Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies from Members of the Panel.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dave Sullivan. 

The Chair to announce any items of urgent business circulated separately from the main agenda.

There were no items of urgent business.

Members to declare any personal and financial interests in items on the agenda. Attention is drawn to the Council’s Constitution; the Council’s Code of Conduct and associated advice.

Resolved -

That the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies is noted.

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meetings held on 6 July 2023, and of 17 and 24 July 2024.

No motion or discussion may take place upon the Minutes except as to their accuracy, and any question on this point will be determined by a majority of the Members of the body attending who were present when the matter in question was decided. Once confirmed, with or without amendment, the person presiding will sign the Minutes

Resolved –

That the Minutes of the meetings of the Audit and Risk Management Panel held on 6 July 2023, 17 July 2024 and 24 July 2024 be agreed and signed as true and accurate records.

To receive the draft Annual Governance Statement

The report was presented by the Head of Financial Governance, Insurance and Risk.

In response to questions from the Panel the Head of Financial Governance, Insurance and Risk replied that with regard to the content of the Statement’s “Scope of Responsibility” the CIPFA/SOLACE guidance set out a template of what was required; the content was succinct because further information as to the purpose of the Council could be obtained from the Council’s website. It was explained that the Annual Governance Statement formed part of the Statement of Accounts in terms of its future process.

Clarification to be provided as to the rationale as to why No Recourse to Public Fund (NRPF) was listed in the “Areas for Improvement” under “Significant Governance Issues”.

Action: DoF

Resolved –

That the draft Annual Governance Statement be received, and that the Audit and Risk Management Panel commented as follows:

·        On the RBG Governance Framework table (Appendix B) under “Chief Officer(s) Comments” could there be individual comments for each “Principles of Good Governance” rather than use “As above” after the first one.

·        Could the Annual Governance Statement’s “Scope of Responsibility” indicate that the Council’s purpose included the promotion of the economic, environmental, and social well-being of its citizens and include a link to the Our Greenwich missions.

To consider the Royal Borough’s Strategic Risk Register

The report was presented by the Head of Financial Governance, Insurance and Risk.

In response to questions from the Panel the Head of Financial Governance, Insurance and Risk replied that the most significant risk for nearly all councils was finance; a new risk for councils was the new procurement law. She drew Members’ attention to Appendix B and the upward trend for “Demand for School Places”. The Head of Financial Governance, Insurance and Risk clarified that Danny Wong was not reviewing the system he provided to the Royal Borough of Greenwich but whether processes aligned with risk management guidance and how risk was captured and presented; Danny Wong had acknowledged there was a potential conflict of interest, and Officers acknowledged the review was not fully independent.

The Head of Financial Governance, Insurance and Risk explained that ownership of any particular risk was determined in accordance with the Constitution and the delegation of responsibilities; a director holding a responsibility would interact with other directors and also the Risk Register was scrutinized and agreed by GMT, and to that extent there was crosscutting.

Members expressed concern that there appeared to be a risk of silo working with regard to ownership of risk responsibility.  It was felt information needed to be provided in the report on the delegation structure and how the process of risk responsibility was decided.

The Head of Financial Governance, Insurance and Risk explained that the layout of the information in the appendices was from the bespoke reports which the risk management systems produced. Spreadsheets were no longer used anymore because they were resource intensive and it was generally not possible to fit everything onto one easily viewable  page. Other authorities were doing the same because auditors picked up on copy and pasting errors that could occur from manually entered spreadsheets.

Members noted the explanation about spreadsheets but felt consideration should be given to providing information which was now in different appendices into a single layout format.

The Director of Finance advised that with regard to Risk “CORPGMT 09 - Demand for School Places” the ‘Actions’ column showed a whole system approach was being taken with regard to the two things which were occurring, the general “falling rolls” and the specific “demand for SEND provision”.

The Director of Finance advised that insufficient Government funding was the highest risk, it was atop a cascade of risks; for example, the framework for levying council tax came underneath that overarching risk.

Resolved –

1.  That the Royal Borough’s Strategic Risk Register agreed by the Greenwich Management Team be noted, and that the Audit and Risk Management Panel commented as follows:

·        There should be a focus on responsibility, the ownership of risks should be more holistic rather than just one Director

2.  That the Royal Borough’s Strategic Risk Register will be presented to Cabinet be noted.

To note performance in relation to the delivery of the Royal Borough’s Internal Audit Plan and the prevention, detection and investigation of fraud, for the period April 2024 to June 2024

The report was presented by the Internal Audit and Anti-Fraud Manager.

In response to a question from the Panel, the Internal Audit and Anti-Fraud Manager confirmed that the previous staff vacancies had now been filled, but at the beginning of September a new vacancy had arisen.

Officers to see if there was comparative benchmarking data across London for housing benefit fraud and subletting.

Action: DoF

Resolved –

That the Internal Audit and Anti-Fraud performance in relation to the delivery of the Royal Borough’s Internal Audit Plan and the prevention, detection and investigation of fraud, for the period April 2024 to June 2024, be noted.

To note the completion of the annual review of the Internal Audit Charter

The report was presented by the Internal Audit and Anti-Fraud Manager.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Internal Audit and Anti-Fraud Manager confirmed that the Charter would be updated to reflect the introduction of a recommendations tracker once the tracker process was finalised.

Resolved –

That the annual review of the Internal Audit Charter has been completed as part of the Royal Borough’s commitment to adhere to the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards be noted.