Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ruth Brothwell.

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must notparticipate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The Committee noted that the decision and action tracker had been introduced to monitor progress against the decisions and actions that the Committee had agreed, which would be kept up to date for each meeting.  When decisions/ actions were reported as being ‘completed’, the Committee would be asked to agree to remove these items from the tracker.  

The Committee, whilst welcoming the updates on the Supplementary Agenda Pack, noted that there were still a number of actions that remained outstanding and hoped that information on these would be provided at the earliest opportunity.

The Committee

RESOLVED: That the decision and action tracker be noted and that the actions reported as being completed be removed from the table.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from members of the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11. The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Friday 10 January 2025.

There were no questions from the public.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12. The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Friday 10 January 2025.

There were no questions from Members.

The Committee considered a report from the Council’s Internal Auditors on the implementation of new Global Internal Audit Standards, to which public sector internal audit functions would have to comply when they come into effect from 1 April 2025.

The new standards would replace the current public sector internal audit standards to which the current Internal Auditors adhered in the provision of their internal audit service.

The key differences and new aspects coming into the standards that were not currently within the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards were explained the Committee, in particular the requirements within the new standards regarding key performance indicators for the measurability of the effectiveness of the internal audit service and also the requirement to have an internal audit strategy which would support the audit plan and the audit charter. The Internal Auditors were currently in the process of drafting communications for the purpose of discussing possible key performance indicators for the internal audit service.

Having considered the report, the Committee

RESOLVED:   That the pending implementation of the Global Internal Audit Standards be noted.

Reason:

The Committee has a responsibility to ensure compliance with the Accounts and Audit Regulations (England) 2015.

The Committee considered an update report from the Southern Internal Audit Partnership on the progress of the Council’s Internal Audit service against the approved Internal Audit Plan for 2024-25 for Quarters 1 – 3.

The report had included the status of ‘live’ internal audit reports; an update on progress against the annual audit plan; a summary of internal audit performance, planning and resourcing issues; and a summary of significant issues that would impact on the Chief Internal Auditor’s annual opinion.

The internal auditors highlighted the continuing progress being made in implementing management actions, and that there was only one overdue action that was considered to be a high priority.

During the debate, the following points were raised by the Committee:

·      In response to a question as to how officers were addressing the high priority overdue management action related to housing benefits overpayments, it was explained that the issue centred around a lack of a direct interface between the housing benefit overpayment system, which was Civica, and Business World. Currently, an experienced officer was manually reconciling figures between the two systems, which was very time consuming.

·      It was suggested that it would be useful for the Committee to understand in respect of the Rolling Work Programme in which quarter reviews were planned to take place and, ideally, the planned date for the final report so the Committee could monitor progress against the work programme, and note any commentary as to reasons for delays. In response, the Internal Auditors agreed that this could be incorporated into the revised template format of future reports.

Having considered the report, the Committee

RESOLVED: That the internal audit progress report to October 2024, as detailed in the report submitted to the Committee be noted.

Reason:

To ensure good governance arrangements and internal control by undertaking an adequate level of audit coverage.

The Committee considered an update report on the Council’s corporate risks, as at the end of Quarter 2 for 2024-25.

The corporate risk register had undergone review with individual risk owners and the wider Joint Leadership Team. Details of the substantive changes that had been made to the risk register since the Committee last received an update on risk in September 2024 were set out in the report.

The Committee noted that no corporate risks had been identified for closure in the report.  However, one new risk had been identified and it concerned the recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and the development of a new local plan.

During the debate on this matter, the Committee made the following comments and observations:

·      In relation to the summary of the RAG ratings and the directions of travel, disappointment was expressed regarding the lack of impact of the remedial actions over the last quarter on the RAG status. There had been no decreases in risk, which begged the questions, would the remedial actions in place have been expected to produce a reduction in risk? And if not, why not? Does the Council need to be doing more? Is the Corporate Leadership Board (CLB) satisfied with the progress?  In response the Corporate Strategy & Performance Manager explained that the nature of these risks were the time horizons, and the potential impacts were generally of a strategic nature and quite significant. In terms of the mitigations that were either in place or planned, there were many variables associated with risk and targets could often shift due to change in circumstances. Officers would be happy to pick up any specific detail on any risk the Committee was particularly concerned about.  The Committee also noted that the CLB received regular monthly updates on the corporate risk register and associated issues. 

There were many corporate risks that the Council had limited ability to completely mitigate and reduce the likelihood of them happening.

·       It was noted that many of the risks, the red ones in particular, for example, referenced other improvement plans, and it was suggested that it would be good practice to draw the top couple of risks out of those improvement plans and explicitly put them into the tables.

·      In relation to the new risk associated with the new NPPF and the need for an update of the local plan, it was noted from the report that, in the absence of a five-year land supply, there was a high risk of speculative applications on non-allocated sites.  It was further noted that there had been a constant stream of applications on non-allocated sites for the past five years of the existing local plan, without the infrastructure in place in respect of these sites. This had resulted in risks of costs from appeals, and also from residents bringing judicial reviews. There was also disappointment that there appeared to have been little progress being made with work on the update of the Local Plan. It was suggested that,  ...  view the full minutes text for item CGS90

The Committee considered a report on a new risk management strategy for the Council, which had been presented for review and comment ahead of anticipated adoption by the Executive at its meeting on 23 January 2025.

The strategy articulated the approach to risk management at the Council. It committed the Council to risk management as a core component of effective governance, leadership as well as the direction, control and management of the organisation at all levels. The strategy had been developed to ensure conformance with sector best practice and guidance, as well as the risk profile of the Council. Its development was a key action of the Council’s Improvement Plan, arising from the independent governance review undertaken by Solace in 2024.

The council had worked closely with Zurich Resilience Solutions in creating the strategy, including in the development and inclusion of an explicitly defined risk appetite.

Zurich had also acted as a ‘critical friend’ in the strategy’s development and had confirmed that it was comprehensive and met standards of good practice.

The strategy was accompanied by a risk management methodology, which was appended to the report. The methodology had set out, in detail, how the principles and objectives of the strategy were to be achieved at the Council.

The following points were made by the Committee during the debate on this matter:

·      In relation to the objectives of the strategy it was suggested that it might be useful to add an objective along the lines of ensuring that the management of risk is consistent with the Council’s obligation to provide Value-For-Money. In response, the Corporate Strategy and Performance Manager agreed to add this to the objectives.

·      Assurance was sought that there was going to be an appropriate change management activity associated with implementation of the Strategy including staff and member training and an accompanying toolkit. In response, the Corporate Strategy and Performance Manager confirmed that officers were working on an implementation plan to ensure that appropriate systems and processes were in place to support a risk informed culture across the organisation.

·       The importance of undertaking a post-implementation review was emphasised. In response, the Corporate Strategy and Performance Manager indicated that there were a number of options to measure the success of implementation of the Strategy – including a review by internal auditors, further engagement with Zurich, and seeking ISO certification.

·      Acknowledgement of the significant improvement in the quality of the proposed Strategy.

• It was noted that, when reporting on risks, it would be useful to provide an assessment of the effectiveness of controls and mitigations to provide stakeholders with assurance. It was confirmed that this would be picked up as part of the implementation plan.

Having considered the report, the Committee

RESOLVED:

(1)         To note the risk management strategy (2025/26 – 2028/29).

(2)         To submit the above comments and observations on the contents of the strategy to the Executive.

 Reason:

To enable the Council to have effective arrangements in place for the management of risk.

The Committee noted that the Council had adopted a revised Code of Conduct in October 2020 based on the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, with subsequent amendments agreed in 2021.  The Committee considered a report which proposed that the Council consider adopting the Local Government Association’s (LGA) Model Code of Conduct, in place of the existing Code of Conduct for Councillors.

In order to support Councils, the LGA had produced a Model Code of Conduct in December 2020 for Councils to adopt in whole and/or with local variations.  The LGA kept the Code under annual review to ensure it continued to be fit- for-purpose, incorporating advances in technology, social media and changes in legislation.   The LGA Model Code also encompassed the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, including the ‘Nolan’ principles.

The report had also included a comparison of the Council’s current Code of Conduct against the Model Code.  It was noted that most areas were broadly similar, other than the following:

(a)       The current Code contained information on predetermination.  This was not a Code of Conduct matter, but it was acknowledged that members should be provided with advice on this area.

(b)      Dispensations.  Whilst these were referred to in the current Code, no reference was made to them within the Model Code. If the Council were to adopt the Model Code, a separate protocol for obtaining a dispensation would need to be agreed.  This would be the subject of a separate report to the Committee.

During the debate, the Committee made the following points:

·      It was noted that the current Code included provision for its review every four years, and it was suggested that a similar provision be included in the Model Code, subject to earlier reviews where required as a consequence of any changes proposed to the Model Code by the LGA in its annual review. The Senior Governance Officer indicated that she would expect that any review of the Code, together with any proposed changes, would be included in the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report to the Standards Committee, subject to the submission of an earlier report to the Committee if considered appropriate by the Monitoring Officer.

·      It was noted that the current Code made provision for councillors to register and pass on any unsolicited gift of a value of £50 or more to the Mayor’s Office for donation to a charity or raffle where it was impracticable to return any such gift, or the return would cause offence. As the Model Code had simply made provision for the registration of such gifts, it was suggested that a similar provision should be carried forward into the Model Code. 

Having considered the report, the Committee

RESOLVED:

(1)         That the Council, at its extraordinary meeting on 22 January 2024, be recommended to agree that the LGA Model Councillor Code of Conduct, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Committee, be adopted and incorporated into the Constitution in  ...  view the full minutes text for item CGS92

The Committee considered its updated work programme and noted that invitations had been sent to councillors regarding the proposed special meeting of the Committee on 20 February 2025 to deal with the audit findings report in respect to be 2023-24 accounts. 

The Committee also noted from the Supplementary Agenda Pack that, in recognition of the move to a dedicated Audit and Risk Committee from June 2025, the Council’s Internal Auditors had agreed with the Joint Strategic Director for Finance and Resources that, rather than bring the Internal Audit Charter 2025-26 to the Committee in March, it should be deferred to the new Audit and Risk Committee in June for approval where it would be presented alongside an Internal Audit Strategy that was now also required as part of the implementation of the new Global Internal Audit Standards. 

The Committee therefore noted that the following Internal Audit reports would be included on the agenda of the first meeting of the new Audit & Risk Committee: 

·      2024-25 Annual Audit Report,

·      Q2 Internal Audit Plan,

·      Internal Audit Charter 2025-26,

·      Internal Audit Strategy (new document) 2025-26.

The Committee

RESOLVED: That, subject to the above changes, the work programme, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Committee, be approved.

Reason:

To allow the Committee to maintain and update its work programme.