Agenda item

To consider a progress report on individual risks identified in the Council’s Strategic Risk Register.

The Committee considered a progress report in relation to the individual risks identified on the Strategic Risk Register, specifically in relation to the risk regarding ‘Failure to keep people safe’. The report was introduced by Mr S. Thompson, Director of Resources, who outlined the controls and mitigation in place around the sub-risk ‘Death or injury to a member of staff or the public’. He explained that the sub-risk was primarily based around health and safety but was also connected with property compliance. With regards to the controls and mitigation in place, he spoke about the team of 5 health and safety professionals at the Council, who undertook the day to day work around the controls and mitigation measures, as well as other income generating pieces of work.

Mr Thompson went on to explain that over 2000 employees had undertaken a range of 121 courses organised and delivered by the team, and over 2000 staff had completed I pool courses on a range of topics. He also spoke about the importance of first aid training and the positive impact of this within local office and workplace environments.

Mr Thompson acknowledged that the Grenfell tower disaster had acted to focus attention on health and safety around property and explained that a Property Compliance Officer was being recruited to undertake a key role within this area of specialised work.

Responding to questions from the Committee, Mr Thompson explained that work placed risk assessments were currently undertaken and that going forward, one of the roles of the Property Compliance Officer would be to ensure that hard evidence of this activity was available. Asked whether health and safety trade union representatives were involved in the risk assessment activity, Mrs Greenhalgh confirmed that they were able to attend.

The Committee asked about the five members of staff specifically employed on health and safety activity and questioned how that number compared with other Councils of a similar size. Mr Thompson explained that it compared well and that statistically, it fell within the upper quartile when looking at the overall number of Council employees.

The Committee discussed the numerous physical changes that had taken place within Municipal Buildings and the Town Hall over the years and asked how often fire risk assessments were undertaken. Mrs Greenhalgh explained that such assessments would normally be carried out every five years but would also be responsive to any changes that had taken place, on a more frequent basis. In such circumstances, the documentation would be updated according to the changes made.

Members discussed the range of services provided across the town by volunteers and asked whether health and safety training had been given in such cases. Mr Jack explained that such training had been given in relation to official volunteers. He went on to explain the importance of training being undertaken by anyone who was carrying out work in an official capacity behalf of the Council, in order to ensure personal safety and compliance with health and safety legislation.

The Committee moved on to consider the section of the report concerned with the sub-risk ‘Death, serious injury or harm of a vulnerable adult / child’. Ms Smith spoke of the measures in place around vulnerable adults and explained that as part of the internal audit plan, compliance audits were carried out on a regular basis in establishments to assess performance in this area. She spoke about the variety of health and safety and procedure manuals that were in place and the measures taken to ensure they were up to date.

Mrs Smith explained that a number of adult services were delivered by external contractors, which added an additional element of risk. In connection with this, she pointed out that the Council worked closely with the Care Quality Commission as well as having internal robust risk measures in place. She also spoke of the importance of encouraging an open dialogue policy with all external service providers.

The Committee was reminded that the Council was an active member of the Adult Safeguarding Board, providing oversight across all safeguarding partners. She went on to explain that significant investment had been made in relation to fee rates for external providers, although it was acknowledged that this was still perceived as being relatively low paid. Major investment had also been made in ensuring robust management supervision and oversight.

Ms Smith concluded her summary of the report by explaining the national problems and risks that were present, including those around mental health service provision and delayed transfers from in-patient care. She spoke about the importance of promoting community awareness in relation to raising concerns regarding vulnerable people and the need for agencies to work better together. She acknowledged that a lot of work was still to be done in this area.

In response to questions from the Committee, Mrs Smith confirmed that all external service providers who provided contracted services on behalf of the Council, were required to be complaint with the Council’s policies and procedures in relation to the relevant service.

Asked about the level of scrutiny and oversight within safeguarding agencies and the risks of institutions being perceived as being too closely linked, both Ms Smith and Mrs Booth explained that they were satisfied that robust scrutiny and challenge took place across the agencies.

In connection with the net risk score of 15, the Committee asked whether this was considered to be acceptable. Mrs Smith explained that risk measures were being constantly reviewed in relation to new policies and procedures and it was unlikely that the score would reduce further.

The Committee moved on to hear from Mrs Booth about the section of the report concerned with vulnerable children. She spoke about the high level of scrutiny that took place within the Children’s Safeguarding Board, that was likely to become still more challenging in the future, following the appointment of the new Board Chairman. She also spoke about the increased amounts of joined up working that was taking place across children’s agencies.

The Committee was informed that legal policies and procedures in relation to children’s matters were constantly updated with no delays and that two independent social work auditors were now carrying out work on a daily basis. More investment was now being undertaken in relation to looking after the workforce, which was starting to pay dividends. In relation to education provision, Mrs Booth explained that an external consultant was currently being employed with a view to driving up standards.

The Committee acknowledged that a number of transitional changes were taking place within the Children’s Services Directorate and asked about the adequacy of service provision being maintained in relation to any staff changes taking place. Mrs Booth explained that a degree of staff turnover had taken place and it was likely that more would still occur. However, there were currently only two vacancies within the department and a rolling social worker recruitment programme was now in place, as opposed to looking to recruit social workers only when vacancies arose. Such a policy enabled the department to recruit the best staff on an ongoing basis.

Asked about the net risk score of 15, Mrs Booth explained that she considered this to be acceptable, given the continuous learning and improvement requirements that were in place.

The Committee agreed to note the report.

Background papers:  None.