To agree the minutes as a true record of the
meeting.
Minutes:
A
Member who previously made the comment at the previous meeting
stated that the minute item 34/19 should be amended
to read: ‘the Council should question the Local Government
Association advice that pension auto-enrolment should not apply to
Members (councillors) as they were not
“workers”’. Subsequent to that meeting, Surrey
County Council were taking the LGA’s view and the Member was
certain that the Council should seek its own legal advice on the
matter.
Subsequent to the amendments above, the
minutes were approved as an accurate record of the previous
meeting.
39/19
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Share this item
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.
Minutes:
There were none.
40/19
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
Share this item
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes:
1. The deadline for Member’s questions is
12.00pm four working days before the meeting (20 September 2019).
2. The deadline for public questions is seven days
before the meeting (19 September 2019).
3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the
meeting, and no petitions have been received.
Cath Edwards, Service Improvement and Risk Manager
Key points raised
during the discussion:
1.Members considered the value of the bulletin as the
Orbis Chief Internal Auditor
explained that from an Internal Audit perspective anything in the bulletin would be reported to the Committee. In
response, Members agreed to keep the bulletin as it was a
simplified format with key pieces of information highlighted for
Members and proved useful for Committee substitutes. Democratic
Services will circulate this more widely to all Members.
2.Action A2/19 - The Audit Manager agreed that the follow-up will be provided at the next meeting
as the report was in its early stages.
3.Action A6/19 - To be provided in due course with the
target of December.
4.Action A8/19 - In response to the Chairman’s
query, the Audit Manager and Orbis
Chief Internal Auditor will circulate high priority items of
minimal/partial assurance to the Vice-Chairmen of the Select
Committees.
Action/Further
information to note:
None.
RESOLVED:
That the Committee monitored the progress on
the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings and
noted the bulletin.
The purpose of this report is to
give the Audit & Governance Committee an overview of the
council’s complaint handling performance in 2018/19 and to
demonstrate how feedback from customers has been used to improve
services.
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Sarah Bogunovic, Customer
Relations and Service Improvement Manager
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Customer Relations and Service Improvement
Manager introduced the report and informed the Committee that
Surrey County Council operatedthree
complaints procedures: one for Adult Social Care and one for
Children’s Services, which were statutory procedures, as well
as one covering all other Council services – the Pensions
Service was also included for the first year.
It was important that the Council was a learning
organisation responsive to feedback and the measurement of its
performance should be based on escalation rates - resolving
complaints early - and uphold rates - where fault was found -
rather than the volume of complaints received. 1,408 complaints
were received in 2018/19 (6% increase from previous year). This was
compared to 1,980 compliments received in that year. There were
also 1,396 wider customer enquiries of which 16% escalated to the
complaints procedure.
In
response to Member queriesthe Customer
Relations and Service Improvement Manager explained
that:
She would look into how many Members used the
Councillor’s email service which logged and coordinated
responses to residents’ enquiries, as Members noted it as
useful. A Member stated that responses were prompt but mixed
depending on the issue.
That the Council’s online self-servicecomplaints form for residents was different to
sending them by email directly to the contact centrebecause it was automated and the form went directly
into the electronic complaints system - reducing the bureaucratic
process and allowing greater oversight as to the distribution of,
and responses to, complaints.
To ensuretimely and full
responses would be provided to Ombudsman enquiries,a new complaints case management system was in place
and workshops were being planned for service
managers. Proactive reminders of deadlines were also being
sent.
Roll-out of the new complaints case management
system was underway, with Corporate and Children’s Services
already live and plans in place to roll the system out next to
Adult Social Care, Pensions and Member / MP enquiries. It was
anticipated that this would be completed by April 2020, pending
user testing and refinement.
She recognised the genuine fear that complaining
could hinder the service a person received from the Council.
Individuals who complained could choose to remain anonymous, but
the difficulty in that was that they would not receive a response.
It was important to ensure that residents felt confident to
complain and that the process was transparent.
She would review how to make it easier for staff
members to make complaints on behalf of residents.
Members were informed that complaints reporting
needed to be refined and that real-time dashboards open to service
managers and Members to see complaints and feedback - possibly by
Division - were being developed and suggested that it would be good
to get Members involved in testing.
She noted the Chairman’s comment of the past
initiative called ‘Rapid Improvement Events’ where
potential areas of concern were highlighted and areas of risk were
investigated by a group of staff who ...
view the full minutes text for item 42/19
This risk management
report provides an update on the council’s strategic risk
management arrangements, including the strategic risk register, to
enable the committee to meet its responsibilities for monitoring
the development and operation of the council’s risk
management arrangements.
Cath Edwards, Service Improvement and Risk
Manager
Russell Banks,
Orbis Chief Internal Auditor
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The
Service Improvement and Risk Manager introduced the report and
informed the Committee that the independent review of strategic
risk management would be led by Gallagher Bassett
insurers.
The
level of risk maturity will be assessed through a series of
interviews with a number of stakeholders from across the
organisation and reported to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT).
Findings will be collated at the end of November with the aim of
reporting back to the Committee’s December
meeting.
In
response to Member queries:
The
Service Improvement and Risk Manager stated that the risk of Brexit
(reference S3) was an umbrella risk underpinning many of the risks
in the strategic risk register and directorates within the Council.
European employees were being supported and an effective
commissioning strategy concerning the Provider Market (reference
S8), would contain both in- house and privately contracted
services.
With
regards toSEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability)(reference S9), the Orbis Chief
Internal Auditor informed Members that cost potentials of changes
to future transport provision were not audited. The Chairman in
agreement with Members noted that this was a risk and the Committee
would look to include this as part of their governance review in
the changes to scrutiny arrangements.
There
was no life-time evaluation of SEND transport users as Internal
Audit looked at compliance with policies in the system, rather than
the type of policy created externally by the service.
Actions/ further information to be provided:
A11/19 - Findings
on the levels of risk maturity assessed through a series of
interviews with stakeholders across the organisation, would be
collated at the end of November with the aim of reporting back to
the Committee’s December meeting.
A12/19 - The
Chairman in agreement with Members noted that this was a risk and
the Committee would look to include this as part of their
governance review in the changes to scrutiny
arrangements.
Resolved:
That the Committee:
1.
Considered the contents of the report and confirmed they were
satisfied with the risk management arrangements;
2.
Reviewed the strategic risk register and determined no matters to
be drawn to the attention of the Chief Executive, Cabinet, Cabinet
Member or relevant Scrutiny Committee.
3.
Noted the upcoming independent review of the strategic risk
management
This report provides the Audit &
Governance Committee with details of Grant Thornton’s
performance during the last 12 months against the Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) previously agreed and approved by this Committee
in September 2018.
Kevin Kilburn, Strategic Finance Manager -
Corporate
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Strategic Finance Manager - Corporate introduced
the reportand commented that there were a
number of pressures across Local Government including: a more
in-depth scrutiny over audits, the statutory deadline of the
statements of accounts’ was brought forward to the 31 July
and the McCloud judgement over pensions. Out of 486 local
authorities 210 did not have their accounts signed off by the
deadline. Surrey County Council met that deadline, which was
especially pleasing as this was the first year of the centre or
excellence sharing resources to deliver the financial
statements jointly with East Sussex County Council and
Brighton & Hove City Council. Therefore achieving a clean
audit by the deadline was a very good performance, representing
good working between the finance and audit teams.
One area of the 2018/19 Performance Management Framework was not
met, which was the client satisfaction score rated at 7, with its
target at 9/10. In response to the Chairman’s query,
theStrategic
Finance Manager - Corporate remarked that the audit of the
valuation of schools took longer than expected as Grant Thornton
had to seekspecialist advice from
external valuersfor the valuation of land and buildings. This
was driven by an increased valuation which adjustedthe
erroneous interpretation of valuer
guidance five years ago. The External Audit engagement lead
also explained that additional work had been required in relation
to the valuation of assets at the Eco Park.
Actions/ further information to be provided:
None.
RESOLVED:
That the Audit and Governance
Committee considered the contents of the report.
The
Council’s external auditors, Grant Thornton, are presenting
their Annual Audit Letter in respect of the audit year 2018/19.
This report summarises the key messages and findings arising from
the work carried out at the Council for the year ended 31 March
2019.
Kevin Kilburn, Strategic Finance Manager -
Corporate
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The
representatives from Grant Thornton introduced the report and
stated that it was a less technical and more accessible report than
the 2018/19 Audit Findings Report. It was published on the
Council’s website as a requirement of national audit
practice.
In response to a Member query on the implications of
Brexit and possible property devaluation, the Strategic Finance
Manager - Corporate explained that any change in valuations would
be reflected in the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement,
but would have no adverse effect on the General Fund or the council
tax.
Actions/ further information to be provided:
None.
RESOLVED:
That the Audit and Governance
Committee noted the contents of the Annual Audit Letter.
The purpose of this progress
report is to inform members of the work completed by Internal Audit
between 1 April 2019 and 30 June 2019. The current annual plan for
Internal Audit is contained within the Internal Audit Strategy and
Annual Plan 2019-20, which was approved by Audit and Governance
Committee on 8 April 2019.
The Audit
Manager introduced the report and provided a summary:
·Of the 13 formal audits in quarter 1, 2 received
minimal assurance which were:Schools
Safeguarding Arrangementsand theSurrey Pension Fund Administration.
·More specifically, minimal assurance was given to
the School Safeguarding Team due to significant control weaknesses
within the way the team previously operated, exacerbated by
large-scale staffing changes as a result of the directorate
restructure.
·Surrey Pensions Fund Administration received that
level of assurance due to long-term weaknesses in process and
control, and inefficiencies in team working practices. To address
this, there was a new interim Pensions Manager appointed and a
Governance Board was set up between Finance, Audit and Pensions
Teams which continues to track recommendations. Deadlines for
agreed actions would not be met due to resourcing and complexity,
with the follow up audit now scheduled in quarter 3.
Members were concerned that only 1 out of 13 audit
reports in quarter 1 received substantive assurance and asked how
these compared to last year and how they were being addressed. In
response, the Audit Manager commented that it was partly positive
as it showed audit resource was focussed on the highest risk areas,
which was indicative of a good relationship between senior
management and Internal Audit. The Orbis Chief Internal Auditor noted that this
pattern of assurance mirrored that of his 2018/19 Annual Audit
Opinion for the Council, overall which was Partial
Assurance.
The Audit Manager notified the Committee that a
verbal update relating to the follow-up audit for Surrey Pension
Fund Administration could be reported to the Committee in
December.
In
response to the Orbis Chief Internal
Auditor proposing that someone from the service concerning
theSchools Safeguarding Arrangements would
report to the Committee, Members agreed that the Chairman
wouldwrite to the Chairman of the Children,
Families, Life-long Learning and Culture Select Committee drawing
attention to the report.
The Audit Manager responded to a Member query by
stating that there were no historical records prior to 2017
concerningSchools Safeguarding Arrangements
due to bad practice. The majority of records were kepton email and those records were lost when staff left
the team as there was no central repository.
It was hoped that the new IT platform would resolve that issue once
it was approved.
In
response to a Member query, the Orbis
Chief Internal Auditor and the Audit Manager informed the Committee
that the problem of self-assessment questionnaires not being
submitted by the school safeguarding team was being addressed. A
new online tool was purchased to allow self-evaluation of
safeguarding arrangements which logged records
centrally.
Actions/ further information to be provided:
A13/19
-The Audit Manager notified the Committee
that a verbal update relating to the follow-up audit for Surrey
Pension Fund Administration could be reported to the Committee in
December.
Vicky Hibbert, Governance Lead
Manager - Legal and Democratic Services
Ross Pike, Committees Business
Manager
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Governance Lead Manager explained that in agreement with the
Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) and the Chief Executive of the
Council, as part of its governance role the Committee was charged
with the responsibility to undertake a review of the changes to the
Council’s scrutiny arrangements decided in May
2019.
In response to the Chairman’s question on
the discussions within the Select Committee Chairmen and
Vice-Chairmen’s Group on the changes to the scrutiny
arrangements, Members were told that the review should be
independent so should come from the Audit and Governance
Committee.
Overview was encompassed with scrutiny and the review would be a
Member led exercise, with support from Democratic
Services.
The Committee was tasked to agree the membership within the
Terms of Reference of the proposed Audit and Governance Task Group,
Members were recommended that it would be composed of three or four
Members of the Committee.
Members discussed that a Task Group of four would not be
beneficial as the Committee was only composed of six Members and
each had a different knowledge of Select Committees.
In
response to Member questions it was explained that in addition to
the Local Government Act 2000, when exercising its functions local
authorities ‘must have due regard’ to the statutory
guidance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local
Government. In accordance with best practice standards, local
authorities also ‘may have regard’ to other material
such as the Centre for Public Scrutiny’s ‘Scrutiny
Evaluation Framework’ to assist their overview and scrutiny
function.
Members discussed whether they should attend the four Select
Committee meetings as part of their governance review. A Member had
reservations due to their borough and district commitments and
external employment. He reiterated that Members were volunteers not
‘workers’/paid professionals.
In
response to Members queries, the Committees Business Manager stated
that the two supporting reports on this item were written to be
accessible to Members, they did not need specialist knowledge to
undertake the governance review.
The Governance Lead Manager reminded Members that the Select
Committees were webcast for those who could not attend them in
person and the Committees Business Manager stressed than an
objective governance review was based on the Select
Committees’ compliance with good scrutiny practice as
outlined in the two supporting reports, not by obtaining the
‘feeling’ of the meeting.
In
response to Member queries, the Governance Lead Manager informed
the Committee that the rationale behind changing the
Council’s Select Committee structure was not a resourcing
issue. It was as a result of the Centre for Public Scrutiny’s
‘Northamptonshire: Scrutiny Improvements’ report which
advocated fewer committees and a simpler structure. At
Members’ request, a recommendation to ensure the structure of
Select Committees would not change in May 2020 would be included in
the Task Groups’ updated Terms of Reference.
PDF 142 KB