Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 220 KBVenue: Surrey County Council, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8EF
Contact: Amelia Christopher Email: amelia.christopher@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and substitutions. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Stephen Cooksey - Paul Follows substituted, Matthew Woods (remote).
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING - 22 JANUARY 2025
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes were approved as an accurate record of the previous meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter (i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or (ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting NOTES: · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest · As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) · Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial. Additional documents: Minutes: Steven McCormick referred to the section on Member Training at paragraph 6 under item 15: Ethical Standards Annual Review 2024 – 25, noting that he was part of the cross-party Member Development Steering Group.
|
|
|
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 (6 March 2025). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (5 March 2025). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received.
Additional documents: Minutes: a Four Member questions had been submitted, those and the responses were published in a supplementary agenda.
There were four supplementary questions:
SQ1 - Catherine Powell:
Requested that the Cabinet Member provides a suitably redacted list of those incidents that had been reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).
The Chairman noted that a written response would be provided.
SQ2 - Catherine Powell:
Noted that the anecdotal evidence from families seemed to be significantly different to the zero breaches reported in response. The ICO states that all breaches must be recorded regardless of whether those are notified to the ICO or individuals and the document must include detail of the breach and the affect. She requested a suitably redacted copy of all recorded breaches including those not reported to the ICO.
The Chairman noted that a written response would be provided.
SQ3 - Catherine Powell:
Requested that a suitably redacted list of the incidents is provided.
The Chairman noted that a written response would be provided.
SQ4 - Catherine Powell:
Noted that her question specifically asked for a review of record keeping and data protection associated with Education, Health and Care Needs Assessments (EHCNAs) and Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), whereas the response only covered an audit of EHCP communications protocol. Given the issues raised by parents and carers, she requested that the Committee review record keeping and data protection associated with the whole EHCNA and EHCP process including Annual Reviews. The Chairman was happy for the Committee to undertake a review of that.
The Audit Manager noted that he could not comment on the specifics of what the review might look like but he could consider it for the Internal Audit Plan if that was what the Committee wanted; he would follow that up.
Actions/further information to be provided: 1. A5/25 - Written responses would be provided to supplementary questions 1 to 3; the Audit Manager to look at considering a review of record keeping and data protection associated with EHCNA and EHCPs in the Internal Audit Plan.
b There were no public questions.
c There were no petitions.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND WORK PLAN
To review the Committee’s recommendations tracker and work plan. Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised in the discussion: 1. Action A20/24: The Chairman noted that the action would be marked as complete as he confirmed that he had responded to the Chair of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee, noting that he would attend the relevant Task Group regarding SEND/Safety Valve Agreement. 2. Action A30/24: The Chairman noted that the action would be marked as complete as he confirmed that CLT is in attendance at Committee meetings, two audits highlighted as a concern by Committee members that received Partial Assurance opinions in Quarter 1 at September 2024’s Committee were agenda items 10 and 11 with the relevant Executive Directors in attendance. He would write to CLT if there were any further issues arising out of those items. 3. Action A40/24: The Chairman noted that the action would be marked as complete as he confirmed that he had written to the Chief Executive, and the Director - Customer Culture and Transformation, and the Chairs of the select committees, noting the Committee’s dissatisfaction with the complaints performance so far and requested that improvements be expedited in this service area as the Committee would like to revisit this matter within six months and was expecting to see major improvements by then.
RESOLVED: 1. Monitored progress on the implementation of actions/recommendations from previous meetings (Annex A). 2. Noted the work plan and the changes to it (Annex B).
Actions/further information to be provided: None.
|
|
|
REFERRAL OF COUNTY COUNCIL MOTION (ITEM 11A)
The Audit and Governance Committee is asked to consider the original motion as referred by the Council at its meeting on 4 February 2025.
Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised in the discussion: 1. Paul Follows moved the motion noting that: · The purpose of the motion was to suggest options for strengthening the financial position of the Council by seeking external assurance. · Continual improvement was a worthy objective for those who act as custodians of public services and money. · Local Partnerships recently provided the independent financial assessment of the Waverley and Guildford collaboration and provided an analysis of future options for further work for efficiencies, it informed budget forecasting. · SOLACE provided an in-depth review of the finances and governance processes of Guildford Borough Council, providing the basis of its improvement plan driving its financial savings and governance changes. · Both processes involved a light touch interaction with officers through interviews and the provision of documents, with limited interaction with councillors and sessions at the relevant committees to review the report. · Considering the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) work, suggested that SOLACE should focus on the finance side and not governance. · SOLACE’s financial assessments would support the LGR process, there was a varied approach by the Section 151 officers across the county on how they interpret and manage accounts, ensuring a common understanding was vital. · Was concerned about the Council’s reserve position and transformation projects, the free provision would provide assurance and improvement. 2. The motion was formally seconded by Lance Spencer, who reserved the right to speak. 3. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources noted that: · The motion notes the need for continual improvement and external assurance and suggests the need to validate the information used to produce the Council’s budget and the need for a review of finance and governance processes. · However, the Council already operated accordingly with processes scrutinised by the Cabinet, this Committee and the Resources and Performance Select Committee. There was a rigorous independent Internal Audit and External Audit programme. The External Auditors had not identified any significant weaknesses in arrangements as reported in the External Auditor’s Annual Report 2023/24, an unqualified opinion was issued on the Statement of Accounts 2023/24. · Arlingclose advised the Council on its Treasury Management Strategy and in 2022 the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny reviewed the Council’s governance arrangements; the Council’s activities were regularly reviewed by external bodies who would flag concerns. · Last year, Adult Social Care received a Good rating by the Care Quality Commission and Ofsted was currently inspecting Children’s Services, there were various Local Government Association peer reviews. The inclusion of an Independent Member to this Committee provided assurance on the thoroughness of its work. · Risk, Treasury Management, Capital Strategy, and Transformation had been covered in recent Member Development Sessions. · Rejected the motion as the Council’s finance, governance and budget-setting processes were transparent, robust, fit for purpose, and were scrutinised. 4. The Chairman noted that unlike at Guildford Borough Council where serious failings had been identified by the auditors, there were no such failings at the Council. The Committee undertook deep dives into different service areas and had not found serious failings, he rejected the motion. ... view the full minutes text for item 17/25 |
|
|
EXTERNAL AUDIT: AUDITOR'S ANNUAL REPORT 2023/24
To share with the Committee EY’s Auditor’s Annual Report for 2023/24, setting out a summary of the work undertaken in relation to the 2023/24 financial year.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
Nikki O’Connor, Strategic Finance Business Partner (Corporate) Janet Dawson, Partner, EY
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Strategic Finance Business Partner (Corporate) noted that EY had issued an unqualified opinion on the Statement of Accounts 2023/24, which had been signed off and published before the backstop date. The Value for Money (VfM) final position was that no significant weaknesses in arrangements were found. 2. The Partner (EY) explained that EY had assessed going concern with the disclosures in the accounts over the past year, it had looked at the consistency of information. EY had no reason to exercise its auditor powers, EY had received one objection to the Statement of Accounts 2023/24 and that had no impact on the opinion, EY was yet to conclude the work on that. The National Audit Office had yet to confirm what reporting it wants EY to do on the Whole of Government Accounts and therefore work had not commenced on this area. 3. A Committee member asked whether as part of the audit process, EY undertakes an evaluation of the justifications regarding transformation projects and their viability to deliver expected savings. The Partner (EY) explained that EY was required to review the arrangements across the three governance criteria, financial sustainability and VfM; it takes a high-level look across the Council’s arrangements. The Code of Audit Practice does not require EY to review projects of significance unless there was a risk of significant weakness. EY had not looked at the detailed budgeting justification for those projects. 4. The Chairman asked whether the objection to the Statement of Accounts 2023/24 was material. The Partner (EY) explained that it related to arrangements in place across climate change risk assessments within investments. EY was asked to issue a report in the public domain, it undertook work on reviewing the arrangements, it had no impact on the opinion made and conclusions. 5. A Committee member asked whether the matter concerned Surrey Pension Fund investments regarding shareholder best value versus environmental sustainability. The Partner (EY) confirmed that was the case.
RESOLVED:
The Committee noted the report.
Actions/further information to be provided: None.
|
|
|
INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRESS REPORT - QUARTER 3
The purpose of this progress report is to inform Members of the work completed by Internal Audit between 1 October 2024 and 31 December 2024.
The current annual plan for Internal Audit is contained within the Internal Audit Strategy and Annual Plan 2024-25, which was approved by this Committee on 13 March 2024.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
David John, Audit Manager Russell Banks, Chief Internal Auditor Liz Mills, Director of Customer Culture and Transformation Rachel Wigley, Director of Finance
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Audit Manager noted the 21 assignments reported on. There were 3 service audits of lower assurance, actions had been identified with management and follow up audits would be done in due course. Regarding the Youth Offer Cultural Compliance audit, the service had invited Internal Audit to start a follow up. Regarding the Surrey Alliance For Excellence (SAfE) Contract Management Follow-Up, Partial Assurance had been raised to Substantial Assurance. 2. The Audit Manager noted that Minimal Assurance was given to a school audit as a safeguarding risk was identified where a new member of staff began without the completion of their DBS check and before a risk assessment was undertaken; another such audit would be reported in quarter 4. The school responded quickly to put in place improvements. Regarding the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), on delivery Internal Audit was now above the target. He was confident that the 90% KPI target for year-end would be exceeded, he thanked all those involved. 3. A Committee member welcomed that there were many non-financial audits and asked to what extent Internal Audit considered transformation projects and financial risks. The Audit Manager explained that Internal Audit had a comprehensive programme reviewing key financial systems such as payroll, reporting cyclically to the Committee with follow up work undertaken on identified weaknesses in those systems, responding to emerging risks. 4. A Committee member asked whether assessments of forecasting or risk appetite was reviewed for the budget process. He requested a copy of the general risk register that Internal Audit derives its Plan from. The Chief Internal Auditor explained that the Internal Audit Strategy and the Plan was the next agenda item where the process was explained regarding the production of the Plan, drawing heavily on the Corporate Risk Register (item 12) and directorate risk registers, supplementing that with intelligence and Internal Audit’s own view of risk. 5. A Committee member asked how Internal Audit was factoring LGR into the Internal Audit Plan, there were risks such as safeguarding and the disaggregation of services. The Chief Internal Auditor noted that the Strategy and the Plan made provision to support the Council in relation to those activities, Internal Audit was unclear on what activity it would carry out and how it would focus its time. The Plan remained flexible and the time spent on LGR would increase based on the risk level, he was sharing best practice with other heads of Internal Audit. 6. A Committee member asked for the timescale regarding the transition of Local Enterprise Partnerships into the Council’s services, the audit had Reasonable Assurance and she asked what those two outstanding actions were. The Audit Manager explained that it was an ongoing process as part of business as usual, the actions would be to address the weaknesses as noted in the report. |
|
|
INTERNAL AUDIT STRATEGY AND ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN 2025/26
The purpose of this report is to present the Internal Audit Strategy and Annual Internal Audit Plan for 2025/26 to the Committee.
Under-pinning the work of the Internal Audit Service in delivering the Annual Internal Audit Plan are the key principles and objectives as set out in the Internal Audit Strategy and Charter. These are presented alongside the Annual Internal Audit Plan for 2025/26 as good practice dictates that these should be updated and reviewed on an annual basis.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
David John, Audit Manager Russell Banks, Chief Internal Auditor Andy Brown, Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director - Resources
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Chief Internal Auditor explained that the Internal Audit Strategy sets out how Internal Audit goes about delivering its assurance and producing the Annual Internal Audit Plan for 2025/26 drawing from a range of sources of information. The risk profile and environment of the Council was changing rapidly and constantly, a large proportion of time was built into the Plan for contingency and emerging risks; for example concerning LGR. 2. The Chief Internal Auditor noted that the work within the Plan was subject to review and amendment over the year, there were 1,817 audit days per year and an additional 225 days to support the school audit work. A large proportion of the work related to key financial systems activity, Internal Audit would continue to work alongside the Council to support improvement activity regarding MySurrey. The previous Public Sector Internal Audit Standards were to be replaced with a new Global Internal Audit Standards with effect from 1 April, Internal Audit had completed a self-assessment against the new standards and was confident that it conformed. Due to the changes, he noted that he would be required to bring back to the Committee an updated Internal Audit Charter for approval. 3. A Committee member asked whether Internal Audit has a view on how the current control environment would respond to the potential changes from devolution and LGR, was it robust and flexible enough to respond. The Chief Internal Auditor noted that the Council was alert to the potential impact of LGR and planning was underway for the potential implications, having worked with other local authorities on the planning process he noted that Surrey was ahead with the right people involved. He would hold workshops with his counterparts and audit managers from other local authorities to reflect on the risks, and would hold workshops with services to understand the implications. 4. A Committee member asked whether there was an assurance map to document all the various resources and pieces of internal and external assurance. The Chief Internal Auditor explained that assurance mapping in local government was not as advanced as elsewhere, an assurance map should be maintained and updated by management. There was no formal Council-wide assurance map, Internal Audit has its own assurance map based around the Council’s strategic risks, pulling together internal and external sources of assurance. 5. A Committee member asked what the review process was for following up the implementation of management actions in audits that receive a Minimal or Partial Assurance. The Chief Internal Auditor explained that actions rated as high priority and high risk were subject to action tracking by Internal Audit, the action owner is contacted and asked to confirm that it has been implemented. Minimal or Partial Assurance audits automatically trigger a follow up, Internal Audit conduct that in line with the due date and provide a revised ... view the full minutes text for item 20/25 |
|
|
TREE MANAGEMENT UPDATE REPORT
To provide an update to the Committee in relation to progress against the outstanding actions from the Tree Management Internal Audit report completed in February 2023 and the follow up review in April 2024.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
Simon Crowther, Executive Director - Environment, Property and Growth Katie McDonald, Natural Capital Group Manager David John, Audit Manager
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Executive Director - Environment, Property and Growthexplained that Internal Audit reviewed the risks in February 2023, April 2024 and in February 2025 - draft. The issue was that Partial Assurance was sustained for over twelve months, with one medium and two high priority actions outstanding. · The medium priority action concerned updating the policies for the Basingstoke Canal Authority, that was delayed as the governance was being restructured, that action was addressed in October 2024. · Two high priority actions concerned the reporting processes in place for escalating information concerning tree risk management that had been addressed, the other action related to being clear about whether there were any residual risks for the trees on academy school sites. There was a catch-all lease clause which ensures that the tenant - academies - addresses the health and safety risks which included trees. 2. A Committee member referred to Internal Audit report’s conclusion that the functionality of the current system Kaarbontech lacked high-level reporting and a delay incurred while a new reporting system Confirm was implemented, Kaarbontech was concluded to be the optimal system, so why was money spent on a new system. The Natural Capital Group Manager explained that Kaarbontech held all the data on trees, the problem was downloading that data to provide a dashboard, the detailed data held on Kaarbontech would be lost in moving to Confirm. Rather than moving data around and incurring further costs, an Application Programming Interface (API) would be used obtain the data. 3. A Committee member asked whether data was still being updated on Kaarbontech or was it a static repository, with Confirm being used. The Natural Capital Group Manager explained that Kaarbontech was used to report and manage tree assets. Confirm was used to manage Highways assets, Highways also use Kaarbontech for trees. The team looked at whether all the data from Kaarbontech could be moved to Confirm but it was decided to continue with Kaarbontech, all tree inspectors use Kaarbontech. The team was looking to move the two different uses of Kaarbontech together to ensure efficiency. 4. A Committee member sought clarification that the system was in place to make sure that all trees in the public realm including in schools are inspected and those at risk are dealt with. The Natural Capital Group Manager explained that the audit verified that all tree risk was covered across the areas within her team: schools, operational properties that Land and Property look after, countryside sites; Highways managed trees under the same policy - there was coordination. 5. A Committee member asked who the onus was on as health and safety risks from trees was not specifically referred to in most leases. The Executive Director - Environment, Property and Growth explained that when a school academises into enters a Council lease, within that a catch-all clause makes it ... view the full minutes text for item 21/25 |
|
To provide an update on the actions being undertaken regarding the original and follow-up audit reports on Social Value in Procurement.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
Rachel Wigley, Director of Finance Darron Cox, Director of Procurement Anne Epsom, Assistant Director - Policy and Operations
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Director of Finance noted that there was a follow up audit in May 2024, following that she was asked by the former Chief Executive to set up a steering group to improve social value across the Council, there was an action plan in place. The focus was on the social value principles and contract management, Internal Audit would do a further follow up audit in 2025/26. 2. The Director of Procurement explained that the teams advise services on how to embed social value in contracts, and the services themselves are responsible for managing contracts and social value delivery. Key areas were identified: · system data - that flowed through the procurement management systems into the tendering systems and contract management reporting systems to track social value and provide assurance of its delivery. · social value delivery - taking a more interventionalist approach to provide assurance that the social value committed is being delivered over the life of the tender. The initial focus was on the top 75 contracts whereby timing and skills were key factors to manage the social value requirements, that was being extended across the rest of the contracts. · published guidance and governance - the Social Value Steering and Working Groups were driving that forward. The Procurement Act 2023 went live on 24 February 2025 and there was a new National Procurement Policy Statement which included information on social value delivery, the guidance and governance processes were being revised to ensure compliance. 3. The Chairman queried the ongoing nature of social value delivery. The Director of Procurement clarified that the initial focus was on the top 75 contracts, the work to extend that across the contracts was ongoing. 4. Regarding system data, a Committee member noted that it appeared that it was a manual workaround putting contract numbers into MySurrey, why was that the case as that would introduce errors. The Assistant Director - Policy and Operations explained that the data input was from internal management software PM3 - which tracks progress and records social value benefits - into the Proactis system, there was no failure of data transfer or a manual workaround, it was a requirement to manually take the unique identifier number an input into Proactis, there was no API between the two systems. 5. A Committee member requested the list of the top 75 contracts by social value and the social value delivery in terms of what was expected and what was being delivered. The Director of Procurement would share that information. 6. A Committee member asked how it can be ensured that the process of measuring social value is not a box ticking exercise. The Director of Procurement noted that it concerned how the level of social value is determined, reviewing what the supplier offers and the work underway on the Community Marketplace. Once contracts are awarded social value ... view the full minutes text for item 22/25 |
|
To provide an update on risk management.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
David Mody, Head of Strategic Risk Andy Brown, Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director - Resources
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Head of Strategic Risk explained that risks were rejigged to reflect the changes in organisational structure, he had met with new directors to ensure that they had a clear understanding of risk management. He had met with CLT to discuss LGR and it was agreed that it would be the top risk in the Corporate Risk Register due to the changes it would bring. He had started to engage with directorates on what that means for services, working with risk leads. There was an LGR Risk Register and a risk lead, how the governance structures align with LGR was unknown. Risks were discussed at CLT monthly and regularly at informal Cabinet. He continued to share best practice with other councils. 2. The Chairman referred to strategic risk ST0.8 where the Council was unable to meet the increasing demand for child and family services, that risk had decreased when he thought that it would increase. The Head of Strategic Risk explained that demand was starting to reduce particularly post Covid-19. 3. A Committee member noted that at a Member briefing session the costs of implementing LGR was reported to be £35 million, she asked whether those costs would include risk assessments covering the twelve councils in Surrey; her concern that things might be missed. The Head of Strategic noted that the risk function costs would be low in relation to the implementation but he would flag additional resources required if needed, there was a multitude of risks to be mindful of and missing things was a risk with new structures in place. 4. The Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director - Resources clarified that there was no estimate for risk management costs in those implementation costs which would include IT and severance. Regarding risks to be aligned with district and borough councils, the Government decision was awaited and that would provide clarity; maintaining and delivering services across Surrey would be vital. The implementation governance was unclear, but risk would have to feature from the twelve councils and the implementation board, he noted the need to map what resources the district and borough councils have around risk management. 5. A Committee member asked how risks around the global environment over the next year would be factored in. The Head of Strategic Risk noted the high inflation two years ago, the Ukraine and Gaza situations; global events have local impacts and bring uncertainty, it was vital to have a watching brief. 6. The Vice-Chairman praised that the encouraging progress made on risk management over the last few years. 7. A Committee member asked where the background information on mitigants was regarding the Corporate Risk Register. The Head of Strategic Risk noted that could be shared with Committee members, cyber was a key risk for example and there was information about the controls in place which should remain in ... view the full minutes text for item 23/25 |
|
|
CODE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
This report provides the Committee with an update on the council’s Code of Corporate Governance.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
Asmat Hussain, Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer explained that the Code sets out the framework for how a local authority conducts its affairs, ensuring that the policies and procedures are transparent and up to date. She confirmed that the Code went through an internal governance process and would feed into the Annual Governance Statement (AGS). 2. The Chairman asked when the review was last undertaken of the Code and were there any significant changes since then. The Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer clarified that the Code was last received by the Committee in 2019, however the Committee receives the AGS each year. She had not done a deep analysis of significant changes, the report included the list of updated policies and procedures, and the responsible senior officers. 3. A Committee member queried what changes had been made since 2019, including a version control would be helpful. The Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer noted that she would implement version control. On the detailed analysis from 2019 to date, she would look to see how that could be tracked, she would share the list of Custodian Assurance Statements and when those were last reviewed.
RESOLVED:
The Committee approved the updated Code of Corporate Governance (Annex 1) and commended it to the County Council for inclusion into the Constitution, version control to be included.
Actions/further information to be provided: 1. A14/25 - The Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer will look to see how a detailed analysis from 2019 to date could be tracked, and will share the list of Custodian Assurance Statements and when those were last reviewed.
|
|
|
OFFICER GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY POLICY - BENCHMARKING UPDATE 2025
A request was made by the Audit and Governance Committee in September 2024 to conduct a benchmarking exercise of other Local Authorities with regards to how their Officer Gifts and Hospitality policies compare with Surrey County Council’s policy.
This report presents the benchmarking results and the subsequent decision made by the Council’s statutory officers to the Audit and Governance Committee.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
Shella Smith, Director of People and Change
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Director of People and Change explained that the policies were reviewed from nine other councils, six of those used similar wording to the Council’s policy that only small tokens of good will should be accepted by officers, three councils included a value of £25 whereby gifts below that should be accepted. The benchmarking was considered by the statutory officers group who were satisfied that the current policy wording does not require the inclusion of a value, to strengthen the robustness of arrangements CLT would provide an annual return even if a nil return, to be reported to the Committee within the annual report.
RESOLVED:
1. Noted the benchmarking results within Annex 1. 2. Noted the decision made by the Council’s statutory officers, i.e. the Head of Paid Service, the Section 151 Officer and Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Director of People and Change and Chief Internal Auditor, after reviewing the benchmarking results, to continue with the existing Officer Gifts and Hospitality policy, and to provide an annual return to this committee of all offers made to officers, and whether they were accepted or declined. This will include an annual nil return for members of the Corporate Leadership Team if appropriate (i.e. if no offers or gifts or hospitality were made), to further demonstrate appropriate compliance with the policy.
Actions/further information to be provided: None.
|
|
|
ETHICAL STANDARDS ANNUAL REVIEW 2024 - 25
To update Committee on emerging issues relating to Members Standards and to monitor the operation of the Members’ Code of Conduct, including complaints made concerning councillors, the declaration of gifts and hospitality and Interests over the course of the last year.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
Asmat Hussain, Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer referred to the Financial and Value for Money Implications section, and asked Committee members to disregard highlighted paragraph 31 which was an administrative error. Finance had confirmed that there were no financial implications to the report, regarding Value for Money the costs arising from an external investigation and the payments made to the Independent Persons were met from the Democratic Services budget. The cost of Members Allowances was reflected in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy. 2. The Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer highlighted the fifteen Code of Conduct complaints. She thanked all those that responded to the English Devolution White Paper standards and conduct consultation which had closed, the proposals consulted on were detailed in the report. The outcome of the consultation would be brought back to the Committee for consideration. The White Paper also set out the Government’s view on remote attendance, proxy voting and the publication of Members’ address. She sought the Committee’s support for Members’ address not being published by default. Regarding gifts and hospitality she sought to introduce a more proactive approach through introducing a nil return for Members. 3. A Committee member noted that some of the changes to standards and conduct were considerable, she would rather not give approval until the matter was discussed within political groups; the Committee and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources supported that approach. 4. The Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer clarified that the consultation on standards and conduct closed on 26 February 2025 and Members were notified of that consultation process on 3 December 2024; Government’s plans regarding the consultation were not yet known. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources suggested that the Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer could provide feedback on the White Paper in a Member Development Session. A Committee member added that not all Members were aware of the Government’s proposals on standards and conduct, and the implications going forward for the unitary authorities.
RESOLVED:
1. Approved the revised Registration of Members’ Interests form set out at Annex 3 for introduction in May 2025. 2. Noted the Monitoring Officer’s report on recent activity in relation to the Members’ Code of Conduct, including Registration of Interests and Gifts and Hospitality, and complaints made in relation to Member conduct.
Actions/further information to be provided: 1. A15/25 - The Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer will discuss the proposals outlined in the English Devolution White Paper standards and conduct consultation with political groups; the third recommendation in the report would then be reconsidered at a future Committee meeting.
|
|
|
GENERAL DISPENSATIONS FOR MEMBERS
To request that the Audit and Governance Committee grant a general dispensation to all Members to enable them to participate and vote in certain specified matters where they would otherwise have a Statutory Disclosable Pecuniary Interest.
Additional documents: Minutes: Speakers:
Asmat Hussain, Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer
Key points raised in the discussion: 1. The Interim Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer noted that the requested all-Member dispensation was a prudent approach, the powers of granting the dispensation sat with the Committee. Many Members are twin-hatters and some are triple-hatters, the dispensation would allow them to speak more freely. Lots of other councils have done the same. She clarified that regarding budget setting, the dispensation does not affect a Member’s obligation under Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to declare and not vote if they are two months or more in arrears with their council tax.
RESOLVED:
1. The Committee granted a dispensation on an ongoing basis (for a maximum of three years or until the vesting day of any new authority) to enable Members to participate and vote in the following matters, irrespective of them otherwise having a Statutory Disclosable Pecuniary Interest:
(a) Local Government Reorganisation (b) Approval of the Council’s Revenue and Capital Budgets and setting of the Council Tax Precept
2. The Committee noted that such dispensations do not relieve the Member of the obligation to declare the interest or have such an interest registered in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct.
Actions/further information to be provided: None.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee will be on 4 June 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: The date of the next meeting of the Committee was noted as 4 June 2025 at 1 pm.
|