To provide an update to the Committee on the progress of the Council’s identified strategic risks (report of the Executive Manager Growth)
Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Strategy and Governance, which provided an update to the Committee on the progress of the Council’s identified strategic risks.
The report aimed to present an overview of the strategic risks identified by the Council, approach to mitigations and risk scores associated with the risks. The report included, at Appendix 1, a more detailed Strategic Risk Register document This was the first risk report presented to the Committee since the Coronavirus pandemic, and was a significantly changed document from previous versions. It covered a new set of areas that had arisen as a result of the pandemic including the risks of dealing with more than one specific event at the same time in addition to the challenges around the Covid pandemic, the potential impact on the economy, the ability to conclude Council business, decision making in a virtual way, and business continuity in key areas such as waste collection.
Officers pointed out that the report stated that there were 27 strategic risks with 12 at a medium score. However the number of risks with a low score was stated as 18 however this should have been 15.
As this was the first iteration of the document in the current Covid situation, comments from the Committee were welcomed.
Members considered the report, and the following issues were raised:
· The report was useful however there was a great amount of detail within it which was not easily read on an electronic device.
· Members responded that the Strategic Risk Register itself had much detail on it and needed to be produced in an A3 paper format for consideration at future meetings.
· There did not appear to be a definition of what constituted red, amber or green risks.
· Technology and infrastructure failure – in view of the fact that recently, email had not been available for a number of days, should the impact of this risk be changed?
· The Authority was offering financial support to the leisure provider, Parkwood, until the end of December – this date was approaching quickly. Was this mitigation changing?
· With regard to the increased risk in the rise of homelessness, the Northgate project was stated under mitigation. Were there any risks associated with implementation?
· Outsourcing service provider failures – what was the timeframe for updating the supplier risk logs?
· Council financial position – It was noted that a Task Group had been established to identify further options and opportunities - could the Committee schedule into its Work Programme regular progress updates?
· Vulnerability risk – Members stated that County-wide, some of the forums that had been set up to support the vulnerable had been slow in getting off the ground. Had this improved, was it working well and was the Authority now comfortable with risk?
· With regard to Safeguarding and emerging assessment frameworks for domestic abuse and other areas, how close were they to being put in place, what assessments were currently being done and when would they be released?
That the content of the report be noted.