Agenda item

The members’ questions were answered by Jessica Scarisbrick, Diane Corrister and Jane Rodgers:

The report refers to the use of the “strike process” in relation to antisocial behaviour. The report appears to suggest that police resource pressures are affecting the effectiveness of this approach, particularly in identifying individuals and following through with appropriate intervention. More broadly, does the lack of police resources affect safeguarding work, and does it create difficulties in operating preventative processes such as the strike system?

The reference in the report related to the development of an adult strike process, rather than the well-established children's strike process. Progress on implementing an adult version has proved more difficult because of the complexity of antisocial behaviour cases involving adults and the resources required to support the process. Strong working relationships exist with the police and these relationships are important in supporting safeguarding responsibilities. While police resource pressures are recognised and can create challenges, collaborative arrangements mean safeguarding work is able to continue effectively. Where resource issues affect safeguarding activity, these concerns are raised through the regional safeguarding board.

Police resource constraints are acknowledged as a genuine issue and can make some aspects of safeguarding and community safety work more difficult. However, close working relationships between agencies help ensure that safeguarding responsibilities continue to be met, even where there are pressures on police capacity.

Is it fair to say that the police resource situation does affect safeguarding work and that additional police resources would assist the effectiveness of these processes?

Additional police resources would be beneficial. However, because of the strength of existing working relationships and a shared commitment to safeguarding, agencies continue to work together effectively. The lack of resources is a recognised issue, particularly when trying to develop new approaches such as the adult strike process, but it has not prevented safeguarding partners from carrying out their core responsibilities.

Training compliance for Group B safeguarding training is reported at only 64%, child protection conferences have increased by 20%, and cases involving harmful sexual behaviour are becoming more severe and complex. At what point would these issues trigger escalation, and what additional intervention or capacity is being put in place to address them?

The 64% Group B training compliance figure reflects the recent inclusion of housing staff within the Social Care Directorate. Additional Group B training sessions are being delivered to ensure housing colleagues receive the same level of safeguarding training as other staff within social care and public protection. The expectation is that compliance levels will rise significantly over the coming year and move closer to the 80-90% level that would normally be expected.

The rise in harmful sexual behaviour had been a significant concern during the previous year, particularly among younger age groups. Increased joint working between education, social care and youth services has helped reduce the number of such cases. However, a smaller number of cases are now presenting with greater severity and complexity, reaching a criminal threshold. These cases are managed through established child protection and court processes.

Child protection conferences have increased compared with the previous year, but the numbers remain broadly consistent with longer-term trends. Capacity has been built into the service to allow workloads to increase or decrease as demand changes, and there is currently no concern that the service lacks the capacity to meet those needs.

Councillor Buckler noted that the increasing severity of harmful sexual behaviour was particularly concerning and welcomed the explanation of how these cases are being managed.

The response emphasised that earlier intervention through partnership working had reduced overall instances of harmful sexual behaviour, while the more serious cases are addressed through established safeguarding and child protection procedures.

The report shows 57 out of 75 children's Position of Trust cases concluded and 50 out of 68 adult cases concluded. Would there be value in comparing these numbers with figures from across Wales or the UK to help understand whether the number of concerns being raised is proportionate and whether there is learning that can be shared?

New Welsh Government reporting requirements following the publication of the Wales Safeguarding Procedures and Owen's Law reforms will increase the emphasis on reporting and comparing Position of Trust and Section 5 referral data across Wales. This will make it easier to compare referral numbers on a population basis and identify trends.

Position of Trust and Section 5 referral data are already monitored regionally through the safeguarding board. Both significant increases and significant decreases in referral numbers would prompt questions and further analysis. Information is reviewed by source, profession, organisation and type of concern to identify patterns and learning opportunities. For example, trends relating to domestic abuse, particular services, or specific sectors could trigger further investigation or intervention.

With increasing levels of misogynistic behaviour, harmful sexual behaviour and the use of AI-generated sexualised images of young people, when would these issues meet safeguarding thresholds, and what support would be available to the young people affected?

Safeguarding referrals would be expected where those behaviours presented safeguarding concerns. A multi-agency approach would then be used to assess risk, identify protective measures and determine the most appropriate support for those involved. The response would focus on the wellbeing of the young person and on identifying which agency was best placed to provide ongoing support.

Where Children's Services were not the most appropriate agency to remain involved long term, arrangements would be made for another service to provide support. The immediate priority would be managing risk and ensuring appropriate safeguarding measures were in place.

In response to the wider issue of misogynistic behaviour and AI-generated imagery, it was noted that these themes are already being identified through the Monmouthshire Exploitation Group. The issues have been escalated to the Gwent Safeguarding Board and are now being considered for further work through multi-agency forums at a regional level.

The self-assessment scores the safeguarding workforce highly, but four of the five priority areas in the action plan remain rated Amber rather than Green. How should this be interpreted, and why do actions with target dates of March 2026 still appear as Amber?

An Amber rating reflects work that is progressing but not yet complete. Safeguarding is an area where new issues and emerging risks continually arise, meaning that actions often evolve and expand as more information becomes available. As a result, some actions do not have a simple start-and-finish point and require ongoing development and review.

Some areas of work are also dependent on regional or national developments, such as training standards, which can affect timescales. The workforce self-assessment score reflects the strength of the safeguarding culture and workforce, while the Amber ratings indicate that improvement work is still underway rather than completed.

It was acknowledged that the reporting could be clearer. Longer-term priorities may be better reflected through multi-year actions or by providing a fuller explanation of what the Amber rating signifies, particularly where original target dates have passed but the work remains ongoing.

The Chairman suggested that a brief explanatory note in the report would help readers understand why actions remain Amber after their target date had passed, particularly where the work is continuing because of its complexity rather than because progress has stalled. He stressed that he was not advocating additional bureaucracy, simply greater clarity in the reporting.

Chair’s Summary:

The Chair thanked the officers for the report, the officers’ responses today, and the work being done. He highlighted the positive findings from the recent Estyn report, which stated that Monmouthshire promotes a strong safeguarding culture, thanked staff, managers and committee members for their contribution to safeguarding and noted that the report had identified scrutiny by the committee itself as a strength. The report was moved.