Agenda item

(a)       That the report be noted;

(b)       That officers consider options for more Member involvement in the preparation of the Annual Governance Statement; and

(c)        That the Internal Audit Manager give consideration to the suggestion for future reports to include an additional set of data on the outstanding number of recommendations still relative to the reporting period.

The Internal Audit Manager introduced the report on the outcome of all audit work carried out during 2012/13 and to give the annual Internal Audit opinion, which was that the Council had adequate and effective arrangements in place for internal control, risk management and governance.  He outlined that this opinion had been reached by membership of the Corporate Governance Working Group, a review of risk management and an overview of all audits completed during the year.  On section 2.9 of the annual report, he pointed out that the average number of days from the closure meeting to issuing of the draft report should be 25 days rather than 31.80.

Councillor J.B. Attridge asked why there was no Member representation on the Corporate Governance Working Group which was responsible for preparing the Annual Governance Statement (AGS).  The Chair said that both she and the former Vice-Chair had raised the same point.  The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that the working group’s task was technical in following guidance from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountancy (CIPFA) and that there was no political or policy input.  Although outcomes were reported to the Audit Committee followed by full Council, consideration was being given to involving the Committee informally, if timescales permitted, prior to formally receiving the AGS.

To further clarify, the Head of Legal & Democratic Services explained that the remit of officers on the working group in drafting the AGS included evaluating responses to questionnaires from Heads of Service to decide adequacy and any areas of challenge.  This was not at a strategic level where there would be an expectation for Member involvement, particularly in view of the level of detail and time required, and reiterated comments made by the Democracy & Governance Manager on the proposed further involvement by the Committee.

Councillor P.G. Heesom said that a clear distinction should be made between the statement of governance for the purpose of audit and the code of governance in the Constitution.

Councillor Attridge felt that Member involvement and challenge was required at an earlier stage in the process.  The Chair invited Wales Audit Office (WAO) representatives to offer a view.  Mr. J. Herniman said that there was an opportunity for Members to challenge the process when the AGS was submitted at July and September meetings, and suggested that the document could be shared with the Committee during the year to flag up any issues and provide reassurance, as opposed to a year end exercise.

The Chief Executive spoke of the relevant balance of Member involvement reflected in the AGS.  In response to discussion on the working group, he reiterated that this was a highly technical meeting which took place on a frequent basis and said that officers would consider further the options for more Member involvement in the AGS process for Members to make a choice which would work for them and meet their needs.

Councillor G.H. Bateman commented on the level of recommendations made in 2012/13 for Finance.  The Internal Audit Manager explained that the summary of all audit opinions and recommendations for 2012/13 contained a high number of recommendations on reports for Financial Systems for year end 2012 and for Housing Benefits, however in overall terms, there were substantially less than the previous year.

In order to monitor progress, Mr. P. Williams suggested that an additional set of data be included to show the outstanding number of recommendations still relative to the reporting period.  He referred to the impact of the major investigation on this year’s work and pointed out that the comparison of assurance levels in 2012/13 may not be a true reflection of the current situation as some reports may not have been finalised.  The Internal Audit Manager agreed to take the former suggestion into consideration for the next report to the Committee.  In response to the latter, he said that the 200 days allocated in the operational plan for last year had been increased to 300 days in 2013/14 to allow for work on the major investigation which was nearing completion.  On the data provided, he said that the Annual Report had been finalised at year end and that there would always be a carry over period at that time.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the report be noted;

(b)       That officers consider options for more Member involvement in the preparation of the Annual Governance Statement; and

(c)        That the Internal Audit Manager give consideration to the suggestion for future reports to include an additional set of data on the outstanding number of recommendations still relative to the reporting period.