Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Hugh Morris.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2017.

RESOLVED, that – the minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2017 be approved.

Report of the Town Clerk.

Members noted the Committee’s outstanding actions list.

Report of the Town Clerk.

Members received the Committee’s Work Programme and noted that meetings for Members to meet with the External Auditors (with no officers present) and the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management (also with no officers present) had been scheduled for 6 March and 29th May.

Report of the Remembrancer.

This report provides an overview of the political debate and supplementary details on the Bill, further to the report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor at your last meeting.

Members considered a report of the Remembrancer in respect of the Data Protection Bill 2017.  Members noted that this report provided an overview of the political debate and supplementary details on the Bill, further to the report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor, which Members received at their last meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee and which dealt with the City’s approach to implementing forthcoming data protection rules.  The regulations would be in force by May 2018. 

Members noted that, for their constituency work, each Common Councilman would be the ‘data controller’ and further noted the Comptroller was running a Development Session on 30 January which would cover the mechanics of the City’s compliance with the new rules. All members have been invited and, so far, 20 Members had signed up. 

The capacities of the City of London Corporation’s activities would be covered during the training session.  Members noted that Departments were very aware of the City Corporation’s dual roles and where they might overlap, and that the legislation would apply differently to the City Corporation’s public and private business. 

RESOLVED, that – the report be noted.

Report of the Town Clerk.

Members considered a report of the Town Clerk in respect of the position of the Deputy Chairman of the Audit and Risk Management which, for the time being, was restricted (under Standing Order 29 (3)) from standing as Chairman of any other Committee.  Members were reminded that, with only a few exceptions, Chairman could not chair more than one Grand Committee at the same time. 

Members noted that, as the Committee had experienced difficulties in recruiting to a vacancy and, last year, in the appointment of a Chairman, the report suggested that lifting this restriction might raise interest in serving on the Committee and improve succession planning generally.  However, there was a consensus amongst Members for retaining the independence of the roles of both Chairman and Deputy Chairman and the restriction reflected CIPFA good practice.

There was a further discussion about the restrictions on External Members serving as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, as was often the case in other local authorities.  Members were reminded that, as non-Court Members could not speak in the Court of Common Council, this restriction could not be lifted.  Members were also reminded of the provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which stated that External Members of a Committee, who were not Members of the Authority, would have no voting rights. 

Given the valued role of the Committee’s External Members, as evidenced by the Court’s approval to their serving second and third terms, Members felt that their hard work and contribution should be reflected by allowing the Audit and Risk Management Committee to elect a second Deputy Chairman from its External Membership.  Members also thought it timely to extend the Membership of the Committee by 1 Member, to widen the pool of Members who might be

Report of the Town Clerk.

Members considered a report of the Town Clerk in respect of succession planning for External Members, which sought to appoint a Nominations Sub Committee of the Audit and Risk Management Committee. 

RESOLVED, that

1.         A Nominations Sub Committee, of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, be established and the number and composition of its membership be agreed.

2.         The Draft Terms of Reference at Appendix 1 be considered and approved.

3.         Members of the Sub Committee be appointed at the first meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, following the Annual Court of Common Council in April 2018.

4.         The first meeting of the Sub Committee be convened for June 2018 at which Members will be asked to recommend, to the Grand Committee, the frequency of future meetings. 

Report of the Chamberlain.

The Committee considered a report of the Chamberlain, which provided Members with an update on the corporate and top red departmental risk registers, following review by the Chief Officer Risk Management Group (CORMG) and the Summit Group. 

Members suggested that, for future reports, a new appendix be included identifying new risks, risks which where target dates had been missed (or worsened) or removed from the corporate risk register. However, Members were also mindful of risks staying red for too long and officers agreed to feed this back to CORMG.

Members agreed that the Committee’s role in determining the inclusion of risks on to the corporate risk register was to “endorse” and not to “confirm” the decision of the Summit Group.

In respect of an issue raised during today’s Risk Challenge Session, the Chairman reminded Members that the City Surveyor would be invited back to a further session, focussing on operational buildings and his desk top audit, rather than property investment (which had been the subject of his last session). 

RESOLVED, That:

1.         The addition of CR25 (GDPR Project Risk) be added to the Corporate Risk Register.

2.         The other changes to both the corporate and top red departmental risk registers, as outlined in the report, be noted.

Report of the Director of Economic Development.

The Committee received a report of the Economic Development Director in respect of Corporate Risk CRO2 (Loss of Business Support for the City).

The Director of Economic Development advised that, whilst there would always be some flow of jobs away from the City, his team were focussed on balancing this with inward flow, ensuring losses were minimal and potential new markets were being developed.  Members accepted that there would be a ‘slower burn’ internationally and an immediate focus on European business.

Following an uplift of the Economic Development Team’s resources after Brexit, a special Advisor for Asia had been appointed and the team were now able to focus more on preparing for overseas visits and ensuring that opportunities were followed up.

Members noted the challenges in respect of how the City might look in 20 years’ time and the ways in which we might be doing business by then; i.e. robotics, artificial intelligence and the uncertainty as to which technologies and businesses would be driving the transformation.  Future Immigration Policy was also key in terms of the expectations of future workforces in respect of salaries and career plans.

In response to a question about how Members of the Audit and Risk Management Committee might gain assurance of need v allocation; the Deputy Chamberlain advised that the Resource Allocation Sub and Policy and Resources Committees would shortly be asked to approve £570k for the Brussels Office and £2.7m for promoting the City.  Members noted that future regulations were likely to be at a global, not European level and this would indicate where we need to direct resources to ensure strong relationships with key markets.  The Trump Administration’s Policy on Taxation was also likely to affect the City.

Members commended a very good report and agreed that the red risk rating gave

Report of the Chamberlain.

The Committee received a report of the Chamberlain in respect of Corporate Risk CR23 (Police Funding).   Members noted that the budget had been balanced, through the use of reserves, until 2018/19.  Furthermore, whilst a £17m capital investment had relieved some pressures, a deficit of £4-5m would remain.  The Assistant Commissioner (City of London Police (COLP)) asked Members to note particularly the efficiency strategies set out at paragraphs 9 and 10 in the report, following the Deloitte Review and Transformation Programme. 

The Deputy Chamberlain advised that, working closely with the Commissioner, the budget for 2018/19 had been balanced, through the use of reserves, and this gave time to focus on 2019/20 and beyond.  The Deputy Chamberlain had been to the first meeting of the Transformation Programme and commended the agenda content and the Police’s commitment to the change programme and recognition of new ways of working. 

Members noted how the nature of police work was changing, with more focus on cyber-crime and crime prevention and, whilst the Mayor of London’s decision on Council Tax precepts for the Metropolitan Police did not apply to the City, decisions would be required at some stage on the business rate premium. The Commissioner advised that the COLP was seen as a leader in cyber-crime (which was overtaking conventional crime) and counter terrorism and investment would be required to maintain this status.  In respect of strategic policing, aimed at national threats, the COLP had made a head start in providing an evidence base for directing funds in the future.

In response to a challenge to the speed of progress, the Assistant Commissioner advised that Deloitte’s report had been received at the end of July 2017 and immediate steps had been taken to deliver quick wins and balance this year’s budget.  Members suggested that the balance of

Report of the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management.

The Committee received a report of the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management which provided an update on progress with internal audit recommendations.  Members noted that updates were now sought more frequently, only evidenced recommendations were accepted as implemented and the expectation of implementation by agreed target dates was being reinforced.

RESOLVED, that – the report be noted.

RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

Item                                                                 Paragraph

 RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

Item No                                               Paragraph No

18 – re Item 9 above                           3

At 3.50pm Members agreed to waive standing orders to continue with the business on the agenda until 4.15pm