Agenda item

The Chair, or their nominee, to answer any questions raised by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 40.

At the time of publication of this agenda 3 questions were received.

In accordance with Standing Order 40, three questions were received from a member of the public.

Question one from Kath Sanders, as follows:

“As at time of writing (15th September), the draft statement of accounts for 2024/25 has not been published. It was due to be published on 30th June, and at the last Audit Committee meeting in July, the Council said that there was a delay and it would be published by the end of August. If it is not published for this Audit Committee meeting, what is the hold up please, and when will it be published?”

The Chair responded as follows:

“The draft Statement of Accounts for 2024/25 were published on 16^th September and are available on the Council’s website. The external audit of those accounts started last week and is likely to take until shortly before Christmas.  As previously advised to the Committee, working in collaboration with Commissioners, it was decided that in order to ensure that the issues raised in the 2023-24 Audit Findings were addressed that it was important to do a very thorough drafting process of the statement of accounts building in additional external reviews of drafts by technical accounting experts. Therefore it was agreed that it worth spending a bit longer on drafting this year’s accounts.”

Question two from Kath Sanders, as follows:

Context: In the previous Corporate Risk Register report to this committee (dated June 2025), 14 risk areas were identified over 9 risk categories with an average "combined score" in June of just over 10 (out of a possible 16). Only one risk area had the RAG status of GREEN, and that was the Local Plan. The average combined "Future risk scores" showed the average combined score predicted to drop to just over 8, with none actually forecast to increase. This looked optimistic.

However, it is not clear from the detail which risk areas the officers consider to be the most significant to the Council as there were a number of risk areas with combined scores of 12 or 16 in June (and a RAG status of RED). However, the "commercial portfolio" and "reducing debt" risk areas had combined scores of only 9 in each case in June and were therefore seemingly not considered high risk (having a RAG status only of AMBER). 

Question: “Does the Chair believe that the corporate risk to the Council is really reducing across the board (as the "Future risk scores" from the last report would indicate) or is the "Future risk score" more of an aspirational target?”

The Chair responded as follows:

“Under the Council’s current Corporate Risk Register we assess and score risks in relation to their likelihood and impact, with their current controls and mitigations in place.  The future risk scores outlined in the Register are based on the risk owners’ assessments of any change in the likelihood and impact scores with the implementation of planned controls and mitigations outlined in the Register.  In most instances, the Council would expect such control and mitigation measures to reduce the risk scores.  However, in some instances, even with those measures fully implemented, they may not have a significant impact on scores due to a range of externalities and residual risks which the Council has limited or no control over.

As part of the Council’s actions to address the recommendations from the Best Value Inspection and 2023-24 External Audit, the Council and Audit Committee are in the process of implementing a new governance assurance approach to risk management.  This approach will have less focus on risk scores, which are inherently subjective, and have a greater focus on the effectiveness of our governance and control arrangements such that we can ensure we deliver our objectives and corporate and service responsibilities in a more positive way, and that stakeholders receive sufficient assurance that appropriate arrangements are in place. 

As part of this work, we will be reviewing and updating our Risk Management Framework and Policy and with this, any supporting documentation.  This will include how we will capture and manage our key areas of assurance (risks), the assessment process, roles and responsibilities, how and where we will report and the training resources required.  The Corporate Risk Register will similarly be reframed to take account of this new approach and is likely to be used for any updates to the Audit Committee from November this year.”

Question three from Kath Sanders:

Context: In addition, the covering report to the Audit Committee in July did not provide any commentary on the new risk category 9 amongst its "key headlines" detailed in para 2.5 - that being the response to external audit/best value inspection recommendations which carried a combined score of 12 - nor any text under "current mitigating actions" in the detailed report. Furthermore, the "Future risk score" in the detailed report for Risk Category 9 "Response to External Audit/Best Value Inspection Recommendations" was only perceived to be 6 in June.

Question: “Does the Chair agree that the "Changes in risk scores and other key updates" in the covering report for September's update properly highlight the main areas of concern?”

The Chair responded as follows:

“The Corporate Risk Register is designed to highlight the main areas of concern for the Council.  The detail in relation to each of the risk areas is provided in the Register, with the covering report designed to provide a summary of some of the key changes and issues outlined in the Register.

A new category relating to the Council’s Response to External Audit/Best Value Inspection Recommendations was added to the Corporate Risk Register in May 2025. 

The covering report for the July Corporate Risk Register update made it clear at the beginning of the report (in section 1.4) that the June 2025 Risk Register had been updated to reflect:

(a) The Council’s ongoing response to External Audit Reports and Best Value Inspection including the development of a detailed Consolidated Action Plan to address the recommendations from these reports and other external reviews, and (b) The subsequent intervention by Government appointed Commissioners following the Best Value Inspection of the Council.

The Register itself referenced that the Commissioners had been appointed, and that the Council was at that time working with them to develop an Improvement and Recovery Plan to address the issues raised in the Best Value Inspection report.  A number of control actions were specified in the Register relating to that risk category, but it was not possible to provide any further detail (for example in relation to any mitigation actions) until we had clarity on how the planned Improvement and Recovery Plan would affect the Consolidated Action Plan that had previously been reported to the Committee.  Once the Commissioners were in place, they advised that the Improvement and Recovery Plan should supersede the existing Consolidated Action Plan and that the Improvement and Recovery Plan would be designed to pick up all the key External Audit recommendations.  The governance arrangements associated with the Improvement and Recovery Plan will ensure that the issues identified in the Best Value Inspection report and External Audit Reports are appropriately addressed.  These arrangements will include appointment of a Programme Management Officer, the regular review and oversight of the progress of the Plan by the Improvement and Recovery Board (chaired by the lead Commissioner), and regular progress reports to be submitted to Corporate Policy and Resources Committee, the Audit Committee and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Due to the volume of reports scheduled for this evening’s Committee, the next update to the Corporate Risk Register will now be provided at the additional scheduled Audit Committee meeting for 21 October 2025, and as Chair I will continue to ensure that the covering report for that update properly highlights the main areas of concern.”