To consider the status of the council's Corporate Risk Register in order to monitor the effectiveness of risk management within the Performance Management Framework.

The head of corporate performance presented the report, the details of which are outlined in the agenda pack. 

The committee discussed the report and the following points were raised.

1.    The new risk management framework still needed to be embedded and training rolled out to heads of service and service managers.   It will take further time to embed and for the treatment of risks to become consistent across the council. 

2.    There will always be red risks but the framework had been written so that the immediate risks will “bubble” to the top.   The real test will be how dynamic the risk registers are.    South West Audit Partnership (SWAP) confirmed the risk register for Herefordshire is probably very similar to other councils.  

3.    There should be changes in the longstanding risks once the framework has been further embedded and mitigation actions are taken.

4.    There would be some risks which are inherently red as they could not be mitigated for or control actions put in place.

5.    The committee requested that wording in connection with risks [EP19 and EP23] on the economy and place directorate risk register be reviewed to better reflect the risk.

6.    It was noted that the escalation and de-escalation was working

7.    The issue of aggregation of risk was raised, This was specifically around when a number of similar risks either across directorates or in directorates could be combined in order to become one risk  on the corporate risk register.  It was explained that the corporate centre would consider the key elements and the committee would be interested to see how this develops.  

8.    It was requested that when changes were made to the risk registers that they were highlighted in the commentary.

The assistant director, all ages commissioning, was present and provided an update on the following adults and wellbeing risks:

1.    Continuing Health Care Funding (CHC) - Work had been undertaken with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and NHS partners in connection with CHC funding.   Two cases which had previously been deemed not to meet the CHC funding criteria had now been successful.  This was good news for the individuals concerned, together with the council. Work would continue to review previous requests for CHC funding using a third party who was an ex-CHC assessor.  This should lead to the identity of further individuals who are entitled to the CHC funding.  It was anticipated that in the longer term, the council may be able to offer a service for self-funders.   It was confirmed that the council did offer a brokerage service for self funders. 

2.    TalkCommunity – the benefits of TalkCommunity were noted.  There were currently 18 TalkCommunity Hubs with plans for up to 50.  TalkCommunity had been the bedrock of the council’s Covid-19 response. TalkCommunity was reliant on volunteers so there was a risk to the council.  However the mitigation was the recruitment of further volunteers.     The ethos was community support and the evidence base showed that Herefordshire had a good community  support across all communities.

3.    Integrated Care System (ICS) – it was noted that the adults and wellbeing scrutiny committee were due to receive a paper on the ICS at its meeting scheduled for 24 March.   All members were encouraged to read the report and appendices as it outlined the nature of the White Paper, the opportunities and risks for Herefordshire.   There would be a transition ICS from April 2022 with a formal body in place from April 2023 which would be a system-wide approach to social care

RESOLVED that

1.    That the wording for EP19 [planning applications validating and registering in time] and EP23 [planning applications at committee against officer recommendation] be reworded to appropriately reflect the risks.

2.    That consideration be given to the inclusion of a risk in connection with the River Lugg position statement which may mean that there is a potential impact of disproportionate housing allocation in certain parts of the county.

3.    Consider how corporate centre will look at the aggregation of similar risks in or across directorates.

4.    Changes in the risk registers to be highlighted to aid the committee in identifying when changes have been made.