(a)

the report covered the 19/20 audit which was still ongoing as auditors were awaiting the outcome of the work undertaken by Devon Pension with regards to Miel transaction – other audit work was complete. The Council was required to provide the latest proposal from Devon Pension Fund and consult the Council on that;

(b)

the audit for the 20/21 accounts had begun and officers were working through figures, this was expected to continue for the next few months;

(c)

in terms of the 21/22 accounts, it was hoped that this audit would be completed in the summer (2023);

(d)

the 20/21 and 21/22 value for money work had been completed; an action plan was required from the Council detailing what action was to be taken with regards to the 14 recommendations raised by the external auditor;

(e)

the external auditor was working with the Council with their preparation of the 22/23 accounts – it was hoped that by 2024 all accounts would be caught up in terms of delivering an annual audit within the statutory deadline of 30 September each year.

(f)

the legislation regarding the valuation of council’s infrastructure assets was passed in December 2022 – this was a temporary solution proposed by CIPFA and was accepted so the figures relating to these assets within the accounts had been included; it was considered that this deferred the more complex accounting for highways assets for a couple of years;

(g)

a progress report detailing the 14 actions as recommended by the external auditor was to be taken to budget scrutiny; officers were looking to include further detail to the 14 point action plan however focus was upon the Miel transaction.

1.

to include the 14 point action plan and progress report on the agenda for the March 2023 Audit and Governance Committee;

2.

to note the External Auditor Progress Report.

(a)

the purpose of the report was to update the Committee with progress and changes since the 1^st April 2022 and run through compliance with prudential indicators. Arlingclose was used to provide treasury management advice and the Council had taken on board a lot of the information regarding the external context of the current financial situation and economic background;

(b)

the report made reference to the impact of the Ukraine war, global inflation and the increased Bank of England rate which at the end of September was at 2.25% - there had been subsequent increases to that. The report referred to the increasing demand with inflation with disposable incomes being squeezed and higher energy bills having a further impact;

(c)

at 31 March 2022 the Council had net borrowing of £5.54m – this was presented in the outturn report at a previous Audit and Governance Committee. A summary of the Council’s borrowing at 31 March 2022 and its movements to 30 September 2022 was included – key things to note included the increase in the reduction of the borrowing. At the end of 2021 the Council held cash balances from transferring short term borrowing into long term PWLB borrowing so the Council was able to use those cash balances to reduce the short term borrowing – this was primarily to deal with the risk associated with the increasing interest rates;

(d)

table two showed relatively low short term borrowing rates but the levels the Council was currently being exposed to were closer to 4% taking out new short term borrowing in the latter part of the year;

(e)

Officers were expecting the LOBO loans to be called in as the interest rates were increasing however one that was due for potential call-in in November wasn’t called in so there was another group of LOBO loans due to be called in at the end of March 2023; there were only four days to repay LOBO loans therefore officers would monitor this situation;

(f)

long term borrowing was a fixed long term arrangement, mainly with Barclay’s Bank;

(g)

the Council increased its PWLB (Public Work Loans Board) borrowing in April 2022 by £75m which it used to reduce its short term borrowing; the rate secured with that was just under 2.5% - this was done to protect the interest rate risk;

(h)

the table on page 12 demonstrated that the interest payable had increased above the amount budgeted for but this had been compensated by the interest received through pooled investments and the money market funds that were held with day to day cash holdings. That was considered a safe increase in investment and had protected the council's risk there;

(i)

page 13 of the report onwards highlighted where the council was tracking its compliance against prudential indicators; the Council had complied with all investment limits, operational boundaries, authorised limits and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

(a)

the role of the DBS was to help employers make safe recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable people working with vulnerable groups. The Council’s DBS policy had been presented to the Committee previously and in light of comments by Members had been reconsidered. Officers had started with the law and built the policy from there;

(b)

a training session was arranged for elected members in December and was relatively well attended – a further session to be arranged in the near future. The aim of the session was to provide Councillors with the legal framework within which DBS checks operated and the differing levels of check and what they may contain;

(c)

there were four levels of DBS checks available: the basic check which anybody could apply for and that could be paid for online, the standard check, an enhanced check with a barring list, and an enhanced check without a barring list. Of those four levels of checks, two were applicable to Members – the  enhanced check without a barring list and the basic DBS check;

(d)

Councillors would be eligible for the enhanced check when they were undertaken specific duties included in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, the relevant exceptions order under the Police Act 1997. To be eligible they would need to be performing a role which made decisions upon social services functions for the authority (regulated activity).  The requirements for the enhanced DBS check would be those Councillors sitting on the Corporate Parenting Group, because essentially they are undertaken us the council statutory function as corporate parents, and Councillor on the Cabinet Committee because they had direct decision making around the delivery of social care services;

(e)

in terms of the basic DBS check, there was eligibility requirements under the law for this check, and Councillors would be able to make their own application. This check was not included within this policy, mandatory DBS checks or basic DBS checks for Councillors, because the law would prevent the Council from enforcing that mandatory check. Essentially, the Council could ask all Members to complete the check and they would be well within their rights to refuse it;

(f)

previously the Lord Mayor had been subject to DBS checks because of their contact with young people and vulnerable groups, however it was considered that the position would be deemed to have an incidental contact with vulnerable groups, and therefore would not be eligible for any other any other check, other than a basic check – this had not been included in the policy as it could not be enforced;

(g)

it was highlighted that political groups could mandate basic checks for their Members, but that was entirely dependent on the groups’ rules – if this happened then an offer was made to maintain a database and display information upon Councillors profiles if requested.

(a)

since the last committee meeting the total number of strategic risks had reduced from 20 to 18 – five of those risks had a rating of red and those related to the Council's expenditure, the growing volume and complexity of demand on the Children, Young People and Family Service, its supply chain constraints, cyber attacks and the city's economic performance;

(b)

risks had been identified as sufficiently mitigated and been moved to the operational risk register; those were the Council not meeting its obligation to keep standard data secure by failing to adhere to data Protection Act Regulations – a lot of work had taken place with this led by the Strategic Director for Customer and Corporate Services to get training and development out there for staff members on GDPR requirements;

(c)

the Council had not met its legal obligation regarding its health, safety and wellbeing of his workforce - that had been moved down into the operational risk register and was still under review. Throughout the operational register, which was appended to the report, it highlighted where the risks were being reviewed. It was highlighted that this risk was reviewed in the health safety and wellbeing officers group;

(d)

there was a slight increase of the risk of failure to deliver the range of housing to meet Plymouth’s need – the risk score had increased to 12 and was now an amber risk;

(e)

scrutiny continued to receive risk reports at each of its scrutiny meetings – the Head of Governance, Performance and Risk was due to meet with the Chair of scrutiny committees this week where the updated report would be a feature of discussion and would help to plan for the final cycle of committee meetings.

(f)

mitigation of risks was included in the table, detailed in the report at pages 34 onwards; the risk was scored after mitigation. In terms of the traffic light system, because a risk may be categorised as red, it didn’t mean that it was failing, but that there was a future risk of failure. Mitigations were detailed to prevent the risk of failure as much as possible;

(g)

Grant Thornton, the Council’s external auditor, had made recommendations contained within an action plan specifying that Council's audit function should pay much closer attention to the tracking the mitigations that the Council put in place to manage its risk.

(a)

Mrs Benny, the Independent Member of the Audit and Governance Committee, would be included on the membership of the Task and Finish Group;

(b)

the Independent Alliance had formed a group under the 1989 Local Government Act provisions which defined a group as two members or more, however as the task and finish group was a sub-committee of the parent committee which was the Audit and Governance Committee then it was up to the committee to apply or not the proportionality to its sub committee. It was highlighted that it would be the audit and governance committee that would make a final decision on the advice of the working group.

1.

that the membership of the Electoral Cycle Consultation Task and Finish Group would consist of two Labour members to be decided by that group, two Conservative members to be decided by that group, and the Independent Member of the Audit and Governance Committee, Mrs Benny;

2.

the terms of reference for the Electoral Cycle Consultation Task and Finish Group.