Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any announcements from the chair and general housekeeping matters.

The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure to be followed, and advised on the emergency evacuation arrangements.

The head of finance provided an update on the completion of audit reports for the accounts. The reports have been received and circulated with members of the committee. Members confirmed the reports have been received. Any comments were to be received by Thursday 28 November 2024, where they would be reviewed and the accounts signed off by the Chair and the head of finance.

To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members. 

Apologies were received from Councillors Oliver Forder and Tony Worgan.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Joint Audit and Governance Committee minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2024. 

Members noted that at the last meeting it was discussed that written comparison of complaints between this and last year would be reported at a future meeting.

Democratic Services agreed to chase this action.

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2024 as a correct record and agree that the Chair signs them as such.

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests and any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.  

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive notification of any matters which the chair determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent.

There was no urgent business.

To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak. 

There was no public participation.

To receive the report from the Deputy Chief Executive – Place.

On 27 June 2024 (South) and 28 June 2024 (Vale) at respective Cabinet meetings, members considered a report on the Review of the Future Oxfordshire Partnership (FOP). It was proposed that the report be shared with the Joint Audit and Governance Committee as part of its role to consider corporate governance matters.

Recommendation:

That the Joint Audit and Governance Committee note the proposed changes to the Future Oxfordshire Partnership and wider devolution proposals and consider any implications that may impact South Oxfordshire District Council and Vale of White Horse District Council’s ability to deliver effective governance.

The deputy chief executive (place) outlined that by bringing this report to the Joint Audit and Governance Committee, the Councils’ Leaders, as the Councils’ representatives on the Future Oxfordshire Partnership Board (FOP), were asking the committee to consider the role of FOP and how it operates. They were also looking for recommendations regarding the way FOP currently operates to ensure sound governance and decision-making for the councils, recognising that the implications of devolution plans were not yet known and would likely be significant. This was an interim paper; aiming to refresh and reshape the partnership and the way it makes decisions.

The housing and growth deal for Oxfordshire was coming to an end, providing an opportunity to refresh the terms of reference of FOP. Since then, the new Government had proposed devolution plans, which would impact any work here.

The head of legal and democratic services, emphasised that the purpose of this report was for the committee to focus on how decisions should be made and how it should be governed. Any recommendations from the committee can be taken forward by both Council leaders.

Councillor David Rouane, Leader of South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) outlined the history of FOP, noting that while it was set up around the growth deal, the Leaders of both councils felt strongly that a forum like FOP should continue to exist, but needed an improved terms of reference to clearly define its role.

Members debated whether the committee should also discuss the scope of FOP. Questions were raised about voting balances and the Chair's casting vote. It was agreed that a future committee discussion on any draft terms of reference for any new iteration would be helpful.

Members asked if FOP is fit for purpose. Councillor Bethia Thomas, Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council (VWHDC), was of the view that it does not feel like the scope is clearly defined, that the terms of reference should be streamlined, and scrutiny should have a clear role.

The Leader of SODC emphasised the need for a transparent forum for councils to meet and discuss areas of common interest, as FOP currently does not fulfil that role.

The Leader of VWHDC confirmed that the reset conditions outlined in the report were formed in a discussion between Council leaders. These suggestions were then reviewed, and a report was put together by officers. The next step is for Council leaders to review, prioritise, and shape the conditions.

Members enquired as to whether a review of the effectiveness of FOP will take place. The Chair confirmed that an end-of-terms report on what was achieved will be prepared, outlined that a meeting will be held about this in the future, and reminded members that the role of the committee is to specifically consider the governance of any future FOP.

Members asked about the current process and standard of transparency. The Leader of VWHDC acknowledged that it hasn’t been open enough, which is why both Leaders agreed that a FOP report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

To consider the report of the Head of Finance.

The committee received the corporate risk review, presented by the risk and insurance team leader. The report was the half yearly progress review of the corporate risk registers for South Oxfordshire District Council and Vale of White Horse District Council. The officer confirmed the report was a snapshot in time and followed the previous report the committee received in April.

Members asked whether transformation and devolution should be on the risk register.

The officer confirmed that transformation was listed on the corporate risk register. Devolution had been included previously but had been removed after unitary discussions ceased. The corporate risk register would be updated once further details from the government become available.

Members agreed that the confidential paper should be discussed in confidential session.

RESOLVED: to move the discussion of this item to confidential session.

To receive the report from the Internal Audit and Risk Manager.

The purpose of this report is to summarise the outcomes of recent internal audit activity at both councils for the committee to review. 

Recommendation:

That members review the results of recent internal audit work and monitor progress of management actions.

The internal audit and risk manager, presented the report, outlining the work of the internal audit team and completed audits. They confirmed that they were reviewing the current internal audit plan to determine if it still meets the councils’ strategic objectives.

They also confirmed that many actions had been implemented, including some of the high-risk overdue items. There were eight such items, and the team was working with the heads of relevant services, with assurances that these were being progressed.

Members enquired why some high priority overdue actions from 2021-22 were still included and what the process was for escalation.

The officer confirmed these actions were part of a longer-term plan for some departments. They reassured members that the audit team was proactively engaging with the heads of service and these items were being prioritised. The list has significantly reduced in number and will continue to be a focus.

The head of finance, noted that the internal audit team should bring to the committee's attention any items that were not progressing. Members agreed importance of the committee’s role in holding department accountable and agreed that heads of service attending committee meetings if necessary was a helpful part of this process.

Members were assured that the high-risk items were progressing positively, and the focus will now shift to medium-risk items. It is expected that most of the high-risk items will be closed by the next meeting.

It was agreed that the officers would consider how items were brought to the committee's attention.

Members enquired about the status of any information security audit items. It was confirmed that the information security actions were completed.

The head of finance reassured members that an issue being defined as high-risk does not necessarily refer to a statutory duty. They reiterated that some actions require an overhaul of systems and processes and would take many months to complete, whereas some issues could be resolved more quickly.

The internal audit and risk manager stressed that many departments had a heavy workload, with many urgent priorities to manage. Members acknowledged this and noted the progress that had been made on the risk register.

RESOLVED: to note the internal audit report.

To receive the report from the Head of Legal and Democratic.

To outline the inputs and reasoning behind the current Terms of Reference for the Joint Audit and Governance Committee and provide members the opportunity to review it and assess whether it remains fit for purpose.

Recommendation:

To make any recommendations about the updating of the Joint Audit and Governance Committee’s Terms of Reference to the Joint Constitution Review Task Group and each Council for inclusion in the councils’ constitution.

Following a training session, the Joint Audit and Governance Committee agreed to review their terms of reference (ToR) to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and member expectations. The democratic services team leader, presented a report outlining that officers were satisfied that the current ToR met statutory requirements and Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) expectations. However, there was room for procedural improvements, such as introducing Co-Vice Chairs, which would be appointed by the committee.

To ensure balanced chairing and timely sign-off of documents, it was recommended to create Co-Vice Chair positions, one from each council.

The committee consisted of four members from each council plus an independent member, and was politically balanced. Any changes to membership needed approval from both councils.

Members noted that some of the wording in the ToR felt vague; such as noting and approving items as opposed to making changes or recommendations. The head of legal and democratic services confirmed that the discharge of functions and statutory remit required certain items to be “noted” or “approved” formally by the committee, and that keeping that consistent was sensible.

There was a discussion where members and officers agreed that while the committee should note or approve where required, they are able send recommendations to full council or via other avenues regarding particular issues if it was deemed appropriate.

Members noted that some of the reports listed in the ToR may not have come to the committee. They discussed whether the scope of what the committee considers and seeks to achieve should be reviewed.

The head of finance explained that this committee has a distinct and defined role. They used budgetary control as an example; this committee had a specific function to check the accuracy of accounts, which was very different from scrutiny’s purpose, which was to look at why and what had been spent. Members agreed this was a helpful explanation and asked that this distinction be put in writing.

Members discussed whether the power to make recommendations and to whom should be included in the terms of reference. The head of legal and democratic services confirmed that this would be possible, and that they would come up with some wording to meet these requirements.

Members considered the proposal for Co-Vice Chairs to be included and agreed that it would be helpful.

RESOLVED: to make a recommendation to the constitutional review group that the draft ToR be agreed, and should include:

• Powers to make recommendations and to whom
• Introduction of Co-Vice Chairs
• For officers to put in writing the distinction between audit and scrutiny.

To note the committee’s work programme.

The democratic services team leader presented the work programme and noted that the following items will be address at the next meeting in january:

•         Health and Safety

•         Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) annual review

•         Internal audit update report - Q3 2024/25

•         Treasury management mid-year monitoring report 2024/25

•         Treasury management strategy 2025/26

The officer noted that FOP would be added to the work programme following the discussion earlier in the meeting.

The head of finance confirmed that the committee would need a meeting in February 2025 to deal with the statement of accounts.

The Chair noted that members would be invited to standards training as part of their role on the committee.

RESOLVED: to note the work programme with the updates as set out.

To consider whether to exclude members of the press and public from the meeting for the following items of business under Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended on the grounds that:

(i)     It is likely that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A, and

(ii)    the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

RESOLVED: to exclude members of the press and public from the meeting for the following item of business under Part 1 of Schedule 12A Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 and as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 on the grounds that:
i. it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as
defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and
ii. the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.