Decision
Analysis
outcome: The recommendations were approved by the Committee.
summary: The decision at stake is the approval of an updated Safeguarding Policy by a UK council.
topline: The Committee has decided to approve the updated Safeguarding Policy for the Council.
reason_contentious: This issue is not particularly contentious as there were only minor amendments to the policy and no significant changes.
affected_stakeholders: ["Council members", "Corporate Director", "County Council's Safeguarding Board"]
contentiousness_score: 2
political_party_relevance: There are no mentions or implications of political parties or political influence on the decision.
URL: https://committee.worcester.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=273
Decision Maker:
Outcome: Recommendations Approved
Is Key Decision?: No
Is Callable In?: No
Purpose:
Content: The Committee received a report on the Council’s Safeguarding responsibilities and an updated Safeguarding Policy for approval. The Corporate Director – Operations, Homes and Communities presented the report and highlighted some of the key activities and achievements over the last 12 months. There were some minor amendments to the Policy but no significant changes. The Committee were advised that, since the publication of the report, the Council’s bi-annual Safeguarding Audit Self-Assessment had been completed and had produced a rating of Good. There are some minor recommendations, which will be implemented during the forthcoming year. The Self-Assessment will now be referred to the County Council’s Safeguarding Board. In the ensuing discussion, the following main points were made: • Reference was made to the CARM framework, and an assurance was sought that veterans are included in the transitional arrangements. The Corporate Director will look at the detail and provide a written response. • It was noted that the CARM Co-ordinator post will be coming to an end and the Chair asked if the Committee’s concerns about this can be relayed to the County Council. Members were advised that this can be picked up by Officers, including via the Self-Assessment. • The “no wrong door” approach was raised as one Member had received an email from the County Council in which a resident was advised that a Safeguarding concern should not be raised via the City’s Community Safety Team. • The Chair made reference to her Safeguarding role as Leader, and asked if she can be invited to one of the quarterly Safeguarding updates to the Corporate Management Team. • Group Leaders can be provided with the names of any Members from their Group who have not attended either of the Safeguarding sessions for Members which have been held this year. In conclusion, the Chair thanked Officers for their work in ensuring the Council continues to meet its responsibilities. RESOLVED: That the Committee agree to: 1. note the contents of the report and in particular the progress and updates in respect of the Council’s Safeguarding responsibilities; and 2. approve the amended draft Safeguarding Policy attached at Appendix 1 to the report.
Date of Decision: September 16, 2025