Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Cllr Goringe.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25^th March 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25^th March 2024 were confirmed and signed.

To disclose any pecuniary, other registrable or non-registrable interest as set out in the adopted Code of Conduct.  In making their decision councillors are asked to state the agenda item, the nature of the interest and any action they propose to take as part of their declaration.

If required, further advice should be sought from the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.

Representatives of town or parish councils and members of the public who live, work, or represent an organisation within the Dorset Council area are welcome to submit either 1 question or 1 statement for each meeting.  You are welcome to attend the meeting in person or via MS Teams to read out your question and to receive the response. If you submit a statement for the committee this will be circulated to all members of the committee in advance of the meeting as a supplement to the agenda and appended to the minutes for the formal record but will not be read out at the meeting. The first 8 questions and the first 8 statements received from members of the public or organisations for each meeting will be accepted on a first come first served basis in accordance with the deadline set out below.

All submissions must be emailed in full to john.miles@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk by 8.30 am on 10^th April 2024.

When submitting your question or statement please note that:

· You can submit 1 question or 1 statement.

· A question may include a short pre-amble to set the context.

· It must be a single question and any sub-divided questions will not be permitted.

· Each question will consist of no more than 450 words, and you will be given up to 3 minutes to present your question.

· When submitting a question please indicate who the question is for (e.g., the name of the committee or Portfolio Holder)

· Include your name, address, and contact details.  Only your name will be published but we may need your other details to contact you about your question or statement in advance of the meeting.

· Questions and statements received in line with the council’s rules for public participation will be published as a supplement to the agenda.

· All questions, statements and responses will be published in full within the minutes of the meeting. 

There was no public participation.

To note the minutes of the Audit & Governance Hearing Sub-committee (if any meetings have been held).

There were no meetings held.

To receive a report by Marc Eyre, Service Manager for Assurance.

The Service Manager for Assurance introduced the report. The statement looked back on the previous 12 months covering the period 1st April 2023 through to the 31st of March 2024. The statement was supported by a local code of corporate governance. Past committees had requested that the format of the statement be made easier on the eye, and the statement was the first draft in this format. He noted that there was still work to be done on making the wording easier to read.

Mr Roach commented that he thought the slides in the associated text were helpful in terms of understanding how the principles were applied. On the detailed textured document, there were some areas of improvement that were included in the slides that were missing in sections A, B and G.

In response to questions from Mr Roach, the Executive Director Corporate Development informed that from an equality, diversity, and inclusion perspective there was a Draft Refreshed Plan which was due to be taken to a Scrutiny Committee months ago but at that particular stage the Department for Education was under consultation around transgender issues. The outcome of the policy was yet to be decided and when it had been decided the local policy and plan would be taken to an Overview Committee.

Mr Roach highlighted that it was important that the Committee truly understood what the extreme risks were and provide assurance over the quality of mitigation. It was agreed that the language used in the risk section was not currently clear.  He requested that Audit and Governance Committee consider a future item on extreme risks setting out the strategy or action plan to properly address these risks.

Cllr Biggs agreed to the request and responded that for members that had been on the Committee for a while had seen presentations regarding extreme risks.  In terms of the specific cyber risk, he advised that he had recently attended a cyber conference to fully understand the risks in order to challenge the owners of the risk.

Noted.

To receive a report by Ian Howse, Deloitte Audit and Assurance.

Ian Howse updated the Committee on the 2021-22 Audit. He informed that the Audit was progressing well and there was an update to the valuation of the Pension Fund Liability. The Audit was at the stage of final queries resolved, then it would move to the review phase and the audit could then be concluded on a timelier basis than previous Audits and begin to get back on track.

Following questions from the Committee regarding meeting the backstop date. Ian Howse responded that he was confident the targets would be hit for 21- 22 Audit. However, Audit 22-23 would be much more challenging on that timeline. Following conversations with the Section 151 Officer around how to hit these targets. He expressed a strong desire to not miss the deadline and to get accounts signed off for the date. The meeting on Thursday would present more clarity on the timeline and what would be required, and he was aware of the Councils strong desire to not have a disclaimed opinion, which was one of Deloitte’s priorities.

Noted.

To receive a report by Angie Hooper, Principal Auditor for SWAP.

The Principal Auditor introduced the progress report. There had been two Limited Assurance Opinions issued since the last report. Children with a Disability and the RMMSCW Framework. Actions had been agreed which would be followed up in the normal way. With regards to the significant corporate risks for the Response to the Climate Emergency all three actions which were due at the end of April had already been completed and work was well underway to complete the remaining actions. For the Premises Health and Safety, whilst work was progressing on all outstanding actions, there was still some work to be done to close off all remaining actions.

Cllr Cocking referenced page 3 of the report - Children with Disability, the invoicing from the agreed care hours and the hours that the provider had invoiced for. She indicated that it was a great concern and asked for reassurance that appropriate new processes were in place to improve control. As some local authorities had suffered significant fraud, she enquired about actions being taken against care providers who were not recording hours correctly.

The Principal Auditor provided assurance that no fraud was found during testing and the service was implementing a new process in terms of checking invoicing.

The Corporate Director for Care and Protection also provided reassurance that all the actions that were recommended by the Audit had been completed and processes had been tightened up. When a provider sends an invoice, and it does not match with the initial expression of interest and hours to be provided and paid for, the service would go back to the provider and challenge and discuss with the social worker whether the need had changed. There was no evidence of fraud or overpayment found and the service investigates and challenges each occasion if the invoice does not match what was initially agreed and recorded. 

Mr Roach expressed concern around the completion of priority actions agreed by services with Internal Audit. He highlighted the importance of proper visibility and scrutiny of those actions that were not addressed in the timetables that were given. He asked internal audit to facilitate a process to enable members to fully understand what the action were, what the original dates were, whether it was acceptable to delay and what risk mitigation had been put in place whilst the delay was in place. 

The Corporate Director for Assets and Regeneration in response to questions around the Premises Health & Safety actions indicated that in terms of an overall approach to Corporate Landlord there had been a slight shift. He was happy to give an update to the next committee.

Cllr Christopher raised the issue of inequality of provision across the County of Dorset in relation to children with a disability and the risk of reputational damage to the Council.

The Corporate Director for Care and Protection responded that there were locality services of children with disability teams linking to locality provision and Family Hubs provisions were being developed.

Noted. 

To receive a report by Angie Hooper, Principal Auditor for SWAP.

The Principal Auditor explained that the Annual Report supported the Council’s Annual Governance Statement. SWAP have considered the balance of the 2023-24 Audit work and was able to offer a Reasonable Assurance Opinion in respect to the areas reviewed during the year as most were found to be adequately controlled and risks generally well managed. SWAP has undertaken work across each of the Council’s corporate risk themes and issued 10 Limited Assurance Opinions with none of these as a significant risk. The number of overdue priority 1 and 2 actions had increased over the year, peaking at 30 in November but were now decreasing and currently standing at 23.  For the third year running, there were no audit actions that were risk accepted.

Noted.

To receive a report by Sally White, Assistant Director for SWAP.

The Assistant Director for SWAP introduced the report which indicated that Audit Planning would continue on a rolling basis which allowed for a dynamic and responsive plan of Audit work It was highlighted that members have access to SWAPs AuditBoard system and were able to access details of SWAP’s plan of work at any point in time.

There had been a change to Internal Auditing Standards and a combined mandate and charter document would hopefully be brought to Committee for approval for the July meeting.

The Assistant Director for SWAP in response to questions asked about what the update to the New Charter would bring. She did not anticipate any significant changes to the charter. The key change would be for SWAP to have a mandate which would explain the purpose and objectives of Internal Audit. This would likely form a part of a subsection of the charter, but SWAP was waiting for further guidance and would bring the document to Committee for approval as soon as possible.

Noted. 

To receive a report by Chris Swain, Risk Management and Reporting Officer.

The Risk Management and Reporting Officer introduced the report. At the time of the last Audit and Governance Committee 15^th January the level of overdue risks was at 59%. At the time of authoring the report there was now a 90% level of compliance, with 10% overdue in risk register updates. This was achieved by collective engagement with risk owners, risk champions and business partners. Targeting chasing of overdue risk was to be focused on with officer support and coaching where needed to improve the levels of compliance. 

Mr Roach commended that the dashboard was really good and useful for transparency and visibility. Overall, the percentage of overdue reviews had reduced. But the high risks were still a significant proportion. Place Services had 30 high risk, 60% overdue, Corporate Development had 21 high risk, 62% overdue and for Children Services 29% were overdue. He informed that those numbers did not sound as encouraging. For risk management, it was critically important that it was looked at in a prioritised way as there were so many risks to manage. The most important thing to do was to reduce extreme and high risks. He requested that the framework be adjusted to ensure prioritisation on the extreme and high risks, getting them under control, actions agreed and down to the target risk profile.

The Service Manager Business Intelligence and Performance in response added that the service had climbed a minor mountain getting to 90% compliance rate. The Risk manager and Reporting Officer would be attending monthly meetings with directors to look at risks. 

The Executive Director Corporate Development responded to questions around overall financial risk and in relation to children services and education budgets. He informed that it was a tough and challenging time for government finance and finances needed to be actively managed and services needed to be reshaped. Spend levels for Children Services were bucking the trend and stable and had not experienced massive growth in cost like other local authorities. Which was attributed to the leadership and management team in children services. The Path Finder Project was helping the service to perform relatively well through early intervention and joined up partnership. Approach to investment revenue and capital was paying off.  Adult Services were similar which provided grip and control since the Council was formed. With a similar approach to early intervention and investment in capacity. For the education budget, the high needs bloc was a significant risk financially. He was concerned about the continued academisation of schools and the financial implications on the Council as funding went straight from the government to the schools rather than to the Council. Which would impact the capacity to support and implications on overheads.

Cllr Cocking requested an update on the school on Portland Osprey Quay. The Executive Director Corporate Development responded that the school featured in the Safety Valve Agreement and planning assumption that SEND children would be receiving support at Osprey Quay. In terms of making it deliverable, it was in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

To receive a report by Jonathan Mair, Director Legal and Democratic.

The Director for Legal and Democratic introduced the report. He informed that the Council needed to have equivalent guidance on sexual harassment that officers received but for councillors. As the councillors were not employees and had a different status, the legal protections and duties did not apply in the same way as Councillors, but it was still important that the Council had an equivalent policy. The policy set out expectations around behaviour as Councillors but also practical guidance like what to do if a Councillor experiences or witness sexual harassment. A small minority of people could cause a lot of damage both individually to people and/or to the reputation of the organisation. The policy could also be used for the new councillor inductions.

Proposing Susan Cocking, seconded by Cllr Pauline Batstone.

On being put to a vote the amendment was CARRIED.

Recommendation to Full Council

To Recommend that Full Council endorse the publication of Guidance to Councillors about the Council’s Sexual Harassment Policy.

Reason for Decision

The Equality Act 2010 provides legal protections for workers from sexual harassment at work. The staff policy explains how the Council fulfils its legal obligations but does more than that and aims to enable a safe culture at work, free from sexual harassment.

Endorsement by the Audit and Governance Committee of guidance to councillors further strengthens this commitment and will enable the guidance to form part of the induction of councillors after elections in May 2024.

To receive a Constitutional Update by Jonathan Mair, Director Legal and Democratic.

The Director for Legal and Democratic updated the Committee on two changes that had been made to the constitution.

The first related to Appendix 2 of the Officer Scheme of Delegation and the range of employment powers of different tiers of managers in the organisation. There had also been some changes in how employment powers were exercised in relation to different members of staff. The Council had adopted a new vacancy management protocol process in the form of a new E-Ploy system. This had a lot of advantages in terms of digital approvement processes for employment decisions and enabled greater consistency and control over vacancies. Changes to the tier of managers had to be made so that they could make employment decisions.

The second also related to the Officer Scheme of Delegation, which included a list of proper officers who exercise particular statutory roles. One of these proper officer roles was the Caldicott Guardian, responding for the safeguarding of social care personal data held by the Council. Following the departure of a Children's Services colleague who had held the role Julia Ingram, Corporate Director for Adult Social Care had been designated as Caldicott Guardian.       

To consider the work programme for the Committee.

To consider any items of business which the Chairman has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to section 100B (4) b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The reason for the urgency shall be recorded in the minutes.

There were no urgent items.

To move the exclusion of the press and the public for the following item in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

The public and the press will be asked to leave the meeting whilst the item of business is considered.

There is no exempt business.

There was no exempt business.