Agenda item

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to the change in the scoring to risks three, four and seven.

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that the increase in risk three (performance, resilience and security of IT systems) from A2 to A1 was due to a Cabinet Office review of the shared ICT services. He said that the increase in the risk four (staff capacity and skills to deliver services) from B3 to B2 was due to a national shortage in lawyers, Planning and Environmental Health officers. He said that the increase in risk seven (Judicial Review and/or a major legal challenge) from C3 to B3 was in response to the progress of the Council’s key capital projects. 

Councillor Curtis referred to risk four (staff capacity and skills to deliver services) and risk 5 (poor performance or failure of key partner or contractor) and questioned if the scores for these risks should be higher. 

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that temporary agency staff were being used to fill vacant posts. He said that new recruitment methods were being utilised to attract staff, and opportunities such as carer graded posts and   sponsored apprenticeships were being offered. He said that the Council was also exploring the possibility of sharing a Planning lawyer with North Herts District Council.

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that with regards to risk 5, the Council pre checked the credit ratings of all suppliers. He said that contracts included bonds and guarantees and that the Council had contingency plans in place should a contract fail.   

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that contracts were monitored monthly and that poor performance by a contractor could trigger penalties, and a performance management regime before the termination of contract.

The Chairman reminded Members that the risk matrix scored each risk post mitigations.   

Councillor Curtis referred to risk 6 (Judicial Review and/or major legal challenge) and asked if officers were confident that the score for this risk should not be higher.

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that the costs arising from Judicial Review and/or major legal challenge would not be in compensation. He said that the costs would be legal and the delay to effected projects. He said that the score for this risk was agreed by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and was again post mitigations. 

Councillor Fernando said that he could see the points raised by Councillor Curtis, but that he agreed with the score for risk 6 post mitigations. The Chairman concurred with Councillor Fernando.

Councillor Fernando said that the change in the score to risk 3 (following a review by the Cabinet Officer of the Council’s IT systems) was concerning as it was an area which the Committee had looked at before and suggested that the Council was therefore behind the curve.

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that it was unfortunate that the Cyber Awareness training which had been organised for the Committee had not gone ahead as planned due to the adjournment of the previous meeting. He said that this training was to be delivered by the Interim Strategic IT and Partnerships Manager, and therefore the new incoming post holder would be invited to the Committee.

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that the Council was not aware of the Cabinet Office’s review, but that the increase in the score for risk 3 would have also been increased due to the Committee’s concerns.

Councillor Curtis referred to risk 7 (District Plan) and asked if the non-delivery of the District Plan should be scored higher than A2. He said that new Members (post the May 2023 Elections) attitudes to Planning were unknown. 

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that Head of Planning scored risk 7, which was based on experience. He suggested that the Head of Planning could write to the Chairman to explain her reasoning for the risk score of A2. This approach was agreed by the Chairman.

It was moved by Councillor Fernando and seconded by The Chairman that the recommendations as detailed, be approved. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.  It was noted that Councillor Curtis abstained from the vote.

RESOLVED – that (A) the 2022/23 quarter three corporate risk register be reviewed, and officers advised of any further action that could be taken to manage risk; and

B) that the risks monitored at present are retained for the remainder of 2022/23 and that no new risks have currently been identified; and

C) that there are no changes to the methodology of   risk management proposed for the 2023/24 period.