Agenda item

FSD21031

The Head of Audit and Assurance summarised the report.

A review was required annually of the Council’s control and governance practices—this had to be compared with the relevant local government framework. In drafting the AGS (Annual Governance Statement), relevant officers from across the Council had been consulted—these included the CLT, Monitoring Officer, Democratic Services Manager, Risk Management Group and the Director of Finance. 

The main significant governance issues arising in the AGS were:

·  Finance

·  Valuation of Fixed Assets

·  Impact of Covid 19 on service delivery

Members noted this was a comprehensive document that outlined much good practice. Key documents were referenced at the back of the AGS. The AGS would be examined by the External Auditors. The Committee was informed that the AGS had to be signed off by the Leader and the Chief Executive.

The Chairman asked if it had ever been the case that any problems had arisen after the External Auditors had looked at the AGS. The Head of Audit and Assurance replied that LBB had not experienced any issues in this regard.

A Member referred to the arrangements for meetings that were resolved by the Urgency Committee when the pandemic first started. She said that it had been promised that these arrangements would be reviewed in June 2020, but that this had not been the case. She further expressed concern that no mention was made of the increased spending limits granted to the Leader of the Council at that time. The Head of Audit and Assurance responded that as the document was still in draft form it could be amended if required.

A Member commented on the issue of procurement and said that it was unfortunate that the report was silent with respect to tenders and bids under £50k. He understood that the Council looked at cumulative totals as well as individual elements. The Member referred to the matter of what the report referred to as ‘continuing to reduce bureaucratic burdens’. He wondered if this was actually taking place and if so it would be good to include examples in the report.

A Member referred to the fact that the Council’s accounts had not been signed off for a few years. In his view, there did not seem to be enough urgency in resolving this matter, which he felt  needed to be expedited as soon as possible. It was not good for the reputational image of the Council to have no value for money assessment for three consecutive years.

A discussion took place around the issue and the protocols followed with respect to whistle blowing. The Head of Audit and Assurance commented that in some cases it would be appropriate for him to discuss whistle-blowing issues with the Monitoring Officer and with the Director of Finance. It would not always be appropriate to report back to the whistle-blower, if the matter related to another individual, but in some cases it was appropriate to report back to the manager of the relevant service. The Member asked what the Head of Audit and Assurance would do if he was unhappy with how whistle blowing information was dealt with. The Head of Audit and Assurance stated that the relevant regulations allowed him to have access to the Chair of the Audit Sub-Committee as well as the Chief Executive if required. Generally, appropriate action was taken and there would be no sweeping of issues under the carpet.

The Committee discussed the matter of senior people who had previously worked for the Council in LBB’s planning section and then subsequently were employed in the private sector as planning agents. Public perception could be that this person may have undue influence and so perhaps stricter protocols concerning such matters should be considered. The Head of Audit and Assurance said that this was a matter he could discuss with the Monitoring Officer.

A Member expressed the view that £2.75m of public money had been wasted, with respect to the development of the Crofton Road Cycle Lane. He said that the local residents had been ‘up in arms’ about this development. He disputed the fact that the development had been undertaken based on clear evidence and enquired as to what Members could do if they felt that public money had been wasted--as they no longer had access to a District Auditor. It was noted that in this case the matter had been ‘called in’. The Head of Audit and Assurance responded that if it was an issue with due process then the matter could be referred to the Monitoring Officer. He clarified that whilst the District Auditor or the Audit Commission no longer existed, the equivalent rights existed  where matters could be referred by electors to the External Auditor.

A Member enquired as to where she could make complaints with respect to  planning issues. She said that she had in the past referred matters with respect to planning to the Standards Committee, but in her view the responses were unsatisfactory. She wondered if the Audit Sub-Committee could draft a report on the governance procedures that related to the Standards Committee. She highlighted the fact that after the Planning Advisory Service Review of 2019, it had been suggested that changes be made to some of the governance procedures around planning. 

As a result of this review, some changes were made with respect to the governance process around planning, including the fact that now if a Member called in a planning application, the planning reason for the ‘call in’ had to be supplied. The Member expressed the view that in addition, the name of the Member who called in the application should be published with the agenda papers. She commented on the perceived undue influence that staff leaving the Council (after working in Planning) and then being re-employed in the private sector as a planning agent could seem to have. 

A Member wondered that (with respect to the Crofton Cycle Lane) if objectors could submit an objection to the accounts if they felt that the project was not value for money. The Head of Audit and Assurance responded that any resident could exercise their democratic rights and raise objections to the accounts, these would then be looked at by the External Auditors; obviously the relevant grounds would need to be established for any objections to be taken seriously. 

RESOLVED that

1) The Committee noted the comments made with respect to the Annual Governance Statement and the Committee agreed the Statement.

2) The Head of Audit and Assurance would discuss the matter of former senior members of the Planning Department leaving the Council and working in the private sector as Planning Agents with the Director of Corporate Services.

3) The Head of Audit and Assurance noted comments made by the Committee and he would amend the draft AGS if he felt that this was appropriate.