Agenda and minutes

When the continuous alarm sounds you must evacuate the building by the nearest available fire exit. Members and visitors should proceed to the visitors’ car park at the front of the building and await further instructions (during office hours staff should proceed to their usual assembly point; outside of office hours proceed to the visitors’ car park). Please do not re-enter the building unless instructed to do so.

In the event of a fire any person with a disability should be assisted in leaving the building.  

18.1          The evacuation procedure, as noted on the Agenda, was taken an read.

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

19.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J P Mills and P E Smith.  There were no substitutes for the meeting.

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 26 June 2012 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 July 2012, as set out in Minute No. CL.34, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

20.1          The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 26 June 2012 and took effect from 1 July 2012. 

20.2          There were no declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2022.

21.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2022, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

To consider the Audit and Governance Committee Work Programme.  

22.1          Attention was drawn to the Audit and Governance Committee Work Programme, circulated at Pages No. 13-20, which Members were asked to consider.

22.2          The Head of Corporate Services advised that a Special meeting of the Committee had been arranged for 12 December in order to approve the Statement of Accounts 2021/22 and Members were asked to attend a training session in relation to that later this week.  It was noted that the external auditor’s annual report had been moved to the meeting on 22 March 2023 due to resource issues within Grant Thornton and the annual report on the Council’s arrangements for General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) had also been moved to a future meeting.  A Member asked whether the Council would be reimbursed by Grant Thornton for the delays which had been experienced and the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that no money would be paid back - there were savings in the fee but there were also additional costs for extra time and work incurred in delivering the audit so there may be a small increase overall.

22.3          It was

RESOLVED           That the Audit and Governance Committee Work Programme be NOTED.

To consider the six monthly update from the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit. 

23.1          The report of the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service, circulated at Pages No. 21-26, provided an update on the work of the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit.  Members were asked to consider the report.

23.2          The Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service drew attention to Pages No. 23, Paragraph 2.2 of the report, in relation to the Cabinet Office’s National Fraud Initiative which was a data matching exercise to help prevent and detect fraud nationwide.  She was pleased to advise that, since the publication of the Committee report, revenue from referring accounts to the Revenues department had increased to £85,747 and an additional housing application had been removed from the list bringing the total to 12.  Paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of the report demonstrated that the enforcement arm of the Unit had assisted Planning and Housing with successful prosecutions.  Training would shortly be taking place for Enforcement Officers on Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the update to the RIPA Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Source Policy, which the Committee had been made aware of earlier in the year, with two sessions planned at the end of November and start of December.  The Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service advised that, following the work on COVID grants, counter fraud work was becoming an area of interest for central government.  A strategic group had been set up locally with Trading Standards and the Police looking at victim support and how to raise awareness to disrupt and tackle scams to prevent people falling victim.

23.3          A Member drew attention to Paragraph 2.1 of the report and noted that almost £300,000 remained outstanding in relation to Business Grant Schemes which she felt was quite a lot of money.  In response, the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service advised that many businesses were suffering after the pandemic and as a result of the current cost of living crisis so Officers were mindful that money could not all be repaid in one go.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that, whilst £300,000 looked a lot on its own, it was only 1% of the £30m which had been paid out and this position was much better than a number of other authorities.  The work the team had done to put controls in place early in the process, when under extreme pressure to pay out as quickly as possible, had been essential in securing value for money and limiting fraud within the grants.  The Member accepted the point but raised concern that payments had been made to businesses that were not trading or were empty.  In response, the Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit Head of Service advised that these were examples of the fraud people had been committing but it would not necessarily have been known that these were fraudulent claims at the time of the application.  Officers were doing their best to recover the outstanding monies but being mindful that businesses  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To consider the risks contained within the Corporate Risk Register and assurance that the risks are being effectively managed.   

24.1          The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated at Pages No. 27-51, asked Members to consider the risks contained within the corporate risk register and assurance that the risks were being effectively managed.

24.2          The Head of Corporate Services advised that the corporate risk register was a strategic document which was brought to each Audit and Governance Committee.  The key updates since the last meeting were set out in the table at Page No. 29 of the report.  It was noted that a lot of work had been done around Ref. 3 Cyber Security, which remained the biggest risk to the Council, and a review of individual service plans had commenced in relation to Ref. 5 Business Continuity.  It was proposed to remove Ref. 6 Safeguarding as the arrangements were well managed with the annual report due for consideration later on today’s Agenda.  It was also proposed to remove Ref. 12 COVID-19 Recovery as the outstanding actions in the COVID-19 Recovery Plan had transitioned back to the Council Plan and the majority of services had returned to ‘business as usual’.  A considerable amount of work was underway in relation to Ref. 13 Climate Change including options for the replacement of the vehicle fleet from 2024.  It was noted that three new risks had been added to the register – Ref. 16 Cost of Living Support which related to demand on services, Ref. 17 Migration which was around how the Council was supporting Ukrainian refugees and Ref. 18 Joint Strategic Plan.

24.3          A Member asked whether Ref. 13 Climate Change took into account savings and investments as, although there would be an associated cost, that would be even greater going forward if action was not taken now.  With regard to Page No. 40, Ref. 9 Growth Hub, she asked whether the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) replaced the European funding which the Council had previously received and what the likelihood would be of the Growth Hub failing to deliver the necessary outputs and the capital grant having to be repaid.  In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that the UKSPF replaced the European funding and he advised that the Growth Hub was exceeding requirements so, as far as he was aware, there was no danger of having to return any money.  He explained that the Growth Hub Navigator post had been in place for six years and was in the base budget for three.  He was aware of the grant condition and the threat that posed so wanted to make sure the agreement was being delivered in line with that clause and he was satisfied with regard to that.  The Head of Corporate Services recommended that the risk be removed as it was within the ‘green’ risk score.  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had previously received an annual report on the Growth Hub but Members felt that was unnecessary given that they were happy with how it was operating. 

24.4          A Member drew attention  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

To consider the assurance given by each service area, and overall for 2021/22, it can be concluded that the management of the Council’s internal control environment was satisfactory. 

25.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 52-85, which provided management assurance statements for each service area.  Members were asked to consider the statements and the conclusion that, overall, for 2021/22, the management of the Council’s internal control environment was satisfactory.

25.2          The Head of Corporate Services explained that, as was the case last year due to the lack of internal audit activity, management assurance statements had been provided by each Head of Service to give assurance to Members and the external auditors, when issuing their value for money opinion, that the internal control environment was still being managed despite recovering from the pandemic.  There were some questions with a partial response but it would be unrealistic to expect that all of the Council’s services operated 100% effectively all of the time.  The assurance statements would be passed to Grant Thornton to inform the external audit opinion which would be presented to the Committee in March 2023.

25.3          With regard to the assurance statement from the Head of Development Services, a Member drew attention to Page No. 72, No. 7 which stated that the Interim Development Manager had advised that the Council had been issuing planning consents for five years but the legislation governed that it should be for three years - unless there was a specific reason for a longer period - and she asked what the impact of this was, how many applications this applied to and whether people had been notified.  In response, the Head of Development Services advised that this could not be reversed once planning permission had been granted and it would require a significant amount of Officer resource to look into the number of applications this applied to; however, she confirmed that the issue had now been corrected and planning permissions were generally being issued for the standard three years.  In relation to No. 6 which dealt with partnerships, a Member expressed the view that an effective governance structure was vital and it was concerning if there was no agreed governance arrangement in place in relation to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  The Head of Development Services advised that there was governance in place but this was not a formalised, joint arrangement with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils; however, all of the items in the Infrastructure Funding Statement were transport-related projects so any bids which came in had to go to the County Council.  Notwithstanding this, more money was coming into the CIL pot so it recognised that it was necessary to formalise the arrangement and work was ongoing with One Legal in relation to this.  The Head of Corporate Services advised that this had been identified as a Significant Governance Issue within the Annual Governance Statement which would be considered under the next Agenda Item.

25.4          It was

RESOLVED            That the management assurance statements provided by each service area and the conclusion that, overall, for 2021/22, the management of the Council’s internal control  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

To approve the Annual Governance Statement 2021/22. 

26.1          The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 149-166, attached, at Appendix 1, the Council’s Annual Governance Statement 2021/22 which Members were asked to approve. 

26.2          The Head of Corporate Services explained that the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 - now amended by the Accounts and Audit (Coronavirus) (amendment) Regulations 2020 - required local authorities to conduct a review, at least once a year, of the effectiveness of its systems of internal control and include a statement reporting on the review with any published Statement of Accounts.  The Annual Governance Statement should normally be approved at the same time as, and certainly no later than, the Statement of Accounts.  The review was undertaken by the Corporate Governance Group.  The draft Annual Governance Statement for 2021/22 was attached at Appendix 1 to the report and identified eight Significant Governance Issues that required improvement, set out in the table at Pages No. 101-102, and it was noted that the first three items had been brought forward from the previous Annual Governance Statement.  The Annual Government Statement had been considered by the external auditors to give assurance that it was a fair reflection of the Council’s governance arrangements.

26.3          A Member drew attention to Page No. 92 of the report and the reference to the Welcome Back Fund which she felt had been a waste in terms of how the money had been spent.  She understood that external companies had to set out what they wanted to do with the money but it would have been useful if they could have spoken to local Ward Members beforehand. 

26.4          It was

RESOLVED           That the Annual Governance Statement 2021/22 be APPROVED.

To consider the annual report and the Section 11 assurance submission to give assurance as to the level of the Council’s compliance with its safeguarding duty.

27.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 105-127, which provided the annual report to give assurance that Tewkesbury Borough Council was fulfilling its safeguarding duties.  Members were asked to consider the report and the Section 11 assurance submission attached at Appendix 1 to the report. 

27.2          The HR and OD Manager indicated that she was presenting the report in her capacity as the Deputy Safeguarding Officer and explained that, along with the report was the annual assessment which was submitted to the Assurance Panel at Gloucestershire County Council.  She advised there was an error at Page No. 111 of the submission in the response to standard 1 question 3 as the Whistleblowing Policy had been agreed by the Executive Committee on 5 February 2020 not 12 October 2016 as stated.  It was noted that Members had previously asked for an indication of the type of safeguarding issues that were raised and a sample of redacted cases had been attached at Appendix 2 to the report.  The report indicated that a new element of safeguarding had arisen for the Council this year in relation to migrants and asylum seekers and the Homes for Ukraine scheme had been a particular consideration for the authority. 

27.3          Paragraph 1.6 of the report stated that the Head of Community Services would attend the Assurance Panel in November 2022 to undergo further scrutiny of the Section 11 Statement and the HR and OD Manager advised that she had attended the Panel a couple of weeks ago.  It was always difficult for the Panel to understand the content of the statement in relation to a district council, particularly in terms of contact with children, but the meeting had generally gone well and Officers were always open to suggestions for improvements so she would be interested to receive the Panel’s feedback.

27.4          A Member drew attention to Page No. 123 of the report, and the organisation’s response to standard 3 question 5, which stated that the countywide Whistleblowing Policy needed to be reviewed and she asked when this would carried out.  The HR and OD Manager advised that the policy would be due for review in February 2023.  Another Member asked if this was overdue and was informed this was in line with normal procedure to review policies every three years unless there was legislative or regulatory change which meant that it needed to be done sooner.  The Member noted from Page No. 113 of the report that safeguarding refresher training needed to be a carried out across the organisation and she asked when that would take place.  The HR and OD Manager advised that the Council used modules provided by Gloucestershire County Council and she would be looking at a plan to roll out the training.

27.5          A Member pointed out that a lot of acronyms were used in Appendix 2 so it would have been helpful for these to be written in full or for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

To consider the Internal Audit work undertaken and the assurance given on the adequacy of internal controls operating in the systems audited.  

28.1          The report of the Chief Audit Executive (Head of Corporate Services) provided an overview of the internal audit work completed during the period.  Members were asked to consider the work undertaken and the assurance given on the adequacy of the internal controls operating in the systems audited.

28.2          The Head of Corporate Services confirmed that internal audit was now operational and audits in relation to cemeteries, car parks and the arrangements for managing the GDPR risk were well underway with a view to bringing those opinions to the meeting in December.  In terms of the audit opinions before Members today, it was noted that the transformation of the bulky waste service had been extremely successful - the service had gone from being in deficit to generating a surplus with waiting times reduced from 6/7 weeks to one week and the introduction of an online booking system.  Whilst there had been found to be a reasonable level of control, the first recommendation was around changing the parameters within the online system that had been built within Liberty Create to ensure that personal data was only being held for an appropriate amount of time and a deadline of January 2023 had been set in relation to that.  The second recommendation was in relation to monthly meetings with the Council’s contractor to reflect good practice and ensure there was an audit trail for decisions as well as picking up on things recommended in the audit, for example, the current contract only contained one Key Performance Indicator (KPI) around recycling so consideration should be given to introducing others, for instance, customer wait times.  The audit had found that bulky waste charges were all being approved in accordance with Council policy.  In terms of fees, there had been a glitch whereby a small number of customers were charged less for the service than they should have been and a fix was identified to resolve the issue before Christmas.  It was noted that customers in receipt of benefits were entitled to a 50% reduction in charge but the audit had identified a couple of occasions where the claim number did not relate to the current claim at the time of booking, therefore, it had been recommended that Customer Services check the benefit system to ensure the customer was receiving benefits at the time of booking.  It had also been recommended that sample checks of refunds be undertaken by the Customer Services Team Leader and that more information be placed on the Council’s website so customers were aware that refunds would only be given up to 48 hours prior to their scheduled collection.  A limited opinion had been issued in relation to invoices not being reflective of the services delivered as a review of invoices had highlighted an increase in charges from February 2022; it was recommended that these should be formalised by agreeing a variation to the contract.  Furthermore, this had highlighted that invoices submitted to the Council were not really checked by the team  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To approve the Internal Audit Six Month Plan 2022/23 (Oct-March).

29.1          The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 146-153, set out the proposed Internal Audit Plan for October 2022 to March 2023.  Members were asked to approve the six month plan as set out at Appendix 1 to the report.

29.2          The Head of Corporate Services indicated this was a six month plan covering the period October 2022 to March 2023 and he explained that, when the next internal audit plan was presented to the Audit and Governance Committee in March 2023, it was intended that would be a truly risk-based plan as a number of things had changed since the pandemic.  This would involve working though all of the Council’s activities and identifying auditable areas. In the interim, the six month plan had been discussed with Heads of Service and the items identified all had a risk impact.  The plan included: the risk register, to ensure all actions were properly managed; complaints, following a request from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ensure that lessons learnt were being implemented; payroll, given the amount of transactions over the last 12-24 months and the general turnover of staff as well as the pay award etc; and grants, to ensure there was a proper spending plan in place.  In addition, there were a number of service-related audits within HR relating to the new absence management process which would be in place by the end of December and the modernisation of the service in terms of timesheet recording and administration of annual leave etc.  There would also be audits around Council Tax discounts and exemptions and recovery as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and ICT.

29.3          A Member was pleased to see that a number of days had been requested for an internal audit to review the grant schemes as there had been so many new schemes in recent years and another Member welcomed the CIL audit as it was important for communities that this was working correctly moving forward.  It was

RESOLVED           That the Internal Audit Six Month Plan 2022/23 be NOTED.

To approve the Internal Audit Charter. 

30.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Chief Audit Executive (Head of Corporate Services), circulated at Pages No. 154-167 which attached, at Appendix 1, the revised Internal Audit Charter.  Members were asked to approve the Internal Audit Charter.

30.2          Members were advised that it was a requirement of the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS) that internal audit activity must be formally defined in an Internal Audit Charter.  A number of minor amendments were proposed as set out at Page No. 155, Paragraph 3.1 of the report, and were largely textual changes.

30.3          A Member asked what the substance of the change was in relation to the relationship with external audit and was informed that two paragraphs had been removed from Page No. 165 and replaced with the paragraph at the top of Page No. 166.  The Head of Corporate Services explained that there had previously been a joint working agreement in place with the Audit Commission; however, Grant Thornton was more independent from internal audit so the charter had been updated to reflect that. 

30.4          It was

RESOLVED           That the Internal Audit Charter be APPROVED.