Agenda item

P Lazenby explained that three audits had taken place to date, with Housing and Repairs and Maintenance, and ICT Document Management System both provided with reasonable assurance, and Commercial Rents, which was provided with substantial assurance, and that he had no overriding level of concern in any of those areas. He highlighted the priority two recommendation for Housing which had been disagreed by management, where the risks on the register had been identified as a little light, pointing out the new council directorate for Housing and Properties Services and the emphasis placed on the safety of housing, but acknowledging that the management response regarding the strategic risk was entirely valid. He suggested that it was something to remain aware of. P Lazenby noted that all actions for ICT following their audit had been completed in January 2023, and any annual actions would be re-checked in January 2024 and reported back if not completed. The Commercial Rent audit was taken as read, with P Lazenby praising the council for its handle on commercial rents and effective operation of controls. P Lazenby explained that progress in the annual plan was as expected due to the time of year, and that there would likely be a large number of reports presented at the next committee meeting. In regard to page 16, he highlighted that a small number of recommendations had been made that were ‘sticky’ but that he was hopeful progress would have been made towards completing and evaluating the related actions.

Cllr Guest referred to page 23, the ICT Document Management System, asking whether leaver accounts were disabled the day after leaving the council. N Howcutt noted that in the absence of a representative from the service, the question would need to be taken away for an answer, which would then be emailed to all committee members. Cllr Guest further asked whether cyber-attacks were on the risk register, and what mitigations there were. N Howcutt explained that cyber-attacks were a strategic risk that had been reported to the group in the previous month, with the next quarterly report expected in November. P Lazenby added that it was an audit that had been carried out in the past, and that he would expect to carry out again in the future.

Cllr Birnie referred to page 19, item 6, and wondered if the building safety audit included all housing stock. It was confirmed that it did.

Cllr Birnie referred to page 22, and asked whether the audit only looked at the council plan for maintenance, or also its implementation and outcomes. P Lazenby confirmed that implementation was looked at within the timeframe as contracted, including the regularity of reporting, timeliness of reviews, and escalation. It was noted that safety concerns formed part of the reason for the audit, so had been in consideration at all stages.

Cllr Birnie referred to page 34, in relation to Hemel Place, and the phrase 'action taken to date and any extant risk exposure', noting that the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) was under consideration by all parties in Hemel Garden Communities. P Lazenby clarified that the risk had been identified, leading to the recommendation, with no satisfactory assurance yet received from management regarding the resolution of the underlying risk or completion of the action, and confirmed that it would be brought to committee until resolved.

Cllr Reynolds referred to page 36 and the e-records, wondering whether the log of destruction had been set up and it was just the review that was outstanding. P Lazenby clarified that management had indicated the action was completed, but the efficacy needed to be reviewed before the recommendation was removed, which was scheduled for November, and that the issue would be raised at the subsequent committee meeting if the resolution was not found to be suitable.

Cllr Birnie questioned when the internal audit might be expected to be complete. P Lazenby explained that in a good year, the majority of audits would be expected to be complete in February in order to form the Head of Internal Audit opinion, which wasn't always possible, but that 90% to 95% of audits, including all risky areas, would be complete by then, with any significant movement updated to the audit committee in March. P Lazenby agreed that the audit plans degree of completion was something the committee should be keeping an eye on and challenging him on. Cllr Birnie wondered how the timeline fitted with the Officers' timetable. N Howcutt stated that the internal audit programme was generally approved by the committee in February or March, after recommendations from TIAA and officers in terms of workload, and it was usually possible to complete the whole programme as set out. P Lazenby added that issuing limited or no assurance reviews prior to year-end gave a chance for rectification actions before year end, although he emphasised that these were rare for Dacorum.

The Chair referred to page 22, recommendation 2, and wondered what risks had been identified in relation to housing repairs and maintenance. F Jump noted that there was no representative present, but the question could be taken back to them and the answer circulated to committee members, adding that TIAA had provided an indication of the kind of risks involved as part of a response to pre-meeting questions. The Chair stated that he would like to see the risk register and to know there was a governance wrap around ensuring mitigation measures were put in place and were effective. P Lazenby identified that there could also be an impact in relation to areas like mould. F Jump confirmed that capturing the risks in question was a requirement of the service's planning process, and that a list of these could be circulated. A Livingstone highlighted that there had been a statement put on the council's FOI (freedom of information) common questions regarding RAAC(reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete), with the commercial estate clear, and three identified within the housing estate where mitigation measures had been taken.

The Chair referred to page 30 regarding the identification of asset owners, with A Livingstone confirming that the statement needed clarification, and that all assets were on the mapping register with types identified, although there were not separate registers for each. She added that a strategic asset review was being commissioned and had been out to tender, with the order currently being placed. P Lazenby noted that the reference was primarily to highlight the age of the document. N Howcutt emphasised that the asset review was also in relation to maximising their use and looking for opportunities or areas needing investment. Cllr Birnie wondered how accessible the review would be to all parties. N Howcutt explained that there were a number of work streams involved that would complete at different times, leading to proposals as part of an overall asset strategy that would go through the usual council mechanics, starting with scrutiny and cabinet. A Livingstone clarified that some commercial assets would be confidential, so commercially sensitive aspects would be within the confines of the council.

The Chair referred to page 31, and queried why the health and safety audit for site works commenced had been postponed based on the work plan. P Lazenby explained that there had been some safety work going on at the time that was considered to be a priority stream as a predicated requirement for some other work streams, and the delay had been relatively low impact overall. It was confirmed that the delay would not affect the ability to complete.

The Chair noted that most actions were listed as having a due date of 31st December, and asked why this was the case. P Lazenby acknowledged the concern, but noted that there were a lot of recommendations that were actioned and completed which were not visible, with the focus on things that were going wrong to keep documents concise and relevant. N Howcutt explained it can be a long winded process, and that three of the five outstanding recommendations were related to Hemel Garden Communities, and this was due to the timescales of partnership working. C Silva Donayre added that the strategic leadership team also received periodic reports to oversee and ask the questions if needed.

Cllr Birnie asked what the nature of the delay in signing the MOU was. N Howcutt confirmed that it was predominantly understanding the future to ensure the MOU would still be relevant in five or ten years' time for all parties involved. P Lazenby added that the important part was the committee being aware of the situation in order to consider risks and exposure as a result. N Howcutt noted that currently the risk was limited, and worthwhile if the outcome was then sufficient to manage an increased level of risk in the future.

The Chair said he would like to see a consolidated list of actions from the current financial year just to ensure there wasn't a trend of dates being pushed back. P Lazenby agreed that this could be provided, although it was noted that the audits and recommendations being discussed would not be included in that list.

Actions

o   ICT service to confirm email whether leaver accounts are disabled the day after leaving the council.

o   T Angel to forward a copy of the report from the previous committee meeting regarding cyber-attacks to Cllr Guest.

o   F Jump/Housing service to circulate a copy of risks identified in relation to housing repairs and maintenance.

o   P Lazenby to provide committee members with a consolidated list of actions completed and outstanding from audits in the current financial year.