Agenda item

Quarterly Risk Report

To update the Committee on the state of risk management within the organisation (report of the Executive Director of Commissioning and Governance enclosed).

Minutes:

The Chairman advised that with his agreement, this item be moved up the agenda for consideration.

 

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director of Commissioning and Governance, which updated the Committee on the state of risk management within the organisation.

 

The updated strategic risk register included 10 strategic risks. These covered the over-arching risks that may affect the strategic direction of the council, rather than risks linked to business continuity or those that affected discreet service areas.

 

Risks were grouped into two categories:

 

·         Strategic – these were risks that affected the whole and long term plan of the council.  These risks could fundamentally impact upon the Authority’s reputation, the organisation that it was, and the dependable, accountable delivery of public services.

·         Operational – these risks concerned the day to day activities in the delivery of functions and services.

 

Risks were rated using a 3x3 matrix through a numerical number that combined the impact score of the risk occurring, with the likelihood score of it happening.  Risks were then classed as High, Medium or Low risk, dependent on their rating.

 

The risk summary covered two areas: a) The risk summary table showed the total number of risks by category and the percentage of high, medium and low risks within each category; and b) The exceptions report, a detailed report to provide focus on high level risks.

 

Two Risk Summary Tables were detailed within the report, showing the risk position at 30 September 2014 (Quarter 2, 2014/15) and 31 December 2014 (Quarter 3, 2014/15). The tables detailed 9 strategic risks and 64 operational risks and 10 strategic risks and 65 operational risks respectively.  This information informed that:

 

·         Strategic risks were predominantly medium;

·         One strategic risk had been closed, two had been created;

·         Operational risks were predominantly medium and low level risks;

·         Two operational risks had been created within Environmental Health and Human Resources;

·         One risk had been closed in Community Development;

·         One operational risk had increased from a medium to a high rating within Corporate Improvement and Performance; and

·         Two operational risks had been reduced from medium to low rating within Environmental Services and Corporate Improvement and Performance.

 

Therefore:

 

·         Strategic Risk Overview: Overall rating was medium; and

·         Operational Risk Overview: Overall rating was evenly spread across medium and low.

 

The Business Intelligence Officer advised that an additional level had been built into risk reporting.  A Risk Board, let by officers, had been set up to examine risk ratings given to corporate risk, and the Board met on a monthly basis.

 

Consideration was given to the report, and the following issues were raised:

 

·         Risk Reference S-09 – Staff recruitment and retention at all levels within both organisations.  Had any risks arisen due to short-staffing?

o   The Business Intelligence Officer advised that attention was being paid to this risk.  There were currently no results from the first Risk Board meeting due to its first meeting falling so close to this one however, information from the Risk Board would be included in future reports.

o   The Executive Director, Place, commented that the report under consideration now, (Quarter 3) was for the period to the end of December.  There was a lag in information between the timeframe that each report covered, and when it was considered.  When reporting, areas could be highlighted where there may be implications.  She cited, as an example, the dry recycling contract, which in the report for Quarter 3 had a lower risk rating, but as a result of subsequent events and the contract having been rescinded, now had an increased risk rating.

 

·         Failure to comply with equalities legislation and guidelines. This risk had increased from medium to high.  Why had the risk increased, it should have been identified in the Policy Register?

o   The Business Intelligence Officer confirmed that the Equalities Policy was out of date and needed to be reviewed.  There was currently no officer to undertake this role and the post was currently vacant however, it was anticipated that this post would soon be filled.

 

·         Was failure to deliver the Council’s Corporate Priorities still considered to be a risk?

o   The Executive Director (Place) reiterated the fact that performance data for Quarter 3 was almost three months out of date when considered now.  She confirmed that new Corporate Priorities had been agreed in February, and that performance in this area should now improve.

 

·         Members commented in general that the risk summary reports were much improved and easier to interpret.

 

AGREED:

 

That the report be noted.

Supporting documents: