To inform the Committee of the risks on the corporate risk register, so as to give assurance that risks are being managed.

The ECC directorate services team leader presented the risk register and outlined its management process.  Services had their own risk registers which were considered monthly and which informed the corporate risk register which was reported to the management board every quarter. Cabinet received a quarterly report on the overall corporate risk register. The register was subject to continuous monitoring and development and feedback from the committee was welcomed. 

A member identified a significant and strategic risk to include on the register regarding the matter of onshore oil and gas extraction (fracking). It was reported that Esso was looking to seek approval for fracking in Kerne Bridge which is within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the ground water protection zone. The member referred to a recent environment report highlighting risks of fracking e.g., from earthquakes and seismic activity. It was considered that there were geological implications and risks of earthquakes higher than magnitude 3 in this area.  There were concerns that fracking posed a risk to tourism due to the cumulative effect of industrialisation of an iconic area which held a number of designations, therefore presenting significant strategic risk.

The committee was asked to consider a working group with officers to better understand the issues and to highlight the matter on the risk register. In the ensuing discussion on this matter the following points were raised:

•           a working group needed clear terms of reference and balanced membership to look at the risks of fracking were it introduced, and would need to conclude findings as a priority;

•           the planning system would control the application process but would give limited time to respond to an application; 

•           although the proposal was reduced in scale it remained significant and there has been a local and informed response from the ward. However, concern was that the council has not yet responded and could miss that opportunity to respond in regard to the wider impact on the county, resulting in approval for the scheme to go ahead. Examples seen elsewhere in the country such as in Lancashire suggest lengthy timescales for deliberation over applications;

•           Distinction was needed between the risk register being a register of corporate risk rather than political risk. However the risk was regarded to be in relation to economic resilience which was a matter of corporate concern although the register needed to encompass wider ownership of risks in conjunction with partners

It was agreed that the member would hold discussions with the directorate services team leader to scope the need for either a working group or to add the matter to the risk register, and the committee reconvene in two weeks’ time to consider.

Regarding matters currently on the risk register, a member raised a question regarding the impact of the deprivation of liberty (DOL) process. Recent press coverage highlighted that if someone died with a DOL order in place it required a coroner’s inquiry resulting in delays for families awaiting funerals.  In the county there were demographic pressures which meant more of these order would be in place, placing families in additional distress and putting pressure on legal services.

SWAP confirmed that this area was covered by audit and that it should be possible to complete DOL inquiries within a day.  No issues were raised in the audit and legal were not aware that this was an issue in Herefordshire, this will be reported on to the next committee meeting.  

A member commented on European and other external funding, noting that it was critical that economic partnerships are understood. He further added that devolution was key to economic aspirations and was high on the government’s agenda and so needed to be on the risk register in terms of economic resilience especially in relation to the local enterprise partnership. 

It was noted that a number of items that did not show as having impact had stayed red on the register.  It was clarified that the intention was to control accepted risk and ensure it was not increasing through mitigation, and so items remained on the register. 

The chairman observed that some items appear to be unchanged in risk rating after controls were put in place.  Demonstration of direction of travel would give a better indication of action having effect and the register would benefit from a review of its robustness.

A member added that there was no national standard for how risk registers work and suggest an operating procedure so that it be better understood.  The current operating procedure which officers use would be circulated to members. 

The chairman proposed an alternative recommendation to review the robustness of the document, remarking that the document needed to be reviewed to show that the measures working.

RESOLVED 

That the corporate risk register be noted, and it be recommended that improvements be made to the robustness of risk management and make the corporate risk register a living document.