Agenda item

Mike Sloniowski presented the report that provided an update on the status of key operational risks identified by Council departments. He noted that other departments would be invited to present their risk reports as Adult Social Care and Public Health had done.

The Chair noted that some services, e.g. Housing, had provided full detailed responses but other sections such as the Safer Neighbourhoods Team were left blank. It was suggested that Environmental Services were invited to the next meeting of the Committee to present their risk report.

Members requested that the Housing risk register be used as an exemplar for other departments.

Members asked if it was possible to standardise the format of the risk reporting system and ensure that papers were printed in colour on A3 paper to aid readability.

Members, referring to Market Testing Risks on page 39 of the report, recommended that the commissioning and procurement plans reported to Cabinet be open to the public if possible to ensure transparency. Officers would take this feedback into consideration when writing and categorising the reports.

Members, referring to Information Management and Digital Continuity on page 42 of the agenda, noted that the Committee had expressed concern about the risk of large penalties from the Information Commissioner in the past and asked why the ‘direction of travel’ for this risk was going up. Mike Sloniowski responded that staff training on information security had been completed but he would have to consult with ICT colleagues and inform members outside of the meeting if there had been any specific issues that had increased the risk.

Members, with reference to Housing Stock Transfer on page 48 of the agenda, asked for an update on the position of this risk. Mike Sloniowski said he would consult with Finance and Housing colleagues and update the Committee outside of the meeting.

Members noted that risk registers from some departments, particularly Children’s Services, were not detailed enough and asked that officers showed them good examples of effective risk registers to emulate in the future.

Members noted, with reference to Earl’s Court Regeneration on page 75, asked why the direction of travel for the risk was going down by the overall risk score remained at the highest possible level. Officers would consult with colleagues and provide an answer outside of the meeting.

Councillor Ben Coleman, with reference to Market Testing Risks on page 39, asked to be sent the CapitalESourcing Nil Assurance Report from Westminster City Council.

Members asked if there had been any assessment of the direct or indirect impacts of Britain voting to leave the European Union. Officers responded that the management team would need to consider this but it was anticipated that the Local Government Association and the Department for Communities and Local Government would do detailed analysis in this area.

RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee noted that quarterly reviews of strategic risks faced by the Council were undertaken by Hammersmith and Fulham Business Board.

2.    That the Committee considered the risks and corresponding mitigations in the register for appropriateness, attached as Appendix 1, the Strategic Register, and Appendix 2, the Service Level Register.