Issue - meetings

Report is to follow.

Decision:

That consideration of the adoption of the Anti-Fraud & Corruption Policy and associated policies be referred to the Leader of the Council for determination in consultation with Executive members and the Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee.

Reason:

To ensure the comments made by the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee at its special meeting on 11 April 2024 were incorporated into the policy documents.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

To adopt the policy as presented.

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None.

Guildford Borough Council encouraged staff and others to report any cases of suspected wrongdoing or misconduct, illegal acts, or failure to act within the Council, as part of its commitment to act with integrity and openness in the best interest of its residents and communities.

To govern any such disclosures, the Council had an Anti- Fraud and Corruption Policy. That Policy had been reviewed and updated and was appended to the report along with other associated policies for consideration.

In the absence of the lead councillor, the report author introduced the report. The report had previously been considered by the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee (CGSC) on 11 April 2024 and the comments arising from that meeting had been incorporated within the draft submitted to the Executive.

The updating of the policy documents was considered timely and important; however, the Executive was unable to determine from the submitted papers what the comments from the CGSC were and if those recommendations had been fully addressed and incorporated. There was also a query relating version control concerning the appendices which had been reformatted for accessibility reasons prior to submission to the Executive. In response, the report author assured the meeting that those comments had been incorporated and verbally delivered the six comments and explained where, within the report and appendices the CGSC comments had been addressed in response.

The Executive was advised that it may adopt the policy if it were content with the officer’s assurance or that it may adopt the policy with the caveat that the Chairman of the CGSC approve the submitted version.

Alternatively, to avoid delays, it was suggested the Executive could refer determination of the policies to the Leader upon receipt of a tracked changed version of the document and in consultation with the Executive and the Chairman of the CGSC.

Training and awareness raising amongst staff was proposed in the report along with a proposed training programme. There was currently no specific training in those areas at Guildford, but Waverley did have some modules in place. The Executive heard that Waverley’s policies would also be updated and that subsequently the training modules would be reviewed and delivered to Guildford and Waverley staff and councillors with external support if required.

The whistleblowing graphic on page 12 of the report would be displayed around the council buildings to give staff and councillors a contact name and number should they have any concerns.

The Executive was informed that it would be difficult to say if an earlier review of the Anti-Fraud policies would have had any impact on the live case. Separately, senior governance and housing officers would be receiving anti-fraud training in the near future.

Other policies would be coming forward for review and refresh, especially those recommended for review within the Improvement Plan notably as set out in paragraph 3.4. Although the Improvement Plan set out a timescale, it was not possible to say exactly how long the process would take. The areas presenting the Council with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12

The Committee noted that the Council encouraged staff and others to report any cases of suspected wrongdoing or misconduct, illegal acts, or failure to act within the Council, as part of its commitment to act with integrity and openness in the best interests of its residents and communities. To govern any such disclosures, the Council had an Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy.

That Policy had recently been reviewed and updated and had been submitted to this Committee for comments, prior to submission to the Executive for approval. A copy of the revised Policy was appended to the report submitted to the Committee.  Once adopted, the revised Policy would be made available to councillors, officers, and the public via the website.

During the debate on this matter, the following points were made:

·      Clarification was requested in respect of paragraph 5.1 of the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy, which stated that the Policy and the various policies referred to in the annexes would be monitored and reviewed biennially, but the Anti Bribery Policy (Annex 1) had stated that that Policy would be reviewed annually. 

·      As the draft Anti-Bribery Policy did not actually define “bribery”, it was suggested that it should refer to the statutory definition set out in the Bribery Act 2010.

·      There was an apparent discrepancy in para 3 (b) of the Fraud Prosecution Policy (Annex 3) where it was stated that the Council must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a prospect of conviction, but in para 3 (f) it was stated that the decision to prosecute ultimately rested with the Police and Crown Prosecution Service.  It was suggested that the Policy might be clarified so as to state that the Council would make that decision in civil matters, or merely to state in para 3 (b) “notwithstanding para 3 (f)”.

·      Noting that paragraph 1.4 of the Anti-Fraud Policy Statement within the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy included councillors, clarification was sought as to whether paragraph 1.3 should also specifically include councillors to make it clear that the Policy also applied to them.

·      In response to a request to highlight any material changes between the existing Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy and the proposed revised policy, it was noted that the existing policy had been produced in 2016-17, so the revised policy was well overdue.  The revised policy had incorporated more recent changes in the law.

·      Request that the Fraud Response Plan referred to in the Counter Fraud Policy (Annex 2) be included as an appendix to that policy.

·      Suggestion that section 6 of the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy (Training) should make it explicit that training would be offered not only to employees but also to temporary workers to ensure that everyone was aware of their obligations. In response, the offer of appropriate training would be communicated to staff and temporary workers.

·      In response to a request, in relation to the strategic approach to fraud, as to whether there was any good practice that that we had managed to share  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83