Subject:		Strategic Risk Focus Report: SR10, SR18, SR32 and SR30
Date of Meeting:		12 January 2021
Report of:		Executive Lead Officer, Strategy, Governance and Law
Contact Officer:	Name:	Jackie Algar	Tel:	01273 291273
	Email:	Jackie.algar@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Ward(s) affected:		All

FOR GENERAL RELEASE

1.         PURPOSE OF REPORT AND POLICY CONTEXT

1.1 To report to the Audit & Standards Committee on the latest quarterly update to the city council’s Strategic Risk Register (SRR).

1.2 The Committee have agreed to focus on at least two strategic risks (SRs) at each of their meetings. For this meeting there are four SRs risks to receive focus and to enable Members’ questions to be asked there will be attendance by Risk Owners as detailed below:

Chief Executive in respect of:

SR30 Not fulfilling the expectations of residents, businesses, government and the wider community that Brighton & Hove City Council will lead the city well and be stronger in an uncertain environment; and

SR10 Corporate information assets are inadequately controlled and vulnerable to cyber-attack.

            The Assistant Director, Human Resources & Organisational Development (AD     HROD) in respect of:

SR18 The organisation is unable to deliver its functions in a modern, efficient way due to the lack of appropriate technology; and

SR32 Challenges to ensure health & safety measures lead to personal injury, prosecution, financial losses and reputational damage.

2.         RECOMMENDATIONS:    

That the Audit & Standards Committee:

2.1 Note the SRR detailed within Table 1 of this report.

2.2 Note Appendix 1 the CAMMS Strategic Risk report with details of the SRs and actions taken (‘Existing Controls’) and actions planned.

2.3 Note Appendix 2 which provides:

i. a guide on the risk management process;

ii. guidance on how Members might want to ask questions of Risk Owners, or officers connected to the strategic risks; and

iii. details of opportunities for Members, or any staff, to raise issues on Strategic Risks at various points and levels.   

3. CONTEXT/ BACKGROUND INFORMATION

3.1 The city council’s SRs are reviewed quarterly by the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) taking on board comments from quarterly risk reviews carried out at Directorate Management Teams. This process ensures the currency of the city council’s SRR.

3.2 The Audit & Standards Committee has a role to monitor and form an opinion on the effectiveness of risk management and internal control.

3.3 At ELT’s review of the SRR on 18 November 2020 one risk was removed and no new risks were proposed or agreed. There are now 18 Strategic Risks.

The changes to the SRR were:  

a) to remove SR34 ‘Ambitions to improve offer for staff which have been stated in Our People Promise’ because the work carried out by HR&OD is   incorporated into usual practices and the risk was scored very low with a residual risk score of Likelihood 2 and Impact 3 (YELLOW);

b) reduced risk scores on SR38 ‘Difficulty in restoring trust and confidence in the home to school transport service and sourcing sufficient capacity to resolve issues raised by the independent review’ due to progress made;

c) amend the title of SR37 to reflect the Covid-19 recovery and renewal programme so it is now ‘Not effectively responding to and recovering from COVID-19 in Brighton and Hove’; and

d) amend title on SR25 to reflect a revised focus e.g. Covid-19 impacts.

Table 1 below shows the current 18 Strategic Risks in the highest Revised Risk order which takes account of future actions to reduce or mitigate the risks.

For ease of reference the previous risk scores and risk titles are shown in italics.

Risk Nos.	Risk Title	Initial Risk Score Likelihood (L) x Impact (I) & Direction of Travel (DOT)	Revised Risk Score Likelihood (L) x Impact (I) & Direction of Travel (DOT)	Committee & Chair	Risk Owner
SR 2	The Council is not financially sustainable	5 x 4 ◄► RED	4 x 4 ◄► RED	Policy & Resources Committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Acting Chief Finance Officer
SR 36	Not taking all actions required to address climate and ecological change, and making our city carbon neutral by 2030	5 x 4 ◄► RED	4 x 4 ◄► RED	Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee – Cllr. West and Cllr. Heley	Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture
SR 20	Failure to achieve Health and Social Care outcomes due to organisational and resource pressures on the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC)	5 x 4 ◄► RED	4 x 4 ◄► RED	Health & Wellbeing Board – Cllr. Shanks	Executive Director, Health & Adult Social Care
SR 37	Not effectively responding to and recovering from COVID-19 in Brighton and Hove’ Added ‘and recovering from’ and P&R(Recovery) Sub-Committee	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Health & Wellbeing Board – Cllr. Shanks and Policy & Resources (Recovery) Sub-committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Executive Director, Health & Adult Social Care
SR 32	Challenges to ensure health & safety measures lead to personal injury, prosecution, financial losses and reputational damage	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Policy & Resources Committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Assistant Director Human Resources & Organisational Development
SR 35	Unable to manage serious risks and opportunities resulting from the impact of Brexit on the local and regional society and economy	5 x 4 ◄► RED	4 x 3 ◄► AMBER	Policy & Resources Committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Executive Lead Officer, Strategy, Governance & Law
SR 33	Not providing adequate housing and support for people with significant and complex needs	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Health & Wellbeing Board – Cllr. Shanks and Housing Committee – Cllr. Gibson and Cllr. Hugh-Jones	Executive Director, Health & Adult Social Care
SR 18	The organisation is unable to deliver its functions in a modern, efficient way due to the lack of appropriate technology	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄►	Policy & Resources Committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Assistant Director, Human Resources & Organisational Development
SR 38	Difficulty in restoring trust and confidence in the home to school transport service and sourcing sufficient capacity to resolve issues raised by the independent review	3 x 4 ▼ AMBER Risk score was 4 x 4 RED	3 x 3 ▼ AMBER Risk score was 3 x 4 AMBER	Children, Young People & Skills Committee – Cllr. Clare	Acting Executive Director Families, Children & Learning
SR 25	Insufficient organisational capacity or resources to deliver all services as before and respond to changing circumstances and needs Was ‘The lack of organisational capacity leads to sub-optimal service outcomes, failure to meet statutory obligations, and reputational damage’	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Policy & Resources Committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Chief Executive Risk owner changed from AD HROD
SR 13	Not keeping Vulnerable Adults Safe from harm and abuse	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Health & Wellbeing Board – Cllr. Shanks	Executive Director, Health & Adult Social Care
SR 15	Not keeping Children Safe from harm and abuse	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Children, Young People & Skills Committee – Cllr. Clare	Acting Executive Director Families, Children & Learning
SR 10	Corporate Information Assets are inadequately controlled and vulnerable to cyber-attack	4 x 4 ◄► RED	4 x 3 ◄► AMBER	Policy & Resources Committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Chief Executive
SR 21	Unable to manage housing pressures and deliver new housing supply	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 3 ◄► AMBER	Housing Committee – Cllr. Gibson and Cllr. Hugh-Jones	Interim Executive Director, Housing, Neighbourhoods & Communities
SR 24	The needs and demands for services arising from the changing and evolving landscape of Welfare Reform is not effectively supported by the council	4 x 3 ◄► AMBER	3 x 3 ◄► AMBER	Policy & Resources Committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Acting Chief Finance Officer
SR 23	Unable to develop and deliver an effective Regeneration and Investment Strategy for the Seafront and ensure effective maintenance of the seafront infrastructure	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	3 x 3 ◄► AMBER	Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee –  Cllr. West and Cllr. Heley; and Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee – Cllr. Ebel and Cllr. Powell	Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture
SR 29	Ineffective contract performance management leads to sub-optimal service outcomes, financial irregularity and losses, and reputational damage	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	3 x 3 ◄► AMBER	Policy & Resources Committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Acting Chief Finance Officer
SR 30	Not fulfilling the expectations of residents, businesses, government and the wider community that Brighton & Hove City Council will lead the city well and be stronger in an uncertain environment	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	2 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Policy & Resources Committee – Cllr. Mac Cafferty	Chief Executive

4. ANALYSIS & CONSIDERATION OF ANY ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

4.1 Through consultation with ELT the Risk Management process currently in operation was deemed to be the most suitable model.

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & CONSULTATION

5.1 This is an internal risk reporting process and as such no engagement or consultation has been undertaken in this regard.

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The council must ensure that it manages its risks and meets it responsibilities and deliver its Corporate Plan, risk management is evidence for good governance.

7.         FINANCIAL & OTHER IMPLICATIONS:

Financial Implications:

7.1 For each Strategic Risk there is detail of the actions already in place (‘Existing Controls’) or work to be done as part of business or project plans (‘Risk Actions’) to address the strategic risk.

Potentially there may have significant financial implications for the authority either directly or indirectly. The associated financial risks are considered during the Targeted Budget Management process and the development of the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

            Finance Officer Consulted: James Hengeveld                           Date: 23/12/20

Legal Implications:

7.2 All Strategic Risks which were reported as a whole to the Audit & Standards Committee on 21 July 2020 may potentially have legal implications. Where those implications are of a direct nature, they are noted in this Report.

No other direct legal implications have been identified.

Lawyer Consulted: Victoria Simpson                                           Date 02/12/20

Equalities Implications:

7.3 The SRR is shared with the Equalities Team. It is a corporate requirement that equalities implications are included within the performance management framework which includes risk management. There is an expectation that data will be used to evidence how service improvements are being made which have the aim of reducing inequalities.

Sustainability Implications:

7.4 ‘Not taking all actions required to address climate and ecological change, and making our city carbon neutral by 2030’ is one of our strategic risks as SR36. Actions to mitigate this risk will improve sustainability and sustainability across the council’s operations will be improved by practicing risk management.

Brexit Implications:

7.5 SR35 specifically considers this risk and actions which have taken place or are planned.

Any Other Significant Implications:

7.6       None.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Appendices:

1.         CAMMS Risk report on SR10, SR18, SR32 and SR30.

2.         A guide on the risk management process, how Members might want to ask questions of Risk Owners and how Members and officers can input on SRs.

Background Documents

1.         None.