Agenda item

Following scrutiny, members noted the report.

Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack.

The Director of Strategy and Corporate Services outlined the changes that have been made to the strategic risk register. It is the intention to present an updated risk register on a six monthly basis as opposed to annual consideration. There is now both an inherent risk score and a residual risk score. The matrix used sets a maximum risk of 25 and the smallest risk rating would be 2.

During the summer a risk appetite statement was put in place. This sets out how the authority position themselves on the risk contained within the strategic risk register. The statement is based upon the principles contained within the government’s Orange Book of Management of Risk - Principles and Concepts. The strategic risk register will need to be aligned to the risk appetite statement.

It is noted that the target risk score is not yet completed. The rationale for this is there is an inherent risk score, which is based on the expertise of the officers responsible for those risks, mitigating actions and controls are put in place and then remaining risk is the residual risk. It is then for the authority to determine if the residual level of risk is something that can be managed or does this need to be reduced. What is the target risk for the particular item?

Members referred to SR06 and its reference to insufficient capital and revenue resources which could cause problems. It was suggested that this should also be listed under other items and other directorates. Officers confirmed that this item covered the council’s entire financial planning arrangements and is not directorate specific.

In relation to SR25, members queried the use of the word aspirations and if this was appropriate to use as a previous seminar indicated that there would be fines imposed if targets were not met. Members were also concerned that the targets would not be met. Officers confirmed that the Council did set a target of 2030 for climate change and decarbonisation. Officers noted the pressure on the budget and the impact that this was having on the ability to complete projects which contribute to the decarbonisation target.

It was noted that each directorate has its own risk register which sits underneath the overarching strategic risk register. Officers agreed that they would consider referencing the more specific directorate risks as part of the strategic risk register.

Members referred to SR23 and that has been removed and is now  included in SR01. It is recognised that the risk has moved from a risk that was owned by the Education Director and now sits under a risk owned by the Environment Director. The risk refers to buildings for learning and the impacts on that. Members queried if this risk had transferred ownership to fall under environment and not education. Officers confirmed that whilst the Headteachers of the school hold the autonomy over schools, all infrastructure works undertaken are carried out by the team within the environment department and environment carries the overall strategic risk. Therefore, it made sense to merge the risk. Officer confirmed that the budget still sits within the education budget, and the officers work with the property maintenance term to ensure that appropriate and prioritised works are carried out.

Following scrutiny, members noted the report.