Agenda item

The Performance Officer introduced the Whole Authority Strategic Risk Assessment report.  The following questions were asked:

·         A Member referred to the risk ratings listed under Corporate Parenting (6 & 7) and questioned how the “Medium” risk rating regarding children was scored.  The Head of Policy and Governance responded that elements considered to determine a risk score include the likelihood and potential consequences.  It was explained that the potential consequence element is always higher but is balanced against the likelihood which, taking into account the safeguard systems in place and the relative infrequency of the worst outcomes  results in a “Medium” score.  The Member expressed concern about factors beyond the control of the authority and commented that the risk rating should be higher. 

A Member agreed that there is little control of who is admitted to care and therefore the consequent costs.  However, budgets are set to manage the risk, provide mitigation and build in trends.

·         A Member questioned the risk rating around energy and energy infrastructure as we move away from diesel and petrol cars to electric powered.  Secondly, in terms of global climate change, it was suggested that there should be reference to environmental change to include e.g. pandemics and other significant changes that create environmental impact.  The Officer responded that the energy and energy infrastructure aspect is not specifically captured but contracts for energy, prices are relatively secure in the short/medium term. It was explained that an additional energy officer has recently been appointed.

The issue of global climate change stretches beyond the period of this 3-year risk assessment.  The Committee was informed of new Future Generations Act work across Public Service Boards in Gwent to determine a longer term risk and opportunity register.  Funding has been obtained to buy in expertise to develop information, risks and possible solutions. An update on the work will be brought back in 4/5 months time as it develops. The Committee was reminded that Members declared a climate emergency in 2019.

It was explained that global environmental issues such as pandemics are reflected in our business continuity plans for which the Emergency Planning Team has a major role in terms of impact on delivery of services.

·         A Member queried potential risks to organisational capacity referring to a higher than average 11.5 days lost per fulltime employee plus 9% staff turnover.  The actual figures were queried, also the effect on delivery of services.  A further question was asked about numbers of staff who stay at home and continue to work whilst ill.  The effect on workforce of these factors was queried.  The Head of Policy and Governance explained that turnover is welcomed to create new ideas and e.g. opportunities for young people.  It was confirmed that there is an impact when staff are not in work and there can be a financial impact when the member of staff holds a frontline post to ensure continuity of services.

HR undertakes work on staff well-being in response to increases in numbers of sickness absences due to stress and psychological reasons.  Capacity is a significant factor in a small authority.  There are advantages to agile working where staff can self-isolate to control spread of germs when unwell but well enough to work.  There is no statistical data available on this aspect and judgement on fitness for work is the mutual responsibility of the staff member concerned and their line manager.

The Member concluded that the figure of 11.5 days per fulltime member of staff could be masking a higher figure of sickness absence.

·         The Chief Officer, Resources responded to a question about the varying degrees of success in recording staff appraisals that there would be a report to Audit Committee in May/June.  It was confirmed that appraisals are being undertaken. 

Aligned to the report recommendations, the Audit Committee used the risk assessment to consider the effectiveness of the authority’s risk management arrangements andthe extent to which the strategic risks facing the authority are appropriately captured.

Members scrutinised the risk assessment and responsibility holders, and will do so on an on-going basis, to ensure that risk is being appropriately managed.