Agenda item

Quarter 2 Governance Report Risks (Agenda item 7)

Report of the Governance & Performance Accountant.

Minutes:

The Senior Procurement and Performance Officer presented the quarterly risk report.

 

At the last Audit Committee meeting, Members were advised that the Council was reviewing its Corporate Plan.  This review had now been completed, with a new Corporate Plan produced allowing for the creation of a new strategic risk register.  The new risk register should be ready for presentation to Members in February 2012.

 

In terms of the risks for Quarter 2, new risks, decreased risks and closed risks that had occurred or changed over the last three months were highlighted.

 

A new risk had been identified during Quarter 2 relating to the provision of sporting activities at Redcastle Furze Community Centre.  As part of the PFI arrangements the Council could not support alternate competing facilities and this had been reflected in a clause in the lease for the Community Centre.  Further control measures were in place to ensure that the Council did not break any contractual arrangements in relation to the PFI.

 

Two risks decreased during Quarter 2.  The first was the risk associated with the Council’s Icelandic investments, which had moved from a score of 6 to a score of 4 following the recent test case which had been awarded priority status to certain UK depositors – although there had not, as yet, been any guidance of how the Supreme Courts decision would be applied to non-test cases such as Breckland.  It was anticipated that the amount to be recovered would be 93% of the original deposit.

 

The second risk related to Snetterton Utilities project that had been decreased from 6 to 3 following a significant amount of work that had been undertaken with Iceni Power in relation to providing power to the site.

 

The three closed risks related to bringing the ICT service back in-house from Steria.  None of the risks had been realised and the Council had benefited from improved performance as well as an annual saving of £200,000.

 

The remainder of the report discussed the risks that sat outside the Council’s risk appetite and these remained largely static.  The current position of each had been detailed in the report.

 

Members’ comments were welcomed.

 

Mr Kybird had received a comment from Lady Fisher in relation to the Snetterton Utilities project.  She had not understood why this risk had been decreased.  The Senior Procurement and Performance Officer explained that the information he had received had demonstrated that a timeline had been set for the Biomass Plant to be built subject to planning permission.

 

Mr Stevens questioned the PFI competing facilities in relation to the terms of contract at the Redcastle Furze Community Centre and asked whether Parkwood, the Council’s Leisure Contractors, had been informed of these activities.  Members were informed that the current tenant was aware of what the Community Centre could and could not do and control measures had been put in place.  The Procurement & Performance Manager said that he would be surprised if this had not been mentioned to Parkwood but he would check this out with the relevant officer.

 

The Chairman stated that PFI should be taken into account at all times for anything that the Council did in terms of leisure and should be recorded and Parkwood automatically informed.

 

Mr Stevens reminded the Committee of his PFI background and stated that reassurance from Parkwood had been acquired in the past particularly in regard to Sporle School.  He felt that the same reassurance should be required for Redcastle Furze.

 

The report was otherwise noted.

 

Supporting documents: