm now going to call upon the cabinet member. Yes please. I'm not normally on this committee but a couple of hours ago before the committee |
| 00:29:43 | when I was asked to sub I checked as much as I could of the previous meetings to see where we were at with this and the clarity is that a week prior to that cabinet meeting you had your scrutiny meeting for two and a half hours discussing this report and on the webcast that I watched I think I heard you say that was unanimous when it was voted through. I'm just curious from some of the comments that I've heard that we're reopening the debate on the whole report not what I thought it was as the principle of subsequently the estine report came |
| 00:30:23 | out and the cabinet made a decision where they could have waited a day. I just don't want us to be here for another two and a half hours discussing this same document that you discussed just a exactly what we're debating here so I don't want to get into the sorry the RAG statuses and this that and the other of the whole report. The initiators feel that the self-evaluation report is not a true reflection of the academic year in which it was written. It's my understanding of it and therefore they wanted to bring things to our attention. I think I've put it succinctly. |
| 00:31:12 | Okay so I'm going to invite the cabinet member Maread Eastward please. Diolch Kaderith. As is my want to have some pre-prepared notes based on the the the headings given in the call in. I've been writing furiously I'm terrible I can't write down the notes and follow the discussion so please bear with me I'll try and pick up all the points that have not been met already in my pre-prepared notes which I'll begin. So taking your subheadings in order the decision amounts to a substantive executive decision notwithstanding the word noted |
| 00:31:54 | the call in has been accepted and therefore this point is agreed. Subheading two, failure to take account of a material consideration despite explicit prior warning. The self-evaluation report relates to the period from April 24 to July 25 and is a high level review of the work undertaken by the entire education and youth portfolio written by officers mainly over the summer. The explicit prior warning refers to an eastern inspection which was undertaken in November 25 the report for which was published in January 26 quite some time after |
| 00:32:31 | the self-evaluation report was written. The eastern report reflects how the school was operating at the time of inspection and whilst the eastern inspection report details significant concerns as at November 25 it does not comment on the interventions at that stage by the local authority or any lack of them as it would not be appropriate to do so in that report. To connect that eastern report to the self-evaluation report for 24-25 would be highly inappropriate. As already stated the self-evaluation report covers a portfolio's work during 24-25 and between April 24 and July |
| 00:33:11 | 25 20 primary schools including one special primary had estin inspections. Of these 19 had no follow-up and just one had a follow-up with a non-statutory category of estin review. During the same time frame four secondary schools had estin inspections two with no follow-up one placed in significant improvement and one in special measures which was in May 25. With regard to the school placed in special measures the local authority was already following intervention processes in order to address highlighted concerns. I believe this record does demonstrate that the local authority does |
| 00:33:49 | know its school as well as any recommendations identified by estin accorded with concerns already being actioned by the local authority at the time reviewed on a regular basis by the Education Quality Board. There are also regular links between estin and the local authority during which the extent by which the local authority knows its schools is scrutilized by an appropriately qualified person and who does so on behalf of estin. This is not us marking our own homework. Estin comes in to monitor our progress against measures. Our last report and annual |
| 00:34:27 | appraisals indicate that estin having undertaken robust scrutiny was satisfied that as a local authority we do know our schools well. Last year the report came to scrutiny in October 24 prior to another school as already referenced being put into the category of special measures after the evaluation report was written and published. As I've said the local authority was aware at that time that the school was one of concern and was taking the appropriate measures through the local authority's school improvements and statutory processes. The same applies in this |
| 00:35:02 | instance subject to the outcome of a full review and investigation currently being undertaken. Support was being given by the local authority to Flint High School to improve identified areas of concern in accordance with our school improvement and statutory processes. Speed improvement in areas of concern was negatively impacted however by significant sickness absence, changes of staff within the leadership team and industrial disputes at the school but a scheme of intervention was in place against which improvements could be monitored. |
| 00:35:39 | The self-evaluation report went to scrutiny on 14 January 26. Unfortunately I was unable to attend but in the remarks I had pre-prepared which were read on my behalf I commented that the self-evaluation report was a culmination of all the reports that had been brought before scrutiny during the year. So far as I am aware this was not challenged during the meeting and the Education, Youth and Culture scrutiny has been able to scrutinize all the elements upon which the report was based throughout the year. After a full discussion of over two hours at |
| 00:36:21 | scrutiny which covered a wide range of topics including risks to the education budget, use of mobile phones by pupils, food and fun, improvement of pupil attendance and ALNN, the decision was that the committee reviewed and commented on the outcome of the education portfolio's annual self-evaluation report on the quality of education services for the period 24-25 and in view of the key risks related to the delivery of education services, as outlined in the report the committee recommend that there is no reduction within the needed |
| 00:36:55 | education services budget for 26-27 and this is the information that was fed back to Cabinet prior to them considering their recommendation in turn. Whilst there was an email sent to Cabinet members via councillor copied to group leaders the warning does not relate to the same period of time as this self-evaluation report and I also note that it was not sent on behalf of the members of the Education, Youth and Culture Committee. Point three, you're subheading inadequate executive oversight of a corporate assurance document. The report is a high-level |
| 00:37:37 | review of the work undertaken by the Education and Youth portfolio during 24-25 based on reports that have gone to scrutiny and had in itself been scrutinized appropriately by the Education, Youth and Culture oversight and scrutiny committee. When Cabinet considered the report, it also considered that the report had been reviewed by the Education, Youth and Culture scrutiny committee which accepted the report with the additional recommendation that I've already referred to. Cabinet considered the report and recommendation |
| 00:38:08 | in light of the comments made by Education and Youth as well as the comments made at the time by the Chief Officer for Education. People know me quite well and before I would make any decision I will always check the information before me is a true reflection. The decision made to note the self-evaluation of Flintshire Education Services by Cabinet on 20 January 26 was one taken after consideration of all facts and all comments made by senior members including the Chief Officer of that meeting of Cabinet. At the meeting I asked a question to clarify the purpose and relevance |
| 00:38:49 | of the self-evaluation report of Education Services and the challenges in some of our schools recently in Flintshire and whether this report is intended to identify specific issues or specific schools, I posed the question for clarification and understanding. The response provided by the Chief Officer was quite clear, very clear. The self-evaluation annual report reflects the work of the Education and Youth portfolio for the previous academic year of 24-25. It is a high-level report and it is not designed to provide detailed information about specific |
| 00:39:23 | schools. There is a separate monitoring and intervention process through schools improvement services that would respond to any and all specific concerns. The self-evaluation annual report gives detailed analysis of our progress against the last recommendation in the Eston report of 2019. The report is written to show all services offered including schools, vulnerable learners, youth services, etc. so not just about schools and no specific circumstances. The report was honest and acknowledging that secondary schools performance |
| 00:39:56 | had been variable over the last three years with currently one secondary school in need of significant improvement and one other secondary school in special measures. Two in non-statutory categories for Eston have subsequently been removed. So the report is honest, it does reflect the period of 24-25. The process for dealing directly with a specific school in SPMG, special performance monitoring group, there is a deliberately confidential process that provides a safe space for schools towards improvement in an environment without fear or loss of public |
| 00:40:32 | confidence. It also allows schools to work directly with the portfolio. These two items are separate. Council Priests has referred to honesty, the blurring of lines within the SER. I was happy with the explanation provided and therefore content to note the report so I don't recognise these comments at all. Clearly I can't comment on the assertion by some of the calling members here that the regarding the comments made within the grounds of the call in referring to the self-evaluation report being incomplete or potentially misleading |
| 00:41:08 | but I would like to invite the Chief Officer to respond to that and it is fundamental points in relation to this discussion. So I would like to invite the Chief Officer to explain that because it is fundamental to this point. Thank you, Chair. I was about to ask the Cabinet member if she would like to invite the Chief Officer. Thank you, Chair. Whilst the Chief Officer can be invited to comment, I do think they're here in a supporting capacity. They shouldn't be making narrative comments that is up to the decision makers because we're here calling in the decision of |
| 00:41:48 | the decision makers but not calling in the report itself. We're calling the decision of the Cabinet. So whilst I think the Chief Officer has a right to support technical arguments or figures and things like that, that's appropriate. I don't think it's appropriate that the decision makers rely upon the Chief Officer to support their arguments in that way. Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to say my understanding was that Councillor Eastwood could invite the Chief Officer to speak to support what she said. That was my understanding. |
| 00:42:28 | Sorry, Chair. I think by the nature of the calling and the spirit of the calling as well as the words, I think the oneness is on the decision makers. We are calling in the rational of the decision makers and it's the decision makers to answer questions. The Chief Officer has been called in to give substantive points. I think is a bit of a sneaky workaround of the spirit of the guidance, Chair. Councillor Jones, would you like to clarify as to why you're inviting the Chief Officer to speak? |
| 00:43:13 | I did make it clear because certain comments had been made in relation to the report itself, which I didn't question at Cabinet, but didn't feel I needed to. And I was inviting the Chief Officer to explain that. If she wished, it's not at this point. I mean, maybe I can hand over to the portfolio holder at the moment and allow that to continue. I'm in your hands, Chair. I'm very sorry, Chair. As the initiators, we spoke one at a time. Once I finished, I handed over to the next one, which I think was Councillor Ellis. I didn't then rest the microphone back and |
| 00:43:52 | continue in my points. Councillor Eastwood has spoken. She handed over to Councillor Jones, the Deputy Leader. So now if there's another decision maker wants to speak, that's fine, but I do think Councillor Eastwood has had her go. She's handed over. I don't think it's appropriate that we sort of bounce back and forth like this. Apologies, Chair. Councillor Eastwood was clear when she was speaking that she hadn't finished speaking. So as I understood it, and she was inviting Councillor Jones to make some comments that he |
| 00:44:20 | felt was appropriate and then was to finish her speech afterwards. So I believe, Chair, through yourself, that it's your decision. But ultimately, I think that the process being forward so far is fine. That was my understanding, Councillor Coggins-Kerg, and I have to apologise. Yeah, good day, Ruth. Moving on then to point four, you're superb in governance and reputational risk arising from conscious acquiescence. When Cabinet considered the self-evaluation report, the report had already undergone through, sorry, had already gone through proper process and |
| 00:45:05 | been fully considered by the Education, Youth and Culture Oversight and Scrutiny Committee. The self-evaluation report covers 24-25 and reflects the work undertaken during that year by the entire portfolio. The report is not incomplete and gives an overview of the work undertaken by the Education and Youth portfolio over that period of time. It is worth repeating at this point that the intervention processes undertaken by the portfolio within its schools are deliberately a confidential process to support an improvement dialogue based on trust between officers, |
| 00:45:44 | SPMG elected member representatives and school leaders. This provides space for schools to feel comfortable about sharing their views openly and allows them to work with the portfolio team to make the necessary improvements. Individual school progress within SPMG is monitored by the Education Quality Board. The self-evaluation report is not a report in which to present details of individual school interventions. Annual reports are presented to the Environment and Youth Oversight... Education? Education, sorry, Education. I need more water. Education, Youth |
| 00:46:23 | and Culture Oversight, Scrutiny Committee on the work of the School Improvement Service and its intervention processes. So there has been and will continue to be opportunities for members to scrutinise its effectiveness. To review the 24-25 report in light of the subsequent Eston Report on Flint High School which was published in January 26 after an inspection in November 25 and refer it back to the Education, Youth and Culture Oversight and Scrutiny Committee on that basis would be to assume that all the concerns highlighted in that report |
| 00:46:59 | both existed prior to May 2025 and had not reasonably been identified by the school's improvement team. This would be irresponsible and untenable. The outcome of the full review and investigation into what has and has not happened in relation to Flint High School is yet to be finalised. Further, the members who have signed this calling are not privy to the information that has been given to the Quality Board and not aware of what has or hasn't been identified and actioned. They expect Covenant to act on conjecture which in itself would raise |
| 00:47:36 | serious governance governance issues. A full review and investigation of the local authority as well as the school is currently being undertaken and the outcome of that review and investigation scrutinised under the appropriate processes at the appropriate time and if appropriate say that a lot reflected in the self-evaluation report for 25-26. It would be irresponsibly pre-emptive to reflect on what may or may not have happened at Flint High School when considering the self-evaluation report for 24-25. I'll try and work through some of my scribbled notes here. |
| 00:48:40 | In relation to why the meeting was convened at that date, I believe I answered that as an urgent question that Paul Counsel did in tying that the report had been delayed because of the pressures on the Chief Officer's time and it was that date was set by the Democratic Services. Counselors has asked the question of the committee but why didn't I ask the Chair to include urgent items to be discussed during that meeting on the 14th? At the date of that meeting the report by Estyn had not been published. It was still confidential. We would not have been |
| 00:49:23 | in a position to discuss that report during the meeting on the 14th of January. No, it's completely embargoed. In relation to our school improvements and monitoring arrangements, I'd like to ensure that Estyn monitors our progress in relation to that. I stand by the report's suggestion that we do know our schools well. I'm confident having been involved with the scrutiny, the school improvement. I've seen the reports that have come through scrutiny. I've seen the scrutinisation by members of those reports. |
| 00:50:22 | I'm involved with the 316, the SPMG monitoring and I'm part of the Education Quality Board. So, I'm very confident that our processes are robust. When considering the self-evaluation report at Cabinet, we took proper account of the feedback from the scrutiny committee where they'd had two hours to discuss the item. Further questions, because of the you know the report was noted. Daphna, thank you. Can Therese, would you finish now? Okay, looking at my notes, I'm now allowed to invite questions from members. |
| 00:51:26 | And I can see that Councillor Healy has his hand up. So, Councillor Healy, please. Thank you, Chair. It's not so much a question as a comment. And I think as a member of this committee, I can understand the position that Cabinet was in in noting the self-improvement report because, well, I think we as a committee did something similar ourselves. So, it could be argued it is a bit rich and inappropriate to be calling it in. And I'm going to agree with what the Cabinet members have said because I actually feel that the |
| 00:52:13 | self-evaluation report is a really significant document in giving us that handle on what is happening in the bulk of the schools across our education estate. That when you look at the topics covered, the areas of involvement, it's really massively extensive. It doesn't just deal with the academic performance, it deals with things like the foreign school, Ruth, youth justice, education over in school, and this goes on an arm sentry service. I was delighted to see that in our involvement with the sensory service, we actually host a service which delivers those |
| 00:53:02 | services across other authorities in North Wales, Traveller Community, the lot. And I think what was noted was all the valuable work that is going on there. We discussed it in the Education Meeting, in this committee meeting, and Cabinet did. The timescale for what has become a particular issue now in other schools that have been referred to is different from this self-evaluation report. And it's not that it's being glossed over. We know it isn't because as an Education Committee, we have discussed those issues, admittedly as part of the Part II, but we can't |
| 00:53:49 | deny that those issues are being subject to lethal scrutiny because we've had the opportunity and we have been involved in it. And therefore, I certainly don't, I'm sorry that I don't agree with my colleague, councillor Listry, in proposing what is effective the option for the Ghost of Old Council. I'm going to actually associate myself with proposing option one, that we've heard the response from the Cabinet members and we are satisfied with that response. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, councillor Healy. Right, councillor Ibbison, please. Would you like to ask your question? |
| 00:54:51 | Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few questions and just for the avoidance of any doubt, sat as I am in the liminal zone between the call-in initiators and the rest of the committee, I'm happy to clarify that I'm not a signatory to the call-in. So first of all, to the decision makers and noting the comments made by councillor Eastwood, which seem to allude to an answer to this question, but I would appreciate a yes or no. Do the decision makers agree that there were issues at Flint High School during the period of the self-assessment? I'm trying to remember through |
| 00:55:34 | all the previous education quality for minutes, which is... Sorry, councillor Ellis, sorry, but I'm just trying to come up with it myself as well. And I know that kind of because it's in SPMG, then it will be through 360 kind of review prior to that. So issues and concerns were identified, whether they... Yeah, and they were intervention strategies in place. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going through my questions one at a time as that seems to be what you've previously preferred. It is because then everybody can remember what's being asked. |
| 00:56:20 | Yes, of course, of course, very sensible. So my question there was, did the decision makers agree that there were issues at Flint High School during the period of self-assessment? And I understood the answer to that question to be yes. So then the question is, did the decision makers have knowledge of these as at the date that they noted the report? The report gives an overview, doesn't it, of our school improvement practices and strategies, not into individual school interventions? The self-evaluation report is an overview report. I did reference that |
| 00:57:00 | in time and I'm sorry, have a look for it if you want. It's a high-level report. It wouldn't say which interventions are you doing in which school because that's not appropriate to the report. Madam Chair, I've not suggested that it would be necessary to name or identify or give commentary on particular issues at a particular school in the report. I asked whether the decision makers had knowledge of the issues at Flint High School as of the date they noted the report. Now, judging by the fact that the Estyn report was out by then that they knew that |
| 00:57:41 | there'd been industrial action, that they knew that the industrial action had commenced at the start of the present academic year and so was clearly based on grievances during the report period, I think we can assume that the answer to that question was also meant to be yes. So then the question is, is the extent of the issues without necessarily giving commentary on a particular school but is the extent of the issues that exist there where is that reflected within the report? And again, I'm not asking for you to point to where it says or doesn't say Flint. |
| 00:58:15 | I'm saying the scale of the issues, bearing in mind the comments from Councillor Coggins-Cogan about the proportion of Flintshire children who were at schools in special measures, where is that level of concern reflected in the report even in general terms? It wouldn't be appropriate to reflect that in that report because it's in relation to this year and we need that full review and investigation to measure what the local authority knew against what was happening in the school and whether it was reasonable for the local authority to have |
| 00:58:51 | taken or not undertake the interventions that are appropriate at the time. That will be a matter for the 2526 self-evaluation report. To do so in motion 2425 is to pre-empt the outcome of that investigation. In which case, Madam Chair, I have a further question which I hadn't written down. What we have heard is there were issues at this school in the report period that were known to the decision makers as at the date they made that they noted the report, that aren't reflected in the report because they would be reflected in the one for the period afterwards when the issues |
| 00:59:33 | occurred in this period because we can't assess them yet because it's too soon. Given that the decision makers argument in response to my question so far has been we can't assess this yet because we're so close to it, would they agree that the self-assessment is incomplete because it's happening too soon to the events that it claims to reflect on? Further, would the decision makers agree that the report presents things in the most favourable light possible? Given that when things are going well the report reflects them and when things haven't been going well the report doesn't because |
| 01:00:10 | it's too soon after the event to include those. So would the decision makers agree that things are implicitly reflected in the most favourable light possible? Councillor Eastwood. The self-evaluation report does cover the school improvement services and it does acknowledge the variable standards in the secondary school so it's not shied away at all from that and it doesn't say, again it doesn't name particular schools so what interventions may or where or where we're not happening in relation to Prince High School was embodied in the content of that report. |
| 01:00:53 | Perhaps not the level of detail you're now asking for but that would not be appropriate. I have one final question Madam Chair but I note that the response there is that this is the conflicts with the response to the previous question at this point we're saying that the level of detail it's included in there it's fine this is the appropriate one a minute ago we were hearing that it couldn't possibly be included in this so either it is included at the right level of details we've just heard or it's not because it will be in next year's it's got to be one or |
| 01:01:22 | the other that's been contradictory which causes me concern but my final question is why was there a need to get it to the cabinet meeting requiring a... Councillor Eastwood to give a personal explanation which I've agreed. Sorry yeah I've said that the 2425 embodies the level of the school improvement services and the interventions that would have been kind of attributable to Flint High School but embodied within the content of the report what I've said is that subject to the outcome of the full review and investigation which has been undertaken now any lessons learned from the look |
| 01:02:03 | for the local authority as a result of the outcome of that investigation will be embodied it will be embodied within the 2526 report there is no conflict there. Thank you Madam Chair I go back to my question I was asking this report came to a special meeting of the Education Committee just before the Estyn report was released now we've heard that the date was chosen entirely by democratic services and that it was nothing to do with the decision makers or the portfolio the question is why did it need to come to a special meeting at all why did it need to go |
| 01:02:45 | to the cabinet meeting that it went to it was already late and we know that we've acknowledged that but why was it so urgent at that point? Councillor Eastwood please. As I said in my opening remarks it came to scrutiny in October 24 of the previous year we are supposed to do it in a timely manner and the report was already overdue and the report needed to be scrutinized by the committee prior to going to the cabinet and that is the reason why it was brought to that stage we want to pull on it any further the the the connection with the Estyn report is entirely coincidental |
| 01:03:39 | I just need to give everybody an important piece of information here the network is going off at half past five so please get straight to your questions I'm going to invite Councillor Lister to ask her a question. I don't think any of us are asking you to rewrite the evaluation the self evaluation we're just asking you to tone down some of the claims that have been proven to not not be the case and I've got a couple of questions please three three questions in the in the evaluation report the council knows its settings and schools very well |
| 01:04:13 | the council has quality information about its schools and that and that this enables officers to provide robust and appropriate challenge alongside targeted support and intervention it also states that powers of intervention are used effectively where schools cause concern to ensure challenge and support is timely and effective on the other hand we have on the estyn inspection in recent years the senior leadership has failed to provide flint high school with adequate leadership line management processes are weak and leaders at all levels are not supported |
| 01:04:46 | or challenged well enough and it and it also describes the school as notably dysfunctional with low trust between stakeholders so my question to the cabinet member for education is which of these claims is is wrong was the was the quality was the council's quality information not good enough to understand how badly things were failing at flint or were the council's powers of intervention not used in a way that was timely or effective. I think your questions preempt the outcome of the investigation that's been undergone at the moment doesn't it I'm not |
| 01:05:28 | in a position to comment on that because we don't know yet do we or have had independent verification that the local authority has acted appropriately and reasonably or whether there's something we should have done that we haven't done nobody knows that and it would be inappropriate to have changed that the existing report for 24 25 in in light of speculation. So my second question is the council self evaluation states attendance in flint secondary schools was the highest level in Wales for this reporting period yet the eston inspection report says there are |
| 01:06:04 | inconsistencies in how attendance is recorded. Leaders do not have an accurate oversight of overall attendance or securing understanding of which pupils are in school at any given time. So another question for the cabinet member for education is the council's claim about having the highest attendance in Wales actually credible if a secondary school can reach a point where eston says attendance recording is inconsistent and leaders do not reliably know which pupils are present and then I also think it's reasonable to ask what confidence should we have that similar |
| 01:06:35 | weaknesses aren't present elsewhere. The self evaluation report on those figures are based on our understanding at the time how and why flint high school did not record their attendance figures correctly it will be a matter for the investigations currently be undergone. Okay and my third and final question the self evaluation states that political and sorry wrong one the self evaluation states that safeguarding arrangements are robust across the council effective as at strategic support and operational levels and that safeguarding planning includes |
| 01:07:18 | monitoring yet eston states that senior leaders at flint high school failed to secure a culture of safeguarding and that the safety of pupils is a serious concern. So is the council's safeguarding assurance framework failing or is the self evaluation simply not an honest reflection on what the council's actually knows about safeguarding in its schools. Again we have school improvement advice officers who go into schools and measure all aspects of the school life what may or may not have happened at flint high school and what we should have reasoned |
| 01:07:53 | known or may not have known is going to be subject to that independent investigation I'm sorry and then we'll be addressed appropriately in the self evaluation report of 25 26 it's simply too soon to comment on that. Intervention strategies were in place at flint high school and number of the concerns that had been identified by flint by the eston had already been identified and actioned by the local authority where there is a gap there is going to be investigation into it if there are failings by the local authority then that will be reflected |
| 01:08:31 | in the self evaluation report for next year. Thank you councillor parkhurst please. Jochenweil chair I note from a cabinet member for education that she's blaming this scrutiny committee for not having foresight or psychedness that's a word to know what was in the eston report which was being published the day after the scrutiny committee meeting took place I don't know how this committee could possibly know that without a degree of being psychic and that she blames she blamed democratic services for fixing the dates that's extraordinary to pass blame to |
| 01:09:24 | democratic services colleagues who fixed dates in accordance with the wishes of the cabinet but picking up a comment in the self evaluation report that the school improvement processes are rigorous and schools are robustly challenged on the quality of their self evaluation processes and that the council knows its settings and schools very well if in fact council did know the school very well and was robustly challenging its self evaluation during the period covered by the self evaluation report can the cabinet member identify what specific weaknesses |
| 01:10:06 | at flint high school were formally escalated to senior officers before july 2025 when that escalation occurred and why none of those issues are reflected or calculated in the self evaluation report the health council because I'm sorry I haven't brought that level of detail with me because that wasn't the subject of the calling thank you councillor parker well chair that is extraordinary isn't it for the cabinet member to acknowledge that she doesn't actually know what weaknesses at flint high school were formally escalated to senior officers despite that being |
| 01:10:58 | a high profile matter which concerns the council and is the subject matter for this calling sorry councillor parker I think this is actually irrelevant to the calling actually so I'm going to move it on unless you've got another question thank you chair I do have another question by simply resolving to note the self evaluation report and allowing its conclusions to stand unqualified as the council's court for position for 24 25 did cabinet consciously accept the risk that this scrutiny committee and ultimately full council wouldn't meaningfully challenge |
| 01:11:43 | those assurances or did cabinet fail to properly test whether the report itself gave an accurate and complete picture of the effectiveness of the education portfolio I think cabinet accepts that all its decisions are open to challenge by members um sorry I'm not very good at with them can you repeat the second part please council parker yes yes cabinet member would did cabinet fail to properly test whether the report itself gave an accurate and complete picture of the effectiveness of the education portfolio councillor parker if I can answer that we |
| 01:12:45 | I did consider and I asked the question of the chief officer at the time to clarify certain items with that so that I didn't and I'm I was content with the response at the time and I continued to be content with the response in relation to her answer she gave me a cabinet that's the park coast so chair final question then so can can the leader or deputy sorry deputy leader um councillor jones explain how that approach is consistent with effective governance of a corporate assurance document and what confidence scrutiny should now have that similar |
| 01:13:26 | shortcomings will be identified and challenged before the next self evaluation is presented yeah I'm happy to do that um I asked the question specifically to understand the difference between the ser and the recent issues that we're having in schools in flincia so that I had the confidence to know those two things were separate it was explained by the chief officer that was the case and I was happy to understand that and I was content to vote in favour to note the report so I think by uh by doing that and you understanding that as a scrutiny committee |
| 01:14:07 | should give you that confidence to say they are separate did not the same thing and the issues that are in presently in train at flint high school will be dealt with and noted within the 2526 report the ser report thank you thank you councillor evans please keep pressing the wrong one thank you chair um yeah I think without getting too much of that report it seems that it's all about timing and um and I have to agree with a some quite a bit and something that was just said there about the um scrutiny possibly would have come to a different |
| 01:14:49 | view uh had the meeting been held after the embargoed estin report however the report I mean it was said the report was already very late so um there is a question on why that meeting had to be held when it was and why couldn't it been held afterwards and that's the point that the scrutiny may have then come up with different recommendations to those that they had uh and that they accepted the report as it was as the cabinet accepted the report as it was because it was um it was it was history um I feel I'd be reassured now if the cabinet would solidly say |
| 01:15:29 | that this situation this conflict of misreading the room should we say uh gave assurances that that scenario would not happen again and that uh when they knew knew we all knew this estin report was coming and yet we held this meeting beforehand where it would have been more practical to hold it afterwards and been a bit more transparent and scrutiny would have been a little bit more open to coming up with further recommendations that they would have liked to put to the cabinet it may not have changed that report but it might simply have made the cabinet think about putting |
| 01:16:07 | something further into that report so if the cabinet gave us those assurances I feel that um that this the lessons learned shall we say that they you know um this wouldn't happen again then I'd be good content thank you chairman um thank you chair um council Evans does make a very important point and it's something I wanted to explore and I just sort of answered and answered Evans's point do a slight correction cabinet didn't accept the report cabinet noted the report and I think the committee has to ask itself why we've heard from the cabinet that they have |
| 01:16:49 | utter confidence in that report there's no space for any downs in it whatsoever the estin report completely separate different dates on the calendar so there's no possible overlap why was only noted because the cabinet knew it was toxic because the cabinet knew it didn't want to be seen to accept the report that is why the date that they had the meeting when they are they put it in front of this committee when they knew the cabinet knew they'd already seen the estin report we've already had that and they scheduled in this meeting the day before you really do |
| 01:17:34 | have to ask why what was the motivation I do not believe for a second democratic services had they had a firm request from the cabinet saying listen we've got this really quite tricky report we need scrutiny to look at over if no other reason than to give the cabinet some cover because at least they can say well listen it's gone to scrutiny these are the report this is what's come back they didn't and that's everything thank you no it's fine this is in relation to what you're saying Mr Podrum wishes I think it's important to clarify how that meeting date was set because there's some |
| 01:18:14 | perception or or insinuation that cabinet influenced the date of the choice or choice of the date of the meeting they did not the date was decided in December and the new agreement with the chair of the committee so cabinet cabinet were not involved in that but picking up dates at all so I think on the face of it it's purely coincidental that the estin report came the day after that that or unfortunately it's the day after that meeting so just to clarify the cabinet members or no one in cabinet influenced the choice of the date of that meeting that was purely done |
| 01:18:45 | through the look at the availability of the calendar with chief officers and relevant cabinet members to be there but there was no pressure what the democratic services for that date to be fixed at a certain point in time thank you chair then I will take that back what I would say is though cabinet would have known that that report was coming and I'm surprised that cabinet then didn't ask democratic services to reschedule the meeting in full knowledge of how explosive that report was going to be and then knowing that the day |
| 01:19:21 | before they were going to ask this committee to approve I could think the committee approved the the report and yet the cabinet itself which has such unwavering confidence in that report only chose to note it thank you chair thank you I'm just going to remind everybody at the time it's now gone quarter past councilor Lloyd please oh thank you chair thank you now just for my personal benefit because I wasn't part of the scrutiny committee when this was discussed so just like a couple of clarifications as council Evans stated I just want to check that |
| 01:19:59 | that's correct that the scrutiny decision was unanimous to recommend approval of the self-evaluation of the Flintshire education services and this was well discussed at the time and have that scrutiny committee it covers only the period 24 25 till May and doesn't apply to any single school and there's an overall report for all schools in Flintshire the calling this calling seems to have been brought forward here to apply to and it seems to be all about flint high school is this a premature calling as the self self evaluation covers 24 25 so should this be taken |
| 01:20:39 | more into account for the period 25 27 thank you chair thank you chair I think you should let the chief officer speak because we're not blind I mean you can see all the notes being passed from one to another and I find it a little bit offensive that it looks as if we can't see the notes that have been passed if I could just say I did actually say before that I was going to invite councillor Eastwood to invite but that's how it works apparently to invite the chair of the two points I'm making is that wasn't allowed however we have sat here and we were seeing continually |
| 01:21:28 | no second even give you times if you want when they were passed I've made a note of the times when they passed back and forth it would be more appropriate to let the chief officer speak for a self rather than the cabinet member chief officer would you like to speak I know councillor comments but all I am trying to do is to support the cabinet member in the responses to the calling and assisting her in reminding her of some sort of key information that that's really all it is like I feel that's part of my professional role as the chief officer to support the cabinet member |
| 01:22:20 | when she is responding to questions being asked by members of this committee but I would like to reserve the right to perhaps speak at the end of the discussion please chair if you would give me that attitude councillor short cross okay thank you chair I've listened to both sides I can appreciate both sides of the argument but if I was a member of the public without the information we have I would probably question the self-assessment due to the timing of that and also the eston report coming out could we not add a footnote to the assessment stating at the time of compilation |
| 01:22:57 | the findings of the eston report at flint high school were not known this will be and then this will be covered fully in the 2025-26 report thank you thank you councillor short cross mrs allen please thanks chair and as councillor short cross said just bringing it back to the public really I am a lay member of this committee so I consider myself to be here speaking on behalf of the public really and what I wanted to do with my question is bring it back to the community so my question is is there any recognition of how the timings of these meetings |
| 01:23:35 | and reports would impact the confidence of parents and public trust I apologise my little girl has woken up from her nap and is sat next to me thank you she's very welcome to join us thank you we would ideally have liked to have brought this report to scrutiny in October of 25 when the two instances two issues would be completely separate and clear in the public's mind but I would like to give the reassurance that that that report does cover 24 25 and the report for 25 for 26 will report on the implications of the eston report |
| 01:24:26 | of flint high school fully in that report in addition to the other reports that will be we've already committed to to bring to scrutiny so it's you're not going to have to wait until next October there will be regular updates brought before scrutiny in relation to that report thank you councillor Eastwood councillor Coggins-Cogan thank you chair my answer is in relation to the question that councillor shall cross put he makes a very sensible suggestion and if we were to be bigheaded for a |
| 01:25:06 | second it's a sensible so suggestion so sensible we made their suggestion to cabinet when we emailed them we said we never we never asked them to reject the report we simply asked for them to look at the report and how it was going to appear to the public in light of the eston report we asked them either to defer and take some pause or to add a caveat exactly has a councillor shall cross has put just to say to put some context into it and I think that's been the problem throughout this calling has been somewhat misrepresented as attacking the self-evaluation |
| 01:25:46 | report there are perhaps problems but the biggest problem has been the lack of democratic oversight from the cabinet the cabinet has not done its job in looking at the report and seeing how it appears to the public and how it obviously damages public confidence in this authority when the way meetings have been scheduled which I accept from the democratic services manager was just coincidence fine but obviously that needs some explanation and the fact that the cabinet has failed to do that we are here today thank you chair kinkatsla cock it's going okay um right you |
| 01:26:29 | did say before that you would like to um a final say if you would wish to do that now and then I'll move on to the to the briefing but please yes I'm conscious of time and thank you chair and I I just would like to say at this point that I absolutely respect the right of elected members to scrutinize the work of the education portfolio that goes without saying I also want to say I respect the calling process um and the fact that it's a political matter really rather you know than a matter for officers there have been a lot of things written in the calling report |
| 01:27:10 | there have been a number of comments made in this meeting today and I feel that I need to put on the record that I consider some of those comments to be defamatory a defamatory slayer on my professional reputation as the chief officer of for education and youth and that of my school improvement team and that I will be considering taking some action in regard to that I in the eight years I have been chief officer I have never shied away for being accountable for my work but I am concerned about some of the comments that |
| 01:27:45 | have been made today that I believe indicate a lack of integrity a lack of honesty and a deliberate attempt to mislead this council that's all I would like to say thank you chair thank you for sharing that okay I'm going to now ask the initiators if one of you would like to sum up okay chair it appears that I'm the one that's summing up I mean I when I spoke just a couple of minutes ago I think that sort of covers most of what I've said really we asked the cabinet to defer or add a caveat to the report and the cabinet |
| 01:28:32 | declined for whatever reason the cabinet knew the facts they knew the estimate they knew it was going to be awful and yet they still chose I think to expose the education portfolio to this level of scrutiny which is a heightened amount the chief officer is correct this is a political process the other term for political is democratic oversight as well it's two sides of the same coin and I can understand why the chief officer would say political the issue has been the lack of democratic oversight as exercised by the cabinet if the cabinet |
| 01:29:17 | had deferred if the cabinet had just taken a moment to consider what was said in the email we would not be here today but instead cabinet chose to note the report and again I say to the committee you chose to approve the report it went to cabinet and then it was noted the recommendation was changed there was no explanation as to that the deputy leader of the councillor said that he was perfectly confident with the explanation he received and yet they still chose to note the report I think that tells you all you need to know and because it appears to me that this has been a |
| 01:29:57 | way of trying to brush it under the carpet I would recommend that you look to sending this to full council for a full explanation of the issues in full transparency thank you chair thank you councillor cocker to coven councillor lister please yeah can I move um option four please is a recommendation with uh I need to ask councillor eastward if sorry if I just can clarify with the summon up point at the moment so the initiators some summed up the um the decision makers then do so I also need to clarify with councillor Haley because he didn't move option one earlier so we |
| 01:30:38 | just need to try sort that out after the after the decision makers have um summed up their um case and I'm definitely being guided by mr quadruple today um councillor eastward please do you oh sorry councillor jones you're going to do the summaries thank you both of you yeah thank you chair uh first of all um lack of democratic oversight totally untrue um and we are we were never and did not even consider these um comments about brushing things under the carpet I think they're wholly uh well they're not they're not um good to hear are they in any meeting um and this |
| 01:31:24 | point about noting the cabinet noting every report that comes through the self-evaluation reports are always noted they are never they are never approved they are always noted so let's just get that right it wasn't done with any particular intent that is always the case so let's take that off the table and normally they come through in the autumn it couldn't in this instance because there was so much going on at that one particular school and that delayed the issue so when it comes to these timing things um they're trying to paint a picture of something totally different which was incidental |
| 01:32:00 | and not a true reflection of the reasons that things happened at that point that is my um and I think also the the um this uh assertion that we uh yes approving the this was the I'll read out from the email approving the report only once it's been updated to reflect the implications of the estine findings for the council's assurance oversight and self-evaluation role that is not what councillor Shalcross was requesting I understand what councillor Shalcross was saying much more clear than than that than the caveat that was put on to the |
| 01:32:38 | bottom of this email so it is not just good enough to say we did the same thing we suggested the same thing it wasn't taken off thank you chair I'll pass over to councillor Eastwood councillor Eastwood please oh good ladies um the self-evaluation report considered was considered by cabinet on 20th of January and it covered the work undertaken by the education and youth portfolio for the period between April 24 and July 25 and has been taken through the scrutiny process I am satisfied that given the correlation between the estine reports and what we already knew about our schools |
| 01:33:16 | the local authority does know its schools well and I stand by that progress against interventions and estine recommendations are monitored by the education quality board on a regular basis reports and school improvements and SPMG are taken to the education youth and culture oversight and scrutiny committee each year in relation to the Flint High School estine report we have already committed to a full review and this is currently underway and to presenting updated reports to scrutiny when appropriate to do so when the outcome of the review is known should |
| 01:33:52 | there be any lessons for the portfolio to learn this will be reflected in the self-evaluation report for 25 26 to consider it now would be pre-emptive and meaningless and inappropriate thank you so let's question please go clarity can an initiator of the call in even though a member of this committee put forward the recommendation that would be a question for democratic services simply yes they remember the committee so yes they can do something but we've had the |
| 01:34:29 | councillor Dave Healy online did move an option option one earlier with some explanation so it's whether there's a seconder for that option I believe your notes on the order papers say that that the recommendations of which option occurs at this point and not during question time and councillor Lister has already I think we're going to move straight to the options now that's my understanding we've had the summaries but I bow to your spirit wisdom I think I think it's a race to get hands up isn't it at the moment yeah okay right okay the point now is that |
| 01:35:15 | we're at the point where we've had the summoner from both parties and it is for the committee as a group to agree on which option one through to four which I will just go over for them to be mindful to include in their recommendation so option one is to if the councillor decision the committee is satisfied with the expression which has been received it will indicate a in order for the decision to be implemented option two being if having considered the decision the committee is no longer concerned having received the explanation but it's not minded to |
| 01:35:50 | indicate they're satisfied with the explanation and it is in order for the committee to resolve that they don't don't necessarily endorse the the decision but the explanation option three being to refer the matter back to cabinet for considering or the decision maker for for reconsideration and option four to refer the matter to full council for for the for the clarification what I would say is if option three or four are being considered by committee then there needs to be a clear recommendation outlining what specifically cabinet and or council is being asked to consider |
| 01:36:26 | so the consistency at the last call calling we had a similar issue where the motion was moved early and so on that basis chair although councillor he did sort of put a motion forward in his questions in lieu of the fact that or in recognition of the fact that of an earlier meeting where the that was challenged and points out that this is the point now where recommendations are made councillor Lister and councillor Parker as a second they were the ones that I would suggest chair and tell them to you and other ones that would have the first motion put to take your |
| 01:37:07 | committee to consider sorry I move recommendation four with the purpose that the full council can decide whether the report should be amended qualified or reissued to reflect the reality estin has put into the public domain that is seconded by you councillor Parker and I request a recorded vote please sorry ma'am chair um I think that now that we're at the debate stage it's important to note a few things that we've heard so far today um first and foremost sorry councillor Ibsen we've had the summing up the procedure for calling states that once |
| 01:38:11 | we first have the initiators and the decision makers set out their case then we have questions then they have summing up then we have a debate amongst the committee at the end of which we go to a vote that is the call in procedure which has been circulated with this it is in the constitution um I draw your attention to page five in the document attack point seven I'm going to ask the monitoring officer to give me some advice please and chair I think mr. Drum will give you advice about process I was raising my hand for another for another purpose |
| 01:39:07 | um when councillor Lister moved that the matter be referred to full council she erroneously suggested that full council would make a decision and amend the report full council can't overall cabinet we have executive we have executive arrangements full council can make recommendations to cabinet it cannot make its own decision er it all that can happen is the matter can go to full council and then be referred back to cabinet if full if full council wishes to see a different outcome full council can't make its own make its own decision thank you for clarifying that council |
| 01:39:46 | Lister I apologize I uh yeah I used a wrong word so instead of um the authority as a whole can decide can recommend whether the report should be amended qualified or reissued to reflect the reality estin has placed in the public domain councillor Ibsen please yes madam chair um I draw members attention um to first of all page four of the document pack which has the calling procedure which says that the options will then be considered options one to four moving on to page five it says the committee will then discuss the matter and following a debate |
| 01:40:27 | reach a decision so this is the point at which we do have the debate with your permission madam chair I would therefore make the point that I was attempting to so do councillor I bow to that but unfortunately it's time today really I would like to try and bring this matter to a conclusion today and not have to have a continuation of yet another meeting in which case I may be brief very brief very there are two very very good points that have been raised today that haven't been addressed the first is about date which was made by councillor Dave Evans would the decision |
| 01:41:07 | makers give that commitment they have not done so the second good point was about from councillor shellcross about qualifying which is exactly what the calling initiators have done prior to the decision being taken and a calling for it to be done since it seems like there is an outbreak of consensus on this we can do the sensible thing because you know I think everybody agrees the ball has been dropped here the question is how we resolve it we can't just be satisfied with this the decision makers have made clear that they don't they've not chosen not to give these |
| 01:41:39 | commitments if we send it back to them immediately they won't it's clear that only going to full council is going to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the points made by members of this committee thank you okay is there anybody else that would like to say anything councillor please thank you chair I'm firmly opposed to this going to full council I'm opposed to option for I think it is wasn't necessary for this to be called in really and I think this at this meeting today the cabinet members have given an adequate explanation there are separate processes this |
| 01:42:26 | is the timescale of the self-evaluation is different from that of the estin inspection report and I think the estin inspection report merits a very full discussion following a review and some work being done with the schools as the two schools involved in order to be able to give a more substantial report both scrutiny and the cabinet about the progress made and I think we've seen had enough assurances about this the calling was trigger happy it's just happened that the snap of a finger ray it was premature and as I say the self-evaluation report |
| 01:43:20 | is a very thorough document giving a all-embracing overview of what is happening in our schools and I would support the contention that the portfolio does know its schools well so I'm opposed to option four and I would favour option one thank you councillor Healy okay oh right council lawyer sorry I'll be brief briefly than councillor I'm sure I oppose option four I'm looking at option one which councillor Healy just recommended there but it does say that the the committee what are satisfied with the explanation which has received obviously members of the committee |
| 01:44:06 | don't seem to be satisfied so I would prefer option two that the the explanation be accepted but not indoors so I'd be preferring option two thank you for that councillor looked right I think we're actually now ready oh no councillor Parkus do you have your hand up apologising yeah just very briefly chair this is not something which should well I won't use a term brushed under the carpet because councillor Jones doesn't like it I should say this should not be closed down because it is a matter of the integrity reputation and the governance of the council so |
| 01:44:47 | if we do not go to option four which is to refer it to full council this would be an application of this committee's responsibilities thank you for your comment okay Mr Podrum right so we have a recommendation which addresses option or to include option four to refer the matter back to full council for them to consider have you got it to hand councillor just to read for the committee just to clarify sorry I recommend this matter be referred to full council so the authority as a whole can recommend whether this report should be amended qualified or |
| 01:45:31 | reissued to reflect the reality estin has put into the public domain and chair a recorded vote was called for and there were sufficient members indicated to do so so if you're happy for me to in that particular order as the committee has formed and so councillor Crease are you full or against that motion against councillor Dave Healy against councillor Ian Hodge councillor Ibbotson councillor Lister four that's four for those online councillor Mackie four four if you didn't hear online and councillor Lloyd I was trying to bother |
| 01:46:25 | against I'm sorry what that's lost against I'm right okay yeah so the order isn't in the it's in the committee order but obviously you're still in for for councillor Madison at the moment so that's why it would be so in next next councillor Dave Evans so again it's not strictly applicable but is in terms of committee membership so that was against and councillor Parkhurst councillor Priess councillor Shar Cross yeah Lisa Allen four Lynn Bartlett abstain and Wendy White sorry against and yourself |
| 01:47:14 | against so for the numbers that is one two three four five six four one abstention and one two three four five six seven eight against so that motion is for and chair and councillor Healy has made an alternative proposal of option one so um if councillor that was seconded by no you did option two can you confirm the numbers for again please it's seven I miscounted my ticks I do apologize yeah it fell |
| 01:48:17 | well abstention yes so option one now on the table that the committee is satisfied with the expression given by the cabinet members or the decision makers present today has there been a valid motion moved at this point we've had somebody calling out seconding I might have missed it I don't recall a valid motion having been moved and my my recommendation to councillor Healy said he was minded to accept the explanation given by the decision makers and therefore option one was the preferred |
| 01:49:02 | so he would he did say option two yes yeah but that was as that we hadn't dealt with the first one first so councillor Healy moved option one so do we have a second sorry councillor Evans seconded that one didn't he so councillor Evans you seconded option thank you so we have a right so we had someone to propose it and someone motions can't be moved whilst other motions are on the table so we've accepted that councillor Lister and councillor Parkhurst were first in theirs has been dealt with and since then nobody has been called to move a further motion |
| 01:49:47 | other members of the committee have had their hands off during that period and not being called it would be appropriate to go to those first okay councillor Healy please thank you chair I move option one thank you councillor priest please I move option three all right okay we're getting on tight up in knots now the chair has accepted up councillor Healy's option one as the motion on the table so we need a seconder if there is one for that option first before we go any further and I do apologise for me getting this all wrong I know it's not you chair it's the hands are going |
| 01:50:30 | up in different trying to keep track of who's where and when so it's it's quite messy so I do apologise so as I understand it councillor Healy's hand was up and you saw that first and councillor Evans has seconded that motion so the motion on the table at the moment is that the committee minded to accept the explanation given by the decision makers and therefore selecting option one to the decision to accept the decision and explanation given and it be implemented we'll do we need a seconder the council has a seconder so it's now |
| 01:51:09 | members can comment on option one if they choose members can comment thank you madam chair I move an amendment that the matter be referred to the cabinet now this is a valid amendment it's not a negation because to negate if this is to propose a different course of action a negation would be that the committee does not take a position which is the effect of negation arguing a different position be taken rather than the first position I can see the head of democratic services is looking perplexed but if if a motion is tabled in council that |
| 01:51:49 | says that the council likes dogs then to say that the council likes cats is not a negation of it to say that the council does not like dogs is in this case I am saying I'm proposing a different course of action but I am proposing that the council the committee nonetheless takes a course of action as opposed to takes no course of action which would be the effect of a negation so I move that the matter be referred to cabinet I would further say that given the issues that we have outlined during this in particular the fact that never |
| 01:52:21 | chair just just to be clear that that that recommendation doesn't negate option one option one is to accept a decision option that you're proposing to amend it is referring to cabinet is option three so it doesn't negate it I know in the black and white sense of like dogs and not dogs you're example given in terms of option one is to implement the decision if it's referred back to cabinet then it cannot be implemented so therefore it does negate the decision if the motion on the table you can't have option one and option three |
| 01:53:02 | at the same time that's that's doesn't work so option one which is being debated and discussed currently as proposed by councillor Healy was to select option one that the committee minded to accept the information given by the decision makers and implement the decision councillor the position that we are in is unprecedented if a report is prepared by officers later than it might otherwise have been are we to have emergency meetings of committees called for it if we go down that route if that's if that's the if we go down that route if that's the |
| 01:53:48 | precedent we're setting then we will have environment environment and economy meetings housing meetings cross meetings being called as emergency meetings constantly clearly that is not the position that we've taken thus far which begs the question why sorry councillor Robinson as you're aware i'm not as knowledgeable of you on certain things but i have been advised by mr good that that would negate what you're saying okay all right well please speak quickly thank you very much madam chair if we are to say that every time a report is slightly late |
| 01:54:34 | emergency meetings get called which as i say is unprecedented until now we'll be setting ourselves up for chaos so why should this time be any different why has it been any different we have had no explanation for that and yet we're saying we're endorsing that lack of lack of explanation by going with option one it is unconscionable that the committee should do that and quite frankly the idea that we are saying that this report is total and complete and needs no caveatting like councillor shall cross suggested earlier no caveatting at all required but equally |
| 01:55:11 | it's not a complete picture because it'll be the complete picture will be in next years what happened in this years the the fact is the answers we've received have been contradictory and the precedent that is being set on calling emergency meetings will leave this council's business in absolute chaos we cannot vote option two or option three yes okay thank you right so we're moving to a recorded vote for option one oh garras it's fine chair you haven't taken the amendment i don't think the amendment was a valid |
| 01:56:09 | amendment because option one does say that the committee is satisfied with the decision and anything less than being satisfied is to negate option one but you've moved on chair so got something right in the end thank you okay so recorded vote for option one okay right chair so we are now voting for option one that the committee reminded to accept the explanation given by the decision makers and therefore the decision can be implemented so again go through the order as it is written on the agenda paper so if you're not in the right |
| 01:56:43 | order the policies um so councillor creasy you thought or against option one or councillor Dave Healy councillor Ian no Ian Hodgeson sorry um councillor Ibertson that was against councillor Fran Lister that's against councillor Mackie against councillor Lloyd for councillor Evans for for councillor Parkhurst against councillor Caroline Priese against councillor Shar Cross for Lisa Allen against Lynn Bartlett |
| 01:57:36 | abstain and Wendy White for and yourself chair so I'll check my numbers this time on two three four that's seven four six against one abstention option one is carried chair now just thank you all for your time this afternoon I'm sorry that I'm not so obey with just to say chair I don't think you've made any mistakes whatsoever so you have the confidence of the entire committee thank you chair |
| 01:58:12 | bring the meeting to a close it is now 17 |
Links
The Leader - Lessons to be learned after Flintshire school report debacle
The Leader - Inspection report released for troubled Flint High School
Latest News
6 Feb 2026
Education, Youth & Culture Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Friday 6 February 2026
This post covers my appearance at Education, Youth & Culture Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Friday 6 February 2026. Councillor Lister addresses a perceived con...
Read more
26 Jan 2026
January Update
Happy New Year to you all! I hope you’ve had a peaceful start to 2026 and managed to enjoy the festive season even if it seems a distant memory now! Over the pa...
Read more
6 Dec 2025
Education Staff Welfare
As a teacher myself, and with a clear understanding of how staff welfare directly affects school performance and, ultimately, pupil outcomes, I want to highligh...
Read moreQuick Links
Bus Timetables
Find local bus timetables for the 22A & 126 services.
Bin Collections
Report a missed bin collection or check your bin day.
Streetscene
Report Potholes, pavement, road defects, dog fouling, fly tipping and more.
Contact Me
I am here to assist with any concerns or queries you may have about our community, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.