Agenda and minutes

Apologies were receieved from Cllr H Blathwayt.

Cllr P Heinrich for Cllr H Blathwayt.

To receive public questions, if any.

None received.

To determine any items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

None received.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. The code of conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Cllr J Rest declared that he had an interest in item 12, as he had been a Member of the Cromer Tennis Hub Project Board from 2017-2019.

Cllr S Penfold declared that he had been a Member of the Cromer Tennis Hub Project Board from February 2018.

To approve as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee held on 8^th December 2020.

The Chairman noted that Cllr C Cushing had asked to raise a question on the Monitoring Officer’s report discussed at a previous meeting:

Cllr C Cushing referred to the Monitoring Officer’s report presented to GRAC and the Standards Committee, and asked whether outstanding issues could be brought back to the Committee for discussion. The DSM replied that the report could not be revisited as it covered a specific period of time, and was to note only. The CE added that he had received a request for a written response on the matter that he was in the process of preparing, and would share with Members of the Standards Committee once complete.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8^th December 2020 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive and note the EY Annual Audit Letter for the year ended 31^st March 2019.  

The EA introduced the item and informed Members that the Annual Audit Letter provided a summary of all work completed in the 2018/19 year. It was noted that it did not provide the same level of detail as the audit results report, and that no new issues had arisen that required further discussion. The EA reported that he was in the process of agreeing a timetable for the 2019/20 audit with the Director for Resources, in order to get the audit work back on track as soon as possible.

Questions and Discussion

   i.          It was confirmed following a question from the Chairman, that the EA was confident that external audit would return to its normal schedule in 2021/22.

RESOLVED

To receive and note the Annual Audit Letter.

The IAM introduced the report and informed Members that the self-assessment was an annual process undertaken as part of CIPFA best practice. She added that the Committee should review the previous answers and update them where appropriate.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The IAM referred to the first question on whether the role and purpose of GRAC was understood and accepted across the authority, to which a partly answer had been given. It was recommended that the answer be changed to a yes, and Members were invited to comment.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing asked whether all Members had a clear understanding of the difference between GRAC and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The DSM noted that whilst both Committee’s provided an oversight function, they had different responsibilities outlined in the constitution with GRAC taking a more focused approach to governance and risk, whilst the Overview and Scrutiny had a broader remit to review all decisions and policies of the Council. It was suggested that it would be helpful to remind Members of the difference between the two Committees. Members agreed that the understanding and acceptance of the role of GRAC should change to a yes.

    iii.          The IAM noted that questions 14 and 15 related to the skills of the Committee, and stated that a CIPFA skills and knowledge matrix had been circulated previously, and suggested that this could continue, to determine whether any training was required. Members were invited to raise any further comments to update the self-assessment.

RESOLVED

To review and comment on the scoring criteria outlined in the self-assessment.

The IAM introduced the report and referred Members to point 3.2 which outlined the 101 of days of audit work completed and accounted for 70% of the revised internal audit plan. She then referred to point 4.4 which outlined finalised audits, such as the corporate governance review that had been given a reasonable assurance rating with three priority 2 recommendations raised. It was reported that Council Tax and NNDR had been given a substantial assurance rating with no recommendations raised. Local Council Tax Support and Housing Benefit had been given a reasonable assurance rating with one important recommendation. The IAM reported that the Tennis Hub Audit had been given no assurance rating with six urgent and four important recommendations, and stated that the audit would be reviewed separately. The IAM referred to delays caused by the impact of Covid-19, and stated that most work was now completed and the Team remained on track to complete the audit plan on schedule. It was noted that an assurance mapping exercise had been completed when revising the audit plan to ensure that risks had not been overlooked. The IAM informed Members that all teams had been asked about the changes they had implemented in their Covid response, and whether they would require testing. It was suggested that this approach had highlighted areas of concern for the 2021/22 audit plan.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The IAM referred to the corporate governance arrangements audit and noted that there were three important recommendations. The first related to changes to Committee meetings, where it had been recommended that agenda items that would impact the governance of the meeting should be reviewed first. The second recommendation referred to adherence to the constitution, where it had been suggested that business continuity plans should be updated for longer disruption, such as that caused by Covid-19. The next recommendation required management to take stronger action to mitigate issues arising from conflicts of interest, such as including a guide on agendas to advise Members on how to raise an interest.

      ii.          On the Council Tax and NNDR audit, the IAM noted that the audit had not covered the programme of grants to businesses from Central Government, as this was seen as a wider piece of work to be considered as part of the 2021/22 audit.

    iii.          On Council Tax and Housing Benefits, the IAM reported that a recommendation had been made that reconciliations be completed promptly at the end of each month, to avoid issues.

    iv.          On procurement and management during the Covid period, the IAM stated that there were a number of actions that required implementation to mitigate risks, and a subsequent piece of work was being undertaken that would be brought to a future meeting for review.

RESOLVED

To note the outcomes of the audits completed between 27 November 2020 and 26 February 2021

To receive a verbal update on the strategic and annual internal audit plans.

The IAM informed Members that under normal circumstances the annual audit plans would have be agreed in January, but due to the ongoing impact of Covid-19, it had not been possible at that time. As a result, the audit plans for the year ahead would come to the June meeting, alongside the audit opinion. It was suggested that this would have a limited impact on the audit plan, as Q1 would have a light workload.

RESOLVED

To note the update.

To review and note the Corporate Risk Register.

The DFR introduced the report and informed Members that it was the first risk register produced using the InPhase system. He added that the report covered all details of each risk, and noted that this could be changed in future to provide a more strategic overview. It was noted that the key corporate risks were identified on page 65 in a high level summary, and that an outline of how risks were reviewed was included on page 71. The DFR referred operational risks identified and noted that these had not changed. Members were invited to provide their thoughts on the new format and make suggestions for future reports.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that direction of change for each risk was a key aspect of the report, and suggested that any new risks added should be clearly identified.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing noted that the report did not outline when risks had last been reviewed, and asked whether deadlines for risk mitigation should be identified. The DFR replied that several risks would be mitigated by the actions taken in response to audit recommendations, and stated that he would review whether key dates could be added to the report. He added that he would also include any new risk mitigation actions in the covering report.

    iii.          The Chairman suggested that it would be helpful to see the live risk register and asked whether this could be arranged for a future meeting.

RESOLVED

To review and note the Corporate Risk Register.

The IAM introduced the report and informed Members that the audit had been given no assurance rating, with six urgent and four important recommendations. She added that the audit was an independent and objective assurance review, that sought learning opportunities for future projects, as opposed to a formal investigation. It was noted that a number of the recommendations complemented previous audit work on project management, and progress on these recommendations would be reported back to the Committee in due course. The IAM reported that the recommendations had a completion deadline of May 2021, and it was expected that many would be addressed via changes to the project management framework and documentation, as well as the creation of the Corporate Delivery Unit (CDU), as a specific team devoted to project governance.

The IA stated that the purpose of the review was to identify gaps and weaknesses in process, and that she was supportive of the aims and creation of the CDU to help address these issues.

The CE stated that the scope of the review was identified within the report, which identified the seven key areas that Internal Audit had been asked to review.

Questions and Discussion

           i.          Cllr A Brown referred to historical public minutes and agendas relating to the Tennis Hub project, and asked whether it was relevant to refer to individuals identified within these documents. The LGL noted that it would be for the Committee to determine whether this was a matter of public interest. She advised that information relating to an individual, information that could reveal the identity of an individual, or information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person or the organisation holding that information would be a justifiable reason for the Committee to move the meeting into private business.

          ii.          Cllr S Penfold asked whether Internal Audit were satisfied that the review was undertaken in a sound an objective manner, and whether they supported the report on this basis. The IA stated that it was an objective review, and that her limited involvement with the Council had ensured its independence. She added that any claims made within the report had been supported with evidence, and that the report itself had been subject to a rigorous quality assurance process. Cllr S Penfold referred to section 4.3 and noted that the report stated that “conflicts of interest are not robustly managed”, and asked whether this should be changed to ‘were not robustly managed’. The IA referred to the summary of the corporate governance review, which had reviewed how conflicts of interest were managed, and it had been determined that there were areas where this could be improved. Cllr S Penfold referred to historical Cabinet minutes, and asked whether the document provided an example of a conflict of interest that had not been robustly managed. The IA replied that she had looked for mitigation actions to ensure that conflicts were appropriately managed. Cllr S Penfold asked whether an individual had continued to be involved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

To monitor progress on items requiring action from the previous meeting, including progress on implementation of audit recommendations.

The DSGOS referred to the outcomes and actions list from the previous meeting and noted that officers would be invited to attend the June meeting, in order to respond to outstanding audit recommendations of two years or more. He added that the review of the Council’s assets would also be scheduled for the June or July meeting.

RESOLVED

To note the update.

To review the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee Work Programme.

The CTA referred to the audit deadlines and noted that these had been pushed back to September for 2020/21 and 2021/22, subject to review. She added that the Finance Team were still working to a May deadline to complete the draft statement of accounts, and that she would report to the Committee if this became unachievable. The DSGOS stated that there were a number of outstanding items that had to be fit into the Work Programme, such as the external audit plan, and noted that these would be scheduled as and when the reports became available.

RESOLVED

To note the Work Programme.

To pass the following resolution, if necessary:

“That under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in part 1 of schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”