Some matters of context relating to Lisa Curtis-Jones and Safeguarding
Lisa Curtis-Jones (LCJ) is the Director of Social Services at Merthyr Council.
In February 2016, LCJ was the Chief Officer (Social Services) at Merthyr Council.
At that time, LCJ was responsible for all matters relating to Safeguarding at Merthyr Council.
In that capacity, LCJ was the Line Manager of Alex Beckham (AB) – Safeguarding Manager.
AB, as Safeguarding Manager, was responsible for convening the Safeguarding Strategy Meetings at Ynysowen Primary School on 24th and 25th February 2016.
AB was also responsible for the recording of all decisions made at these meetings.
AB was also responsible for ensuring that the School’s Chair of Governors, Rosa Lazell (RL), was made aware of the procedures to be followed when dealing with any allegations made against a staff member
For more information on AB’s failures please see the post below
Alex Beckham – Lead Safeguarding Officer of Merthyr Council (in 2016) Was she there or not on 25th February?
My clarification on Reports not being seen by a Council Committee
Officers’ Reports
Senior Officers ensure that some reports, such as these, are only referred to in Officer Reports to Council Committees.
By following this practice the Officers “cherry pick” specific extracts from the Original reports that will not cause them to have to answer any potential awkward questions.
The Officers also make sweeping statements like “everything is fine”. When, in actual fact, everything is not fine.
My Observations and Comments on this Officer’s report.
The Text of the Officer’s Report (including my Comments in red)
Link to Officer’s Report
https://democracy.merthyr.gov.uk/documents/s65099/Committee%20Report.pdf?LLL=0
Update on Whistleblowing arrangements related to Safeguarding
1.0 SUMMARY OF THE REPORT
1.1 This report is to provide Council with information regards an update on the whistleblowing arrangements related to Safeguarding.
1.2 Following correspondence received by Welsh Audit Office (WAO) in September 2018, they undertook a review in the period January to March 2019.
1.3 In August 2019 there were two reviews – a review of Corporate Arrangements for Safeguarding and a Review of whistleblowing arrangements relating to safeguarding.
The initial audits were linked to a national piece of work across all 22 local authorities which was linked to a previous safeguarding audit in 2015.
1.3 above is incorrect
The Review of Whistleblowing Arrangements related to Safeguarding at Merthyr Council was not linked to any other national piece of work across all 22 local authorities.
The Report on the Review of Whistleblowing Arrangements related to Safeguarding was published in response to a complaint submitted to the WAO by Chris Jones (CJ) – Senior HR Officer (Whistleblower)
The Report was issued to the Council and the Complainant in August 2019.
This Report is not available to the public on the Audit Wales publications website.
2.1 A question was raised at Council in July 2023 “When will the WAO Report on the Review of Whistleblowing Arrangements relating to Safeguarding at Merthyr Council be considered by the Full Council”.
2.2 Councillor Jenkins in her role as Cabinet Member for Social Services responded to the question and highlighted the outcomes to the recommendations made from the audits in 2019.
2.3 Reports were considered at Standards Committee (November 2019) Governance and Audit Committee (November 2020) and Social Services Scrutiny (February 2021) in respect of Whistleblowing. A report was also received by Cabinet in July 2021 outlining progress against the audit recommendations
I must point out that none of the above provides an answer to the question.
The Officer reports that were provided to these Committees did not include a copy of the Original Report on the Review of Whistleblowing Arrangements related to Safeguarding at Merthyr Council.
2.4 A question has also been listed for September 2023 Council ‘Has the WAO Report on the Review of Whistleblowing Arrangements relating to Safeguarding at Merthyr Council ever been considered and discussed at any official Council Meeting?’ which I hope the following information answers.
Suffice to say, for now, that it does not answer the questions. More on that later.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REVIEW OF WHISTLEBLOWING ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO SAFEGUARDING
3.1 There were four areas for improvement listed within the report.
Without seeing the actual report there is no explanation for why these areas of improvement were required.
These were as follows:
The Council should ensure that there are accurate and timely records of all meetings relating to safeguarding enquiries, ensuring that these minutes include the reasons for any decisions in accordance with current Welsh Government guidance.
The reasons for this proposal were because the Council did not ensure that there were accurate and timely records of all Safeguarding Strategy Meeting relating to safeguarding enquiries and ensuring that these minutes include the reasons for any decisions in accordance with current Welsh Government Guidance.
The Council should ensure that its staff are familiar with its whistleblowing policy and procedures, and that any concerns raised by staff should be recorded and a written response should be sent to the whistleblower in accordance with the Council’s policy.
The reasons for this proposal were because the Council did not ensure that its staff were familiar with its Whistleblowing Policy and Procedures, and did not ensure that any concerns raised by staff were recorded and that a written response was sent to the Whistleblower in accordance with the Council’s Policy.
The Council should re-affirm with relevant staff the circumstances in which a school’s governing body should commission an independent investigation in relation to a safeguarding allegation against a member of the school’s staff.
The reasons for this proposal are because the Council had not ensured with relevant staff the circumstances in which a School’s Governing Body should commission an independent investigation in relation to a safeguarding allegation against a member of the school staff.
Had this been the case, there would have been no need for the Head Teacher to have colluded with 4 other Heads to issue an ultimatum to the LA to dismiss the Whistleblower because there would have been an understanding of the role of the Senior HR Officer in advising the Chair of Governors of the need to CONSIDER the need for an independent investigation into the allegation.
The Head Teacher would not then have wrongly assumed that the advice provided was that an investigation into her involvement in the alleged safeguarding incident was being recommended.
It would appear that the Heads had no understanding of the role of CJ as part of the HR SLA.
His role was not to be SUPPORTIVE, it was to offer HR ADVICE.
CJ also had to ENSURE, on behalf of the LA, that the schools acted within the appropriate Employment Law rules and LA policies and procedures.
The Head stated that she expected CJ to support her against unfounded allegations that the police were not prepared to continue with and not to PUSH her Chair of Governors down a route to have her investigated.
To clarify this comment I must state that the police chose not to proceed with their investigation because it was not felt that a crime had been committed.
That fact is irrelevant to the Welsh Government Rules and Regulations regarding Safeguarding of School Children or to the LA Policies and Procedures and, indeed, to the school’s regulations.
The Council should ensure that: it retains sufficient centrally funded HR capacity to fulfil its statutory duties in relation to schools; and in consultation with schools, reviews the Service Level Agreement governing the sale of HR services so that it reflects the needs of schools as customers.
Fran Donnelly , HR Manager confirmed, in her witness statement for the SOSR investigation, her awareness of the fact that working with advising schools was a complex area which required a certain amount of expert knowledge and knowledge of policies and procedures and terms and conditions that the teachers are on.
She went on to state that Chris Jones (CJ) was the only one within the HR team to possess this knowledge.
She then stated that the strategic and professional advice role within the department was vital.
It is also worth noting that the Head Teacher of Ynysowen Primary School was not interviewed as part of the SOSR investigation.
The only comments considered by the SOSR relating to the Head’s involvement in the process of demanding that the LA dismiss CJ were those third party comments relayed by FD in her written statement. So, only anecdotal.
So, it was recognised and accepted that CJ was the only HR person in the team with the necessary experience and expertise to do the required job.
That being the case, the question that begs to be asked and answered is why did Carys Kennedy decide that a SOSR investigation needed to carried out on such a valuable and experienced member of the HR team. Surely, she should have been aware that CJ’s advice to the Chair of Governors of events would have been as he had stated.
Three of the Schools that withdrew from the LA HR SLA have still not returned to the LA’s HR support service.
There is no sign of any review of any consultation with the schools on the SLA.
At a meeting of the Full Council held on Wednesday 8th February 2023 the Council resolved to approve the New Whistleblowing Policy.
3.2 Each improvement listed has been actioned and responses provided to WAO.
These are as follows:
The Council provide accurate and timely records of all meetings relating to safeguarding enquiries and the minutes of such meetings include the reasons for any decisions made. We have administrators within the safeguarding unit who have received safeguarding training and are very experienced to carry out this piece of work.
Not for the Safeguarding Strategy Meetings at Ynysowen Primary School.
The whistleblowing policy has been discussed and reviewed, and again recently presented to Council in June 2023. The policy and procedures have been shared with staff members. Any concerns raised by staff have been recorded and written responses provided.
No independent investigation was made regarding the Safeguarding failures at Ynysowen Primary School
Having a Robust Whistleblowing Policy is one thing. Actually putting the Policy into practice is another thing
If an independent investigation is required, then this is discussed within the professional concerns meetings and the decision recorded.
In respect of schools, WG have developed a whistleblowing policy which has been shared with all Governing Bodies – this policy is one that needs to be reviewed and accepted on an annual basis.
In relation to the HR recommendations, there is sufficient capacity to fulfil its statutory duties with schools.
Fran Donnelly, HR Manager at the time, did not agree with that in her statement for the fabricated SOSR investigation.
Also, regular SLA questionnaires are undertaken to ensure the service provided is reviewed. Consultation takes place to ensure any changes are implemented and the agreement reviewed.
What about the schools that do not contract to the LA’s SLA for HR Support? Ynysowen Primary School, for example.
.
Merthyr Council Cover-up 
Silence of the lambs?
LikeLiked by 1 person