Agenda item

Report of the County Treasurer (CT/17/24), attached, on the Risk Register.

Members have previously been asked to identify future topics and / or subjects for the work programme and the following issues have been identified for discussion at the meeting.

·         Appointment and Hiring of Consultants – Head of Organisational Development to respond.

·         Failure to deliver priority services as a result of significantly reduced finances - Chief Accountant (Corporate Services) to respond.

The Committee received the Report of the County Treasurer (CT/17/24) on the Corporate Risk Register, identifying the 25 risks on the corporate risk register, which were outlined in full at Appendix A to the report.

The report highlighted the changes that had been made since the Committee last reviewed the register, including any increased risks, those that had reduced, new additions to the register as well as those that had been removed.

The report further outlined there were currently 10 risks that had a current status of ‘Very High’ meaning they were both likely to happen and would have a significant impact if they did. Those risks were generally related to the People or Place service areas, and it was suggested might be better discussed at the relevant Scrutiny Committees.

The current Corporate Service Risk register contained 11 entries which Members could consider in more detail, with eight of those risks relating to various aspects of Human Resources.

Members had previously agreed to use the Risk Register to focus their work programme activities. Risk Management enabled the efficient use and allocation of resources, more informed, transparent and accountable decision-making and allowed the Council to focus on its most critical areas.

Members identified the following issues for discussion at the meeting.

·         Appointment and Hiring of Consultants; and

·         Failure to deliver priority services as a result of significantly reduced finances.

In terms of general discussion on the Risk Register, Members discussed and asked questions on the decision making process behind either adding risks to the register or removing them and also clarification of why particular risks appeared to have been removed (e.g school transport) as well as the various levels of risk monitoring throughout the organisation. In addition, for clarification on ‘green’ mitigating controls, when the risk was deemed high or very high (e.g HTM1 relating to failure to maintain C class roads).

The Head of Human Resources then responded, in respect of the appointment and hiring of consultants, as identified by the Committee prior to the meeting, advising the Committee that a previous audit had shown a failure by the Council to comply with policy in 5 out of 10 cases whilst appointing or hiring a Consultant . In response, there had been a number of mitigating measures implemented including a single policy across the organisation, an approval process requiring the consent of the Chief Executive and also an internal awareness and communications strategy.

Members asked for clarification on how Members might be engaged, particularly with commissioned services, the position with former staff members being engaged as consultants and that the appointment of specialist legal advice / counsel did not form part of the policy, rather it was subject to a separate procurement framework.

The Chief Accountant (Corporate Services) then responded, in relation to the risk of ‘failure to deliver priority services as a result of significantly reduced finances’, to the Committee‘s concern that the risk had reduced from high to medium, despite the Councils continued budgetary pressures. He advised that the risk would likely fluctuate between various risk levels and also undertook to arrange for the amendment of future risk registers with an explanation of why risks had been removed from the corporate risk register.