Agenda item

To provide an update on the Council’s current strategic risks (report of the Assistant Director – Governance enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Governance which provided an update on the Council’s current strategic risks.

The Business Intelligence and Change Manager introduced the report by giving the following overview of the current status of the Council’s strategic risks:

• None were rated as ‘critical’, the highest category (red);
• Eight were rated at the ‘high’ risk level (amber);
• Nine were rated as ‘medium’ (yellow); and
• One risk was rated as ‘low’ (green)

Regarding changes to risks since the last iteration of the report:

• The Homelessness Reduction Team Resources were now at full capacity due to the appointment of a Homelessness Reduction Officer and an Administration Officer. Some internal restructuring had also occurred. As a result, this area had a reduced risk score.
• A new risk relating to the Waste Services Team had been identified. This had resulted from the increasing demand upon the team due to housing growth. The waste collection rounds were being reviewed and redesigned to maximise efficiency and balance.  The risk would be monitored as the results of the review were implemented.

Members considered the Q1 Risk Report 2023/2024 and made the following comments:

• Members asked whether reductions to risk scores were pro-actively sought and whether targets were in place.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager stated that:
    • A draft Risk Framework for the whole of the S&ELCP was in development which would incorporate targeted risk scores. The draft Risk Framework would be shared with members in due course.
    • Whilst targets were not currently in place, where a risk was critical, high or medium, focussed activity would ensue to mitigate the risk. The Risk Report was presented to the Senior Leadership Team on a monthly basis where mitigations were monitored.
  • The Assistant Director – Governance stated that:
    • Whilst it was not possible to reduce the impact of some of the highest scoring risks, the focus was on the reduction of the likelihood of the risk;
    • Some risks could not be reduced further with mitigations, and in such cases, the cost of which outweighed any potential benefit;
    • The Council endeavoured to reduce or avoid risk as far as possible but had to take a view to be comfortable to work within a certain risk level to achieve a strategic objective.

• Members noted the high impact of the ICT risk and asked whether this was due to an issue specific to SHDC.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager responded that whilst the impact of an ICT incident was high (5), which contributed to the overall ‘critical’ risk rating, the likelihood of an occurrence was low (2). Currently there were no concerns regarding this risk.

• Members referred to the risk relating to the retention of staff. As the Council was dependent on PSPS for the provision of services across the partnership, it was important that PSPS staff retention figures were included/monitored.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager would clarify the position regarding the data source after the meeting.

• Members referred to the economic hardship that existed in some parts of the district and noted that this could impact SHDC debtors.

• Concerns were raised regarding the high risk of internal communications, especially in relation to the partnership and the garden waste review.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager stated that:
    • The high risk regarding internal communications was acknowledged however an action plan was in place and results from the quarterly staff survey were being monitored.
    • Clarification regarding the completion of the waste collection review would be sought and shared with the committee.
• Members were concerned that they had not received advanced sight of the external communications plan regarding the re-routing of the waste collection service in order to assist with queries from residents. Communications to residents regarding the upcoming changes to waste collection arrangements, including garden waste, needed to be unambiguous and circulated in advance.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager would request the communications plan and circulate it to members.

• Members referred to the Peer Review feedback regarding constitution partnership alignment and asked whether this area would undergo a risk review exercise.
  • The Assistant Director – Governance responded that:
    • Constitution alignment across the partnership had been identified from the partnership review and by SHDC;
    • It was acknowledged that the streamlining of processes would benefit shared officers in respect of compliance
    • The Stakeholder Board (Leaders, Deputy Leaders and Finance Portfolio Holders of the three authorities of the S&ELCP) had recently received a paper to review opportunities for constitutional alignment; and
    • Constitutional alignment exercises would need to prioritise areas of the greatest risk and proposals presented to sovereign authorities for approval.

AGREED:

That after consideration of the Q1 Risk Report 2023/2024 and Appendix A, which detailed the latest assessment of the Council’s strategic risks, the report be noted by the Committee.