| Item | Description | Background Information | Decision |
| | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None. | |
| 21/21 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Smith queried if it was necessary to Declare an Interest in item 9 as the Member had a Pension.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that this was not necessary.
It was noted that there were no Declarations of Interest from the floor. | |
| 21/22 | APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHAIR | APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHAIR
Two nominations for the role of Vice Chair were proposed.
Councillor Roger Sutcliffe proposed Councillor Andrew Tristram, seconder Councillor Shields.
Councillor Mark Fretwell proposed Councillor Ann Norman, seconder Councillor Andy Sissons.
Both nominees received 4 votes, the Chair used the Chair's casting vote and the additional vote was cast for Councillor Ann Norman.
The Chair declared the position of Vice Chair to be Councillor Ann Norman with 5 votes. | RESOLVED:
Councillor Ann Norman appointed as Vice Chair of the Governance & Standards Committee. |
| 21/23 | MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING | MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
The Minutes were proposed as a true record by Councillor Andy Sissons and seconded by Councillor Ann Norman.
A unanimous show of hands accepted the Minutes of the last meeting.
Minutes | RESOLVED:
The Minutes were a true and accurate record. |
| 21/24 | EXTERNAL AUDIT REPORT | EXTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
Mark Surridge external auditor presented a brief summary of the External Audit Report. The report was broken into two parts. The first part of the report clarified the Financial Statement Risk that were set out on page 4 of the report. The External Auditor advised that when discussing the report previously that it was mentioned that there was potential material uncertainty in the valuation of land and buildings. Last year all local authorities and public sectors were affected by a valuation clause.
Clarifications had since been received and it was not anticipated that there will be any material uncertainty this year.
The Committee was advised that the second part of the report included additional Planning Procedures as an additional audit risk had been recorded that there will be specific testing on. The External Auditor stated that the Committee was aware the authority had dealt with a significant number additional grants and subsidies, that had been passed through to business owners or directly into the local authority to support the authority’s response to Covid. It was felt that it would be appropriate to allocate additional audit time to testing the financial reporting arrangements on this. The Auditor stressed that this was a test of financial reporting and not the eligibility of the grants.
Councillor Tristram asked if Charities where the Council were Corporate or custodian Trustees if this was included as part of the Audit?
The External Auditor responded that they were not as the Auditors focus was solely on the Authorities financial balances.
The Chair had a question related to page 11 of the report. That related to the valuation of property assets (including property) and the audit of benefit pension liabilities it had been noted that there was the need to spend more time on these areas.
The Chair asked if it was possible to quantify the amount of time needed on this and if this would impact on other areas being reviewed to a lesser extent.
The Auditor responded that it was not possible to exactly quantity the amount of time but that it was important to consider that a number of the areas in the 2019/2020 report had already been addressed and that the additional work required would be well managed with the Finance Team in terms of the support that would be required from the Finance Team.
The Chair further queried if the additional was likely to affect deadlines being met.
The Auditor was satisfied that the deadlines would be met.
The report was accepted for noting by a unanimous show of hands.
Report of the Head of Finance
External Audit Progress Report 2021 | RESOLVED:
Report to be noted. |
| 21/25 | GOVERNANCE & STANDARD COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME 2021/2022 | GOVERNANCE & STANDARD COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME 2021/2022
The Corporate Assurance Manager presented a summary of the report. The Committee was advised that the proposed Work Programme for 23 June 2021- 31 March 2022 would provide assurance to the Committee that the Terms of Reference for the Committee were being covered.
The proposed programme was detailed in Table 1. The Officer advised that the proposed programme contained the dates of the scheduled meetings, the reports to be presented and the terms of reference that the reports were linked to.
Additional items that were within the Terms of Reference of the Committee could be suggested for inclusion now or at a later date. The Committee was advised that any proposed changes would be presented to the Committee.
The Committee was informed that on 17 November 2021 there would be a scheduled Annual Trusts Meeting and another dedicated Charitable Trusts meeting in May 2022. It is proposed that there would be 2 Charitable Trusts meetings a year. Training would be delivered to this Committee later this month, date to be confirmed. The Training would include the roles and responsibilities in respect of the Trusts.
The Officer highlighted a few areas within Table 1 including a forthcoming Berry Hill Quarry Update, and Procurement Procedure Roles with a revised version in July 2021. The External Auditor’s Report on the Council’s Statement of Accounts was currently in the plan twice as the actual date had not yet been confirmed.
The Audit Effectiveness Review Workshop had been reintroduced this year as Members had found this useful.
The Officer recommendations were that the proposed Work Programme 23 June 2021 – 31 March 2022 be considered for approval or amended to include additional suggestions by the Committee.
Councillor Tristram stated that he would like the dates brought forward of the reports on the Charities to the July meeting. The Chair asked if it was feasible to bring the Charities item closer.
The Corporate Assurance Manager advised that the training to be provided later this month would include an update on the individual Trusts. Officers would be available from various Departments to answer any questions during that session.
The Chair queried the exact date.
The Officer was not able to provide the date at the time of the meeting but anticipated it taking place before the 23 June 2021. The Committee would be advised when the date was confirmed.
The recommendation to approve the proposed Work Programme 23 June 2021 - 31 March 2022 was proposed by Councillor Phil Shields and Seconded by Councillor Andy Sissons.
The recommendation was accepted by a unanimous show of hands.
Report of Corporate Assurance Manager | RERSOLVED:
i) That the proposed Work Programme for the period 23 June 2021 – 31 March 2022 be approved.
|
| 21/26 | ETHICAL GOVERNANCE REVIEW | ETHICAL GOVERNANCE REVIEW
The Corporate Assurance Manager provided a summary of the report to the Committee.
The Committee was advised that this review was carried out annually as it was used to inform the Government Statement. It helps to identify any issues that need to be raised. This was used to assess the overall standards that the authority have in place.
The Officer advised that Table 1 contained the details of the Ethical Governance Assessment. The Assessment was based on good practice from the Improvement and Development Agency. The Officer advised that overall the standards were very high with good standards of conduct. There were very few complaints received.
The assessment had been updated to include the changes made related to the Covid Pandemic which included the Decision Making process and the use of virtual meetings.
The Officer advised that there was one area that needed to be highlighted, item 15 which was related to inconsistent return of the Related Party Transactions Forms by Members. These are issued to Senior Officers and Members. The deadline for the return of these forms passed on 1 April 2021. The Officer advised that there were still 8 Forms outstanding. This would be included in the Governance Statement as an area for improvement. The Officer advised that this was the only significant issue identified from the review.
Meggie Morgan had a query related to item no 26 and 37 which had been listed in Table 1 as a partial but had no narrative for the areas for improvement.
The Officer reviewed the report and advised that this had been an inaccuracy and both 26 and 37 should have been indicated as yes and not partial. The tick had been placed in the incorrect column.
The Chair asked the Deputy Monitoring Officer if she had anything further to add on this.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that this would be an issue that the Head of Law and Governance would review and follow up.
The Chair stated that this would be followed up with Sarah Hall.
Councillor Tristram asked if there was a procedure for chasing Forms that had not been returned.
The Head of Finance stated that this would be followed up and would be addressed.
Councillor Tristram asked if Officers were asked to complete Declarations of Interest.
The Financial Services Manager advised that Service Managers and above do complete Declarations of Interest Forms however, these were not made available to the public.
Louise Ellis – Deputy Monitoring Officer stated that in terms of Hospitality this was covered under the Employee Code of Conduct. This detailed what was needed to be declared and when.
The Corporate Assurance Manager stated that any Declarations were recorded.
The report was accepted for noting by a unanimous show of hands.
Report of Corporate Assurance Manager | RESOLVED:
The report was accepted for noting. |
| 21/27 | COUNTER FRAUD REVIEW | COUNTER FRAUD REVIEW
The Corporate Assurance Manager presented a summary of the report. The Officer stated that the Committee had received reports throughout the year. This was a review around the authorities Corruption and Counter Fraud arrangements. There was a review of the Fraud and Corruption Register, the Anti-Fraud Strategy was also updated so that it was in line with the new National Strategy.
The FFCL 2020 includes a checklist against which the Council’s counter fraud arrangements have been assessed and the results included in Table 1. The Council were fully compliant against the FFCL checklist.
The Officer informed the Committee that he would provide a summary of the process that was completed as part of the Counter Fraud and Corruption – Annual Report for 2020-2021. The Officer advised that the process that was completed included the review of all of the main relevant policies and procedures around counter fraud and corruption as detailed within the report.
The Corporate Assurance Manager then informed the Committee that a self-assessment was completed against the National Strategy. The Officer directed the Committees to the further details located in Table 2.
The Officer then informed the Committee that a review of the Risk Register was undertaken located in Table 3. The Officer advised that areas for improvement indicated would be monitored and reported back to the Committee.
All of the aforementioned data then was used to link into Table 4 the plan for the year. The Officer listed the Actions as per the report.
The Officer advised that the Plan was useful to be able to report progress on delivery of the plan and provide more robust monitoring throughout the year.
Meggie Morgan had a query regarding the summary of the Fraud Risk ratings, point 16 – Benefit Fraud which had a rating of 12 which was high.
The Independent Member queried if this had changed from the previous year and how this high rating would be reduced. This issue was also raised by other Committee Members.
The Officer responded that Benefit Fraud was historically a high risk, as it was always happening. The Officer advised that as an authority all that could be done was being done by the internal controls of the Benefits Section.
The Committee was informed that the Benefit Fraud Investigations were completed by the DWP. The authority had sought information from the DWP regarding the levels of Benefit Fraud in Mansfield, unfortunately the authority was advised that the data was not collated in a form that would be able to provide local Benefit Fraud figures.
The Officer advised that Housing Benefit Subsidy verification took place annually to review individual transactions in depth. This ensured that the correct controls were in place to be able to process the payments. The Officer advised that it was very unlikely that it would ever be reduced from high risk.
Councillor Tristram asked the Corporate Assurance Manager i) what the cost to the Council was for Benefit Fraud, ii) how homeworking staff were managed, iii) the process for the sign off of refunds, and Iv) how the use of Council Vehicles were monitored and tracked to prevent inappropriate use of Council vehicles.
The Officer responded that i) he was not aware of the levels of benefit fraud as this was investigated by the DWP or the likely financial impact. The authority does not receive statistical local data. However, there has been an increase nationally in Benefit Fraud.
iii) The Officer advised with regards to refunds that the reviewed, the whole authorisation approval process was being reviewed. ii) Regarding home working - The system controls were still the same despite the location of the individual. The monitoring of staff working was assessed by the productivity of the individual, and this was monitored through the system also. The Officer anti-fraud checks also provide further assurance. iv) The Officer advised that there were tracking and monitoring systems on the Council vehicles but was unable to report further on this.
Councillor Sutcliffe raised concerns regarding the target risks indicated on Benefit Fraud being set at 12 and 6 on Council Tax as the Member thought that this should be set at a lower target.
The Officer responded that as previously mentioned there was very little chance of getting below target levels quoted. This was because this it is happening and we know it is going to continue, that changing the target figure realistically would not alter the situation.
As an authority internal testing is completed as much as possible and there are ongoing checks and controls, but these risks will remain the same. It would not be realistic to achieve a lower target as the issues are not within the control of the Council.
The Chair asked what level of assurance could be given that the Council Employee Contracts are sufficiently robust regarding fraud and corruption.
The Officer responded that with the Officer Code of Conduct that the Employee Contracts were robust. The Officer advised that the Recruitment process was being reviewed to ensure that checks were carried out on previous employment, suitability for the role, DBS checks where required and that this was all properly documented. The findings would be reported back to the Committee on this.
The Officer confirmed that as far as he was aware the existing processes were robust. However, it was important to complete reviews to ensure that the processes were being followed.
The Chair stated that he would like to propose that the 3 recommendations be taken as together and read out the recommendations:
i) That the results of the assessments of the Council’s counter fraud and corruption framework and arrangements detailed in Tables 1 & 2 be noted
ii) That the revised corporate fraud and corruption risk register enclosed as Table 3 be considered, with any comments or suggested amendments being referred to the Head of Law and Governance prior to a delegated decision being taken
iii) That the proposed counter fraud and corruption plan for 2021/2022 enclosed as Table 4 be considered, with any comments or suggested amendments being referred to the Head of Law and Governance prior to a delegated decision being taken
Proposer: Councillor Sissons
Seconder: Councillor Norman
There was a unanimous show of hands
Report of Corporate Assurance Manager | RESOLVED:
i) That the results of the assessments of the Council’s counter fraud and corruption framework and arrangements detailed in Tables 1 & 2 be noted
ii) That the revised corporate fraud and corruption risk register enclosed as Table 3 be considered, with any comments or suggested amendments being referred to the Head of Law and Governance prior to a delegated decision being taken
iii) That the proposed counter fraud and corruption plan for 2021/2022 enclosed as Table 4 be considered, with any comments or suggested amendments being referred to the Head of Law and Governance prior to a delegated decision being taken |
| 21/28 | APPROVAL OF PENSION ASSUMPTIONS 2020/21. | APPROVAL OF PENSION ASSUMPTIONS 2020/21.
The Financial Services Manager provided a summary of the report to the Committee. The Officer advised the Committee that the report has to be included as a reporting standard that the report is not related to any pension payments to be paid to any individuals, what is seen on the Council’s General Fund is completely different to this report.
The attached Pension report as attached at Appendix 1 was provided by the Council’s actuary’s sets out the assumptions used by the actuaries when compiling the IS19 Employee Benefit figures for the Council Statement of Accounts.
The IS19 accounting standard must be complied with when producing the Statement of Accounts and this statement means that an organisation needs to account for retirement benefits when it is committed to give them and not when they are paid out, that is the reason for the many different calculations and it is different to what is actually paid to pensioners.
To calculate these costs the actuaries use certain assumptions to reflect the expected future events that may affect costs. These assumptions detailed in Section 4 are the financial assumptions and these reflect the market conditions that are likely to change every year. The assumptions that have the most significant impact on value of liabilities include the discount rate and the assumed rate of pension increases. These assumptions for this year and the year previous are detailed in Section 4.1.4. Other assumptions include demographic assumption which include mortality, the rate of early retirement and the rate of which members exchange pensions for a cash lump sum entitlement.
The key assumption is that of mortality as this would result in a decrease in the value of liability that the Council would need to pay out. Full details of the assumption are shown in 4.2.3. The Officer advised that in Section 5 this details the changes that any assumptions would have on the financial statements. Examples of assumptions were detailed in section 5.1.1 and the impact of the assumption.
The Officer reiterated that all of the figures related to IS19 are simply accounting adjustments that are made so that the Council comply with the accounting standards and they have no impact on the bottom line of the Council’s resources. The amount charged to the General Fund is the actual amount paid out to employee contributions not the IS19 charge calculated. Therefore these charges do not impact on local tax payers.
Meggie Morgan had a query related to Appendix 1 – the Statement of Financial Positon 31 March 2020 compared to 2019 had a very minimal increase in comparison to 2021 and 2020 why is that? How close were they to being paid out at any point or does that not apply on past years?
The Officer responded that in terms of the second point they would not have any relation to each other. What is paid out is not related to this. This is a calculation based on assumptions.
On the other questions there was a re-measurement of the liability completed by the actuary as at 31 March 2021 and that is the reason for the increase. If the Committee would like any further information the Officer would be happy to provide and go through this in the future.
The Chair stated that the Recommendation was for approval:
That the 2020/21 pension assumptions be approved.
Proposer Councillor Andy Sissons and Seconder Councillor Ann Norman.
A unanimous show of hands to accept the proposal.
Report of the Head of Finance
Appendix 1 - Mansfield District Council Nottinghamshire Pension Fund | RESOLVED:
That the 2020/21 pension assumptions be approved. |