Agenda item

To receive the Corporate Risk Register.

The Committee considered the Corporate Risk Register.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       Members praised the presentational changes made to the Corporate Risk Register. 

·       Since the last report to Committee a risk around ‘Health and Social Care reforms’ had been added.

·       The “IT Infrastructure” and “Telephony” risks had been removed following the successful mitigation of both risks.

·       A number of statutory duty risks such as Health and Safety, regulatory inspections and equalities had been amalgamated under one risk “Failure to meet Statutory Duties.”

·       In response to a request from the Committee, the Director Adult Services outlined the approach to risk taken by the Department and the Department Risk Register.  Members were advised that the Departmental Risk Register was discussed at least once a month and regularly reviewed through the departmental leadership team.  Those risks which were particularly high were considered by the Corporate Risk group and escalated.  Discussions were also had at the Corporate Leadership Team.

·       Risk 13 Health and Social Care Reform was an emerging risk.  Currently it was predominantly a financial risk to the Council.  The Director Adult Services explained that the Government had announced the intention to address the long-term future of Adult Social Care funding.  As part of this the Levy had been announced which would generate approximately £12billion a year, however only in the region of £1.8 billion of this was going to Adult Social Care.  Changes around the care cap and funding threshold would mean that the gap between what the Council was likely to receive and the additional cost to the Council, was significant, potentially £20million or higher.  One of the reasons why it was such a large risk to Wokingham Borough, was the high level of self-funders.  Currently the Council supported in the region of 1,700 to 1,800 individuals.  This could potentially rise to approximately 5,000.  Mitigating actions included conversations with the Government and the MPs around the impact.

·       Risk 6 – Failure to meet statutory duties and Risk 14 – Failure to meet statutory duties (Safeguarding Adults) were well mitigated. 

·       Risk 7 – Adult Social Care Supplier Sustainability – related to the Adult Social Care market.  This market was struggling from historic under funding and other factors such as Covid, Brexit and recruitment issues.  Capacity could be difficult to secure.

·       Councillor Shepherd-DuBey asked about the impact of any care workers having to leave their role because they were unvaccinated.  The Director of Adult Services explained that Covid vaccinations were mandatory for care workers who went into care homes.  This had impacted only small numbers and the viability of the care homes had not been impacted.  However, it added to capacity issues in addition to other factors such as under funding and recruitment issues.  The care market needed to grow.

·       Councillor Shepherd-DuBey went on to ask about the support of charities which had provided a lot of support to residents during the pandemic.  The Director Adult Services commented that in the absence of a long term funding deal for Adult Social Care, it was very difficult to commit to long term funding for charities.  Work was being undertaken via the Voluntary Sector Strategy.

·       In response to a question from Councillor Loyes, the Director Adult Services emphasised that any financial impact from the Health and Social Care reforms would have a net increase burden on the Council as a whole.

·       Councillor Younis stated that the pandemic had increased the impact of mental health issues and pressure on mental health services.  He questioned whether this should be reflected in the Corporate Risk Register.  The Director Adult Services emphasised that the majority of services for mental health in the Borough, were managed by health.  The role of the Council related to people’s social care needs around mental health, and also prevention.  An increase in need had been seen following the pandemic, but new services such as the MIND service, had been introduced to help mitigate this.  Demand was currently monitored on the Directorate risk register.

·       Councillor Gee questioned how long the Adult Social Care precept was anticipated to last and if it was likely to increase.  The Levy had been announced but it was not yet clear how it would be used.

·       Councillor Sargeant asked whether the change in relationship with Optalis had had an impact on the ability to manage risks.  He was informed that the changes had had a positive impact.

·       With regards to Risk 12 High Needs Block overspend, Councillor Gee questioned what was meant by ‘Due to the increased demand and costs of SEN education provision there is the risk that the DfE requires repayment of our high needs block overspend of £xm resulting in a significant impact on reserves and budget pressures.’  The Assistant Director Finance explained that the Dedicated School Grant was a ringfenced element from funds received from the Department for Education.  Historically it had been insufficient for the level of needs that had to be provided for, and there had been an overspend.  Under Government Guidance the Council had been able to build up a deficit of unusable reserves on the accounts.  The risk highlighted that any change in policy may mean that the Council would be required to make up the deficit shortfall.  The risk was not highly likely at present but would potentially have a large impact should it come about.  Councillor Gee questioned what the deficit was currently running at and was informed that it was approximately £4million.  Members were reminded that it was reported in the Quarterly Monitoring Reports to the Executive.

·       Councillor Younis commented that Risk 12 had been on the Corporate Risk Register for some time.  He referred to the mitigating action ‘Discussions with the Education and Skills Funding Agency around additional funding’ and asked how these discussions were progressing.  He was informed that the Council was required to have an action plan in place to slow the increase in the deficit.

·       Councillor Shepherd-DuBey asked what the risk would be should funding not be received for the Winnersh Farm School.  The Assistant Director Governance agreed to refer this query to Children’s Services and to feed back to the Committee.

·       Councillor Shepherd-DuBey stated that Risk 1 Budget and Financial Resilience remained at a high level.  She questioned why this had not reduced.  The Assistant Director Governance highlighted the uncertainty around the 3 year settlement which was due to be announced.

·       Councillor Gee indicated that she was satisfied with the identification of the risks and some of the controls identified.  She expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of movement in some of the risks.  With regards to Risk 1, she indicated that the mitigating actions had been unchanged for some time.  The Assistant Director Governance commented that with the new presentational style, it was now easier to see the target that was being aimed for.  There was an aspiration to reduce the impact and likelihood of risks.  Part of the Committee’s role was to challenge if the mitigations were correct and provide further suggestions.

·       Councillor Shenton referred to the risk relating to Climate Emergency and the complexity of behaviour change.  He questioned why more was not being done to promote sustainable transport and walking.  The Assistant Director Governance stated that in the presentation of the new risk register, Officers had tried to be clearer as to what the risks were.  The Climate Emergency risk was multi-faceted, and Officers would review the risk mitigation actions to ensure that they were appropriate.

·       Councillor Ross was of the opinion that Risk 7 could be more clearly worded.

·       Councillor Loyes asked how discussions were progressing with Reading Borough Council regarding the Winnersh Farm School.  The Assistant Director Governance indicated that he would seek a response from Children’s Services.

RESOLVED:  That the risks and mitigating actions of the Council’s corporate risks as detailed in the attached CRR be noted.