To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence had been received from Councillor L Jones. Councillor Knowles was attending the meeting as substitute.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 28^th July 2022.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting held on 28^th July 2022 were approved as a true and accurate record.

To receive and sign off the accounts.

Andrew Vallance, Head of Finance, introduced the item and outlined the Statement of Accounts 2019/20.

Jonathan Gooding, Deloitte, said that the pension fund audit had been completed in May. The adjustments made had been summarised, including updates to the accounting on joint ventures, classification of expenditure, reserve movements and asset valuations. The accounts had been delayed due to the number of objections which had been received, six of the objections had been accepted. There were some issues with the quality of the financial statements which had been received, while there were also new issues in the industry which were a factor, for example on infrastructure assets. Once final issues had been concluded, Jonathan Gooding anticipated that an unqualified opinion would be issued on the accounts. Part of the opinion would have an empathise on material uncertainty in the property valuation. In respect of value for money and use of resources, three exceptions had been identified on a range of weakness on financial planning, reporting and governance. The report covered the areas of significant audit risk, including capital expenditure and property valuations.

Benjamin Sheriff, Deloitte, said that comments had been against the misstatements in the accounts. There were three technical areas on the pension fund accounts which had been corrected. Gross cost depreciation on infrastructure assets came out of the infrastructure asset national issue which had been discussed previously.

A registered public speaker, Mr Andrew Hill, addressed the Committee. Mr Hill said that the report had been in production for over two years, yet the report had only been published one day before the Committee meeting. Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972 stated that documentation had to be available for five clear days before any meeting. This was to allow Members and the public to digest the information in good time. Mr Hill felt it was disappointing that he therefore had only one day to consider and read the report. He commented on Braywick Leisure Centre, there was a £6.4 million misstatement in 2018. However, in 2019 there were no further misstatements and the investigation was then closed. Mr Hill made reference to the Part II confidential leak to the local media about the land value of the St Cloud Way site. Mr Hill believed that Deloitte had missed something important, objections from the public had asked Deloitte to investigate this but they declined to do so. The first objections on this had been raised in 2020 by CIPFA, Mr Hill suggested that the Committee should advise Deloitte to review the Braywick deal as part of this audit.

Councillor Story asked about the property valuation report which had been received from Lambert Hampton Smith.

Jonathan Gooding explained that the control recommendation around the property valuation report was around evidencing officers review of that report. The methodology of values by officers was reviewed, in this case the evidence was not sufficient. In 2018/19, this control weakness had been identified and the follow up had occurred in the 2019/20 accounts.

Adele  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

To consider the report.

Lisa Fryer, SWAP, explained that the purpose of the plan was to allow Committee Members to have oversight of the internal audit plan and for SWAP to draw attention to areas where internal controls were in need of improvement. SWAP was on track to deliver the plan, a third of audits were at the reporting stage, while 26% of the plan was in progress. A key focus had been on grant audits to meet certification deadlines and a further three grant reviews had been completed since the last progress report was considered by the Committee. On assurance, three audits had been finalised, two of which were limited assurance. A summary of all audits which were a low level of assurance had been outlined, two audits on this progress report were deemed low assurance. One was on the risk management framework, strategic risks had not been refreshed for some time and the new RBWM Corporate Plan provided a good opportunity for this to happen. An audit had also been completed on fleet safety compliance checks, services were now individually managed and the council did not have a central record of all vehicles owned and leased. The climate change review had focused on the governance arrangements and received a reasonable opinion, it was an important area for the council.

Councillor Bond focused on the climate governance audit, the climate was a big issue. The National Audit Office had created a document that advised that the Committee should ask questions about the climate governance audit, Councillor Bond suggested that the audit could be made available for the Committee to review. He asked if he could view the audit by submitting a Freedom of Information request. Councillor Bond said that any completed audits could be listed under the ‘background documents’ section of the report, for the Committee Members to view should they wish. Councillor Bond concluded by suggesting that the climate governance audit should be added to the work programme. Councillor Bond had three questions on the audit:

·         What were the strengths and weaknesses that the audit identified?

·         Manchester’s Section 151 officer was also leading on climate change, this linked with policy and resources in a realistic way. He asked if the audit shed any light on this method of governance?

·         SWAP had completed climate audits at other local authorities, but these all had different titles. Councillor Bond asked why this was the case?

Adele Taylor said that audits that had been completed could be viewed by the Committee, she would work out the best way to do this so that Members could easily access them as they were completed. The Manchester S151 officer was leading on climate at a corporate level which was the reason for this method of governance, RBWM worked under a matrix management system. The audit on climate governance was undertaken to ensure that the council was part of the right and effective partnerships.

ACTION – Adele Taylor to explore the best of sharing completed audits with Members of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

To consider the report.

Steve Mappley, Insurance and Risk Manager, said that as risk management had been deemed as limited assurance by SWAP, officers would look to do something about it. The plan outlined what would be done and who would be doing it. The work would continue over the next six months or so and would hopefully encourage greater ownership of the process. The evidence base would be improved and a performance and risk management board had been created which would help ensure improvement.

Andrew Vallance added that the council would be completing a strategic risk refresher session in due course.

Councillor Bond noticed that some of the timescales for actions listed in the plan were quite short, he was concerned that extra training sessions could be an added burden on officers. However, it was important that the work was completed. It was good to see that a new board had been created to oversee the process.

Steve Mappley said that a lot of the material existed already which was the reason for the shorter timescales.

Adele Taylor said it was about being able to evidence risk and improve performance.

Councillor Knowles said that ownership was going in the right direction, risk could be debated but risk assessments could improve the democratic process and provide facts rather than opinions.

Steve Mappley said risk needed to find the right level before it became overwhelming, this would affect the level of detail on the risk assessment. High, medium or low risk could be vague and some reports could contain greater detail of the risk.

Councillor Story asked which items were of greatest concern for the Insurance and Risk Manager.

Steve Mappley said that after Directors and Heads of Service, the risk register was less well known. It would be ideal for most officers to have a basic understanding of what was on the risk register and why was it was there. It could be something that was included as part of 1-1 appraisals. There was a relaunch of the risk management strategy planned which went through all tiers of staff, it currently did not get to all tiers of staff.

Adele Taylor said that risk was discussed at all team management meetings and it was considered at 1-1 meetings. This was about bringing risk to the fore and reminding staff of what they are doing and why they are doing it, which is why it needed to be refreshed. The council’s organisational value ‘empowered to improve’ was linked to the need for knowledge of risk to be improved.

Emma Duncan, Monitoring Officer and Director of Law and Governance, said that risk was referenced on every report. She had discussed, with the Head of Governance, the potential of having a link through to the corporate risk register. Any large project should have its own risk register and risk registers should be included in service plans. High risks could be moved up the register which was routinely reviewed by Executive Directors and the risk management board.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

To consider the briefing note.

Andrew Vallance said that the briefing note was an update on the Redmond Review, which the Committee had considered last year. The proposals from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) included confirmation that the Audit Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA) would be the local audit system leader. Responsibilities would include regulation of local audit, monitoring and review of local audit performance, the Code of Local Audit Practice, and reporting on the state of local audit. The ARGA would also take over responsibility of value for money arrangements in local audit, while an annual report would be produced which went to Parliament on the state of local audit.

Andrew Vallance continued and explained that councils were encouraged to continue opting in to the PSAA arrangements for procuring auditors, RBWM had done this for the next five years. The DLUHC was considering making audit committees a statutory requirement for every council. RBWM had moved the audit and governance function out of the Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel into a separate Audit & Governance Committee and already met this recommendation. Audit Committees should also include at least one independent member, who was not a Councillor. The council would need to consider changing its constitution to appoint an independent representative on the Audit and Governance Committee.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Audit and Governance Committee noted the report.

To consider the Committee’s work programme for the municipal year.

Andrew Vallance outlined the items which the Committee would consider at the next meeting, in October 2022.

Councillor Bond suggested that the audit on climate governance could go in the ‘items suggested but not yet programmed’ section.

Adele Taylor said that once the accounts for 2020/21 and 2021/22 were ready, an additional meeting could be required between October and February. A number of the reports being considered by the Committee in October were important for the budget setting process.