·          

work was still ongoing in terms of the legal view on the Miel transaction; this would be discussed later in the agenda;

·          

testing on the revenue and journals had taken place and Members had been advised on what was intended to happen as well as the results so far;

·          

the valuation of property and plant equipment had been ongoing through the year focusing upon judgements and estimates made across land and buildings; additional testing had taken place on investment properties which was ongoing;

·          

the valuation of the pension fund net liability had been completed;

·          

there had been a number of changes to the disclosure notes in relation to the financial instruments; Council Officers had made necessary changes. Conclusion of the technical review of the accounts was now required to be completed as well as quality assurance measures.

·          

if the external auditor could give an indication as to when the investigation into the Miel transaction would be completed – it was responded that legal advice had been sought by Grant Thornton and an indication was given to them that advice would be provided this week. The advice then needed to be evaluated and for a final view to be made however this was a high priority and an assessment would be brought to the Council as soon as possible;

·          

how much the pension fund liability had been reduced because of the Miel transaction; it was responded that the pension fund liability was estimated at approximately £130m when the original proposition had gone out and was then subsequently revalued by the actuary in the region of £100m. By paying in advance the Council had saved several millions of pounds with was of significant gain to the Council;

·          

if the amount of money saved due to the accounting treatment of the pension liability fund was considered a fixed amount or a tangible figure and if this would affect the Council budgeting in an accurate way moving forward – it was responded that if the auditor considered that the accounting solution for this transaction was reasonable then the Council wouldn’t be required to pay extra contributions in the future and as a result the medium term financial plan would be in a more secure financial position. It was reiterated by a Member of the committee that the current administration inherited a budget that was sound so could proceed with confidence and that it wasn’t known until the last minute if grants applied for had been successful;

·          

was it considered that the Miel transaction treatment was defined as normal according to Local Government standards or unusual as considered by Grant Thornton? It was responded that the accounting treatment as a payment in advance was perfectly normal and local authorities  undertook that practice on a regular basis, and that it was the size of the prepayment which might not be considered as normal due to its scale; Grant Thornton had correctly identified it as unusual and innovative due to the scale and methods adopted;

·          

was the Miel transaction the only outstanding piece of work in the 19/20 accounts and what was the revised target date for completion? It was responded that work on property plant and equipment evaluations was still required to be completed, as well as investment property evaluations, Grant Thornton’s quality reviews of their own work and the technical review that needed to be resolved to make sure that financial reporting was correct and potential adjustments took place. The timescales for completion was driven by the date and content of the legal advice provided on the Miel transaction;

·          

could officers elaborate on the difficulties in 2018/19 and 2017/18 accounts with the fraud and revenue and expenditure recognition; it was responded that this linked to the Council’s treatment of grants. In the previous two years, auditors found errors with how grants were treated; there was a focus in the 19/20 accounts on testing of grants.