Agenda item

The Committee considered the External Auditor’s Annual Report on Buckinghamshire Council for 2022/23. Under National Audit Office (NAO) Code of Practice regulations, external auditors were required to make a Value for Money (VfM) assessment to consider that local authorities had put in place proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in its use of resources.  The report provided detail on the Council’s overall arrangements, as well as key recommendations on any significant weaknesses in arrangements identified during the audit.

Under the annual reporting on VfM arrangements, auditors were required to undertake work to provide a commentary against three criteria set by the NAO, these were financial sustainability; governance; and improving economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Grant Thornton’s conclusion of the Council’s Value for Money detailed assessment was provided in Appendix A and was summarised within the covering report.

Mr David Skinner, Section 151 Officer and Mr Mark Stocks, Audit Partner, Grant Thornton presented the report.

Key points raised during discussion included:

·       From an external audit perspective, the report was described positively, with it being noted that the Council was in a good position relative to other Councils of similar sizes. A continued focus was required on delivering significant savings plans, and whilst there were risks around income generation it was felt that these were manageable and resolvable. Further, it was noted that when the reserves position had been reviewed, there was a relatively good general fund and level of earmarked reserves which could be used as financial challenges arose over the coming year.

·       There were no significant concerns around governance, although there had been some issues noted in respect of complaints which should be an area of focus. The issue identified around financial statements being a weakness should be resolved by the end of the year when the accounts were back up to date as noted in the previous item.

·       There continued to be challenges in children’s services which remained an area of focus until an Ofsted re-inspection. It was noted that significant improvements had been made in this area, and additional investment had been approved through budget provision to address areas of need. There had been improvements seen in adults’ services, however financial pressures remained and having measures in place for demand management was key.

·       A Member queried the stable direction of travel from the 2021/22 version of the report, as the number of recommendations had increased quite significantly for 2022/23. It was explained that the Council was a very large organisation, and as such there would always be recommendations for improvement, however external audit noted that finances were in a stronger position than many other local authorities and governance remained a strength of the Council. The progress in children’s services was evident and the savings plan, whilst challenging, was seen as being achievable.

·       In terms of savings, it was explained that in 2023/24, circa 90% of savings and income targets had been achieved with the main issue being the lower income from the energy from waste plant, which was the reason the EfW reserve had been utilised.

·       A Member identified that toward the end of page 37 of the reports pack it was noted that an improvement recommendation had been made in respect of distinguishing between recurring and non-recurring savings, however this did not appear in the improvement recommendations. The Committee agreed that a recommendation should be added to the final report.

ACTION: Mr Stocks to add a further improvement recommendation around the Council distinguishing between recurring and non-recurring savings.

·       The Committee went through each recommendation, making the below points on each:

o   Recommendation 1: Recommendations had been made during the budget scrutiny process for 2024/25, all except one had been agreed by the Cabinet. The Committee thought it was important that further detail on this recommendation be discussed in the relative forum and agreed to refer it to the Finance and Resources Committee (F&R).

o   Recommendation 2: It was also agreed that this recommendation should be referred to F&R and Transport, Environment and Climate Change Select Committee (TECC). It was noted that there was a yearly review of the Air Quality and Climate Change action plan on the TECC work programme and this recommendation could link into that discussion.

o   Recommendation 3: It was agreed to refer this recommendation to F&R, with the suggestion that they review the people plan. The Committee agreed that F&R should also ensure there was a half yearly or annual update on the AURA programme. It was agreed that internal audit would review the comment around duplication of systems and processes.

o   Recommendation 4: The reserves summary and outturn monitoring would be picked up through the budget scrutiny process.

o   Recommendation 5: This had now been achieved.

o   Recommendation 6 and 7: These would both be referred to F&R.

o   Recommendation 8: It was confirmed that this had now been actioned and the system had been amended to map strategic risks to corporate priorities. Reporting going forward would demonstrate the link between the two.

o   Recommendation 9: This was in progress; the 24/25 internal audit plan was in planning and discussions around thematic audits relating to schools would be held with the newly appointed Service Director for Education.

o   Recommendation 10: It was agreed to refer this to the Chairman of the Member Development Working Group. Members noted that reminders around updating registers of interest were sent twice a year, however the suggestion was made that this could be more pro-active, for example leaving blank interests forms on Members desks at the Council AGM to ensure they were updated annually, at the least. The Committee also suggested that Members should be asked to demonstrate that they had updated their interests, much in the way that they need to demonstrate completion of statutory training such as for those who sit on planning and licensing committees.

o   Recommendation 11: This would be referred to the Risk Management Group for further discussion. Members raised concern that monitoring of key performance indicators was reviewed by Cabinet, however received little scrutiny from other Council committees. It was discussed that it was also raised at the 2025 Constitution Working Group with the suggestion that the governance of KPI setting be reviewed by this committee and the monitoring of the KPIs be the responsibility of each relevant select committee.

o   Recommendation 12: To be referred to the Risk Management Group. The Committee discussed value for money concerns and the importance of benchmarking being relevant as other authorities would unlikely be facing the exact issues that this Council was. It was noted that there was a thorough contract procurement process and performance metrics set out in contracts which needed managing throughout the life of the contract. The pre-briefings on large budget areas such as children’s services, and adults, delivered to budget scrutiny members were welcomed and improvements were being made year on year to that process in reviewing case studies. It was to be considered further whether a review, in governance terms should come to this committee or to F&R.

o   Recommendation 13: This was picked up as part of agenda item 13.

o   Recommendation 14: The Business Assurance team was progressing this and would monitor training uptake through the anti-fraud and corruption policy.

o   Recommendation 15: This was picked up as part of agenda item 13.

ACTION: The Chairman to write to the appropriate Select Committee Chairmen and Member Development Working Group Chairman to refer the above recommendations as noted, for consideration to be given to adding them to their respective work programmes. The letter would require a response to clarify actions taken which would be relayed to this Committee.

ACTION: Ms M Gibb to give further consideration to the recommendations referred to the Risk Management Group.

RESOLVED:

That the findings of the external auditor as detailed at Appendix A on the Council arrangement for securing Value for Money in its use of resources, the recommendations made, and management’s response be noted with the addition of a financial sustainability recommendation in relation to distinguishing between recurring and non-recurring savings.