Decision details

The Committee received an update on progress with implementing the Council’s new governance assurance approach to risk management. It was noted that, following approval of the Governance Assurance Policy and Framework by the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee (CPRC) on 19 January, work to embed the new arrangements was now underway.

Lee O’Neil, Deputy Chief Executive and Rob Winter, External Adviser attended to present the update. They confirmed that the transition of the former Corporate Risk Register into the new format was in progress, with all risks now reconciled to the 12 assurance areas set out in the briefing. Risk Governors had been identified for each area. It was intended that the new register would be implemented in April 2026, with a view to presenting it to Committee by the start of the new financial year.

Training sessions for Members and Officers were scheduled for 9–11 March to support wider understanding of the governance assurance model. Representatives from SIAP and Grant Thornton had also been invited to attend. Positive engagement had been received from officers, with ICT producing PowerBI activity to support implementation.

During the discussion, Councillor Howkins raised concerns regarding the housing demand figures reported to CPRC, noting that earlier information had proved inaccurate. She queried how Members could have confidence in the data provided.

The Deputy Chief Executive acknowledged the concerns raised and explained that the new framework was designed to provide clearer accountability and enable Members to more effectively challenge officers where required. He confirmed that if a service committee required specific information, such as detailed housing need figures, this could be raised with the relevant officers.

The Interim Chief Executive highlighted that the Community Wellbeing and Housing Committee was the appropriate forum for scrutiny of housing matters, including the homelessness strategy. He reported that recent independent assurance work by MHCLG on temporary accommodation included extensive metrics, which would be reported to that Committee. The refreshed governance assurance model would support service committees in fulfilling their roles more effectively.

Rob Winter emphasised that the new arrangements distinguished more clearly between governance assurance (for the Audit Committee) and operational performance (service committees). Service committees would receive performance reports to assess delivery against outcomes, while the Audit Committee would focus on the assurance underpinning those arrangements. He noted that data quality was a common theme in assurance reviews and would form part of the Committee’s focus.

He added that where service reviews identified improvements in governance arrangements, these would be reported to the Audit Committee, while implementation of recommendations and operational performance would be monitored through the relevant service committee.

The Chair encouraged Members to confirm their attendance at the upcoming training sessions, and it was confirmed that the invitation would be followed up and extended to the Committee’s independent members.

The Committee resolved to note the update.