Agenda item

To receive the Corporate Risk Register Review.

The Committee considered the Corporate Risk Review.

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

·       The Council’s top corporate risks were Budget and financial resilience; and Health and Social Care reform.

·       There had been an overall increase in risk faced by the Council since the last review of the risk register due to increased national political and financial instability, significant challenges on the budget position, and uncertainty on the timing of the Health and Social Care reforms.

·       No new risks had been added since the last review.  However, the Cyber and Information Governance risk had been split into two separate risks to enable a more appropriate focus on the different elements.  Risk 5Outcomes and Costs for Children with Send and Risk 11 High Needs Block had been combined.

·       Members were informed that Risk 1 Financial Stability, Risk 4 Uncontrolled Development and Risk 8 Climate Change, had seen an increase.

·       The Risk Management Group, a group of officers from the different directorates, met monthly.  It had carried out a self-assessment and an action plan for improvement was included in the report.

·       Benchmarking work with other Berkshire authorities had been undertaken.

·       With regards to the risk around financial resilience, the Director Place and Growth emphasised the uncertainty around the level of the local government settlement, which was expected in the next few weeks.  The economic downturn had brought greater demand for services, and increased costs within the system.  Changes in inflation rates were also having a significant impact.  The Council was working hard to mitigate the financial resilience risk.

·       The Local Plan was still progressing and was at Regulation 18 stage.  The Council continued to be successful in defending against uncontrolled development.

·       The Director of Place and Growth indicated that the Climate Change risk had increased, largely relating to the financial element.  Funding from central government and partners playing their part was vital to the delivery of this.

·       The Director of Place and Growth referred to inward migration from areas such as Ukraine.  He indicated that hosting arrangements would not continue indefinitely and an increase in housing presentations was expected.  A more strategic approach was required to the wider asylum situation.

·       The Director Place and Growth referred to public transport and buses in particular.  Whilst bus patronage had increased following the pandemic, it was starting to plateau.  Nationally, bus driver recruitment and retention, was an issue, and there was also uncertainty around government funding beyond March.  The Council was working closely with its partners and providers and looking at skill and employment opportunities.

·       With regards to the risk around the Local Plan, Councillor Kaiser queried the target date for Regulation 19, and was informed that it depended on national planning policy, but it was anticipated for next summer.  The risk relating to the five-year land supply and the Local Plan was discussed in more detail.

·       Councillor Kaiser referred to the impact of increasing inflation such as rising material costs and an impact on salaries.  He questioned whether salary increases had been considered as a separate risk.  The Director of Place and Growth highlighted some of the issues around increasing construction costs.

·       Councillor Kaiser commented that the S106 agreements in place did not take in to account inflation at 10% or more, which would put pressure on the Council’s Capital Programme.

·       Councillor Smith questioned whether there should be a specific risk about the Capital Programme on the Corporate Risk Register.  The Assistant Director Finance commented that he would expect a level of contingency within each bid.  There was also a corporate contingency within the Capital Programme. 

·       In response to a question from Councillor Smith regarding the hierarchy of risks, the Director of Place and Growth indicated that there were a number of factors which affected the level of risk.  Those in the top right hand corner of the graph within the report were the highest level.

·       Mike Drake noted that all in all risk areas bar one, the current risk was higher than the target risk.  He questioned whether the target risks were unrealistic, and if they were considered realistic what the plans were to reduce the current risks down to the targets.  The Assistant Director Governance responded that the mitigating actions would help to reduce down to the risk appetite.  However, the Council still had a way to go in terms of making more precise connections between the current assessment and the desired position.  Mike Drake asked whether there were any timescales for this and was informed that it varied by risk.

·       Councillor Harper was of the opinion that the risk around the website replacement project was significant and should come to the Committee.  The Assistant Director Governance indicated that it was on the relevant departmental risk register and was also encompassed in the information governance risk. 

·       Councillor Burgess sought an update on the budget setting process, and the nature of the lobbying around the local government settlement.  The Director Place and Growth stated that the Council had been one of the lowest funded authorities in the past, and that a lot of lobbying was being undertaken.  The Council had been prudent over a number of years.  Officers were focusing on what the local government settlement could entail, and the Corporate Leadership Team was considering a range of possible assumptions and how best to mitigate.  The Assistant Director commented that whilst difficult decisions would be required, the Council was in a stronger financial position than many.  Updates on the budget setting process would be taken to the Community and Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee in December and January.  The Assistant Director Governance commented that CIPFA had produced a lessons learnt report from those authorities that had issued Section 114 notice.  An assurance report which would highlight the assurances in place in Wokingham, would be presented to the Committee in the new year.

·       Councillor Gee expressed concern regarding the Safety Value programme, which she believed was for the twenty councils that had the highest deficits in the Dedicated Schools Grants.  She questioned the timescale for repaying the deficit, and if the forthcoming new SEN school would form part of the Council’s SEN provision.  The Director Place and Growth indicated that nationally demand for SEN provision was increasing.  The Council was required to produce a robust plan to demonstrate how it planned to cover the gap.  The Assistant Director Finance stated that work was ongoing in this area, and the Safety Valve programme was for all Councils not just those with the top twenty highest DSG deficits.  Councillor Gee suggested inviting the Director Children’s Services and the Executive Member Children’s Services to a future meeting to provide an update.

·       Councillor Smith suggested that the risk around the website project include the replacement of the CRM system.

·       The Assistant Director Governance agreed to check the relevant Director and Executive Member for the cyber security and information governance risks.

·       In response to a question from Councillor Maher regarding reviewing the financial situation, the Director Place and Growth indicated that the local government settlement would give a clearer picture.

RESOLVED:  That

1)    the Corporate Risk Register be reviewed;

2)    the Risk Management Group effectiveness be reviewed.