Agenda item

This report seeks approval for an updated Risk Management Strategy and reviews the Corporate Risk Register.

The Committee received a report of the Head of Democracy and Governance which sought approval for the updated Risk Management Strategy and provided the latest Corporate Risk Register.

Risk Management Strategy

Following a question about changes to the Strategy, the Head of Democracy and Governance explained that the document had not been updated since 2011.  The Council’s vision and its objectives had been updated.

Councillor Watkin, Portfolio Holder for Democracy and Governance, noted that under ‘Roles and Responsibilities’ in the Strategy, all Members were tasked with seeking clarification from the Portfolio Holder if risks had not been identified in reports.  He felt it could be difficult for the Portfolio Holder to provide a satisfactory response and he would probably need to refer any questions to the relevant officer.

The Head of Democracy and Governance advised that Portfolio Holders had been included as they were part of the Mayor’s Cabinet.  If a Cabinet report did not identify any risks members should be able to approach the relevant Portfolio Holder for clarification.  She added that if the Committee was minded to amend the wording they could make the changes.

The Committee considered the Portfolio Holder and Head of Democracy and Governance’s comments.  They felt that Members should be able to approach Portfolio Holders for further information as they were ultimately responsible for the service producing the Cabinet report.  It was acknowledged that they may have to refer to officers for a detailed explanation.

Councillor Watkin suggested that if that section of the Strategy remained as drafted then it was necessary for Cabinet or the Portfolio Holders to be referred to in the structure.

On being put to the Committee it was agreed that the Strategy should be amended to incorporate Cabinet within the ‘Roles and Responsibilities’ section.

Corporate Risk Register

The Committee then reviewed the Corporate Risk Register. 

Following questions from Councillor Khan, the Head of Democracy and Governance explained how the risk rating could be reduced by control measures being put in place.  She advised that the Council had to consider the risks and balance these against potential benefits for the Council and the town.  Some of the projects included on the register were not the Council’s responsibility, for example Croxley Rail Link, but had been included as they affected the borough.  There might be occasions when the Council decided that a project might not be suitable to continue further.  In responding to a question about the council’s risk appetite for investments she advised that other rules had to be taken into account.

The Shared Director of Finance added that the Treasury Management Strategy covered the Council’s investments and regular reports were presented to Budget Panel and Cabinet.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Head of Democracy and Governance advised that the role of Members and Cabinet was to consider the risks included in reports and make a judgement whether the proposals should continue.  The register showed that the Council was aware of the risks involved in schemes and how it would mitigate against the issues arising.  Following a question about the risk referred to for the Health Campus she explained the role of the Hospital Trust in the Health Campus and that measures had been built into agreements to enable the Trust’s role to change should it achieve Foundation status.  She added that, along with the Shared Director of Finance, her role was to scrutinise the proposed risks and how they would be mitigated, before inclusion in reports to Cabinet.  She confirmed that the Audit Committee’s role was to monitor the register.

Following a question about the risk referring to homelessness and how that was being monitored, the Head of Democracy and Governance informed the Committee that regular Heads of Service meetings took place.  The group monitored homelessness figures and what actions the relevant service was taking to mitigate the issues.  She confirmed that the Committee could ask for more regular updates about the risk register.  She added that more detailed information should be included in a service’s Service Plan or departmental risk register. 

Councillor Brandon felt it was difficult for the Committee to fully scrutinise the risk register without more detailed information.

The Head of Democracy and Governance advised that she would relay the Committee’s comments to the Risk Management and Business Continuity Steering Group, which she chaired.  The format of the risk register had been agreed when it had first been developed with the support of the Risk Manager who had based their information on best practice.

Councillor Brandon questioned the financial limits, as any loss to the Council was a concern for Council Taxpayers. 

The Shared Director of Finance advised that the financial values could be reviewed.  She acknowledged that any loss of money would be a concern.  She said that if the Council were to lose up to £25,000 from a specific project then the Council could probably absorb that loss without affecting the approved budget.  A loss of up to £100,000 could probably be managed but it would be more difficult.  Any loss above £100,000 would have an impact on the Council’s finances.  Having considered the levels she was satisfied with these limits.

The Committee agreed that any loss was a concern but when compared to the Council’s overall budget the current levels were sufficient.

Richard Lawson from Grant Thornton, the Council’s external Auditor, stated that it was important that risks were classified correctly.  The financial figures needed to be set at the right level.

RESOLVED –

1.      that the Council’s Risk Management Strategy be approved subject to the amendment agreed by the Committee.

2.      that the Corporate Risk Register be noted.