Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

There were no apologies for absence submitted.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27 September 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 September 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive any declarations of interest

Councillor Stephen Newton declared a Personal Interest in item 41 Corporate Risk Register on the grounds that he and his wife were foster carers.

To answer any public questions

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for members of the public to ask questions submitted under notice.

The Council welcomes questions from members of the public about the work of this committee.

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can relate to general issues concerned with the work of the Committee or an item which is on the Agenda for this meeting.  For full details of the procedure for submitting questions please contact the Democratic Services Section on the numbers given below or go to www.wokingham.gov.uk/publicquestions

There were no Public questions.

To answer any member questions

There were no Member questions.

To receive the Wokingham Borough Council Audit Progress Update.

The Committee received the Wokingham Borough Council Audit Progress Update.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       Hannah Lill advised that the audit was progressing, and EY were working well with officers.  The audit was not progressed quite as far as had been hoped for, however more resources had been allocated and the timeline to continue to complete the fieldwork by the end of December, had been agreed with officers.

·       There were still some delays in obtaining information around valuations, but work was being undertaken with officers to mitigate this.

·       Correspondence had been received from Deloitte around the IS19 assurances.  At this point they were not able to provide a time of when or if these assurances would be provided.

·       The timing of the 2022/23 audit would be dependent on the resolution of 2021/22 audit. 

·       An announcement by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities about the future timetable for delivery and proposed scope changes to local government audits, was still awaited.

·       The audit had not yet been completed, primarily as a result of two factors; firstly performance issues with a member of EY staff.  In response to a Member question, Janet Dawson explained EY’s quality checking procedures.  The second factor for the delay was that there were ongoing discussions with the valuers and the Estates team to obtain the valuation information requested and required to complete procedures.  The Chair questioned whether the delay related to the external valuers or Council officers, or both and was informed that it was a mixture of both.  The Assistant Director Finance commented that part of the work had been outsourced to seek an independent view.  One of the members of staff who had undertaken the initial work had left, creating a time lag.  Officers needed to make the external resource aware of how urgent particular deadlines were.  Resource had been moved around to meet availability. 

·       Additional time had been agreed for the audit.  Members were assured that no additional cost would be passed on to the Council for any additional work undertaken as a result of an EY staff member performance issues.  Councillor Harper commented that the Council would have to spend time answering additional queries, which would have a cost implication.  He questioned whether this would be taken into account in the final fee.

·       Councillor Newton expressed surprise that the IS19 remained outstanding.  He represented the Council on the Berkshire Pension Fund and had believed that the matter was now resolved.  Janet Dawson emphasised that the required assurances had not yet been received for the 2021/22 audit.  The Assistant Director Finance added that the Council had contacted the Pension Authority and the Council that oversaw it, to try and push forwards.

·       Councillor Akhtar asked what more could be done to provide EY with the information that they needed.  Hannah Lill indicated that in the summer there had been some delays in obtaining responses from officers, mainly relating to the period when the 2021/22 audit had begun, but the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

To receive the Corporate Risk Register.

The Director Place and Growth presented the Corporate Risk Register to the Committee.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       The top corporate risk continued to be budget and financial resilience followed by Cyber Security, Adult Social Care supplier sustainability and sufficiency and Outcomes and Costs for Children with SEND.

·       The budget and financial resilience risk had increased significantly since the last review.  The Council was forecasting, in year, an overspend of £3.6million and for 2024/25 a revenue budget gap of £5million was predicted, with a significant gap in the capital programme.

·       New risks had been added around the Waste Collection change project and Procurement in Place and Growth.  There were significant contracts in this area which were due for renewal.

·       With regards to Risk 9: Failure to achieve Carbon Neutrality by 2030, Councillor Harper raised issues around governance.  He commented that the Barkham Solar Farm project was progressing even though a connection date from SSEN had not yet been signed off.  In addition, he felt that the scope of the Climate Emergency Action Plan had been increased without sufficient discussion at Committee level.  He questioned whether an update on the governance around the project could be provided to the Committee.  The Director Place and Growth indicated that the Climate Emergency Action Plan update had been presented to Council in September.  It was a living document and had to respond to challenges and opportunities.  Councillor Harper stated that the recommendation had been to note the report.  The Director Place and Growth agreed to look into the matter further.

·       The Chair asked that the wording of Risk 9 be further clarified.  The Climate Emergency Action Plan would not achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, although carbon neutrality by 2030 remained a Council aspiration.

·       Risk 4 Local Plan update – an action stated that the next Local Plan consultation stage was due by November 2023 and was on track.  Councillor Harper questioned whether this had been pushed back to February 2024.  The Director Place and Growth indicated that the Government’s revised National Planning Policy Guidance was still awaited, which could be significant for the Borough and its housing numbers.  Progress would be made as soon as possible.  Councillor Harper suggested that the action be updated to read Next local plan consultation stage (Regulation 19 – dependent on revised NPPF publication).

·       Risk 1 Budget and financial resilience - Mike Drake asked if there was a cost reduction programme and if so if this should be brought out further in the mitigating actions.  He went on to question whether there was a staff recruitment freeze in place.  The Director Place and Growth indicated that there was a cost reduction programme in place and all directorates had a clear savings programme.  The new year’s savings programme was being presented to Overview and Scrutiny, setting out changes to the revenue and capital budget.  The Director Place and Growth went on to highlight some of the key pressures on the budget such as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

To receive the 2023/24 Internal Audit and Investigation Plan - Quarter 2 Progress Report (to 30 September 2023).

Members considered the 2023/24 Internal Audit and Investigation Plan - Quarter 2 Progress Report (to 30 September 2023).

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       Appendix Ai showed the position of work against the Plan at the end of September.  It detailed those audits that had been finalised and those which were at draft stage, work in progress, and audits which were yet to be started.

·       Members attention was drawn to the high-risk concerns identified.  At the last meeting it had been noted that a number were due to be addressed by the end of September.  Work had been undertaken around this and some actions had been implemented whilst other deadlines had been extended.  Where requests were received for extensions, discussions were had with the Audit team as to the reasonableness of the request.  Many related to resourcing issues and needing to recruit to roles to undertake the particular controls required.  The Chair expressed surprise that some deadlines had been extended by up to a year considering that they related to high risk concerns, and commented that this needed to be monitored.

·       Further follow up work would be undertaken around Safeguarding and Recruitment, Reconciliations and Debtors.

·       The Information Governance audit had attracted the third category of audit opinion.  The report had been shared with the Chair of the Committee.  An action plan had been produced and agreed with management.  Progress was being made.

·       Members were informed that the Internal Audit apprentice role had been appointed to and a new Corporate Investigation Officer was also due to start shortly.

·       With regards to the mandatory Data Protection training for officers, Councillor Smith asked what percentage of staff had completed this.  The Assistant Director Governance indicated that 93% had completed this, with a target of the end of December for the remaining 7% to complete the training.

·       In response to a question from Councillor Smith regarding whistleblowing referrals, consideration would be given to how information on these would be presented in future reports.

RESOLVED:  That the 2023/24 Internal Audit and Investigation Quarter 2 Progress Report (activity to 30 September 2023) be reviewed and scrutinised.

To receive the review of the Council’s Anti-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Policies.

The Committee reviewed the Council’s Anti Fraud and Anti Corruption policies.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       The policies had been refreshed to make them more readable and understandable.  The Council’s Guide to Communication Style had been used.  However, they had not been overly simplified as the documents would be used in disciplinary hearings, employment tribunals and court hearings.

·       In total there were 6 policies.  The Enforcement Sanction Policy was currently being refreshed by Legal Services.  Internal Audit had reviewed and refreshed the other 5 policies. 

·       The main change had been in the RIPA Policy where it had been recommended following an investigation by the Investigatory Powers Commissioners Office, that the senior officer responsible for RIPA change from the Chief Executive to the Assistant Director Governance.

·       With regards to publicity and training, once the policies had been approved, they would be made available on the Council’s intranet and website.  Training would be made available, hopefully as an e-learning module.

·       The Committee reviewed the policies individually.

·       With regards to the Anti Fraud Policy, Councillor Harper questioned if reference could be made to moonlighting and how to address it.

·       Councillor Smith asked for more continuity across the policies.  In some places reference was made to the Assistant Director Governance (Monitoring Officer) and in others to the Assistant Director Governance.

·       With regards to 9.4.6 Raising Concerns, Councillor Smith expressed concern that the current wording suggested that preliminary enquiries would be carried out by the Assistant Director Governance in consultation with the S151 Officer.  He felt that this would put a lot of onus on the Assistant Director Governance.  The Assistant Director Governance indicated that in practice he would use resources such as the Internal Audit team, to assist in making these initial enquiries.  Councillor Smith suggested that the wording be made clearer in 9.4.6 and also 9.5.7.1 within the Whistleblowing Policy.

·       9.4.6 Raising Concerns stated that ‘if Officers feel that they are unable to use internal routes, then they can contact the Council’s external auditors.’  Mike Drake questioned the involvement of External Audit in the process given their independence.  He queried whether it would be more appropriate for a senior Member to be appointed to this role.  Officers agreed to look into this.

·       Councillor Newton asked whether there were model policies which could be referred to.  The Head of Internal Audit and Investigation indicated that the Council did compare its policies with other councils’ policies.  The policies had been reviewed by an external training company several years ago to ensure that there were no gaps, and suggestions made at the time had been taken into account.

·       The Chair referred to the definition of fraud (9.4.2) which she felt could be broadened as not all fraud related to the distortion of records.  The definition also focused on financial gain, whereas not all fraud was committed for financial purposes.

·       It was suggested that more information be included about what training would be carried out, the frequency and awareness raising.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

To receive a report regarding the CIPFA Management Code.

The Committee received a report regarding the CIPFA Management Code.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       Appendix A outlined the current assessment of the Council’s position and Appendix B detailed the progress made against specific actions.

·       The Assistant Director Finance commented that good progress was being made.  He indicated that there was a couple of actions such as those relating to training where the timescales had slipped because it had been aligned with corporate projects so that it was more embedded in the corporate training.

·       With regards to value for money, Councillor Akhtar noted that no areas for improvement had been identified.  However, EY had identified this as an area of focus.  The Assistant Director Finance explained that value for money was an area of focus generally prioritised by EY.  Previous assessments had shown that EY were comfortable with the Council’s value for money position.  He highlighted further benchmarking actions to ensure that the Council’s costs were in line.

·       It was agreed that the reference ‘Treasury Management performance (including prudential indicators) is reported 6 monthly to the Audit Committee’ was no longer applicable and would be removed.

·       Mike Drake questioned whether External Financial Reporting should be Amber instead of Green, with a view to moving to Green, as there had been a number of adjusted errors in the accounts.  It was suggested that an action around getting the accounts fully uptodate and signed off be included.

·       It was noted that the target date for the Asset Management Plan had two different dates December 2023 and April 2024.  It was confirmed that the April date was correct.

·       An action relating to the Council’s financial management style was that the Council regularly monitored its position in the CIPFA resilience index and indicators continue to be strong across the board.  In 2019/20 MJ published data showing Wokingham Borough Council to be in the top 20 most resilient upper tier Councils.  Mike Drake asked whether more recent data was available.  The Assistant Director Finance indicated that the Council had signed up to LG Improve Tool which would provide more uptodate information.  More finance and context would be included in the Chief Finance Officer letter to provide assurance around the Council’s financial resilience.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted, and the progress made against the actions previously identified, be commented upon.

To consider the forward programme for the remainder of the municipal year.

The Committee considered the forward programme.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       In response to a Member question it was confirmed that the 2021/22 Auditor’s Annual Report and the Draft Audit Results Report for 2021/22 were two separate reports.

·       Members queried which Statement of Accounts would be presented to the February meeting.

·       There were a large number of items scheduled for the February meeting, so it was possible that an extraordinary meeting would be required in March.

RESOLVED:  That the forward programme be noted.