Issue - meetings

Report (appendix 1) to follow.

For those charged with Governance (the Audit Committee) to consider the statutory Annual Report from KPMG, which highlights their findings from the audit of the Council’s statutory accounts, value for money and other relevant information.

Mr Kaycee Ikegwu, Head of Finance (Housing & Chief Accountant) and Mr Tim Cutler, KPMG, introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·      In relation to the use of agency staff, KPMG highlighted it as a risk they felt it was an area not just from a cost point of view, but from an ethical point of view. Ideally, the Council would have more substantive people in place for cost neutrality. Whilst an individual member of agency staff may be more expensive than a directly employed member of staff, when all the additional costs of employment was taken into consideration, there was not a huge amount of difference. Efficacy was not present as directly employed permanent staff had greater continuity, career ambition and cumulative knowledge. People coming in and out of the organisation on a regular basis meant that knowledge was potentially lost. Although not a significant financial loss, it was a point worth reflecting.

·      A query was raised regarding recommendations made for tracking recommendations going to in future years. In response, the meeting heard that there were two ways this was done. Firstly, they formed part of the annual governance statement. In the next Annual Governance Statement (for 2024/25), each recommendation would need to have an update provided. KPMG would also be looking at progress against any recommendations. Any recommendations KPMG raised this year would be followed up. The recommendations put in the auditor's annual report would be in the public domain, the ones in the ISA 260 report would be public in the sense they were on the agenda papers, but they were not ones that necessarily would be subject to response regarding significant weaknesses within the value for money conclusion. Any that did relate to the significant weaknesses, if not addressed by the time that KPMG concluded its audit for next year, clearly remained a risk and the weaknesses would remain in place for the following year's conclusion.

·      Part of the reason any concerns would be raised was because KPMG’s conclusions should mirror the Council’s own assessment of internal control through the Annual Governance Statement (AGS). As a key plank of internal control, there were things that the Audit Committee should have oversight of and ensure these were being actioned. Issues being flagged as significant weaknesses with significant recommendations matched against them would probably give the Council some impetus to say that unless the issues were actioned, the weaknesses and arrangements would remain as flagged. 

·      The AGS was submitted to the Committee twice a year and it may be useful to have it submitted more often and this would be considered. The AGS was submitted to the Committee in July 2024. An update would usually be brought six months later. 

·      In relation to voids, this was where KPMG had the most debate and challenge as to whether or not it merited the status of significant weakness. KPMG believed it had reached the right conclusion. In the end, it was clearly a risk and one that KPMG spent a lot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7