Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Mahmut Aksanoglu (Vice Chair), Nawshad Ali, Hivran Dalkaya and Elisa Morreale, who were substituted by Cllrs Eylem Yuruk, Doug Taylor, Mahym Bedekova and Chris Joannides, respectively.

The Director of Law & Governance apologised on behalf of officers for reports being shared late and assured Members that it would not happen again.

Members of the committee are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relevant to the items on the agenda.

Cllr Taylor declared a non-pecuniary interest on item 7, as he was on the Pension Policy & Investment Committee and the Board of what was the Lee Valley Heat Network, at the time. Cllr Bedekova declared a non-pecuniary interest on item 10, as she was the Chair of Planning Committee.

To agree the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 12 February 2025.

The minutes of the General Purposes Committee meeting held on Wednesday 12 February 2025 were AGREED.

To agree the Internal Audit Charter for 2025/26. (To Follow)

Marion Cameron, Head of Internal Audit, introduced and highlighted the key aspects of the report, specifically the charter’s setting out of the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the internal audit function.

In response to Members’ questions relating to significant changes to the charter, Marion advised that clarity around conversations she should be having with the committee, questions the committee should be asking her and the roles and responsibilities of the committee, had not been set out in such a way previously. Efforts would be made to have a stronger relationship with the Chair through private meetings. Additionally, the setting out of the management of her independence as Head of Internal Audit, from the auditing of the counter fraud and insurance teams she was responsible for, for example through the Director of Law & Governance or a Head of Audit from another council taking charge of these, was another important change. Under the standards, they were required to carry out a self-assessment of how they performed every year; and every 5 years had to have an external assessment, which had just been carried out, to ensure the service continued to deliver improvement, with reports and action plans being produced which would come to committee. Marion confirmed that she was positioned to meet new paragraph 10.

Members AGREED to approve the Draft Internal Audit Charter 2025-26.

To agree the 2025/26 (Q1 and Q2) Internal Audit Plan. (To Follow)

Marion Cameron, Head of Internal Audit, introduced and highlighted the key aspects of the report, including but not limited to: the frequency and basis of plans, the number and discrepancy of audits that had taken place relative to the previous year and that they would be focussing on financial audits for the first 6 months of this year, as this was the area which currently posed the greatest risk to the council.

In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding organisational changes, officers replied that last January there had been a re-organisation of the internal audit function and previous to that there’d been a big reliance on PWC, who delivered around 30% of council audits. PWC were delivering just 2 audits this year and changes in the team had cut capacity, but they would have enough coverage to produce the annual opinion of internal processes, required of them. Reducing reliance on expensive external auditors did not mean the council was at greater risk, as they still had the facility to call on external expertise if needed and they were working hard to build the team to transition to a more in-house model.

In response to Members’ queries relating to chart graphics, Marion responded that this was where the audit had come straight from the corporate risk register, the graphs for other audits were produced through officers’ judgement and she agreed to include these for all audits before the plan was finalised. 

Action: Marion Cameron

In response to Members’ enquiries in respect of savings challenge, officers advised that the risk was assessed in the higher part of the schematic and was the highest risk of those where the chart was available, so was being monitored to ensure it was delivered. It was important to look at what had been achieved so far in savings plans. Olga Bennet would need to review the corporate risk register to determine whether this risk should be rated higher, but there were robust measures in place to ensure the savings were achieved, which meant the risk was not as great as it could be. If further through the year, it looked as though those savings would not be achieved then the risk rating would likely increase.

Action: Olga Bennet

In response to Members’ questions relating to bus service operators grant, Marion replied that it was a DfE grant and as part of the terms/ conditions, they required sign-off that the grant had been spent appropriately. The information for this audit was available, her team had to cross check it and she wouldn’t sign it off unless the paper trail was on the ball. 

In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding the selection process for audits, officers responded that they looked at the corporate risk register; risks in focus; discussed with other local authorities, particularly those in London, and discussed with management through DMT and Assurance Board meetings to determine this.

Members AGREED the draft 2025-26 (Q1 and Q2) Internal Audit Plan.

To note the progress made on the 2024-25 Internal Audit Plan. (To Follow)

Marion Cameron, Head of Internal Audit, introduced and highlighted the key aspects of the report, including but not limited to: standards, guidance and legislative acts; progress on audits and action implementation since the last meeting; counter fraud saving reviews relative to the previous year and work being done, such as raising awareness of the whistleblowing policy. 

In response to Members’ queries relating to cancelled audits, officers advised that on the first of these, the finance team had been proactive in engaging with colleagues on budget monitoring so it was not thought to add value, but could be revisited in future if needed. The department were conducting an internal review and putting new processes/ procedures in place on the second and the last was a case of swapping one audit for another.

In response to Members’ enquiries in respect of the % of the audit plan delivered to draft report stage, officers replied that they were off target and worse off compared to previous years, due to capacity issues they’d had in the team, but work was being done to address this with a new senior officer having started in the past 6 weeks.

In response to Members’ questions relating to controls, Marion responded that one person had carried out a series of transactions on a purchase card and since this fraud had been perpetrated, they had changed the provider and processes to make them more robust, but it would always remain an area of risk. A lot of work had been done on Bridgewood House, this had been presented to Assurance Board and finance were holding the hand of staff responsible for the reconciliation until everyone was comfortable with the processes in place. 

In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding a HASC third party contract, officers advised that they were not aware of any conflict of interest and any sanction was for the management team to manage. Terry agreed to follow this up.

Action: Terry Osborne

In response to Members’ queries relating to feedback satisfaction, officers replied that the standards required them to seek opinions of clients, namely heads of service, directors and executive directors, as to how they’d performed, to help improve what and how they did things. The survey covered their conduct and professionalism; it was not anonymous, but this could be considered. They did not put pressure on people, with the exception of asking them to complete it, and some of the feedback could be honest and negative. It was felt that making this mandatory would not lead to as constructive feedback.

In response to Members’ enquiries in respect of counter fraud, officers responded that there were various right to buy frauds, one of which was where other people loaned them cash, which the rules prevented. The £1.8 million attempted bank mandate fraud was one payment where fraudsters communicated with the council asking for the bank details to be changed, which was prevented at the last minute. There was always more fraud happening than thought and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To agree the statement of accounts for 2019/20. (To Follow)

Annette Trigg, Director of Finance (Corporate), introduced and highlighted the key aspects of the report, specifically the change in position from previously.

In response to Members’ questions relating to what had changed since the last meeting, officers advised that the accounts did not give a perfect picture due to document retention, the auditors opinion/ reservations were stark and in coming to the recommendation to sign the accounts, new CIPFA advice and MLCH guidance had been reviewed. It was noted that the backstop was uncomfortable, as they were required to move on when things weren’t at the level they’d like them to be, due to the level of failure in the local audit system. The success of the backstop depended on auditors and audited bodies focussing on their public interest obligation for timely, high quality financial reporting, so assurance was needed for driving decisions forward for residents. Assurance was given that there was not a change in willingness from the new/departing Section 151 officers to sign-off the accounts.

In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding Grant Thornton opinions, officers replied that for 23/24 they would expect a disclaimed opinion and for 24/25 they hadn’t been informed and this would be up to Grant Thornton.

In response to Members’ queries relating to unadjusted items, officers responded that if they were of a material nature, they would have had to of been adjusted and any changes reflected in the accounting process, as this formed part of the control checks and balances on the statement.

In response to Members’ enquiries in respect of capital adjustment, officers advised that this was the area in which a significant amount of work had been done since the last meeting. Whilst not all aspects of some of the documentation was completed, many of the adjustments they had followed through and been able to find evidence that on balance they appeared to be correct.

In response to Members’ questions relating to short-let properties, officers replied that council houses were local authority owned assets which had a specific type of valuation, whereas temporary accommodation had a different classification and therefore fell under long lease arrangements. Where items had not been valued at full value in a previous version of the asset register, they were corrected; this was an asset classification issue which would have been based on technical guidance received at the time and there wasn’t a financial impact on the council. 

In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding financial sustainability, officers responded that the way MRP had been assessed did not have an impact on successive years.

In response to Members’ queries relating to following years accounts, officers advised that they hoped to bring the remaining BDO audited accounts to the next meeting.

In response to Members’ enquiries in respect of lessons learnt, officers replied that the capital finance team had been substantially built up, so there was a greater level of understanding and resources which had, for example allowed them to rebuild the MRP model. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To note that all future meetings of the General Purposes Committee will be confirmed at the Annual Council meeting on Wednesday 14 May 2025.

Members noted that the dates of future meetings would be confirmed at the Annual Council meeting on Wednesday 14 May 2025.

To consider passing a resolution under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 excluding the press and public from the meeting for the items of business listed on part 2 of the agenda on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006). (Members are asked to refer to the part 2 agenda.)

AGENDA – PART 2

As there were no members of the press or public present, there was no need to exclude them before moving to discuss the Part 2 item.

To note the latest Meridian Water programme risk and issue registers.

(This item contains exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person – including the authority holding that information) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended).

Carla Segel, Head of PMO, introduced and highlighted the key aspects of the report.

Following discussions in Part 2, Members agreed to note the latest Meridian Water programme risk and issue registers.