Agenda item

Q2 Strategic Risk Report

To provide an update to the Committee on the progress of the Council’s identified strategic risks (report of the Executive Manager Growth)

Minutes:

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. 

  • Officers stated that they would work to produce the information in a more user-friendly format.

·         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.

  • Officers replied that this could be done.

 

·         There did not appear to be a definition of what constituted red, amber or green risks.

  • Officers advised that this information was detailed within a grid at the end of the spreadsheets within Appendix A

 

·         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?

  • Officers advised that due to the sensitive nature of this item, the risk owner would provide all members with details outside of the meeting, of the issues around this particular incident.

 

·         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?

  • The current negotiating position with the contractor ran until the end of December. The Authority was working with the contractor to obtain a model for the impact on the business to the end of quarter 4 and this was also being updated to reflect the impact of the announcement today regarding the introduction of tier 3 restrictions.  The Authority was awaiting the opportunity to bid into some funding from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.  Members would also be briefed on the situation more widely within due course.

 

·         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?

  • Any IT transition created a risk and therefore needed to be carefully managed.  The Authority was seeking to: 1) develop the new My Choices app in a test environment so that when transitioning to a live format, the background testing work would have been done, and 2) to help further mitigate this, the old version of My Choices would be run alongside the newer system and could be used, should there be any issues with My Choices.

 

·         Outsourcing service provider failures – what was the timeframe for updating the supplier risk logs?

  • Officers advised that this work had been completed.  During the first lockdown, the Contracts and Procurement Team had reviewed all contacts to understand the impact on them.  As a new set of restrictions were currently in force, the same process had been undertaken – this had identified some issues with a few contractors and some work would need to be done with them to understand their mitigations.  The team were working with both the contractors and the services to see how the risks could be mitigated down.

 

·         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?

  • Officers advised that this could be done – the wish would be to consult as widely as possible on the outcomes.

 

·         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?

  • Officers were happy with how the mechanisms for supporting vulnerable households were now working, which had improved from when first mobilised.  The position was now much better.

 

·         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?

  • Officers did not have this information but would provide it to the Committee in due course.

 

AGREED:

That the content of the report be noted.

Supporting documents: