Agenda item

To review the Committee’s recommendations tracker.

Declarations of Interest:

None.

Officers:

Mark Borland, Projects and Contracts Group Manager

Cath Edwards, Risk & Governance Manager

Laura Langstaff, Procurement and Commissioning Manager

Nicola O’Connor, Finance Manager (Asset, Investment and Accounting)

Paul Osborne, Finance and Procurement Manager

Sue Lewry-Jones, Chief Internal Auditor

Sheila Little, Chief Finance Officer

Key Points Raised During the Discussion:

1.    In relation to A4/13 (purchase cards), the Finance and Procurement Manager informed the Committee that acceptance of the new purchase card guidelines by purchase card holders and budget holders was being monitored.  As of the day of the meeting, acceptance of the new guidelines stood at 62%.  The new workflow approval process was due to go live on 1 April 2013.  By the go-live date it was expected that acceptance of the guidance would be 100% and if anyone had not accepted the new guidance, their purchase card would be suspended.  The Committee was also advised that officers would need to take an e-learning course before being approved for a purchase card in the future.  The Chief Internal Auditor confirmed that a follow-up audit on Purchase Cards was planned for 2013/14.

Tony Elias joined the meeting.

2.    In relation to A20/12 (damage to county property recovery rates), the Projects and Contracts Group Manager tabled a briefing note (attached as Annex 1).  In response to questioning, the Projects and Contracts Manager clarified that analysis indicated that 90% of non-A&E damage to individual items do not exceed £8,000 and responsibility for recovery will transfer to May Gurney.  The Projects and Contracts Manager also explained that most damage to kerbstones occurs through wear and tear and would be repaired through the normal replacement programme.  Clear evidence would be required to recover cost of repairs through 3^rd party insurance.  The in-house customer service team would be unaffected by May Gurney accepting responsibility for ‘green’ claims.  While they would no longer undertake insurance recovery, they would focus on their core function of customer service.  This new process would also incentivise May Gurney to identify and address ‘hot spots’ on the highway.

3.    In relation to R3/11 (social care debt), the Chairman highlighted that the level of social care debt would be a topic for discussion when the Audit and Governance Committee looks at the Council’s accounts in June 2013.  A Member pointed out that the Chairman of Adult Social Care Select Committee had written to the Cabinet with regard to a spike in social care debt.

4.    In relation to R1/12 (Annual Governance Statement), the Risk & Governance Manager informed the Committee that the 2013/14 Annual Governance Statement was likely to highlight areas of focus rather than include an action plan as the governance environment generally works well.

5.    In relation to R3/12 (Direct Payments), the Committee was informed that the Member Reference Group would report in April 2013 not May 2013.

6.    In relation to A53/12 (Internal Audit reports and Scrutiny), the Chairman informed the Committee that he had written to select committee chairmen on the process of handling Internal Audit reports at select committees and had also copied in Scrutiny Officers.

7.    In relation to A45/12 (early closing of school accounts), the Finance Manager (Asset, Investment and Accounting) informed the Committee that meetings had been held with Babcock 4S and the timetable for schools had been revised.  The situation has been improving over recent years and it was anticipated that these improvements would continue.

8.    In relation to A55/12 (Finance Dashboard), the Chief Finance Officer informed the Committee that implementation of the Finance Dashboard had been delayed due to technical issues with the suppliers.  A Project Board meeting this week would look at the project plan and it was expected that the Finance Dashboard would be in place for budget monitoring and forecasting for the new financial year.

9.    In relation to A58/12 (Environment and Infrastructure Risk Register), the Chairman informed the Committee that he had written again to the Portfolio Holder.  The Risk & Governance Manager confirmed that she had not yet received the updated risk register.

10.  In relation to A59/12 (Energy Purchasing Contract), the Chairman reported some positive soundings from the Leader of the local authority in question but no detailed response.

11.  In relation to A2/13 (financial reserves), Members requested that the level of financial reserves held by the Council be made clear in financial statements, along with the reason for holding reserves.  This would support transparency of the Council budget to the public.  The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that there was a description of each reserve in the budget report approved by Full Council in February and in the MTFP.

12.  In relation to A5/13 (Committee terms of reference), the Chairman informed the Committee that he had reviewed the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards and the Audit and Governance Committee terms of reference and had concluded that there was no need for constitutional change to the Committee’s terms of reference.

13.  In relation to A9/12 (Babcock 4S), the Chief Finance Officer confirmed that Babcock 4S was free to use its dividend payment however it wished.  However, the council’s Assistant Chief Executive was a Director on the Board for Babcock 4S and so the Council had influence on how the surplus cash was used.  Members also queried whether the services that Babcock 4S was now providing in Devon and Exeter offered any benefit to Surrey County Council.  The Committee agreed to explore this when Babcock 4S was next invited to a meeting (Recommendations tracker ref: A6/13).

14.  In relation to A43/12 (Strategic Director for Customers and Communities), a Member queried whether the increased hours that the Strategic Director for Customers and Communities was contracted to provide as Chief Executive of Mole Valley District Council had any impact of the work she did for Surrey County Council.  The Chairman agreed to ask the Chief Executive for an analysis of this point.

            Actions/Further Information to be Provided:

The recommendation tracker to be updated to reflect the discussion, as noted above.

            RESOLVED:

That the recommendations tracker was noted and the Committee agreed to remove pages 20 to 24 of the tracker, with the exception of A43/12, as the actions were completed.

            Next Steps:

The Chairman agreed to write to the Chief Executive for an analysis of the impact on Surrey County Council of the Strategic Director for Customers and Communities spending four days a week working as Chief Executive for Mole Valley District council.