Agenda item

To consider a report on the Corporate Risk Register from the Strategic Planning and Performance Officer reviewing the risks facing the Council and the Council’s risk appetite statement (copy enclosed).

10.10am – 11am

The Lead Member for Corporate Strategy, Policy and Equalities introduced the report (previously circulated) reminding members that the purpose of the Corporate Risk Register was to identify the potential future events that might have a detrimental impact on the Council’s ability to achieve its objectives and delivery of the Corporate Plan 2022 – 2027.

 

The  Head of Corporate Support: Performance, Digital & Assets advised members that the Corporate Risk Register update report had been compiled following a review in September where a number of changes had been made. Appendices to the report highlighted:

 

1.     Appendix 1 – summary of significant changes

2.     Appendix 2 - table and trend analysis of the Corporate Risks

3.     Appendix 3 – detailed information on the 13 Corporate Risks

4.     Appendix 4 – a reminder of the Risk Appetite Statement - agreed November 2022 to be reviewed in February 2024.

 

The Committee were asked to use appendices 2 and 3 as a tool to identify areas for further scrutiny to inform their forward work plan.

 

The Strategic Planning and Performance Team Leader explained that the review had been comprehensive to reflect the change in the structure and circumstances of the Council. It had also been an opportunity to merge and de-escalate some risks.

 

At the last review in February 2023 there were 20 Corporate Risks. Of those 9 had been amalgamated / de-escalated to a Service level (para 4.5 of the report referred). Two new risks – 51 and 52 - had been added to the Register to reflect the financial situation of the Authority, culminating in a total of 13 identified risks. Seven of those risks were inconsistent with the Risk Appetite Statement i.e. serious enough to be on the Register.

 

Responding to the Committee’s questions Officers advised:

·       The Strategic Planning Team (SPT) were actively engaged with officers, the Corporate Executive Team (CET) and service management teams to address risk and performance management issues.

·       Risk around capacity had increased under the budget pressures, that risk was common across all services.

·       The SPT were also supporting the budget process by collating information around the impact of budget cuts on wellbeing and future generations by focussing the WBIA on key cohorts in the communities and wellbeing goals.

·       The budget process was comprehensive and underway, working via workshops for proposals to deal with major savings. In addition the proposals were circulated to members and Teams meeting arranged for their consideration. Whereas the Budget used to be an annual ‘event’ moving forward it would be an ongoing process.

·       The Strategic Direction paper previously shared with members indicated that the direction of travel was a Council that transforms what / how it worked rather than chipping away at services on an incremental basis.

·       Information on proposals had been circulated to members (workshops and Teams meetings for questions and answer (Q&A) sessions with the Head of Service). Members were able to raise concerns on any proposals at those briefings.

·       All proposals subsequently had to go through the open and transparent decision making democratic process e.g. Cabinet. If members were unhappy with the decision made there was an opportunity to call the decision in for scrutiny.

·       The law provided that decisions made by Local Authorities were divided into executive functions (under the Cabinet, Lead Member Delegated Decision or Lead Officer Delegated Decision) and non-executive functions (Council). Council could not overturn a Cabinet decision. Scrutiny could challenge a decision and ask for it to be reconsidered but Cabinet was the ultimate decision maker.

·       The Risk Appetite indicated the level that the Council would like the risk to be rather than where it was at that time.

·       Nationally there had been concern around children being placed in unregulated placements. An information report would be requested from the Head of Children’s Service as to whether Denbighshire had any children placed in unregulated premises.

·       With respect to the recruitment of Care Workers, the Authority recruited on the basis of knowledge, skills and experience – not their gender or age. All Equalities (Act 2010) provisions were applied within the recruitment process.

·       In the care sector, particularly with the lower graded roles, it was difficult to compete with the higher wages of the retail and hospitality sectors.

·       Nationally there were not enough qualified social workers to fill the vacancies.

·       The Authority continued to streamline its recruitment process and consider the of suitability of career graded posts to address problems around recruitment.

·       Fraud would always be on the Corporate Risk Register - given the number of employees, external individuals/companies and spending undertaken. It was important to have clear controls to prevent, deter, investigate and deal with fraud.

·       The Authority already paid more than the National Living Wage (NLW), therefore the increase to the NLW would have no further impact on budget considerations.

·       With respect of Risk 45 (Climate Change) it was the risk of not moving quickly enough on circumstances within the Council’s control that could lead to reputational risk. It was to be noted that the Corporate Risk Register was a register of risks to the business – not the community.

·       Whilst the Council could not change the risk of an unexpected or unplanned serious event occurring it could change its preparedness by its business continuity plans.

 

During the discussions the Lead Member for Equalities addressed the suggestion made by Councillor Terry Mendies - in respect of targeting care work recruitment towards mature women, rather than younger women who may take maternity leave at the rate payers’ expense – as being wholly inappropriate and discriminatory towards women.

 

The Committee requested further information on:

·       The number of (and reason for) children under the Authority’s care in placements in unregulated premises (risk 50);

·       The figures attributed risk 31 - The risk of fraud and corruption resulting in financial and reputational loss and possibly impacting on service delivery.

 

At the conclusion of an in-depth discussion the Committee:

 

Resolved:  subject to the above observations and the provision of the additional information requested to receive and acknowledge the –

 

(i)    amendments made to the Corporate Risk Register through the September 2023 review (Appendix 3), including the status of each risk against the Council’s Risk Appetite Statement (Appendix 4); and

(ii)  to receive and endorse the summary document (Appendix 2) which incorporated the colour and trend status.