Agenda item

5.1

The Committee received the following Public Questions from a member of the public, prior to the meeting.

5.2

Ruth Hubbard

1.  How many complaints from the years of the tree dispute are outstanding?  Please can you say how many of these are over two years old, between one and two years old, and less than a year.  What are you able to say about why these complaints are outstanding at this stage?

The Chair explained that a written response will be provided after the meeting.

a)  I recognise that Strategy and Resources lead on post-Lowcock work.  However, given the important independent role of the Audit and Standards Committee in overseeing governance and audit functions, how has this committee satisfied itself that the governance and audit implications from Lowcock have been identified?  As I have explained, a stance from Strategy and Resources that "we agree all the recommendations" simply cannot perform this function and I think responsibility lies with this committee to satisfy itself that adequate attention has been paid to specific governance and audit considerations arising from Lowcock and to report back to Strategy and Resources (or full council) where further work might be needed to secure these arrangements. (Strategy and Resources are not an executive in relation to this committee simply to allocate out the jobs it sees fit.)  So can this committee confirm it is satisfied that Strategy and Resources have adequately identified and are addressing the governance and audit implications of the Lowcock Report?

The Chair felt that Strategy and Resources Policy Committee had taken this issue seriously and comprehensively. The Chair hoped that Strategy and Resources Policy Committee fully understood the implications of the item they referred to the Audit & Standards Committee, in which this Committee would be reviewing those implications at their October 2023 meeting. The Chair explained that this report would be a starting point and not something that gets lost throughout the year. The Chair mentioned that Sir Mark Lowcock had noted that the Council had changed their culture since the publication of his report. 

b) In respect of the one specific job allocated by Strategy and Resources on reviewing the Members Code of Conduct can this committee say what will be different this time compared to other times it has looked at the Code of Conduct and not identified the gross and manifest problems in its functioning that was so evident to many during the years of the tree dispute.  It would be particularly helpful if the committee could say something about why and how, specifically, the committee thinks the member code of conduct simply did not work through the years of the dispute, and therefore to identify what in particular needs to be rectified or worked on.  Will the committee undertake to explain why it thinks the code of conduct did not work over those years when it comes to reviewing the code of conduct?

The Chair explained that when the Local Government Association introduced the new code of conduct, the Audit & Standards Committee undertook several workshops to review and implement the revised code of conduct.  The Chair believed the Council could always learn and improve but believed the revised code of conduct was more detailed and a better model for the Council compared to the code which was in use at the time of this dispute. The Chair referred to an item on the agenda relating the Member training, she stated that it would be useful for this Committee to have an annual review of the code of conduct.

a) In being alert to risks and as a wake up call will this committee consider:

 - reporting back to full council on the increased risk relating to the external audit function generally, and specifically in relation to reported delays to external audit.

-  re-examination and consideration of revision of its terms of reference in line with CiPFA guidance to give a greater sense of its substantive contribution to governance arrangements and reporting to full council on this rather than mostly a list of reports and mechanisms it is overseeing.  

- in its re look at its terms of reference clarify its relationship with the Governance Committee - the Governance Committee says it has oversight of governance but, for example, has no role in developing or overseeing the Annual Governance Statement as confirmed with the Governance Committee last week.

- rapidly moving to appoint two new independent members (to the committee vacancies) in order to better secure its oversight and increase its expertise.

- ensuring it has public questions on its agendas.

The Chair stated she was also concerned around the delays reporting to external audit. She believed the Council did have a robust process in place to review the Council’s risks and these were also considered as part of the Audit & Standards Committees remit. Should the Council risk exposure to delays in the external audit of accounts and be assessed as a corporate risk of sufficient magnitude, then the Committee would consider the advice of officers on how the risks would be escalated on the risk register. The Chair explained that following The Charted Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CiPFA) advice, the Annual Governance Statement be presented at the Audit & Standards Committee. The Chair was aware of other local authorities that had committees in which Audit and Governance was both part of their remit although was currently opposed for this Council doing that at that moment, due to the current role and capacity of the Governance Committee. The Chair explained the Council had advertised the two vacancies for Independent Co-opted Members on the Audit & Standards Committee and agreed with the importance of these roles.

b) My concern and objection to the draft accounts lies primarily with the inadequacy of the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) as part of the accounts and which was raised in a short item at the June meeting but no concerns were raised.  Firstly laid side by side with last year's AGS, I think about 90% is exactly the same words. Perhaps more importantly the AGS does not appear to be written (at all) with reference to, or in line with, the CiPFA (2016) ‘Developing Good Governance in Local Government:  Framework’ which has statutory force under government regulation. Councils have now wholly revised the way they do their AGS, in line with the new requirements.  I have provided links to four examples for the committee below (that simply came up on the first page of a Google search) and Sheffield’s simply does not stand up against these.  Given the heightened risk in audit, the governance transition, the serious governance failures identified in Lowcock, alongside a weak code of corporate governance that is simply a list of documents, and the lack of alignment with the CiPFA requirements, the AGS currently provides no basis for confidence in the committee’s current oversight of, or grip on, overall governance arrangements. Will the committee address this urgently? 

The Chair stated the Audit & Standards committee had already agreed to review the Annual Governance Statement and that would be carried out as part of their work this municipal year.

4.  QUESTION On the Annual Complaints Reports there is almost no information that tells readers whether any complaints involved allegations of, or were connected to, racism (or other equality issues). Given this area is a priority is it possible to have reporting on any complaints about racism (or other equality issues)?  Is this not a recommendation of the Race Equalities Commission (REC) Report?

A 3% return on ethnic and equality monitoring is extremely poor.  From my experiences of running similar systems, is it possible to prioritise equality monitoring at the beginning or outset of a complaint rather than rely on this information coming in after the event? 

 The Chair explained that the Service Deliver Manager would respond to this as part of the report at item 8. The response can also be seen below: -

‘The Service Delivery Manager acknowledged the lack of information provided relating to racism and equalities. She explained that fields had been introduced into the complaints system which would highlight complaints relating to racism so that this information could be collated in the future.’

(NOTE: In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 26 this urgent Item of business was considered on the recommendation of the Chair, on the basis that the Council wished to allow public questions and petitions to be submitted at the Audit & Standards Committee and to all upcoming formal meetings of the Committee).