To consider the status of the council’s corporate risk register in order to monitor the effectiveness of risk management within the Performance, Risk and Opportunity Management framework.

The chairperson thanked officers for the training which had been received by the committee on the corporate risk register.   It was noted that whilst the risk register was not wholly transparent, it was now more understandable. 

The head of corporate performance presented the report and highlighted the following:

·         The risk register was as at 31 December 2019

·         There were 32 strategic or most significant risks

·         3 risks on the corporate risk register were still extreme risks following mitigation which were:

o   CRR01 children’s operational staffing / workforce

o   CRR32 South Wye transport package, scheme costs increasing as a result of changes to the programme

o   CRR33 South Wye transport package, the Marches LEP withdrawing the existing growth fund.

·         The delayed transfer of care (DToC) and One Herefordshire risks had been removed.

·         3 risks had been added to the corporate risk register in connection with the South Wye transport pack.

·         The children and families risk in connection with work to support a police investigation had been closed as the investigation had been completed.   A new risk had replaced this which was in connection with the response to the investigation.

·         Hillside had been added as a risk due to the possibility of a legal charge being invoked should there be a change of use of the building. 

·         The changes had been made as a result of challenges at directorate management or management board meetings.   

As part of the committee’s discussion on the item, the following points were raised:

·         The escalation and de-escalation of risks between the registers was still not clear.

·         With regard to CRR35 (phosphate pollution in the Lugg catchment), clarification was sought on where it started as it could not be seen on the directorate risk register and how it was escalated to the corporate risk register. The head of corporate performance agreed to provide a written response.

·         It was noted that the phosphate pollution risk was not necessarily restricted to the Lugg catchment area but could affect the whole county. 

·         EP18 (5 year housing land supply / housing delivery test and element of CRR35) – this was unlikely to be resolved by April 2020 when the housing land supply was recalculated.   Herefordshire may drop to below 3 years so was there a reason why it had not be escalated to the corporate risk register.    The head of corporate performance agreed to provide a written response.

·         With regard to CF05 (Ofsted readiness) – in light of the recent Ofsted letter the committee would like to understand why this has not been escalated to the corporate risk register.  The risk of a poor Ofsted had a significant financial and reputational risk for the council.  The head of corporate performance explained that there were a number of specific risks on the corporate and directorate risk registers within the children and families area which taken together could cause a poor Ofsted.  The head of corporate performance agreed to consider with the director of children and families and the chief executive about how this risk is reflected.

·         There were risks on the directorate risk registers which were red but were not included on the corporate risk register.   There were also amber risks on the corporate risk register.   The committee felt there needed to be better articulation as to why those risk were sat on those risk registers. 

·         There were two risks on the adults and community risk register (AC22, access to health funding [CHC and joint funding] and AC23, Herefordshire and Worcestershire CCG) which were significant  and certain but were not on the corporate risk register.   The head of corporate performance agreed to check with the director of adults and communities about the scoring of these two risks and whether they should be escalated to the corporate risk register. 

·         It was unclear on decision reports how those risks were fed into the corporate or directorate risk registers and that it would be helpful to know how those fed into appropriate risk registers.

·         The risk in connection with the EU exit was viewed through a financial lens and there would be discussions about the impact of decisions taken at a national level at the end of January. 

·         The corporate risk register would be an agenda item for the May 2020 meeting, especially as the PROM was due to be completed in March.

·         The committee requested that consideration be given to including risks which would jeopardise the achievement of corporate objectives and that where there were strategic linkages these were identified. 

·         In connection with CRR31 (South Wye transport package) where the inherent risk was lower than the mitigated risk, the head of corporate performance explained that the inherent risk score was at the point it was identified as a risk.  This did not indicate that the mitigation was not working but that as the risk was considered in detail and as circumstances changed, the risk was scored higher. 

·         The committee would encourage all councillors to read the corporate risk register and speak to the relevant directors if they had queries about a specific risk.    

·         The head of corporate performance would provide a written response in connection with how the council’s maintained schools risk in connection with data breaches was reviewed. 

RESOLVED

That

a)    The chief executive ensures that the corporate risk register is at the top or near the top of senior manager agendas, especially during this period of change;

b)    The corporate risk register is bought back to the committee’s meeting in May 2020.

c)    The directors be invited to the committee meeting in May so that committee can discuss the most significant risks and consider whether there should be recommendations to the relevant scrutiny committee following those discussions. 

d)    Clarification be provided on the escalation and de-escalation process