Issue - decisions

RESOLVED:

That the Principal Risk Register and revised Risk Management Policy be recommended to Council for adoption.

KEY DECISION:

Report to Cabinet and Council

PORTFOLIO:

Leader / All

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED/REJECTED:

As set out in the report.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:

None

DISCUSSION:

The Insurance and Risk Officer introduced the report, highlighting that the Risk Management Policy had been updated and a new Principal Risk Register had been developed to be more agile and responsive detailing the key risks faced by the Council.  It would require updating as the LGR context evolves and as projects develop.  The new Risk Management Policy and Principal Risk Register had been considered by the Audit Committee.  Cabinet were asked to consider these and recommend the adoption by Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness commended officers on the updated policy and new risk register which was easy to follow and well structured.

Following a question about the review of the Principal Risk Register, it was confirmed that the Audit Committee would be asked to review it in six months and that this had been written into the supporting policy.

A non-Cabinet Member raised a concern on page 10 of the Risk Management Policy regarding the impact rating within the table, on the matter of morale.  It was suggested that the move from low risk (identified as no effect), to moderate (with some hostile relationship and minor non cooperation) was too far apart and that there should be some middle ground between these two risks.  It was suggested there needed to be a stage prior to reaching the moderate risk or to amend the text within the low risk.

The Insurance and Risk Officer responded to this point explaining that the rational had been taken following best practice in risk management in the public sector and considered it to be fit for purpose.  However, it was recognised to be ambiguous. The Chief Executive acknowledged the point raised and noted that other descriptions used words such as minor.  It was suggested that the point be taken away for further review and consideration by officers.

A non-Cabinet member raised the issue of service provision detailed within the policy and the four levels of risk rating.  It was felt that service evolution had not been addressed as services change over time.  In response, it was highlighted that this would be expected to be included within the Principal Risk Register as a risk rather than within the policy, as it related to the specific service risk, rather than the rationale behind it.

</AI14>

<TRAILER_SECTION>