Agenda item

To consider the Corporate Risk Register Review.

Andrew Moulton, Assistant Director Governance, and the Chief Executive presented the Corporate Risk Register.

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

·       An additional risk had been added – Risk 18: Elections Act 2022 implementation, due to the forthcoming voter identification requirement.  Guidance was awaited on its implementation.  It was hoped that this would be a short-term risk.

·       The risk regarding financial resilience had been escalated further due to the Council’s current financial position. 

·       The implementation of the Public Protection Partnership project had been successfully implemented so the relating risk had been removed from the Corporate Risk Register and de-escalated to the departmental risk register.

·       The assessment around risk relating to the corporate governance risk had been reduced due to work carried out following the LGA Peer Challenge.  This included the appointment of the independent Audit Committee member.

·       The Chief Executive referred to increased risks around financial sustainability.  She referred to the inflationary challenge which had a big impact on utilities, construction costs, and contract costs.  Following the pandemic there had been an increase in the number and complexity of Adult Social Care and Children’s Services cases.  Cost and demand had increased.  Drivers around increasing costs included an increase in population at an above average rate, with differing needs.  The Chief Executive referred to the large incoming community from Hong Kong, refugees from Ukraine and unaccompanied child asylum seekers.

·       It was noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee would be receiving a report on the Council’s financial position.  At present a shortfall of £4million was anticipated for 2023/24.  However, the Local Government Settlement was due in December 2022, which could have a further impact.

·       Members were informed that the forthcoming Adult Social Care reforms would have a big financial impact.  Additional staff would be required in order for the Council to meet the requirements under these reforms.

·       With regards to SEND provision, discussions were being had with the Department for Education regarding types of provision within the Borough, and earlier support.  Changes to the community and movement within the Borough had increased budget pressure.

·       Councillor Kaiser commented that there was starting to be a need for the Council to look at its assets such as Dinton Country Park and California Country Park, and assess how much income they generated against the investment put in to it.  The Chief Executive agreed that it was important for the Council to understand its return on investments.

·       The Chief Executive indicated that the Council had introduced a Change Programme which covered factors such as assets and contracts.  It would be good to hear Members views and ideas as part of the Overview and Scrutiny process.

·       Councillor Harper queried the way the impact of each risk was measured.  The Assistant Director Governance indicated that the criteria used to assess likelihood and impact was detailed in the Risk Management Policy and Guidance.

·       Councillor Smith questioned the rating of the risk around cyber security.  The Assistant Director Governance explained that risk appetite was also part of the assessment.  The Committee would be having a training course on risk management in November.

·       Mike Drake praised the presentation of the Corporate Risk Register.  He went on to question whether there was a reputational risk for the financial situation of potentially having unqualified accounts.  Mike Drake also expressed surprise that cyber security was not rated higher.

·       Councillor Harper queried whether an arrow could help highlight the direction of travel for the different risks.  Councillor Gee questioned whether longer term trends should be depicted.

·       With regards to the cost-of-living crisis, Councillor Gee queried whether civil unrest had been considered as part of the major emergency response.  She also asked about mitigation against issues with recruitment and retention of workforce.  The Chief Executive commented that the workforce issue was a nationwide problem and particularly in the local area where cost of living and housing was high.  This was being monitored.  Councillor Gee suggested that reference be made to this on the Corporate Risk Register. 

·       The Assistant Director Governance commented that the Council was not actively planning re civil unrest but were planning to ensure that its emergency response, whatever the emergency, was robust.  Councillor Smith asked whether Members should know more about the Gold, Silver and Bronze approach, and what role Members should play in an emergency.  The Chief Executive indicated that this was an accepted business practice.  During the pandemic Officers had met regularly with the Group Leaders about the Council’s response to the pandemic.  The Group Leaders had then disseminated information to their Members.

·       Councillors Smith and Davies expressed surprise that the risk relating to uncontrolled development had not increased and suggested that its rating be reviewed.

·       Councillor Smith also asked who challenged the assessment of the risks, and was informed that there was an officer Risk Champion Group which met monthly, and the Corporate Risk Register was considered by the Corporate Leadership Team.   The Audit Committee would seek assurance.

·       Councillor Burgess questioned whether the risk around the cost of borrowing was likely to increase and what mitigations were in place.  The Assistant Director Finance responded that the cost of borrowing position was reviewed daily, and external experts assisted with that.  At the moment, the position had been positive due to the Council’s balance levels and treasury management was showing a positive position against the budget.  Following the recent situation with the financial market, the Council would need to reprofile, looking at individual investments and what increased borrowing on these would entail.

·       In response to a comment from Councillor Kaiser regarding fixed loans, the Assistant Director Finance indicated that a number of these loans finished that year.  Impacts such as revising the Capital Programme, and the level of CIL investment, would affect what needed to be reborrowed. 

·       Councillor Gee expressed concern regarding the gilt market and questioned how much the Council had invested in gilts.  The Assistant Director agreed to feed back to the Committee.

·       Councillor Burgess felt that the mitigating action of ‘increasing local SEN provision’ was quite vague.  The Chief Executive assured Members that a detailed plan would be provided the next day to the Department for Education.  Briefings were being held with the Leader and the relevant Executive Member.

·       Members were pleased to see the inclusion of a risk around the forthcoming elections legislation.

·       Mike Drake commented that the pandemic and emergency response risk was at the lowest level, and questioned whether this should be increased.  He suggested building action plans with the voluntary sector as a mitigating action.

·       In response to a question from Councillor Maher around communication, the Chief Executive explained that behind the Corporate Risk Register there were also detailed departmental and project risk registers.

·       It was felt that the wording of Risk 11 High Needs Block overspend, explanation, could be further clarified.

RESOLVED:  That the Corporate Risk Register be reviewed, and it be determined that the risks were being actively managed.