To consider the status of the council’s corporate risk register in order to monitor the effectiveness of the performance, risk and opportunity management framework.

The business intelligence officer presented the report and highlighted the following: 

·         6 new risks added since the last time the committee had received the register

·         The directorate risk registers had been reviewed in line with the performance, risk and opportunity management (PROM) framework. 

The following queries were raised and the business intelligence office offered to raise them with the identified leads.

·         IT platforms – was the organisational risk being properly reflected in the mitigated column?

·         The mitigated / unmitigated risks in connection with Integration (One Herefordshire) – assurance that there is robustness that it is a 9 after controls.

·         Good decision making – given that culture and learning is a continuing issue whether the score of 2 is robust.    The solicitor to the council as the risk owner explained that it was a 2 due to the implementation of the new constitution and the use of mod.gov for report writer.   However, it was agreed that this score would be reviewed in light of the comments made. 

·         System resilience and urgent care -  an explanation of why this risk had been removed from the corporate risk register.   The committee also requested that as a general principle where risks were being removed from the corporate risk register that an explanation be provided as part of the report. 

·         Development regeneration programme – an explanation of why overall this was a 6 given that this was the biggest item in the capital programme

·         Capital programme – an explanation of the scoring in connection with this risk.  

·         NMITE University – an explanation of the phrasing used. 

In response to a request from a member of the committee, the business intelligence officer agreed to look at providing a scoring matrix approach to assist with understanding the registers. 

The S151 officer confirmed that there was a relationship between the risk register and the budget.    The budget holder manages the risks but if it changes or cannot be controlled then there is the opportunity to address the issue through reserves which would be via a report to cabinet and then council.      It was also noted that finance officers also have links to the risks via directorate management team meetings and management board.  

The business intelligence officer confirmed that the risk of ineffective communication with residents was an existing risk on a service register.  

The business intelligence officer agreed to check whether the risk of failing to implement the code of conduct was on a risk register.  

It was noted that there was an opportunity via the council’s website to make identify risks which should be considered.  Any potential risks which were identified by a member of the public or members were sent to the relevant service area for consideration. 

It was agreed that the corporate and directorate risk registers would be reviewed by the committee on a six monthly basis rather than a quarterly basis. 

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.