Meeting documents

Zahir Mohammed was elected as Chairman of the Regulatory and Audit Committee for the ensuing year.

Timothy Butcher was appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Regulatory and Audit Committee for the ensuing year.

Apologies for absence were received from Richard Scott.

Richard Schmidt, Assistant Service Director (Strategic Finance), was in attendance in place of Richard Ambrose, Service Director for Finance and Commercial Services and Section 151 Officer.

The Chairman welcomed the new members to the Committee and asked everyone to introduce themselves.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2013 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

Matters arising

Page 2 – Ian Dyson told members that his progress report would be brought to the next meeting. An audit report regarding purchasing cards had been issued and no material issues had been found.

Other actions in the Minutes - these to be chased – Action: HW

Emma Denley (Performance and Strategy Team Leader, Policy, Performance and Communications) was welcomed to the meeting.

Emma Denley referred members to the updated Data Quality Strategy in the papers and said that this was a refreshed version of the 2011-12 Strategy.

Emma Denley referred to the following points:

·       The Data Quality Strategy should be read in conjunction with the Council’s Data and Information Management Strategy 2011-15, which was the responsibility of the Information Governance Board.

·       The Data Quality Strategy covered all Council employees and Councillors, all information that was entered or stored within the Council and all partners / contractors providing services to or working in partnership with the Council.

·       The management process and monitoring were described on page 18 and following.

·       Appendix 1 showed the actions which were needed to ensure that data quality was maintained and improved.

Ian Dyson, Chief Internal Auditor, said that Internal Audit undertook a programme of governance audits throughout the year. These audits had come about as an action from the Annual Governance Statement in the previous year. Internal Audit looked at the robustness of data and the controls in place.

Ian Dyson noted that Data Quality Champions had not yet been identified in every service, and that these champions were a key part of the internal control arrangements.

A member asked how services would be followed up to ensure they did not miss key areas. Emma Denley said that it was the role of the Corporate Performance Officer to check that services were not missing key areas.

Ian Dyson noted that arrangements in services had to be specific to the services (e.g. the Place Service worked closely with Ringway Jacobs).

A member asked who would monitor the performance of Data Quality Service Champions. Ian Dyson said that part of his role would be to independently review how the operations were working. There were currently three Service Champions in place and two still to be appointed.

The Corporate Performance Team would have corporate oversight of how well the operations were working as a matter of routine.

Emma Denley said that a toolkit had been created specifically for data quality purposes. They could not make it mandatory for officers to have data quality actions in their Delivering Successful Performance (DSP) records, but it was likely that this would be picked up in the DSP process in 2013-14. The toolkit had been sent to all teams.

A member asked if there was a formal process in place to address data quality gaps or lapses. Emma Denley said that it depended on what sort of lapse it was. Low level lapses would be addressed by looking at the definition and ensuring it was robust. High level lapses should result in a management investigation, and could lead to Internal Audit carrying out thorough checking.

The escalation process would be through local teams initially and escalated up to COMT if necessary. Any systematic / software issues would be flagged through the risk management process.

A member asked how the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Ian Dyson, Chief Internal Auditor, circulated the draft Annual Governance Statement (AGS). The AGS would be brought to the next meeting for formal agreement, but was being presented at this meeting for members’ information and comments.

Ian Dyson took members through the draft AGS and said the following:

·       The layout of the AGS was prescribed by CIPFA guidance. In December 2012 CIPFA had published an addendum to the Guidance which set out the areas to be covered in the AGS.

·       The AGS covered time up to 31 March 2013, so it reflected the 2012-13 year.

·       2012-13 had begun with the Corporate Plan, which contained four priorities. The Strategic Plan had then been developed, which contained eight priorities. This was underpinned by the Portfolio Plans, Team Plans and individual plans.

·       In 2012 the Standards Committee had been dissolved, following changes in legislation. Due to this change, Regulatory and Audit Committee had been given additional responsibilities.

·       The Appeals and Complaints Committee had been dissolved in 2013, and some responsibilities had been passed to the Regulatory and Audit Committee. A Complaints Sub-Committee would be formed if the need arose, following a complaint about an elected member.

·       In 2012-13 the Overview and Scrutiny function had been altered and there were now four Select Committees. However the remit of Overview and Scrutiny had not changed (to hold the Cabinet to account).

·       Page 4 of the Draft AGS described how performance and compliance were monitored.

·       The Council had a Local Code of Governance as recommended in CIPFA guidance from 2007. This Code should be on the Council’s website, but was not. It had also not been updated since 2007. One of the actions in the AGS was for this Code to be refreshed.

·       In 2010 CIPFA had produced a statement on the role of the Head of Internal Audit. This ensured that the Chief Internal Auditor could provide independent assurances.

·       CIPFA guidance published in 2010 set out the role and criteria for the Chief Finance Officer (Section 151 Officer). The Council was compliant with this guidance.

·       The Council’s Constitution included the Financial Regulations and Standing Orders. Any changes to these needed to be approved by the Regulatory and Audit Committee. Financial schemes of delegation were managed through the Directorates.

·       Section 5 listed any significant governance issues which had arisen from the work of Internal Audit, the external auditors, inspections and from the control self-assessment carried out annually for each Service. All the information from these was collated by the Internal Audit team to see if there were any cross-cutting issues. One Service had not yet completed its self-assessment, but this should have been done by the next meeting. The self-assessments that had been carried out showed high levels of compliance.

·       One generic area which was outstanding was that many staff had not completed their mandatory e-training on data protection. An action regarding this had been included in the AGS.

·       A new standard for Internal Audit had been introduced in April 2013, and included a requirement for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

 Ian Dyson, Chief Internal Auditor, reported as follows:

·       Management actions from Internal Audit reports were logged on Performance Plus, and managers updated the system regularly.

·       Current statistics showed a good take up. 63% of high priority actions had been completed.

·       Internal Audit worked with Directors and chased them on actions if necessary. Previously a high priority action had been defined as one which needed to be implemented quickly. The meaning had now been altered to mean an action with a high risk.

·       10 actions were outstanding, and Internal Audit was working with the managers involved. None of the outstanding actions was causing material concern. Two were outstanding from the 2011-12 Audit in regard to Transport for Buckinghamshire.

·       The annual report of the Chief Internal Auditor would present the current status of all actions.

·       In March 2014 the licence for Performance Plus would expire. A new system needed to be developed, and would be in place to replace Performance Plus.

A member asked if any Directorate had more outstanding actions than others. Ian Dyson said that the Communities and Built Environment Service had the most, but that the outstanding actions were mostly spread across services. There were often reasons for the delay in updating an action, as risks did not stand still.

Ian Dyson said that it would be more useful to members if he reported on the actual actions which were outstanding, and said that these could be brought to Regulatory and Audit Committee or to the Risk Management Group. Members discussed this and agreed that these should be reported to the Regulatory and Audit Committee quarterly, and if necessary would be presented in closed session.

Iain Murray and Paul Grady from Grant Thornton presented the External Audit Opinion Plan for Buckinghamshire County Council. The Plan set out the proposed audit work for the Audit of financial statements and the Value for Money conclusion 2012-13.

The Plan set out the overarching risks which informed the work of the external auditor. The Value for Money conclusion was an assessment of the arrangements underpinning the decisions which the Council made.

The Plan did not include reference to the Pension Fund. A separate plan for the Pension Fund would come to the next meeting.

Iain Murray and Paul Grady noted the following:

·       The Council would experience increased demand for services following demographical changes and changes in Government policy.

·       The Transformation programme was central to the delivery of Council savings.

·       The Council was committed to becoming a smaller commissioning Council, and was working on new models of delivery, including the Buckinghamshire Learning Trust and the Adults Local Authority Trading Company.

·       The Council had recently signed a contract to build an Energy from Waste facility.

·       Constitutional changes were also being made, e.g. changes to the Overview and Scrutiny function.

Grant Thornton would audit the Accounts, Annual Governance Statement and the whole of the Government Accounts return.

The audit was risk-based. Page seven onwards listed the risks which had been identified during the planning and review of the national risks affecting the sector. The risks for operating expenses and for employee remuneration had been evaluated as medium risks due to their sheer value and scale.

Significant risks which had been identified were described on page 10. These were inherent industry-standard risks.

Results of interim audit work were on page 12 and following.

A member asked how Grant Thornton had settled in as the new external auditors. Paul Grady said that they had settled in well, and that they held regular meetings with Council officers.

The Chairman said that he was pleased to hear that overall there was a low audit risk. The Chairman asked if the planned timetable would be followed smoothly, and Paul Grady said that it would be.

A member noted that there was a typing error on page 15, and that the planning commenced in November 2012.

Paul Grady presented the fee letter for 2013-14. Paul Grady told members that the bulk of the work contained in the fee would only start in November 2013.

The fee was fixed for five years, so the fee was the same for 2013-14 as it had been for 2012-13. However any additional work arising from queries from members of the public might increase the fee.

The scope of the audit would remain the same, as would the audit outputs.

The Audit Team at Grant Thornton would remain the same as in 2012-13.

Page 27 showed the deadlines for the various pieces of work.

The Committee noted the Forward Plan and made changes following discussions at the meeting.

Any other business

Training for new members

The Chairman thanked officers and Grant Thornton for the training they had held for new members. David Martin said that he had found the training invaluable.

Risk Management Group

The Chairman told members than an email had been sent out about membership of the Risk Management Group. All members of the Regulatory and Audit Committee were welcome to attend the Group, and meeting dates would be circulated.

Email from Dr Evershed

An email had been sent to members from Dr Evershed. The issues raised had largely been covered in the past. A draft response would be sent to members before it was sent out.

Start time of meetings

A member proposed that Committee meetings should start at 9am, as there were a number of items on meeting agendas. Members agreed that meetings should start at 9am.

Future meetings:

27 June 2013, 9:00am, Mezzanine Room 1, County Hall, Aylesbury

11 July 2013, 9:00am, Large Dining Room, County Hall, Aylesbury