Serious Case Reviews – The Extraordinary Meeting (2 of 9)

The meeting

It was not an accident that there was no formal motion before the Council – not even the usual catch-all that the "Reports should be noted". I believe it was anticipated what would have happened had there been an opportunity for amendment or a vote. The reason given for the absence of any motion, was that they were not the Authority's reports and Council therefore could do nothing with them. We had had them "For Information only" and that was the only basis on which the Council could be called.

This was not adequate and was not what I wanted when I pressed for the meeting. Yes, we got an opportunity to discuss it, but not in any meaningful democratic sense. I was frustrated and angered by this outcome, which meant that no action could be taken.

I had hoped that Thursday night's Extraordinary (i.e. Special) Council Meeting about the Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) would at least have prompted contributions from the Administration's members – which the debate on latest CSSIW report the previous week had so signally failed to do. But I was disappointed, as they refused to be disturbed from their usual indolence. Not even the added spark provided by the story in Wednesday's Western Mail (WM) about the alleged 'doctoring' of certain passages in one report (lessening or removing criticisms), could light their fires. They seemed indifferent to the possibility that they might have been mislead.

It was left to the Opposition to make the running on questioning the detail of the reports. For the Administration, John Newbury read out a prepared speech that was at least about the subject under discussion. Audrey Clement however, provided a self-justification, apparently seeing the very mention of her name as some sort of criticism that had to be responded to. Apart from these two I cannot recall anyone on the Administration side saying anything at all. No that's not strictly true, as over in the 'wild man' corner, the usual sotto voce grumblings, groanings and mutterings were audible, particularly when I tried to continue with my questions and was forced to sit by the Presiding Officer. Indeed, it was the intervention of Rene Kinzett that made her retreat and allow me to follow up a supplementary to the Director of Education.

Her behaviour was scandalous and if there were any doubts remaining about her fitness to continue as Chair of Council, she comprehensively disposed of them. Prior to the meeting, I had questioned the appropriateness of Cllr Fitzgerald chairing this Council, given that these children died during her occupation of the Social Services portfolio, that got nowhere. Cllr Fitzgerald was completely out of touch with the mood of the meeting or, indeed, the necessary sensitivity required to handle what was going to be an emotional meeting anyway. Huw Rees would have done this entirely differently. The Acting Deputy Monitoring Officer (if that is the role she had), provided no guidance and Cllr Fitzgerald's manner was so bad, that the Chief Executive had his head in his hands at several points. Indeed, I was given an apology after the meeting was over – not from Cllr Fitzgerald, of course.

This was not a good Council meeting, and did not show the Council at its best, wholly engaged with an important issue, unlike the discussion that followed the screening of A Swansea Love Story the night before.