Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Belinda Bawden, David Grey and Robin Legg.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12^th June 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12th June 2023 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.

To receive questions or statements on the business of the committee from town and parish councils and members of the public.

When submitting a question please indicate who the question is for and include your name, address and contact details.  Questions and statements received in line with the council’s rules for public participation will be published as a supplement to the agenda.

The deadline for submission of the full text of a question or statement is 8.30am on 12^th July 2023.

There was no public participation.

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

No Meetings from the Audit and Governance Sub-committee had been held.

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

The Service Manager for Assurance outlined that the report provided an overview of information governance activity during the last twelve months, including the setup of the new Strategic Information Governance Board and its Standing Working Groups, together with a forward look of activity for the next twelve months.  This focussed on an action plan under development to meet any gaps identified following completion of the Information Commissioners Office Accountability Framework self-assessment.  

Cllrs asked the report author questions such as, if benchmarking against other local authorities had been conducted, whether the council was going to reduce the extreme values on risk for cyber and will the project in paragraph 671 in the report be embedded and how would this be implemented?

The Service Manager for Assurance responded to these questions by informing that there had been some benchmarking around transactional activity, such as freedom of information and subject access requests.  At this stage however a comparison for the accountability framework had not been looked at. It was acknowledged that the cyber risk will always likely remain relatively high level despite significant controls. The project to identify a solution to the issues that remote workers cannot use their email addresses and are unable to access Dorset Council Systems is being conducted and is still in its infancy and gathering information. A section of the project will be looking at a service redesign approach. The project manager viewed the project as fast moving and has estimated a 2-month time scale to complete the work.  The committee requested that they are updated in due course of the outcomes of this project.

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

The Service Manager for Assurance introduced the report. The risk management function is in a stage of transition moving from Assurance Service to the Business Intelligence Service. The Recruitment process is underway.  In the meantime, self-service arrangements are in operation to update risk registers within directorates, and a number of strategic areas of work have been planned once recruitment of the team is complete.

Cllr Richard Biggs added that he thought it was surprising to see the 5 extreme risks were as high as they were and highlighted the importance of phrases like catastrophic framing people’s ideas.

Cllr Bill Trite commented on the impact and probability chart in the appendix of the report which runs from catastrophic to major to moderate, to slight, to limited and thought that these categories except for catastrophic are all similar to limited and found the terms unclear.

The Service Manager for Assurance agreed to take these comments on board and there will be a review of the risk matrix as part of the proposed risk appetite work.

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

The Principal Auditor for SWAP introduced the report which was the first update report for the 2023-24 financial year.

Since the last update report 3 Limited assurance opinions had been issued. A formal follow up of the Response to Climate Emergency audit has been carried out, working with the Corporate Director for Transformation, Innovation and Digital and his team. Positive movement has been made with all actions being in progress, 2 completed and 1 action is overdue but should be completed by the end of July.

In the November update a significant corporate risk was identified around Premises Health and Safety and a formal follow up has been undertaken and whilst only 2 of the 9 agreed actions have been implemented, good progress has been made against all remaining actions which should be completed by the end of 2023.

The number of overdue actions was 9 as of the 17th of July which was a reflection on the good progress that continues to be made in ensuring that actions are implemented in a timely way.

To receive a report by Ian Howse, Deloitte.

 Ian Howse from Deloitte outlined the ISA 260 report which covers the audit for 2021. There were still a number of areas that needed to be completed but the detail testing had now been completed. The 1920 report included significant weaknesses within children services, but Deloitte had seen significant progresses within the council.  Significant risks reported were a recognition of covid grant income and completeness of accrued expenditure and valuation of property assets. There was an issue with the car parking valuation which led to an over-statement of £5.6 million.

Cllr Simon Christopher asked Ian Howse if he would have done anything different at the planning stage with the valuation of assets and the reports that he had received and raised concerns over the conflict of interest associated with the County Farms Estate as it was valued by an internal valuer as opposed to being valued externally.

Ian Howse responded that he would have not changed his approach to the planning of this work as the work identified the valuation of assets as a significant risk. He informed that he used qualified chartered surveyors to review the valuations conducted internally and externally and their expertise are drawn upon to identify the issues raised in this report. He used specialist property valuers in order to challenge the assumptions being made and it is not specified if the council is required to have internal or external valuers.

Cllr Richard Biggs asked a question regarding the historical overpayment for the PFI which was considered a large number of £3 million. 

Heather Lappin responded by adding that it was in relation to an interpretation of the actual contract rather than an error in the calculation. There was a small error which has happened since 2011 up until 2020 and related to 40% of the contract in total.

Ian Howse informed the committee that they were very close to signing off the current set of accounts and will then move positively towards the next set. He has every intention of clearing the backlog by the 31st March 2024 which will be challenging as there are two significant audits to complete in this time. 

To consider the work programme for the Committee.

The Executive Director for Corporate Development proposed an additional item for the September Audit and Governance meeting about the councils’ arms lengths and wholly owned companies as in the last year Care Dorset and Dorset Centre of Excellence had been set up and the item will also review the Brunel Pension Fund and consider value for money. 

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 are no exempt items scheduled for this meeting.

Decision

That the press and the public be excluded for the following item(s) 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).

There was no exempt business.