(a)

the audit of the Council’s 2019/20 accounts was delayed by a historic issue surrounding the pensions transaction and a newer issue regarding the accounting of the Council’s infrastructure assets; the latter issue had been resolved from a Governmental perspective due to a statutory override in place and guidance received from CIPFA. In terms of the pensions’ transaction, discussions had taken place regarding this matter however the Council were required to consider the options available to them. The Section 151 officer was to put the options and implications paper to the Council’s management to move the issue forward;

(b)

good progress had been made on the Council’s 2020/21 financial statements; this would be presented to the Audit and Governance Committee in November 2023. Work into progressing the 2021/22 accounts had started;

(c)

the Public Accounts Committee met last week and considered the challenges of outstanding audits across the sector and the risks it posed to governance in local government. Local authorities and stakeholders (DLUHC, auditors, regulators, CIPFA) were encouraged to work together in order to accelerate signing off outstanding accounts.

(d)

there were no wider implications in terms of governmental action for having outstanding accounts however there was an increasing focus on the late audits and more detailed scrutiny on individual audits that were behind. The purpose of the statutory audit of accounts was to identify issues with the audit process. Grant Thornton were up to date with the Council’s broader value for money responsibilities however issues and transactions may emerge from the Council’s accounts that the external auditor had the responsibility to bring to the attention for those charged with governance – the external auditor wasn’t able to do that fully for the late accounts and this was considered a risk;

(e)

as of 31 December 2022, there were approximately 600 outstanding audit opinions across the country for 2021/22 accounts and earlier. It was estimated that this figure had now reduced to approximately 500 with 50 local authority accounts for 2020/21 and earlier still outstanding;

(f)

the Council’s Section 151 Officer highlighted the impact on the Council’s finance team and the external auditor by having outstanding audits on their accounts in that they would be in a rolling audit position until all the outstanding accounts audits had been completed; the implications from the 2019/20 accounts would ripple through and potentially impact future accounting.

(a)

the report had changed in frequency, with the agreement of the Chair, to a six monthly report due to the time it took for the audit actions to be implemented and also the resource commitment on Devon Audit Partnership;

(b)

43% of the audit recommendations in the report were still outstanding however this compared to 47% outstanding the last time the report was submitted to committee for information;

(c)

33% of the audit recommendations in the report were fully implemented however this compared to 40% fully implemented the last time the report was submitted to committee for information;

(d)

24% of the audit recommendations in the report were partially implemented, however this compared to 13% partially implemented the last time the report was submitted to committee for information

(e)

the tables contained within the report detailed the recommendations and provided a summary position on those still outstanding.

(a)

the purpose of the report was to contribute towards an effective two way communication between the Council’s external auditor and the Audit and Governance Committee, as those charged with governance;

(b)

the report covered important areas of the auditor’s risk assessment where they were required to make enquiries of the Audit and Governance Committee under auditing standards and it covered fraud, risk assessment, related parties and accounting estimates. It was a management response to questions from the auditors; officers had discussed this with senior finance and legal officers to formulate the response.

(c)

the format of the report was set by the external auditor, it took officers a considerable amount of time to complete the form;

(d)

estimation uncertainty was specifically referred to as an issue for Members to be mindful of; it was highlighted that officers previously relied heavily upon estimates however this created a challenge from external audit. Part of the reliance on estimates was due to the time officers had to produce a statement of accounts document – the deadline this year would be 31 May 2023. The Section 151 Officer confirmed that any issues would be bought to the committee’s attention.

(a)

in terms of the Council’s reserves and if they were sufficient, it was confirmed that officers had been in conversation with the external auditors as to what was and wasn’t counted as a reserve – officers were working on the balance and were to draft a new Medium Term Financial Strategy. There was assurance that there were balances;

(b)

the comment linked to recommendation 1 in the report, regarding the importance of Members being to make their own decisions as elected individuals representing the people of Plymouth other than to just take the advice of the Section 151 Officer, was acknowledged. It was added that the Section 151 Officer himself sought advice from others and the language in recommendation could have demonstrated that more clearly.

1.

to note the responses to the 14 recommendations from the S151 Officer, as set out in the report;

2.

to note the 1st Draft Desktop review of the CIPFA Financial Management Code.

(a)

page 102 of the report included a pie chart that reflected the spread of the Council’s annual budget; in order to provide assurance to Members at the end of the financial year, there was a requirement to show a spread of audit work across all areas;

(b)

page 103 of the agenda demonstrated the thematic overview of audit coverage planned however it was highlighted that the approach taken for 2023/24 would be different to previous years audits in that it wasn’t specified in great detail what was to be audited. The intention was for the programme of work to be developed as the year progressed as it was considered that officer were working in a rapidly changing environment and needed to be responsive to the needs and risks of the council;

(c)

whilst having a more flexible approach to the audit plan work, the key financial systems, areas defined around cyber assessment framework, user account management and grants certifications would still be included.

(d)

Audit work to be undertaken in relation to the office of the Director of Public Health would be discussed with Ruth Harrell as Director and her management team; as with previous years, a number of days was expected to be allocated to auditing this area of the council’s responsibility;

(e)

Officers would be happy to consider how climate change works and its impact could be audited – this would be discussed with the Director for Place as to what areas of work auditors could be involved in.

(a)

the policy was brought to committee for consideration on 30 September 2022 with proposed changes; at that meeting Members expressed concerns regarding the amendments made as it was considered that Members may potentially lose their right to whistle-blow. The report submitted before the committee included further amendments proposed that had been made subsequent to the last time presented to committee;

(b)

in terms of the report, there was legislative background to it - the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1998 introduced into the Employments Rights Act, protection for those in a work setting that wanted to raise concerns of malpractice with their employers. Under the legislation it gave rights to protection from unfair dismissal and any detriment arising from whistleblowing;

(c)

the Act defined who workers were and who the principles applied to. Nationally there was guidance from the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy which gave examples of what a policy should commit to – this was taken into account as well as the report from the Public Concern at Work charity who produced a whistleblowing code of conduct which set out best practice for employers;

(d)

In the policy itself, the following paragraphs were specifically referenced to:

·        

paragraph 1.2 – set out protection that specifically applied to employees only reflecting the law and the ability of the Council to act;

·        

paragraph 1.3 – specific reassurance added for employees to the Council’s approach to whistleblowing;

·        

paragraphs 2.1., 2.5 and 2.6 – explained the difference between employees and how the policy applied to them as opposed others including Councillors;

·        

paragraph 2.8 – explanation of different policies the Council has and where appropriately used.

(e)

the Whistleblowing Policy had been through the Trade Unions on previous occasions – the amendments made to the policy were to clarify where the policy related to an employee or to another individual in another capacity, including a Councillor;

(f)

in terms of the policy, the Council wouldn’t take action against an Elected Member unless a standards complaint was made however the Council’s scope in terms of outcomes was limited. It was confirmed that, in response to an example given, that if a Councillor was threatened with being removed from a committee because of whistleblowing action then that would be a matter for the political party to address.

(d)

in terms of the prudential indicators, there had been some recommended additional indicators and these would be reviewed as part of the reporting structure to the Audit and Governance Committee in 2023/24;

(e)

in terms of the ethical characteristics of the organisations the Council borrowed from and invested in, guidance was provided by the Council’s treasury management advisors, Arling Close; the Council was also reliant on managers within organisations they did business with to provide this information if requested. It was further added by Councillor Lowry that the Council had a treasury management working forum that had received a detailed presentation of the impact of climate change and the Council’s decisions upon its investments. There was a system in place within the Council and this was further developed by the market place.

It was suggested that the treasury management working group received an update at their earliest opportunity upon the implications of the banking crisis and the issue of ethical characteristics of the organisations that the Council borrowed from and invested in;

(f)

the Council used Barclay’s bank for its daily transactions and they had gone public with their intention to carbon zero by 2030; they were considered to be a green bank and were open with their ethical intentions on their website;

(g)

it was noted that future updates upon the Treasury Management Practices and Principles should contain information upon  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

(a)

the report was submitted to the committee following a request from Members to review the officers’ code of conduct. The code of conduct had been a part of the Council’s current constitution since it was reformatted in 2012; it was in place before the 2012 change to the constitution;

(b)

there was no statutory requirement for an officers code of conduct to be included in the Council’s constitution; Government had twice looked at making it a statutory requirement but had so far refrained from doing so;

(c)

the code of conduct contained within the report had been compared to that of the Council’s neighbours and unitary comparative authorities and was broadly in line with others and was similar to an officers code of conduct that was launched back in 1994;

(d)

the Local Government Association whose predecessor body agreed the format for the officers code of conduct had not amended it since 1994; the policies and standards that reinforced and caused the implementation of the code of conduct, such as the Council’s disciplinary and grievance policies and the whistleblowing policy which form the operational and enacting documents that underpin the code of conduct document.

(e)

in terms of political neutrality – there were certain posts that were politically restricted by law and therefore there were specific requirements on what those posts could and could not do; generally however, beyond that there were no restrictions on officers therefore the code was drafted in a way that achieved the balance of making sure that officers were sensible about how they approach their work where they’re not political restricted whilst recognising that there weren’t those restrictions on officers in law other than in certain cases;

(f)

in relation to the relationships between officers and Councillors, partly this would be picked up as part of the work being done on conflict of interest, as a relationship with a Councillor could be a conflict of interest – more guidance was being developed in terms of what needed to be declared and upon what basis. The code offered guidance and expectation whilst trying not to set down hard and fast rules that weren’t otherwise imposed;

(g)

Plymouth’s officers were used to serving different political parties when the political power changed on a fairly frequent basis. The code was designed to protect both officers and Councillors and a proactive approach would be taken if issues arose.

1.

to note the current Officer Code of Conduct as published within the constitution;

2.

to note that a wider review of the constitution is underway and further reports will be provided to the Audit and Governance Committee concerning any further changes required to the Officer Code of Conduct / Protocol on Member and Officer Relations.

(a)

the new code of conduct was adopted in March 2022 based on the Local Government Association (LGA) model code of conduct. At the time it was explained to Members that arrangements would follow in terms of updating how standards complaints were dealt with. Different types of arrangements had been explored by the Monitoring Officer and a first draft had been produced for dealing with standards complaints;

(b)

the report attached to the agenda was an entirely new form of arrangements therefore track changes were not added to the document as it was not an amended document;

(c)

in terms of the legal position, the Council was required, under the Localism Act, to have arrangements in place for dealing with Councillor complaints. The legislation gave some detail as regards to what it must include but generally it was left to the discretion of each Council to determine how it would deal with standards complaints. One of the mandatory requirements was that any complaint must be in writing and must be considered in line with the arrangements. It was also mandatory that at the point of investigation, once an investigation had been conducted, the views of an independent person must be sought;

(d)

there had been a recent finding of the Social Care and Local Government Ombudsman in relation to the process for dealing with standards complaints. The Ombudsman didn’t ordinarily get involved with standards complaints but chose to review a particular complaint that was referred to it; in the conclusion of the Ombudsman it was confirmed that every local authority should have in place clear arrangements, that an investigation against a Councillor in terms of its conduct could not be instigated by the Monitoring Officer unless there was a written complaint on the matter submitted to it in line with the arrangements, and that standards complaints must make clear what the allegations have been made and why in reference to the code of conduct;

(e)

in Plymouth City Council there was a consistent year on year rise in complaints since 2020; in 2017 to 2020 there were at the lowest 3 complaints and at the highest 11 complaints; in 2021 there were 29 complaints, in 2022 there were 53 complaints, and at the time of writing the draft report there had been 29 complaints from the start of the year to date; there was a need for some clarity on the procedure as there were some areas within the arrangements where it was considered not clear what would happen. The volume of complaints had led to a bottleneck in terms of dealing with them. The current arrangements didn’t make clear the multi-stage approach or when an investigation commenced opposed to a fact find. If a decision could be made without a formal investigation then it would do so. Information was also provided on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

(a)

the strategic risk register had updated the number of strategic risks currently managed at 22; six risks had a rating of red and these related to expenditure complexity of demand in children and young people, IT supply chain constraints, cyber-attacks, lack of adult social care workforce, accounting methods concerning a pension transaction and a new risk concerning sustainable drainage systems approval body which may need to be set up in 2024;

(b)

risk 17 concerning housing had its risk score decreased to nine and was now showing as green and the risk to vulnerable children and young people in the care system (risk number 6) was reported as green at the last two reviews and through discussion with the directorate was considered sufficiently mitigated so has been moved to the operation risk register for monitoring;

(c)

scrutiny panels continued to review strategic risks during their meetings; risk reporting was also part of the budget papers when the 2023/ 2024 budget was considered.

(d)

the risk of cyber-attack remained very high and this was addressed as such locally within the Council. This issue formed part of the scrutiny work programme and had been considered recently. Officers had been talking to Officer’s at Council’s that had been victim of a cyber-attack in order to learn valuable lessons. It was considered that there wasn’t a absolute guarantee to prevent a cyber-attack on any large organisation however work was being undertaken to reduce the risk and enable the continuity of critical services to be delivered;

(e)

as per the risk management strategy there was an ongoing review of both the strategic risk register and the operational risk register which were both reported to the Corporate Management Team and Departmental Management Teams;

(f)

the risk register appeared of all scrutiny committee agendas – in terms of risk 19 (viability of commercial bus operators) and the potential for this to be discussed at the relevant scrutiny panel, this was possible however the panel’s weren’t due to meet for several months. Immediate concerns could be picked up outside of the meeting if required.

1.

to approve the methodology of the electoral cycle consultation as detailed in the report;

2.

to approve the consultation question as follows –

Which option would you prefer for Plymouth residents to elect their councillors?

• Change to 'Whole Council Elections'

• Keep the current system

• I have no preference

3.

to delegate to the Task and Finish Group the final approval of the communications approach in preparation of the communication campaign to begin ahead of the launch of the consultation on 5 June 2023. (Reason:To comply with the Council resolution of the 21 November 2022 (minute 24 refers);

4.

to attach the response from the Chief Executive to the published minutes in relation to the Chair’s request for urgent clarity on the issues raised with regards to voter ID at future elections, with specific focus upon plans for raising awareness for Plymouth residents.