Agenda item

5.1

The Committee received 3 questions from a member of the public, prior to the meeting. The member of public was in attendance to raise her questions.

5.2

Ruth Hubbard

1.  I watched the discussion on the IA Report on the Fargate Containers at the last meeting, and thank you to the officers who carried this out.

Firstly, watching as a member of the public, I personally don't think the minutes capture the flavour of the discussion that took place so can I please request that the webcast of the meeting be kept live and available on the public system at least until the full ramifications play out, including through to the later discussion that this committee has, I believe, planned on this issue.

Secondly, I note that the committee didn't agree the recommendations - it appeared this was largely because members wanted to widen the scope of the audit and take into account other factors about what happened and why. This, however, seemed to include factors beyond the remit of this committee and, I hesitate to say it, also appeared to want to skate quite closely to potentially making party political capital out of this issue.  

The way I sometimes understand this committee is in terms of a car - this committee is not concerned with where the car might go, nor in terms of who all the drivers might be, but in terms of the fitness of what's under the bonnet, the underlying mechanics.  So, in terms of the IA report received last time you seemed to refuse that responsibility for securing and providing assurance about the underlying mechanics because you wanted, in part, to discuss, and perhaps put the blame more on, where the car went, and who the drivers were.  

So, I'd like to emphasise that in the way this system is supposed to work, the importance of the underlying mechanics and the public interest in the committee performing its role. Overall, you gave no substantive assurance to the public in that meeting that you were paying full attention to those underlying systems and how they were configured or being tuned as an important (but separate) basis to how things might be performed in future. I think it's unhelpful to say this committee does not provide scrutiny (however CIPFA describes it) - it does provide scrutiny but it is about the security of underlying systems rather than scrutiny of specific policies or events. However, I do think your terms of reference (and often your agendas) could be better written to draw attention to this role - it is not just about receiving report after report with no powers. And I still think there is also potential for confusion or even things falling in spaces between this and the Governance Committee.  Can the Chair and/or Monitoring Officer comment further on the important role of this committee and its powers, and also consider revising and clarifying relevant terms of reference for the new council year.

Relevant points, scrutiny was a wider concept and does fall within this committee.

The General Counsel (David Hollis) explained that the terms of reference for this committee and the Governance Committee are set out in the Council’s Constitution.  They are separate but I accept that the titles of committees can sometimes suggest an overlap.  It would be a matter for the Governance Committee to look at remits of Committees and that is something it has in its work programme and your comments will be taken on board.  I also take your point on the word ‘scrutiny’.  It does tend to be used in a specific sense relating to Overview and Scrutiny when it has a wide meaning that does remain valid. The Council also has legal scrutiny functions that sit with the Health Scrutiny Sub-Committee. 

He mentioned that the remits would be set out in the minutes, the Governance committee was reviewing it as part of their work programme.

AUDIT AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Terms of Reference

Accounts

(1) To approve the Council’s Statement of Accounts and the Annual Governance Statement in accordance with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015.

(2) To consider and accept the Annual Letter from the Local Auditor in accordance with the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 and to monitor the Council’s response to any issues of concern identified.

(3) To consider whether appropriate accounting policies have been followed and whether there are concerns arising from the financial statements or from the audit that need to be brought to the attention of the Council.

Audit Activity

(4) To consider the Internal Audit annual report and opinion, and a summary of internal audit activity (actual and proposed) and the level of assurance it can give over the Council’s corporate governance

arrangements.

(5) To consider summaries of specific Internal Audit reports as requested.

(6) To consider reports dealing with the management and performance of the Internal Audit service, including compliance with Public Sector Internal Audit Standards.

(7) To consider reports dealing with the implementation of agreed Internal Audit recommendations.

(8) To consider any report from Internal Audit on agreed recommendations not implemented within a reasonable timescale.

(9) To consider specific reports as agreed with the local auditor.

(10) To comment on the scope and depth of external audit work and to ensure it gives value for money.

(11) To liaise with the Public Sector Audit Appointments or any relevant organisation over the appointment of the Council’s local auditor and to decide upon the appointment process for the local auditor

and to participate in the process, as and when required.

Regulatory Framework and Risk Management

(12) To maintain an overview of the Council’s Constitution in respect of contracts standing orders, financial regulations and codes of conduct and behaviour.

(13) To monitor the effective development and operation of risk management in the Council.

(14) To monitor Council policies on the anti-fraud and anti-corruption strategy.

(15) To oversee the production of the Council’s Annual Governance Statement and monitor progress on any issues and consider the Council’s compliance with its own and other published standards and controls.

Standards

(16) To promote and maintain high standards of conduct by Councillors, Co-opted Members and Representatives on Committees and Sub[1]Committees.

(17) To assist Councillors, Co-opted Members and Representatives to observe the Councillor Code of Conduct.

(18) To advise the Council on the adoption or revision of the Councillor Code of Conduct and Protocols relating to Councillor and Officer behaviour.

(19) To monitor the operation of the Councillor Code of Conduct.

(20) To advise, train or arrange to train Councillors, Co-opted Members and Representatives on matters relating to the Councillor Code of Conduct.

(21) To discharge the functions of dealing with complaints against Councillors and Co-opted Members as set out in Procedure for Dealing with Complaints Regarding City, Parish and Town Councillors and Co-Opted Members.

(22) To advise the Council on the adoption and revision of its Whistle[1]blowing Policy and monitoring the operation of that Policy.

(23) To monitor and review procedures relating to gifts, hospitality and personal interests, for Councillors and officers.

(24) To monitor the Council’s complaints process and the Council’s response to complaints to the Ombudsman.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Terms of Reference

(a) To keep the Council’s constitutional arrangements, including the Constitution and the governance system it describes, under review.

(b) To consider officers’ proposals for changes to the Constitution, other than those made by the Monitoring Officer under powers delegated by

Full Council, and recommend such changes as it considers necessary to Full Council for approval.

(c) To keep the thresholds for decisions reserved to Policy Committees under review and recommend any changes as it considers necessary to Full Council.

(d) To seek direct engagement and participation of the public and stakeholders and partners in the Committee’s ongoing consideration of the health of Sheffield’s democratic environment.

(e) To be responsible for the Council’s Member Development Strategy and annual Member Development and Induction Plan, including to monitor, review and make recommendations to the Council with regard to the Learning and Development policy for Councillors, Co-opted members and Representatives.

(f) To keep under review the effectiveness of the arrangements for a committee system of governance:

    a. Taking account of any changes to the local and national context;

    b. Including any agreed ‘strategic aims’ and ‘design principles’ in    its assessment criteria; and

    c. Actively seeking and using feedback from residents, stakeholders, councillors, officers and partners to inform its judgements against those criteria.

The Chair (Councillor Mohammed Mahroof) explained that ‘principle b’ in the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) was about being open and engaging with stakeholders and stated how this was relevant to how we respond to members of the public. He referred to reference of the car and mentioned how the Committee should be looking at how key components work. It was unavoidable at times to stary into topics which are not within the Committees remit as some debates lead to that although the General Counsel rightly intervenes when necessary. The issue around the Fargate Containers is that it has been very passionate, and the Council had received a high level of public interest. The Chair added the Council had learnt a lot following the Lowcock report and it was crucial that the Council be more open and transparent. He said they were instances where issues fell between Audit & Standards and the Governance Committee and that he wanted some assurance around this. Finally, he referred to a previous comment he made about whether the role of this committee was just to ‘rubber stamp’ issues and if so, the question is whether this committee was needed.

Councillor Fran Belbin believed it was the responsibility of the Chairs to ensure that committee was fulfilling its duties, and that they were discussing issues in the appropriate forum. She explained that the Governance Committee had just established a working group who would be looking into committee remits. They also would be looking at the role of scrutiny. She welcomed the points raised around issues falling between Audit & Standards and the Governance Committee and therefore would be happy to hear more on this through the working group.

Councillor Simon Clement-Jones stated that the Council was currently in a position of no overall control, although this might not be the case forever. He believed the Committee System worked best when a Council was in no overall control and councillors were taking collective responsibility. Following on from the Lowcock report, the Council needed to be more open and transparent. He stated that in a previous meeting he was simply trying to get members of the public answers which they desired.

Ruth Hubbard added that an issue with Fargate Containers may be that it involves an HR investigation and therefore may never come into the public domain.

2.  I am pleased to see a new format for, and rewrite of, the draft AGS that is now aligned to CiPFA guidelines.  I think this kind of presentation provides a good basis for capturing the annual picture going forward. What I think the AGS doesn’t yet do is provide the governance story of the year in the sense that it might do.  It’s largely a starting point description of the existing governance arrangements that apply rather than a coherent annual narrative, leading into the action planning.  For example, the principles of good governance section could have illustrated the salient or keyways in which these principles have been relevant or applied through the year, rather than the very static descriptions given (that can just be repeated year in year).  A few big issues affecting the control environment are mentioned briefly e.g. the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge, the street Tree Inquiry and so on.  However, there seems to be no discernible link between these and the subsequent action plan which seems to focus right down on comparatively micro issues such as the possibility of a telephone script being wrong.  So, this doesn't appear to lend a flow or an overall coherent narrative to the Statement for the year. 

- Can I confirm that review and reporting improvements will continue for the AGS and ask how the review of the reporting process for the AGS will work?

The General Counsel confirmed it was continuing, and we are still working with CIPFA about reviewing process.  Ultimately that will be reported back to this committee via updates when it approves the Annual Governance Statement for approval.

- Can I also confirm that containergate is not mentioned because it will be in the 23/24 AGS?

The General Counsel confirmed this was correct, as this was the 2022/23 review.

- I also want to flag I have lots more detailed questions about what is described in the draft AGS about what this or that Board is, or how it works with Directors just simply 'signing off' and assuring that the control environments in their areas are working well and so on, but I think these more detailed question are not for now and perhaps there's a way of making this kind of information more accessible through the next year.

3.  Can I ask please about the role of this committee in relation to Stocksbridge Towns Deal. Considerable concerns about failing governance arrangements and processes have been raised by local stakeholders, including at the relevant Local Area Committee - but I have not seen them filter through to here and, what are the Audit and Standards implications of the govt Simplification Pilot for certain external grants (that I understand Sheffield is part of) and how is this being overseen by members in audit and standards terms?

The General Counsel explained that a written response will be after the meeting.