Agenda and minutes
PDF 61 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Cheryl Hardman Email: cherylh@surreycc.gov.uk
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Denis Fuller and Will Forster. Richard Wilson substituted for Denis Fuller. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 24 MARCH 2014
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: The Minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to one minor correction. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (22 May 2014). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (22 May 2014). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received.
Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER
To review the Committee’s recommendations tracker. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Witnesses: Sue Lewry-Jones, Chief Internal Auditor Sheila Little, Director of Finance
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. In relation to R3/12 (Social Care: Direct Payments), the Chairman informed the committee that a full report on social care debt, along with the findings of an audit of social care debt, is on the agenda for 31 July 2014. 2. In relation to A35/13 (Council Tax collection rates), the Director of Finance assured the committee that the issue was on the agenda at every monthly meeting of the Surrey Treasurer’s Association. The Chairman suggested that the Audit & Governance Committee would continue to monitor the situation. 3. In relation to A6/14 (briefing Cabinet Members), the Chief Internal Auditor informed the committee that she had discussed the issue with the Chief Executive who would raise it with the Leader of the Council. 4. In relation to A33/13 (ethical standards), the Chairman highlighted the reminder which the Monitoring Officer had sent to Members about registering interests. 5. The committee agreed that the information bulletin was useful and kept the Members up-to-date on relevant issues.
Actions/Further information to be provided: The recommendations tracker to be updated to reflect the discussion, as noted above.
RESOLVED: That the recommendations tracker was noted and the committee agreed to remove the completed actions.
Committee Next Steps: None. |
|
|
EXTERNAL AUDIT - AUDIT PLAN SURREY PENSION FUND
Grant Thornton’s Audit Plan outlines its audit strategy and plan to deliver the audit of the Pension Fund's 2013/14 financial statements.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Witnesses: Kathryn Sharp, Audit Manager (Grant Thornton)
Alex Moylan, Senior Accountant Phil Triggs, Strategic Manager – Pension Fund & Treasury
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Audit Manager introduced the report and explained that it was a standard audit plan. The significant risks identified were applicable to all audits.
Richard Wilson joined the meeting at 10.10am.
2.
The Chairman welcomed the fee having fallen from the previous
arrangements. Actions/Further information to be provided: None.
RESOLVED: That the work that Grant Thornton plans to undertake to deliver the audit be NOTED.
Committee Next Steps: To receive the findings of the audit in July 2014.
|
|
|
COMPLETED INTERNAL AUDIT REPORTS
The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the Internal Audit reports that have been completed since the last meeting of this Committee in March 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Witnesses: Rachel Crossley, Democratic Services Lead Manager Sue Lewry-Jones, Chief Internal Auditor Sheila Little, Director of Finance Nicola O’Connor, Finance Manager – Assets & Accounting Grisilda Ponniah, Corporate Information Governance Manager
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Chief Internal Auditor introduced the report and highlighted that Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the Appraisals Internal Audit report. The Cabinet Member for Business Services informed the committee that on 27 May 2014 Cabinet had tabled a response to the recommendations by Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee. While she shared the concerns of the Committee with regard to appraisal completion, she assured Members that completion levels were variable and that some departments were doing well. Some departments require a culture change to ensure that appraisal completion levels increase. The Director of Finance pointed out that the process of recording appraisals had been simplified and suggested that this would lead to increased recording. The Chief Internal Auditor stated that there would be a follow-up audit on appraisals. 2. The Vice-Chairman queried which senior officers had been identified as having outside interests. The Chief Internal Auditor stated that a large number of officers have outside interests but that this was acceptable if they are properly disclosed and there are appropriate procedures in place to ensure that there is no conflict of interests. The audit found that procedures were effective. She also stressed that outside interests as identified from Companies House data may relate to companies set up to manage their own living accommodation (eg in a block of flats) etc. The Vice-Chairman went on to express concern about how and when officers are required to make declarations of interests. He agreed to go through the audit papers to assure himself on procedures and report back to the committee (Recommendations tracker ref: A9/14). 3. The Chairman commended Internal Audit on its report on Data Mining for Fraud. 4. The Democratic Services Lead Manager and the Corporate Information Governance Manager were in attendance to discuss the audit of Information Governance. The Chairman queried what contact the Information Governance team has with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The Corporate Information Governance Manager explained that there had been no decision notice against the Council for breach of information rights for many years. The Council has a positive relationship with the ICO and if a complaint is received by the ICO, they will not process it until the council has had an opportunity to do an internal review. A few perceived breaches have been reported to the ICO but the Office has decided not to take further action on them. 5. In response to a query, the Democratic Services Lead Manager assured the committee that the misuse of group email accounts which include outside bodies had been addressed. Indications were that this had led to a reduction in the number of data breaches occurring. 6. There was some concern amongst Members about the level of security on ... view the full minutes text for item 97/14 |
|
|
INTERNAL AUDIT ANNUAL REPORT 2013/14
This report summarises the work of Internal Audit for the period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014, identifying the main themes arising from the audit reviews and the implications for the County Council. The Chief Internal Auditor reports key findings and recommendations arising from audits undertaken as part of regular reporting to this Committee on completed audits. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Witnesses: Sue Lewry-Jones, Chief Internal Auditor
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Chief Internal Auditor introduced her Annual Report and highlighted that the overall audit opinion for the governance and internal control environment was Some Improvement Needed as a few specific control weaknesses had been noted. 2. The Vice-Chairman stressed the importance of audit for any organisation and stated that Internal Audit does a good job. He suggested that Highways continued to be a weak link and asked how Internal Audit can respond to this. The Chief Internal Auditor reminded the committee that her team had lost two experienced auditors with extensive knowledge of Highways issues during the past year. The impact of this needed to be considered and addressed. She informed the committee that she had met with the Assistant Director for Highways who had been very complimentary of how Internal Audit worked with Highways. The areas identified in the Audit Plan for 2014/15 were areas which the Highways service has identified issues with. 3. A Member queried whether recovery rates following damage to Council property had been audited. The Chairman confirmed that this had been audited in the past and that the recovery rate had also been looked at by Environment & Transport Select Committee. The Chief Internal Auditor suggested that as this had not been looked at in a few years, she could look into whether there is a need for an audit in the near future (Recommendations tracker ref: A12/14). 4. With regard to the Customer Satisfaction Survey, Members queried who the people were who found little or no value in an audit and why. The Chief Internal Auditor explained that, if an audit finds that a service/process is effective, staff may believe the audit was not worthwhile. The questions in the Customer Satisfaction Survey were being reviewed with the aim of also asking auditees if they get assurance from the completion of an audit. 5. The Chief Internal Auditor explained that there is a very large audit universe and that this is risk assessed to produce the annual Audit Plan. 6. The Chairman suggested raising the Direct Payments Follow-up Audit and the ASC Safeguarding Assurance process with the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council when they arrive for item 12: Annual Governance Statement.
Actions/Further information to be provided: The Chief Internal Auditor to consider the need for an audit of recovery rates following damage to Council property.
RESOLVED: To NOTE the work undertaken and performance of Internal Audit in 2013/14.
Committee Next Steps: None.
|
|
The purpose of this report is to inform members of the Audit and Governance Committee about irregularity investigations and anti-fraud measures undertaken by Internal Audit between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014. This report complements and builds upon the half-year irregularity report presented to Audit and Governance Committee on 2 December 2013. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Witnesses: Reem Burton, Lead Auditor
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Lead Auditor introduced the report and stressed the increased focus on proactive fraud prevention. 2. The Lead Auditor informed the committee that Borough and District Councils had taken different approaches to the Single Person Discount exercise. Some were happy to cancel the discount where responses were not forthcoming but others wished to review each individual case. This would be resolved over time. The Chairman informed the committee that he had discussed this exercise with the Leader of the Council and that he was raising it at the Surrey Leaders’ Group. 3. The Lead Auditor confirmed that Internal Audit had a good working relationship with Surrey Police although they may sometimes have different priorities. Some cases would be investigated by Internal Audit but potential fraud with a high material value will be investigated by the police. 4. The Lead Auditor confirmed that alleged corruption can be difficult to prove. However, whistleblowing is a valuable source of information, in particular with regards to planning applications. The Annual Audit Plan includes contract audits, which may include tests to identify irregular supplier practices. 5. The Lead Auditor confirmed that cash thefts are usually small but there are a few examples of fraud cases relating to larger material figures. 6. The Lead Auditor confirmed that the Strategy had only been amended slightly, updating it in relation to new legislation and the renaming of the Change & Efficiency Directorate as Business Services.
Actions/Further information to be provided: None.
RESOLVED: a. To NOTE the report; b. To APPROVE the updated Strategy against Fraud & Corruption.
Committee Next Steps: None.
|
|
|
RISK MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
This annual risk management report enables the committee to meet its responsibilities for monitoring the development and operation of the council’s risk management arrangements. It also presents the latest Leadership Risk Register.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Witnesses: Cath Edwards, Risk and Governance Manager Sheila Little, Director of Finance
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Risk and Governance Manager introduced the report and highlighted the minor changes to the Risk Management Policy Statement and Strategy and updates to the Leadership Risk Register.
Tim Hall left the meeting at 11.40am.
2. The Risk and Governance Manager explained that Procurement did understand the importance of risk management but needed support to start conversations with suppliers. Some suppliers, eg small taxi firms, would need more support to improve risk management arrangements than others. 3. The Risk and Governance Manager informed the committee that there needed to be greater clarity on who would be attending the Council Risk and Resilience Forum meetings and what services they were representing. If a service is Priority 1 for the Forum, they will be encouraged to send their own representative and not to share with other services. 4. A Member queried what was meant by ‘rewarding appropriate risk taking’. The Risk and Governance Manager explained that this was focussed on performance management.
Tim Hall rejoined
the meeting at 11.47am. The Director of Finance explained that the risk culture leadership guidance produced by the Institute of Risk Management uses private sector language throughout. In the private sector, staff are rewarded for risk-taking. In the public sector there is a need to celebrate where risk-taking has made a positive outcome. It needs to be recognised that taking a risk is not always a negative action. 5. With regard to the Leadership Risk Register, Members suggested that the implications of the Care Act were so fundamental that it should be separated out as a risk in itself. The Director of Finance accepted the significance of the Care Act but stressed that everything on the Leadership Risk Register was a major risk. It was important not to have too many individual risks on the register. The Chairman suggested that Risk L15 (Central Government policy development) needed to be developed to have a greater focus on the Care Act (Recommendations tracker re: A13/14). 6. The Risk and Governance Manager informed the committee that flood relief work was ongoing and lessons on risk management were being learnt.
Actions/Further information to be provided: Risk L15 (Central Government policy development) to be developed to have a greater focus on the Care Act.
RESOLVED: a. That the committee is satisfied with the risk management arrangements; b. To APPROVE the Risk Management Policy Statement and Strategy for inclusion in the Constitution; and c. To NOTE the Leadership Risk Register.
Committee Next Steps: None.
|
|
|
CODE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with an update on the changes made to the Code of Corporate Governance.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Witnesses: Cath Edwards, Risk and Governance Manager
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Risk and Governance Manager introduced the report and highlighted the minor changes.
Actions/Further information to be provided: None.
RESOLVED: To APPROVE the updated Code of Corporate Governance and recommend it to the County Council for inclusion into the Constitution.
Committee Next Steps: None.
|
|
This briefing asks the committee to note the publication of CIPFA’s revised and updated 2013 edition of Audit Committees: Practical Guidance for Local Authorities and Police and recommends that the committee undertakes a self-assessment of its effectiveness and a training needs analysis.
Additional documents: Minutes: As witnesses for Item 12 had not yet arrived, it was agreed to consider Item 14 next.
Declarations of Interest: None.
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Chairman introduced the report and suggested that the task group undertaking the committee self-assessment should consist of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and one other member of the committee. Tim Hall volunteered to participate and this was agreed.
Actions/Further information to be provided: None.
RESOLVED: a. To NOTE the publication of CIPFA’s revised and updated 2013 edition of Audit Committees: Practical Guidance for Local Authorities and Police. b. To undertake a self-assessment and review of the committee’s training needs.
Committee Next Steps: To complete the Knowledge and Skills Survey and return it to the Regulatory Committee Manager.
|
|
|
2013/14 ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
This report presents the Annual Governance Statement, which provides an assessment of the council’s governance arrangements for the financial year ending 31 March 2014.
The annual review of governance and publication of an Annual Governance Statement is a statutory requirement of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2011. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Witnesses: David Hodge, Leader of the Council Sue Lewry-Jones, Chief Internal Auditor David McNulty, Chief Executive
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Chairman asked whether it would be possible to include an update on the comments made about the internal control environment in the previous year’s Annual Governance Statement. The Chief Internal Auditor suggested that this was not necessary as either there were no more concerns in a particular area or they had been addressed in the Internal Audit Annual Report. 2. The Chief Executive responded to the comment that the Council does not have a central programme office any longer as there had been a need to make savings in the back office. The previous central programme office had done interesting work but had been an additional layer of bureaucracy. Departments had worked hard to ensure that a common methodology is applied to programmes and that the right skills and tools are available. He stated that he wasn’t convinced that there was sufficient merit in having a central programme office to offset the cost involved. The Chairman agreed that sometimes central programme offices can take over the running of projects and reduce responsibility within the service. 3. The Vice-Chairman queried if the leadership felt that Select Committees were challenging enough. The Leader of the Council informed the committee of work with South East employers on improving the effectiveness of Select Committees. Over the past few months the standard of chairmanship of Select Committees had improved. Member coaching was also available to support committees to be challenging in a positive manner. He pointed out that as Leader of the Council he had no control over the overview and scrutiny process but that he did want to see strong Select Committees. The Chief Executive stressed that Select Committees were well-informed and had intellectual integrity. The Cabinet does take feedback from Select Committees seriously and feels sufficiently challenged. The Vice-Chairman suggested that some Select Committees do have issues, for example not taking audit findings seriously. The Chief Executive assured the committee that he is aware of the issues as perceived by Audit & Governance Committee and that the Chairman of the Committee raises issues with him, which is very helpful. 4. It was suggested that the Statement be more explicit about the work ongoing as part of the flood recovery exercise. The Chief Executive stated that he did not want it to appear that the Council was being self-congratulatory when residents were continuing to suffer from the implications of the flooding. He also felt that a more explicit statement was not necessary in the Annual Governance Statement but suggested that there would be a stronger reference to the flooding in the Council’s Annual Report. 5. Concerns were raised about the schools place programme not running effectively. Two Planning and Regulatory Committee meetings in a row had not considered school expansion planning applications when it was known that there are a number in the pipeline. The Chief ... view the full minutes text for item 103/14 |
|
|
PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE
The purpose of this report is to update the committee on progress with the joint Surrey CC and Hampshire CC implementation of the Manhattan Atrium Property Asset Management System (PAMS).
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Witnesses: Nigel Jones, Performance Manager, Property Services
Key Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Performance Manager introduced the report and informed the committee that over time more services would get access to the Property portal. He stressed that the System was very user-friendly. He went on to inform the committee that a review of the benefits was scheduled but that each area would be given 6-12 months from go-live before being reviewed. The Chairman suggested that the review should consider whether staff still felt it necessary to maintain separate spreadsheets outside of the main PAM system. He requested that the committee be made aware of the results of the reviews through the committee’s information bulletin (Recommendation tracker ref: A17/14). 2. The Performance Manager informed the committee that it had been estimated that the new system would achieve savings of £100,000 per annum across all areas. Some of the savings would come from staff time saving and some from contract efficiency. The return against investment would be far exceeded over five years. 3. The Performance Manager confirmed that there would need to be a culture shift to get the most benefit out of the new system. However, if people see what the new system can provide, he believed that they would use it. 4. The Performance Manager confirmed that Borough and District Councils could buy into the Framework Contract.
Actions/Further information to be provided: The committee to be made aware of the results of any evaluation of the delivery of expected benefits through the information bulletin.
RESOLVED: That the committee now recognises this project and the further development of the PAM System as part of Property Service’s business as usual delivery, therefore this will be the final report to come to this committee.
Committee Next Steps: None.
|