Agenda item

1. Mr Scrivener, Head of Risk & Delivery Assurance, introduced the report, he explained that the Council’s Corporate Risk Register was regularly reported to Cabinet and the Governance and Audit Committee. The report before the Committee set out those corporate risks most relevant to Children, Young People and Education, together with a summary of directorate level risks, to provide a high-level overview of key issues. He explained that most of the risks related to areas on which the Committee received substantive reports during the year. He highlighted that risks were dynamic, particularly those associated with delivery of the Safety Valve agreement and SEND reforms and that scores would be reviewed as the national policy position developed.

2. In response to comments and questions it was said:
   1. When asked about the implications and the actions to be taken in reference to the maximum score for the high needs funding risk, Mr Chapman advised that the increased score reflected the seriousness of the position despite intensive work to reduce the overspend. He emphasised that SEND financial pressures were a national issue and that the Government’s White Paper and SEND Reform Plan were intended to address them. He explained that recent Government announcements suggesting that 90% of historic deficits might be written off did not remove the in year pressures and that there was still no clarity on future funding. He added that the Council had been advised to focus its efforts on the areas of work with the greatest impact rather than spreading resources too thinly and that this work was continuing.
   2. A Member asked whether the risk assessment had been updated following the announcement about a potential 90% write off of the accumulated deficit. Mr Chapman confirmed that the announcement related to historic deficits only. The Council still projected significant in year overspends and further national mechanisms were expected but not yet defined. The risk would be revisited as more information emerged.
   3. A Member asked about the risk relating to insufficient Ofsted?registered providers to meet the needs of children and young people with complex needs and to provide personalised care and how this related to the Council’s plans for its own children’s homes. Mr Kasaven explained that improvements in neonatal and early years healthcare meant that more children with complex needs were surviving into later childhood and adolescence. He reported that the market had not fully adjusted to the increasing complexity of needs or the regulatory requirements. He added that matching requirements and Ofsted regulations often limited the number of children who could be placed in each home, resulting in homes registered for four or five children sometimes having only one or two residents. Providers therefore sought higher fees to cover these voids, which contributed to cost pressures. The Council’s development programme was focusing on smaller homes to reflect these realities and reduce void related costs over time.
   4. A Member highlighted that Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission had highlighted persistent issues with demand exceeding supply and a shortage of specialist provision for complex needs. They asked for further data and detail on how these risks were being managed. Mr Chapman stated that many of the responses were embedded in broader transformation projects to increase mainstream inclusion and specialist capacity, as discussed earlier in the meeting, and that further detail could be provided outside the meeting if required.
   5. A Member queried how comprehensive the risk register was and whether new or emerging risks were routinely captured. Mr Scrivener explained that there were over 600 risks recorded across the Authority, covering corporate, directorate and divisional levels. The system allowed for escalation and de-escalation as needed. He emphasised that risk management was also part of managers’ day to day responsibilities and that the register focused on the most significant risks to ensure a proportionate approach.

RESOLVED that the Committee considered the risks presented.