Agenda item

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Duncan Ellis, 01263 516330, Duncan.ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The Head of Finance introduced this item. He said that it was a short update report in response to issues raised at the last meeting. He said that the last update to the Risk Management Policy & Framework was approved by GRAC in March 2018, with the next one scheduled for March 2020. The policy set the framework for the Council’s Corporate Risk Register which monitored and tracked the Council’s most significant risks. Following the introduction of governance improvements, the risk register was now a standing item on Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) agendas and reported every quarter. He said that historic data had been cleaned up and only the last 12 months was presented now.

Regarding project risks, the Head of Finance said that consideration needed to be given as to how to feed these into the Corporate Risk Register (CRR). He added that they would be reported but as a separate register. In addition, the Corporate Plan would also drive some of the items in the CRR. The Council’s new performance system, InPhase, would be beneficial for reporting on risk as it would allow for the tracking of ‘live’ data.  He went onto say that the Council’s risk appetite and tolerance had never been explored with Members. It was intended to discuss this with the Chairman of GRAC, Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet members to agree where the Council was comfortable as an authority. 

The Head of Finance concluded by saying that an audit of risk management was scheduled for Q4. It was intended that the draft improvements to the Risk Management Policy and Framework would be written and then audited so that improvements could be built in. GRAC could also feed into the development of the policy.

1.    The Chairman asked whether income from the New Homes Bonus (NHB) could help with the Sheringham Leisure Centre (Splash) costs. The Head of Finance replied that a £1m gap was still forecast.

2.    Cllr N Dixon said that he welcomed the review of risk appetite. He said that he would like to see a risk recognition process included, adding that it was important that there was an appreciation of the bigger picture otherwise everything ‘downstream’ would be awry. He went onto say that the risk register should be a dynamic document and there was a need to be able to track whether mitigation measures were effective.

3.    Cllr C Cushing asked who updated the risk register and how frequently. The Head of Finance replied that he updated it, with individual officers updating via InPhase. He said that he updated it as soon as he was aware of a risk and reported when appropriate. He confirmed that SLT were the risk owners. The Monitoring Officer added that the CRR covered high level risks, with lower level risks being allocated to individual officers. InPhase would allow for the ‘drilling down’ from strategic to operational level. Responsibility for risk was a Cabinet function so it would come to GRAC first then Cabinet. She said that there was an ongoing project management review and this had highlighted that the Council needed to learn to look at risks going forward. Consequently there would be an assessment of risk right at the beginning of a project.

4.    Cllr Penfold asked whether the process was being made more robust or whether these precautions had always been taken. The Monitoring Officer replied that projects came from all over the place and that there had been too open a gateway previously. Rigour and challenge was lacking at the early stages of the process and these changes would help ensure that everyone was clear on the outcomes. A ‘stop go’ process was also being introduced to control projects more effectively.

5.    Cllr Penfold asked whether officers ever felt pressured by members into taking risks that they were uncomfortable with. The Monitoring Officer replied that it was possible that some junior officers may struggle with ‘speaking truth to power’ but added that it was the role of the statutory officers to build in protection. She said that the Council operated a very open culture and that challenge was important and should be valued.

6.    Cllr J Toye questioned whether Members had the knowledge and ability to challenge effectively. He asked whether more training was required. The Monitoring Officer replied that the procedures around risk were reviewed and changed then training would be provided for Members.

7.    Cllr C Cushing asked if there was a portfolio for projects or whether they sat under the remit of a Board. The Monitoring Officer replied that all executive projects were reported to Cabinet to ensure that they had oversight. Working parties of Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny Committee would provide the ‘critical friend’ role and GRAC would oversee risk and governance. Officers would take on the operational monitoring role with Members taking on the strategic overview and goal setting.

8.    Cllr Cushing asked if projects were reviewed regularly. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that SLT reviewed them on a strategic and operational level. She said that where outcomes weren’t being met then there should be an intervention. If the Council was going to fail then it should fail fast.

9.    Cllr E Seward, Portfolio Holder for Finance, said that from a financial point of view it was hard to plan for future revenue and it was important that there was a healthy and robust approach to assets. Strong powers were needed to achieve this and the ‘strong leader’ model enabled it but it was important that the Council operated in a transparent and open way whilst trying to deliver this agenda. He then referred to the North Walsham artificial all weather football pitch project. Issues had now been flagged up about playing late evening and he said that this was an example of failing to pick up on potential problems at an early stage. 

10.  Cllr Dixon said that he welcomed attempts to deal with tensions between those who advise and those who make decisions. He added that if issues were not addressed early then the Council would run into problems at the delivery stage. Optimism bias was the biggest threat as people felt as though they had a stake in a project. Cllr Penfold agreed, saying that it was imperative that expert advice was sought during the early stages of a project.