Issue - meetings

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda reportand its six appendices, of which appendix 2(b) is Part II restricted* for the information of members and relevant officers only (printed on salmon paper), and to make (a) the following recommendation to the Council and (b) in addition resolutions with regard to the matters indicated:

A - RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

That the updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy be approved.

B - RESOLUTIONS BY THE CABINET

1)          That the current strategic risk register and the internal controls in place, plus any associated action plans to manage those risks be noted, and to raise any issues or concerns.

2)          That the current high scoring programme board and organisational risks and the associated mitigation actions in place be noted, and to raise any issues or concerns.

[*Note Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972]

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy, including the amendments made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee, be approved.

RESOLVED BY THE CABINET

(1)  That the current strategic risk register and the internal controls in place, plus any associated action plans to manage those risks, including the amendments made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee, be noted.

(2)  Both the current high scoring programme board and organisational risks and the associated mitigation actions in place, including the amendments made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee, be noted.

[Note In order to accommodate the availability of a CDC member who wished to ask a question with reference to this agenda item Mr Dignum said that it would be taken before agenda item 5 (minute 507) although in these minutes the published order of business is observed]

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its four appendices, the second part of the second appendix being confidential exempt Part II material circulated to members and relevant officers only.  

This item was introduced by Mr Wilding.

Mr Ward was available to answer questions on this matter.

Mr Wilding explained that the report principally drew to the Cabinet’s attention the changes which were being proposed to CDC’s Risk Management Policy and Strategy (pages 23 to 35), last updated in 2014, for recommendation to the Council. The main changes were necessary to reflect the new CDC senior management structure. CDC’s Strategic Risk Group and Corporate Governance and Audit Committee (CGAC) had each scrutinised the changes. The CGAC had recommended on 29 March 2018 some further minor amendments which were set out in a draft minute extract (circulated in hard copy to the Cabinet at the start of this meeting), which he supported. The report also contained (pages 36 to 64) details of the current Strategic Risk Register, any high scoring risks for the Programme Boards and organisational risks, including the mitigation actions in place to help manage those risks. These were reviewed on a quarterly basis. The Risk Management Framework (page 35) delineated the roles, responsibilities, reporting lines, escalation routes and on-going monitoring procedures. The foregoing reflected the established process to ensure that risk management was embedded throughout CDC to help in securing delivery of its Corporate Plan objectives and individual services to the community. Members could thereby be assured that risks were identified, considered and managed appropriately in accordance with the approved strategy.

Mr Dignum emphasised the thoroughness of the review which had been undertaken and repeated Mr Wilding’s affirmation that the CGAC’s proposed changes were endorsed.

Mr Barrow raised two points with regard to the Strategic Risk Register:

(1)  CRR 88 – Non Achievement of Recycling Target of 50% by 2020 (page 50): whether the risk of CDC not achieving the 50% recycling target by 2020 could be affected by decisions taken by the West Sussex County Council partnership of waste and recycling collection authorities. Mrs Shepherd said that the risk had been carefully considered by the responsible officer for this matter and by SLT, and it was subject to a quarterly review which would take account of any changes which might affect the risk scoring. The recycling rate trajectory was pleasing. There were a range of initiatives being led by Mr Barrow and Mr Connor.  Mr Dignum observed that the current recycling rate of 45% was expected to be enhanced by an additional 2.5% for additional green waste collected.

(2)  CRR 149 - Impact of Universal Credit (UC) on working claimants across the district (page 57):  ...  view the full minutes text for item 508

The committee is requested to:

a)      Recommend to Cabinet and Council that the updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy be approved.

b)      Note the current strategic risk register and the internal controls in place plus any associated action plans to manage those risks and to raise any issues or concerns.

c)       Note both the high scoring programme board and organisational risks, the mitigation actions in place and to raise any issues or concerns.

The committee considered the report attached to the agenda.

Mrs Belenger presented the report drawing members’ attention to the heat map at item 6.3. During this quarter three new strategic risks had been identified including two high scoring risks – Southern Gateway and Local Plan. The high scoring Programme Board and Organisational Risks were included along with information on mitigation measures in place.

Mr Bennett advised that he was part of the Southern Gateway project group and updated the committee on the deliberations of that group when the project was discussed.

The committee made the following comments and received answers to questions as follows:

·         Internal controls for both the Southern Gateway and Local Plan had been amended from ‘improving’ to ‘poor’ by the Strategic Risk Group following assessment by the Senior Leadership Team.

·         Queried whether all Council members should have responsibility for managing risk to the council. A discussion took place on whether members needed to take individual as well as corporate responsibility for risks and to manage those risks within their role. It was agreed that a section should be added to the table on page 118 in the policy reflecting members’ roles and responsibilities.

·         Queried the table entitled ‘severity of impact matrix’ on page 121 of the policy and members’ responsibilities with regard to bringing embarrassment or reputation risk to the council. Add ‘member forced to resign’ under 3 Serious and add ‘Leader forced to resign’ under 4 Major under the heading entitled embarrassment or reputation risk.

·         Concern regarding the risk to the Southern Gateway project where internal controls are showing a current status of ‘poor’. Concern about the ability to achieve the target risk score of 3 by September 2018. Concern regarding the risk of reputational damage to the council which should be weighted on a similar level to financial risk. The project team was very strong, run by Mr P Over, and risks were being reassessed on a monthly basis. Mrs Belenger advised that the target risk score of 3 (Impact 3 (Serious); Likelihood 1 (Unlikely)) was perhaps not reconsidered by the Strategic Risk Group (SRG) however the risk register was reviewed on a quarterly basis by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT). Some members requested that this target score be increased as it was clearly unachievable by September 2018. Mrs Belenger referred members to the impact and likelihood descriptions on page 121 which was the criteria when setting target scores. Although the date was stated at September 2018 it was essentially a three to five year project. If all the internal controls in place were controlled then the impact on the council in terms of severity would be less and the likelihood would be ‘unlikely’. Mrs Belenger, referring to a recent note from Mr Over, advised that the risk score should have been reflected as Impact 4 (Major) Likelihood 1 (Unlikely) and not as stated in the report, however she would confirm this score with him. The committee wished to raise its concern at the target  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188