Agenda and minutes

To record the attendance of substitute councillors, if any, who have been authorised to attend in accordance with the provisions of standing order 17(1), with notification having been given to the proper officer before the start of the meeting and to receive apologies for absence. 

Councillor Janet Morgan had sent her apologies for absence and appointed Councillor John Woodford as her substitute. 

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the committee held on 12 January 2011 (previously published). 

RESOLVED: To adopt as a correct record the committee’s minutes of 12 January 2011 and agree that the chair signs them. 

To receive any declarations of personal or personal and prejudicial interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

None

To receive notification of any matters, which the chair determines, should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances, which have made the matters urgent, and to receive any announcements from the chair. 

The chair announced that the Council had approved the strategic director’s recommendation on the ‘Banks 4’ criteria in the treasury management and investment strategy.  The chair also announced that the follow-up audit on the handling of postal cash and cheques was included in internal audit’s report for this meeting. 

Any statements, petitions and questions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

None

To consider report 114/10 of the audit manager. 

The committee considered report 114/10 of the audit manager.  This summarised the outcome of recent internal audit activity.  Since the committee’s last meeting, internal audit had completed four audits and one follow-up audit. 

White Horse Leisure and Tennis Centre 2010/11

The committee noted that the contract manager had agreed to internal audit’s recommendations.  However, councillors noted that the audit had established that not all leisure centre staff had criminal records bureau checks.  Since the audit, the contractor had checked all staff.  Councillors recognised that the council had a reputational risk but questioned whether the legal responsibilities for the checks lay with the council or the contractor.  The audit manager agreed to investigate this and report in the follow-up audit. 

Health and Safety 2010/11

The committee noted that the health and safety adviser had agreed to internal audit’s recommendations. 

Handling of postal cash and cheques 2010/11

The committee noted that the facilities manager had agreed internal audit’s recommendations.  Since the last meeting when the committee expressed concern at the number of staff opening post and accounting for any cash and cheques received, councillors noted that a survey of the services areas found that the only area of concern was the general post room where only one member of staff opened the post.  The head of service had agreed that for a trial period, until the council reviewed the local services point function, two staff members would open the post to overcome the committee’s concerns. 

RESOLVED: To note the report. 

To consider report 115/10 of the audit manager. 

The committee considered report 115/10 of the audit manager.  The report updated on the management of internal audit, summarised the progress against the 2010/11 audit plan, and outlined the priorities until the end of the financial year in March.  Councillors noted that it was likely that three low priority audits from 2010/11 would still be in progress at the end of March. 

In answer to a question from a councillor, the committee noted that internal audit had postponed the audit on the brown bins service at the request of the head of corporate strategy.  The head of service wanted to allow the Ridgeway Shared Services Partnership sufficient time to make improvements to the administration of the service before carrying out the audit. 

RESOLVED: to note the report. 

To consider report 116/10 of the Audit Manager. 

The committee considered report 116/10 of the audit manager that proposed an internal audit plan for 2011/12. 

In compiling the draft plan, the audit manager had consulted the chief executive, strategic directors, and the heads of service, as well as the Audit Commission, to ensure that the plan reviewed the areas of highest risk and importance. 

In answer to a question from a councillor, Anne Ockleston of the Audit Commission reported that her programme of work complemented internal audit’s plan.  She had no concerns with the proposed plan. 

RESOLVED: to approve the internal audit plan for 2011/12. 

To consider the attached report from the Audit Commission.   

The committee considered the Audit Commission’s annual report on the certification of claims and returns.  The Audit Commission had to certify where the council claimed government grants, and whether the council spent the money within the government’s conditions.  This related to grants of £125,000 or more.  In 2009/10, the Audit Commission found errors in the housing and council tax benefits’ claim.  The Audit Commission both amended and qualified the claim.  The main areas where the claim was qualified were:

• an inadequate system for awarding benefits
• an underpayment of benefits to claimants of non-statutory amounts of maternity pay
• rent allowance overpayments
• miscalculated benefit awarded to claimants receiving statutory retirement pension
• council tax overpayments

The Department of Work and Pensions had accepted the Audit Commission’s findings.  The department was recovering subsidy paid to the council for exceeding its upper limit of allowable errors.  The repayable subsidy could be up to £90,000.  The council could reclaim this penalty from its contractor, Capita.  The committee noted that Capita administered the benefits’ service.  Capita had submitted evidence to the Department of Work and Pensions in the council’s defence.  If accepted by the government department, this could offset the repayable subsidy.  Anne Ockleston of the Audit Commission explained that the errors were incorrect payments and errors placed in the wrong category when completing the subsidy claim. 

The committee noted that in 2010/11, the council’s contractor had improved its benefits performance.  The committee analysed a graph showing recent performance of administering benefits’ claims accurately.  This was due to Capita improving procedures and employing additional staff.  The committee welcomed the step up in performance. 

RESOLVED: to note the Audit Commission’s annual report on the certification of claims and returns. 

To consider the attached report from the Audit Commission. 

The committee considered the Audit Commission’s 2010/11 opinion audit on changes the council could expect to see in external audit activities.  The Audit Commission, as part of its changing role, would no longer be giving the council a scored assessment on its use of resources.  However, it would assess whether the council provided value for money.  This would concentrate on arrangements for securing:

·        financial resilience (looking at financial systems, controls, and forward planning) and

·        challenging how the council secured economy, efficiency, and effectiveness (looking at how the council prioritised resources, and improved efficiency and productivity)  

The Audit Commission would continue to audit the council’s accounts, but to the new international financial reporting standards.  There was a requirement to evaluate the council’s accounting estimates, and to identify any deficiencies in the council’s internal control procedures. 

RESOLVED: to note the Audit Commission’s 2010/11 opinion audit on changes the council could expect to see in external audit activities. 

To review the audit and governance work programme for 2011/12. 

The committee reviewed its work programme for 2011/12.  It added the Audit Commission’s annual governance report to the programme for September. 

The committee also noted that the government had proposed changes to the requirements for approving the draft statement of accounts for audit.  The committee might not have to approve the accounts in June each year; the section 151 officer might be permitted to do this instead.  However, the committee could consider the draft accounts in July.  It was possible that the June meeting of the committee could be move to July. 

RESOLVED: to adopt the audit and governance work programme for 2011/12, as amended. 

The Chair to move that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public, including the press, be excluded from the remainder of the meeting to prevent the disclosure to them of exempt information, as defined in Section 100(I) and Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, to the Act when the following items are considered:

Internal audit investigation

(Category 1 - Information relating to any individual.)

(Category 2 - Information which is likely to reveal the identity of any individual.)

(Category 3 - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information.)

RESOLVED: that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public, including the press, be excluded from the remainder of the meeting to prevent the disclosure to them of exempt information, as defined in Section 100(I) and Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, to the Act when the following items are considered:

Internal audit investigation

(Category 1 - Information relating to any individual.)

(Category 2 - Information which is likely to reveal the identity of any individual.)

(Category 3 - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information.)

SUMMARY OF EXEMPT MINUTES

To consider the confidential appendix to report 117/10 of the audit manager. 

The committee noted a report on an internal audit investigation.