Agenda item

The Director of Finance and the Risk and Insurance Officer summarised the key areas of the report and the Audit Committee was asked to review and comment on the Q1 2022/23 Corporate Risk Report (CRR).

In response to Members questions the following points were raised:-

1.      It was confirmed that Bristol’s future change in governance model from Mayoral system to Committee System had not yet been allocated as a risk as it had not met the risk escalation threshold.  Given the establishment of a Committee Working Group and the timescales involved it was unlikely to present a material risk at present but would be escalated if required.

2.      Cllr Wilcox sought written responses to the risks related to Information Technology:

a.      CRR25 – Suitability of Line of Business (LOB) Systems – It was confirmed that the progress on Actions of 100% related to that one action listed

b.      CRR7 - Cyber Security – it was noted that implementation had been due in June 2022 and it was of significant concern that this had slipped.

c.       CRR29 – Information Security Management System – it was important to understand why only 25% progress had been made against actions.

d.      CRR26 – ICT Resilience – it was important to understand why progress was only at 50%

3.      Officers confirmed that an exempt session would be arranged and full detail provided to give further assurance.

4.      In respect of risk CRR15 - In-year Financial Deficit, Cllr Hucker questioned whether this was due to external macroeconomic factors, internal factors or a combination of both.  It was confirmed that the Council’s current financial meant there was a material risk of deficit at the end of year.

5.      It was noted the Managing Director  of Bristol Waste had left and it was questioned whether this should have been included in the service risk register.  It was confirmed that the Bristol Waste succession plan had identified this as a risk and had been able to mitigate the risk with immediate effect

6.      It was questioned why CRR48 - Failure to meet the affordable housing needs of the City by failing to meet the Project 1000 Delivery target had replaced the previous risk CRR38 -  Failure to deliver enough affordable Homes to meet the City’s needs. It was confirmed that there had been a slight change of emphasis from the aim ‘to meet the City’s needs’  with the ambition to reframe the risk directly within the Council’s influence.  There were a number of sub risks below this and Officers took away an action to ask the risk owner to respond with more detail. Action: The risk owner to contact the Councillor with further information.

7.      Independent Member Adeobola Adebayo observed that some of the risk scores had remained unchanged for a significant amount of time and whilst it was understood that tolerance scores had been agreed, it was unclear at which point tolerance levels were exceeded.  It was confirmed that the risk management framework continued to be developed and embedded, with workshops and system training provided to all risk owners including the opportunity to meet with an external Risk Consultant.  Action: Officers to arrange a risk tolerance workshop for audit members.

8.      Councillor Goodman referred to CRR49 - Workforce Resilience and questioned the rationale of a recruitment freeze.  CRR49 had replaced CRR35 – Organisational Resilience to a develop a specific workforce risk that was measurable.  It was confirmed that there was a pause on recruitment as part of the review of the Council’s financial position.  There would be some exceptions and dispensations but it was an opportunity to pause, take stock and implement the necessary management activity to ensure the year ended with a balanced budget.

9.      Councillor Goodman questioned how long the recruitment freeze was expected to last.  It was confirmed that this was a temporary pause as each Executive Director reviewed their budgets and brought plans to achieve balanced budgets back to Cabinet.  This was also in line with the Management and Capacity review which detailed workforce savings agreed by Council.

10.  Councillor Goodman observed that the policy had the potential to increase the risk of low workforce resilience.  It was confirmed that the risk owner would review and monitor the risk and updates would be provided for the next reporting cycle.

11.  Councillor Mack referred to CRR15 – In-Year Financial Deficit and asked whether mitigation action included the hiring freeze.  It was confirmed that there was a requirement to ensure that in line with the Management and Capacity Review the organisation was delivering as agreed.

Resolved: That the Q1 2022/23 Corporate Risk Report (CRR) be noted.