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.  

38.1           The evacuation procedure, as noted on the Agenda, was advised to those present.

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

39.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S R Dove (Vice-Chair).  There were no substitutes for the meeting. 

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 24 January 2023 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 February 2023, as set out in Minute No. CL.72, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

40.1           The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 24 January 2023 and took effect on 1 February 2023.

40.2          There were no declarations made on this occasion. 

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

41.1           The report of the Head of Service: Audit and Governance, circulated at Pages No. 3-16, 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.

41.2           The Head of Service: Audit and Governance advised that the audit of budgetary controls was a key financial control audit and a fundamental element of the Council’s financial planning and operations.  She was pleased to report a substantial level of control with processes being followed in accordance with the Financial Procedure Rules and regular budget meetings taking place.  Whilst the Finance team offered training to budget holders, this was not always taken up and there was a recommendation for it to be made mandatory.  There was also a recommendation around checking the authorised signatory list setting out the financial limits for budget holders corresponded to the values in the system.  A Member sought clarification as to how many staff were budget holders and how many of them had not been trained.  In response, the Executive Director: Resources advised that there were around 20-25 budget holders and training take-up had been sporadic with some having training one year but not the next; a reasonable proportion had been trained over the years but the intention was for everyone to be trained regularly and, in the run up to year end, a piece of work was being carried out to put mandatory training in place for all budget holders.  A Member sought clarification as to the definition of a virement and was advised that this related to the transfer of funds from one budget heading to another.  A Member noted that the report stated one virement would have been more appropriate to transfer from reserves and asked for an explanation in relation to that.  The Executive Director: Resources advised this related to the overspend on the Ubico budget resulting from the pay award which required a contract variation to agree the additional amount that would be paid by the Council to Ubico – this had been incorrectly classified by the Finance team as a virement and should have been reported as an overspend.

41.3          The Head of Service: Audit and Governance advised that, as Members would be aware, the Council was installing a new air source heating system as part of its carbon reduction programme and, in light of the grant conditions and potential reputation risk associated with the project, it was agreed that an audit should be carried out at an appropriate time.  This work had been conducted in December and the audit had confirmed that the contract procedure rules had been complied with and effective project management arrangements were in place with an appropriate risk register and established process for change control where changes in the project impacted either the time, cost or quality of the project – these had followed the proper process and been formally approved.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

To consider the requirement for an independent external review and agree to delegate authority to the Chief Audit Executive, in conjunction with the Chair of Audit and Governance Committee, to agree the scope and form of the assessment and to appoint an appropriate assessor. 

42.1          The report of the Director: Corporate Resources (Chief Audit Executive), circulated at Pages No. 17-19, set out the requirement for an independent external review.  Members were asked to delegate authority to the Chief Audit Executive, in consultation with the Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee, to agree the scope and form of the assessment and to appoint an appropriate assessor.

42.2           The Director: Corporate Resources advised that it was a requirement of the Public Section Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS) that the internal audit function be subject to an external assessment at least once every five years.  The last assessment had been carried out in 2017/18 and Members may recall an action in the 2023/24 Quality Assurance and Improvement Programme for the next one to be procured.  The assessment would cover a number of areas, as set out at Page No. 18, Paragraph 2.1 of the report.  The undertaking of the assessment would require significant input from the Internal Audit team as well as the support and engagement of relevant Officers and Members who would be interviewed as part of the process.  The preferred option was to carry out a full assessment which would be over five days in the last quarter of the new financial year.  PSIAS required the Chief Audit Executive to agree the scope of the external assessment with the Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee and delegated authority was being sought on that basis.

42.3          A Member indicated he was supportive of the assessment provided there was money available in the budget and assurance was provided it had been accounted for.  In terms of the areas covered by the assessment, a Member questioned what was meant by ‘engagement planning’, ‘nature of work’ and ‘performing the engagement’.  The Head of Service: Audit and Governance explained that the assessor would carry out an in-depth review of the work of the Internal Audit team which would include looking at how key documents were put together, how risks were assessed, the controls looked at, working papers etc. 

42.4          It was

RESOLVED          1. That the requirement for an independent external review be NOTED.

2. That authority be delegated to the Chief Audit Executive, in consultation with the Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee, to agree the scope and form of the assessment and to appoint an appropriate assessor.