Subject:		Strategic Risk Focus: SR2, SR20 and SR37
Date of Meeting:		29 June 2021
Report of:		Executive Lead Officer, Strategy, Governance & 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 three SRs risks to receive focus and to enable Members’ questions to be asked there will be attendance by Risk Owners as detailed below:

Nigel Manvell, Acting Chief Finance Officer for:

SR2 The Council is not financially sustainable.

Robert Persey, Executive Director, Health & Adult Social Care for:

SR20 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);

and

SR37 Not effectively responding to and recovering from COVID-19 in Brighton and Hove including building resilience for future pandemics.

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 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.   

2.4 Make recommendations for further action(s) to the relevant council body.

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 19 May 2021:

i) two risks were removed as it was agreed to de-escalate these from strategic level to be managed by the relevant ELT Lead and monitored through the relevant directorate plans.

ii) No new risks were proposed or agreed.

There are now 16 Strategic Risks.

3.4       The reason why changes to the SRR were made to remove two SRs are as          follows:

a) SR35 ‘Unable to manage serious risks and opportunities resulting from the impact of Brexit on the local and regional society and economy’ because Brexit arrangements are in place and directorates and services are managing the implications for delivery whilst the corporate reporting point continues to co-ordinate now to a lesser extent and maintain links with regional and national bodies. As a directorate risk, SGL DR 09, it will be owned by the Executive Lead Officer, Strategy Governance & Law.

b) 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’ will be FCL DR 14 owned by the ED FCL and managed within her directorate plan as the service is running well.  

3.5       There were no changes to risk scores.

3.6       Changes to risk titles were agreed:

a) SR36 has been amended to better reflect the council’s ability to assist the city in Climate and Ecological Change. The word ‘making’ has been replaced with ‘transitioning’ so that the title is now ‘Not taking all actions required to address climate and ecological change and transitioning our city to carbon neutral by 2030’.

b) SR37 on Covid-19 reflects a Member query relating to future pandemics so the risk title now ends with ‘including building resilience for future pandemics’.

c) For ease of reference the changed text in the titles of SR36 and SR37 are shown in italics.

Table 1

Table 1 shows the current 16 Strategic Risks in the highest Revised Risk order which takes account of future actions to reduce or mitigate the risks.

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 (s)	Risk Owner
SR 2	The Council is not financially sustainable	5 x 4 ◄► RED	4 x 4 ◄► RED	Policy & Resources Committee	Acting Chief Finance Officer
SR 36	Not taking all actions required to address climate and ecological change and transitioning our city to carbon neutral by 2030	5 x 4 ◄► RED	4 x 4 ◄► RED	Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee	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	Executive Director, Health & Adult Social Care
SR 37	Not effectively responding to and recovering from COVID-19 in Brighton and Hove including building resilience for future pandemics	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Health & Wellbeing Board  And Policy & Resources (Recovery) Sub-Committee	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	Assistant Director Human Resources & Organisational Development
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 And Housing Committee	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 ◄► AMBER	Policy & Resources Committee	Assistant Director Human Resources & Organisational Development
SR25	Insufficient organisational capacity or resources to deliver all services as before and respond to changing needs and changing circumstances	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Policy & Resources Committee	Chief Executive
SR 13	Not keeping vulnerable adults safe from harm and abuse	4 x 4 ◄► RED	3 x 4 ◄► AMBER	Health & Wellbeing Board	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	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	Chief Executive
SR 21	Unable to manage housing pressures and deliver new housing supply	4 x 4   ◄► RED	3 x 3 ◄► AMBER	Housing Committee	Executive Director, Housing, Neighbourhoods & Communities
SR 24	In the context of Covid-19 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	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 Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee	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	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	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: 24/05/21

Legal Implications

7.2 The Accounts and Audit Regulations (England) 2015 require local authorities to maintain a sound system of internal control, amongst other things to effectively manage risk. The Audit and Standards Committee has delegated to it the task of overseeing this area of the council’s performance of its functions.

7.3 All Strategic Risks which are reported to the Audit & Standards Committee may potentially have legal implications. Where implications of a direct nature have been identified, reference to them may be made in the Appendices to this Report.

Lawyer Consulted: Victoria Simpson                                           Date 21/05/21

Equalities Implications:

7.4 It is a corporate requirement that equalities implications are included within the performance management framework which includes risk management.

Sustainability Implications:

7.5      The strategic risk register incudes a risk in relation to sustainability.

Brexit Implications:

7.6       There are no direct implications in this report. SR35 has been removed but Brexit

       impacts will be monitored through the Strategy Governance & Law Directorate

            Management Team as detailed in paragraph 3.4 a) of this report.

Any Other Significant Implications:

7.7       None.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Appendices:

1. Appendix 1 CAMMS Risk report SR2, SR20 and SR37.

2. Appendix 2: A guide on the risk management process and how Members might want to ask questions of Risk Owners in relation to Strategic Risks.

Background Documents

1.         None.