The Deputy Head of Audit introduced the report which outlined the Council’s risk management arrangements.

The Deputy Head of Audit drew attention to pages 11-12 of the report which summarised the Council’s risk management process and the risk management framework in more detail. Page 13 outlined the work that had been completed over the past year. Page 14 showed a diagram of the risk profile reported to the Audit Committee in March 2021 and how it had changed during the course of the year. She said that, Appendix Id showed the changes that would be made to the risk framework during 2022.

The Deputy Head of Audit advised Members that the only outstanding element of the risk management framework was the reporting of risk information in the new committee structure. Once the new committee structure had been finalised the final version of risk management framework would be brought to the committee for their agreement.

The Deputy Head of Audit said that the overall risk profile was shown on the diagram at the bottom of page 14. She explained that there had been a decrease in the total number of risks from 150 to 147. For Corporate risks there had been progress made in implementing controls which had resulted in decreased risk rating for C, I and M and increased risk rating for G, and risk P had been added. Mitigated Corporate risks B, C, D were areas routinely monitored by Strategic Management Team (SMT). All operational risks would be reviewed as part of introduction of the new risk software (JCAD).

The Deputy Head of Audi asked Members to consider and note the Annual Risk Management Report (2021-22).

Members were invited to make comments and the following points were raised:

·         Page 21, was there an assessment on the impact of the cancellation of homelessness connect policy?;

·         The Council did not have an empty homes officer, so why were applications for empty homes still being advised?;

·         could the Council work with Optivo and other home agencies to ensure people were being placed in accommodation that was a suitable size and affordable for them;

·         paragraph 2.3, what was meant by a positive risk culture?;

·         page 13 talked about admin work being restrictive and, worried that if officers spent too much time doing admin work, looking into risks, this would generate a new risk of officers being unable to complete their work;

·         page 14, listed 150 risks and would like to have this looked at and reviewed to reduce them;

·         some risks on the register were not necessary;

·         the Council did not have enough staff to complete the current work plan;

·         needed to prioritise risks that make a difference in the borough, such as fly-tipping;

·         the report showed little detail on how services agreed risks;

·         was glad to see the outcome of housing and homelessness on page 15 as that had cost the taxpayer a lot of money; and

·         who decided what risks were placed on the register?

The Deputy Head of Audit responded to Members’ points and explained that a positive risk culture was the Council engaging with and understanding what steps could be taken to prevent the risks from happening. She went on to explain that her team were inputting information onto a spreadsheet and this was very admin intensive work and she hoped that the new software would reduce the amount of administrative work. In response to the number of risks and how the risks were placed on the register, the Deputy Head of Audit said that departmental officers determined which risks needed to go on the register and that the risk register included risks for shared services as well. She added that her team sat with officers and discussed the risks and work on ways to control that risk, as well as achieving their own objectives. She explained that once the new software had been installed her team would undergo a review of the risk register and she expected some risks to come off the register as well as some new risks be added.

The Director of Resources responded to the allocation of homes and said that it was down to the individual service areas to review the delivery of homes and how they were allocated to tenants, this would be something that could be investigated with officers. In terms of the empty homes officer post, the Director of Resources explained that they had hoped to have employed someone by now but as they were struggling she would look at getting the empty homes reporting page taken down temporarily.

Councillor Derek Carnell proposed the recommendation set-out in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.

Resolved:

(1)          That the risk management framework be noted.