Agenda item

Mark Scrivener (Corporate Risk and Assurance Manager) was in attendance for this item.

1.    Mr Scrivener introduced the report and addressed the significant growth in the number of risks presented on the Risk Register, a majority of which were rated as High. Mr Scrivener highlighted the importance of reviewing the criteria in terms of what risks remained on the Corporate Risk Register and which risks (deemed to be at their target residual level and not rated as High) could be removed. Mr Scrivener addressed the wider concern in regard to desensitisation because of the number and scale of risks reported and the impact this could have on the Council’s operations should inadequate checks and balances be in place. As part of the proposed refresh, attention was paid to key themes from the Budget Recovery Plan, Securing Kent’s Future, and work had been done to identify any business as usual risk factors along with changed risks that could impact on the successful delivery of the budget programme.

The Corporate Risk Register would be subject to a formal review via the Corporate Management Team, Cabinet Members and through the Governance and Audit Committee.

The Risk Management Policy and Strategy was also due to be updated for review by the Governance and Audit Committee in March 2024 which would incorporate risk appetite. This would be dependent on the Council’s budget situation.

2.    Further to comments and questions from Members, it was noted:

·         Mr Love commented on risk CRR0057 – Home To School Transport Pressures, advising that the risk that was previously operational in the wake of a major network re-tendering exercise had now moved to a risk associated largely with the cost pressures of Home to School Transport and the impact of this on the Council’s budget. As suggested within the report, Mr Love agreed that this risk could be migrated into the budgetary corporate risks and removed as a stand alone risk.

·         Mr Love queried the wording used within risk CRR0056 - Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Delivery Improvement and High – regarding the high needs block of DSG and how it had not kept pace with the substantial increase in demand for SEND which resulted in deficits accrued on DSG spending. Mr Love advised that this comment suggested that keeping pace with demand was outside the Council’s control, which was not a true reflection as the threshold for the identification of complex SEND cases had lowered over time and work was being done within mainstream schools to better support pupils with special educational needs and reduce placements out of county or in special schools. Mr Love welcomed the opportunity to further review the wording against the risks.

·         Members commented on risk CRR0042 – Border fluidity, infrastructure, and regulatory arrangements and sought assurance from officers that whilst the risk was largely outside the Council’s control, Members would be updated in due course on the associated risks and the impact that this could have on Kent and its residents, specifically in relation to the European Union Entry/ Exit system (EES).

·         Mr Oakford commented on risk CRR0014 – Cyber and Information Security Resilience, and thanked Lisa Gannon (Director of Technology) and her team for the excellent procedures in place to mitigate the threats to KCC’s cyber security.

3.    Mr Scrivener acknowledged the comments from Members and advised that risks which could be deemed as largely outside of the Council’s control should remain on the Corporate Risk Register due to the impact these could have on the Council’s services.

4.    RESOLVED to note the report.