Agenda item

Richard Jones introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Cabinet Member Ben Callard:

·        A member asked for more detail on the identification of major, substantial, moderate, minor, and likely, probable, and unlikely risks.

The identification of these risks is underpinned by the strategic risk management policy, which includes categorisation of different levels of impact and probability. This policy can be shared with the committee for further clarity– ACTION: to send further detail

·        A member asked who checks the equivalence of these assessments, and how consistency is applied.

The risk assessments are initially identified in service business plans and reviewed by the senior leadership team. They ensure the assessments are robust and consistent, guided by the risk management policy.

·        A member asked if there is a risk matrix that shows how risks like major adult social care provider failure fit into the risk register.

The risk radar identifies potential risks that could impact the Council or the community. The strategic risk register focuses on high or medium-level risks to the delivery of objectives. Specific risks like adult social care failure are considered and can be escalated if needed.

·        A member reiterated the request for more detail on the forward work plan to understand the impact on residents and identify what needs to be scrutinised.

The comments will be fed back to those responsible for coordinating the work planner to consider when updating it – ACTION: to follow up with SLT

·        A member asked if the criteria for risk identification could be appended to the document for residents to understand without searching for another document.

A summary of the different levels of categorisation used to inform the risk assessments can be included in future reports.

·        A member asked if there a lack of mitigation detail in the risk register, and if there are specific mitigation actions, progress to date, or timescales?

The risk register captures significant mitigations in place to address risks. More detailed mitigations may be found in directorate risk registers and service plans. The key mitigations are included in the strategic risk register to ensure they are maintained and up to date.

·        A member asked if there is an underdeveloped link between risk and budget, and how budget implications or reserve strategies are captured.

The risk register identifies specific risks related to finances. It informs budget considerations and decision-making, ensuring that risks are taken into account within the limited resources available.

·        A member asked how the climate emergency is integrated into the risk register and Council budgets and plans?

The risk register identifies risks related to the climate and nature emergency, which are linked to the objectives in the Community Corporate Plan. The register captures significant mitigations and considers how risks integrate with other priorities and plans.

·        A member asked why the threat of legal challenges has been de-escalated, given the increasingly litigious nature of society.

The risk of legal challenges has not necessarily diminished but will be managed within the legal team's directorate risk register. This ensures that specific risks are managed at the appropriate level and can be escalated if needed.

·        A member asked if the implication is that there is less threat of legal challenge, or that our ability to deal with such risks has improved.

The implication is that our ability to deal with legal challenges has improved, allowing the risk to be managed at the directorate level rather than as a strategic risk.

·        The Chair asked how the financial risk can be graded as having reduced if the financial pressures and medium-term financial gap have increased?

The financial risk grading reflects the overall management and mitigation efforts. While the financial pressures and gap have increased, the Council's ability to manage these risks has improved, leading to a reduced risk grading. The upcoming outturn report will provide further details on the financial position.

·        The Chair asked how the risk of increasing school deficits is being addressed in the risk register?

The risk of increasing school deficits is considered within the broader financial risks and is managed through ongoing financial oversight and support to schools. The specific details of school reserves and deficits will be addressed in the outturn report.

·        The Chair asked how risks are prioritised, such as comparing the risk of not meeting Net Zero by 2030 with the risk of not returning school attendance to pre-pandemic levels?

The risk register assesses each risk based on its specific impact and likelihood. The prioritisation of risks considers the Council's capacity to influence and mitigate them. While both risks are important, the Council's ability to address them may differ, influencing their prioritisation.

·        The Chair further asked if we really understand the consequences of non-attendance at school – ACTION: to provide detail as to how and why 9B, the risk of school non-attendance, is at Medium (8), given its importance

·        A member noted the reduction in the risk score for item 11B – from 16 to 12 – being questionable given ongoing risks of flooding in areas like Caldicot.

Chair’s Summary:

The Chair thanked the officers and Cabinet Member. He emphasised the importance of the risk register in identifying and managing strategic risks to the organisation. He highlighted the need to understand the risk environment, the progress of mitigations, and the potential need to refer issues to other committees. He noted the key changes in the risk register, including adjustments to workforce risk, reduction in school attendance risk, division of climate risk, and de-escalation of two risks to directorate risk registers.