Decision details

RESOLVED:

1.     That Cabinet considered the Principal Risk Register updates and;

2.     Recommends adoption by Council.

KEY DECISION:

No.

PORTFOLIO:

Leader / All.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:

None

DISCUSSION:

The Leader introduced the item and explained that the Principal Risk Register had come back to Cabinet for its regular review and with the proposed recommendation to Council for its adoption.

The Leader stated that the report had been considered by the Executive Management Team and the Audit Committee prior to it coming to Cabinet. It would then go before Council next week for their consideration. The Leader explained that the Principal Risk Register was an ever-evolving document that can’t always account for the latest news or position but was a correct snapshot of a point in time. Giving specific mention to the risk referenced PR9, the Leader explained that this was prepared prior to Government’s decision on LGR. The Leader remained content that the Principal Risk Register was reflective of the Council’s position in recognising the scale and complexity of what is involved in the LGR process.

The Insurance and Risk Officer informed Cabinet that the report summarised the key changes for this latest iteration of the Principal Risk Register. She highlighted the removal of two risks, the addition of two risks and the removal of a further, stand-alone risk relating to challenges on recruitment and retention. This particular risk would be integrated into the overall Local Government Reorganisation risk (PR9) as the risk directly relates to the uncertainty of LGR and devolution. The Insurance and Risk Officer explained that there were some changes in various risk ratings, all of which were the lowering of risks and therefore posed no concern.

A non-Cabinet member suggested that there be further detail on the mitigation measures in place for each risk. The Insurance and Risk Officer accepted this as a fair challenge and would consider whether there could potentially be a separation of the overviews and mitigation section of the register.