Agenda item

5.1      The Head of Assurance presented the report.

5.2      Following discussion, the following key points were discussed:

·           There were two very high risks under housing directorate. Members were advised that the quality of the housing stock was one of the Council’s key strategic objectives so risks that would bring about the failure to meet that objective, were prominent in the risk register. It was an important issue. The Acting Executive Director for Corporate Resources explained that he had been challenged on two risks for which he was responsible; the risks for widescale financial control failure and the ability to set a balanced budget. He explained how the judgement had been made according to the scale of the issue, the horizon for it and the time available for mitigation.

·           There was discussion about producing the risk register. One of the key milestones in producing the register was presenting it back to the Executive Management Team and whether officers agreed that these were the top 20 risks of concern or whether other risks should have been included. There had been general consent from the Team and Mayor and Cabinet that this register was appropriate for Lewisham. The challenge was to keep the register current as the organisation and the environment changed.

·           In response to a question about target risk matrix, members were advised that the target should be achievable. At present, there was not a consistent time for that target; officers could look to adding this in the future. It would be useful to know what horizon they were working on in terms of the target. The specific targets were discussed with the risk owners.

·           The Acting Executive Director of Corporate Resources advised members that he had recently attended a meeting to discuss resilience for wide risks including flooding or large fires. The risk register was an internal operational register and since covid and the cost-of-living crisis, officers had inherited more support mechanisms for residents than were in core duties. He was concerned about how quickly they could revert back to core duties and hoped that this could be achieved within a 1year to 18 months.

·           In response to a question about setting a target risk, the Head of Assurance advised that this was a judgement about uncertain events. This was why there was a prompt to ensure that the register was regularly circulated to several different internal management teams, seen by a number of different officers and could be changed if necessary to ensure that it remained a register that was current. The register would also be submitted regularly to this Committee.

·           Councillor Sorba referred to the ‘high risk’ section in the report. He wished to place on record that he was appalled at the scale of underperformance of Lewisham’s housing stock and the number of residents that had been affected. The Governance failure and poor management was identified as the responsibility of a previous institution, Lewisham Homes.  He asked whether arms length organisations were more likely to be able to operate with poor management. He asked whether it would be appropriate to invite the Executive Director for Housing to this Committee or whether it would be more appropriate for Housing Select Committee to scrutinise this issue. The Acting Executive Director for Corporate Resources advised that there was more control if the service was within the authority or externally the would be a contract or a management agreement. However, the risks were different. He recommended that if the governance failure of Lewisham Homes was discussed at Committee, both Housing Select Committee and this Committee should be invited to the meeting.

·           The Chair recommended that a more in-depth report on housing stock be submitted to the next meeting of this Committee. They were the two highest risks in the register and were of concern to all members of the Committee. It was agreed that all the mitigation actions should be documented before any ‘deep dives’ so that it could be considered from a risk perspective rather than more generally and possibly duplicating the work of the Housing Scrutiny Committee.

·                          In response to a question about the agility of the system, the Head of Risk confirmed that it was extremely agile. Information on risk had been documented on a spread sheet but they were not risk software management tools. He could now attend meetings in directorates with software open and record changes producing live data. Every director has access to the system and could make changes as required. They could also see risks in other directorates. One of the development areas was using tags to categorise risks. This was being built to develop cross directorate analysis. It was an important tool because risk in one directorate could affect risk in another.

·                          It was suggested that the directorate risk register could be used to drive scrutiny committee agendas. The Head of Assurance considered this to be a good idea and could work towards this when scrutiny committees planned their work programmes.

·                          In response to a question about how robust the evaluation of risk was, the Head of Assurance said that it was the risk owner’s responsibility to place a risk. It was a judgment that was open to challenge and does receive challenge.

·                         There was discussion about single risk statement. The Head of Assurance did not believe that it would be meaningful in a large organisation.  A member of the Committee worked for an organisation with a single risk statement. He referred to risk owners in Lewisham who set their own risk appetite and asked whether this was a formalised accountability or whether it was accepted as the status quo. The Head of Assurance advised that the risk register had been a formalised document process that did not benefit from officer discussions around it. The framework was still new and as officers became more familiar with the risks moving around the matrix, there could be more of a consensus view about what target risk was acceptable and what level of risk should be examined and reviewed further. He considered that consensus should emerge naturally from discussions, rather than imposing and abstract view onto live circumstances for a sustainable and effective outcome.

·                           One of the outcomes of the work undertaken by the Head of Assurance, was that there was a much stronger understanding and conception of risk across the Council. It was agreed that scrutiny committees should consider the corporate risk register. If there were any significant risks in a directorate, that should also be reported to the appropriate scrutiny committee.

·                           The Head of Assurance agreed to include some marking in the register, that demonstrated the distance between current and target risk.

5.3      In conclusion the Chair said:

• The corporate risk register was not an appropriate document to be published on a regular basis. It was more important that when risk changed within the directorates, there was a mechanism to ensure that it was brought to the attention of appropriate scrutiny committee and that they were aware of the risk as a possible work programme.
• It was good to see changes and clarity regarding risks that were on the register and those that were not. She thanked officers for their hard work and looked forward to a further report at the next meeting.
• The Chair asked whether a more in-depth report on housing stock would be ready for the next meeting of this Committee. The Head of Assurance agreed to work towards this deadline, speak to the risk owner and keep in contact with the Chair regarding the viability of this deadline. It was agreed that the decision as to whether this in-depth report was ready for the next meeting be delegated to the Chair and the Head of Assurance.
•  The Chair referred to the Health and Safety risk that was just below the housing risk. She said that there should be a conversation with the Health and Safety Committee to ensure that this was being considered in the appropriate way by this Committee or the Health and Safety Committee
• The Chair recommended that the second deep dive should be workforce attraction and retention.          

RESOLVED that the report be noted.