Agenda item

[To keep the Committee aware of the key risks the Council faces, and how it can gain assurance that these risks are being mitigated]

Hayley Reid, Senior Auditor, gave a brief outline of the report on the key risks the Council faced and how the Committee could gain assurance that the risks are being mitigated. She reported that in light of a recent global cyber attack, recent terror attacks and the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, London arrangements had been made for the Committee to receive presentations on risk 23 – Cyber Security, risk 26 – Safety concerns around the city’s tower blocks, and on resilience and civil protection and risk 15 – Emergency Planning

Andy Hoare, Head of ICT delivered via Powerpoint presentation an update on risk 23 – Cyber Security.

Referring to the RAG status for the risk, Mike Ager, Independent Member commented that the potential existed for this risk to always be rated Red. The Head of ICT agreed but suggested that if the risk was always set at Red you would not be aware if changes in the risk area had occurred was as a result of mitigating action. He also explained that the role of NCC was to test the Council’s physical vulnerabilities and systems vulnerabilities.

The Chair acknowledged that because of the change in the environment the likelihood of a threat meant that the risk should move to Red status. 

In response to a question from Mike Ager, Independent Member, the Head of Audit reported that Audit Services could work with the Head of ICT and look at his plans to see if they are robust and offer an independent review of the action being taken.

Following questions the Chair thanked the Head of ICT for his presentation which members indicated they found very informative.

Lesley Roberts, Strategic Director for Housing delivered the update on risk 26 – Safety concerns around the City’s tower blocks.

Members of the Committee commented that it was reassuring to hear from the Strategic Director where City of Wolverhampton stood in terms of the safety of its housing stock. They also commended the early reassurance the Council had given to its tenants.  In response to questions the Strategic Director for Housing reported that:

·          The Council’s Corporate Landlord service was in the process of looking at all student accommodation in the city. The owners of Liberty Heights (student accommodation at Culwell Street) had checked the building and assured the Council that it met required standards. There were some low rise blocks from where students may need to be relocated as a precaution.

·          Wolverhampton Homes (WH) had written to the residents of six residential tower blocks with screen type cladding which was not the same as the cladding in Grenfell Tower, London and gave them reassurance about the fire safety measures in place. WH website was updated daily with questions received and answers. WH had also arranged to visit Heath Town and Graiseley with the Fire Service to see if residents had any concerns or queries. The Fire Service had also undertook to perform an operational audit of the visual cladding at Graiseley. The outcome of that work was expected shortly.

·          Recently built schools within the City would have had sprinklers installed. The question of whether it was Council policy for all schools to have sprinklers installed would be checked with the Council’s Health and Safety Officers team.

·          The advice from the Fire Service that in the event of a tower block fire people should remain in their flats until they are asked to leave by the Fire Service was counterintuitive. The advice was based on the design of tower blocks that should compartmentalise a fire to avoid the need for mass evacuation of the building. The Fire Service want to quickly gain access to the tower block and deal with the fire. They do not want to meet people on the stair-well. National advice might be issued in light of the tragic events at Grenfell Tower which the Council would follow.

·          The Government had only asked councils to test ACM cladding.  The organisations undertaking the testing were inundated and were issuing time slots to test other materials. The Council had requested a time slot and had also asked a private independent organisation to carry tests. WH also had the manufacturers testing that was in place when the cladding was purchased. It was not felt that there was a need to remove all cladding from the Council’s housing stock. The exterior cladding at Graiseley did not need to be replaced. In terms of Heath Town it would probably be replaced during the retrofit taking place on the whole of the estate.

Following questions the Chair thanked the Strategic Director for Housing for her report and asked that she present an update to the Committee at the next meeting in September 2017.

Neil Rogerson, Resilience Manger gave a briefing on resilience and civil protection within the City. In response to questions he reported that under Prevent, the types of actions the Council was looking at concerned attacks and security at venues.

Following questions the Chair thanked the Resilience Manager for his report. He also informed the Committee that the update on risk 21 (Transforming Adult Social Care) would be received at the next meeting.

Resolved:

1. That the strategic risk register at Appendix A to the report be noted.

2. That the identification of the following three new risks be noted:

·         Risk 24 – Payment Card Industry Data Standard.  Due to a change in regulations the Council does not currently comply with the Payment Card Industry’s Data Standards.  The Payment Card Industry have been made aware of this and are being kept informed of the steps the Council are taking to comply with the updated standard. 

·         Risk 25 – Community Cohesion.  To reflect the increased risk of community tensions due to the recent terror attacks in Manchester and London.

·         Risk 26 – Safety concerns around the City’s tower blocks, as a result of the recent tragic events at Grenfell Tower in London.

3. That the amendment to the risk description and increase in the risk score for risk 15 – Emergency Planning be noted.

4. That the increase in the risk score for risk 23 – Cyber Security, as a result of the recent world-wide RansomeWare cyber-attack be noted.

5. That the reduction in the assessment of the following risks be noted:

·         Risk 1 – Looked after Children.  To reflect the progress made as per the recent Children’s Services Ofsted Report and the £1.2m efficiencies from the 2016-17 LAC Placements budget.  It is noted there was a slight increase in LAC admissions during 2016-17, although overall the numbers continue to reduce.  LAC numbers continue to be closely monitored and target projections have been established for the next three years.

·         Risk 7 – Safeguarding.  The reduction in this risk reflects progress made in this area and the steps that have been taken to implement the recommendations made in Ofsted’s inspection of the Council’s Local Safeguarding Children’s Board.

·         Risk 22 – Skills for Work and Economic Inclusion, to reflect the completion of the majority of the Skills and Employment Action Plan and the introduction of Work Box and the Wolves@Work programme.

6. That the main sources of assurance available to the Council against its strategic risks at Appendix B to the report be noted.

7.     That it be noted that the update report on risk 21 (Transforming Adult Social Care) and on risk 26 – Safety concerns around the City’s tower blocks would be submitted to the next meeting.