Doncaster Metripolitan Council
Councillors:
56
Wards:
22
Committees:
25
Meetings (2025):
88
Meetings (2024):
113
Meeting
Audit Committee - Doncaster
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 13th February 2025
2:00 PM
Thursday, 13th February 2025
2:00 PM
End:
Thursday, 13th February 2025
6:00 PM
Thursday, 13th February 2025
6:00 PM
Actual Time
Started:
Thursday, 30th January 2025
12:00 AM
Thursday, 30th January 2025
12:00 AM
Finished:
Thursday, 30th January 2025
12:00 AM
Thursday, 30th January 2025
12:00 AM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
13 Feb 2025
13 Feb 2025
Location:
Council Chamber, Civic Office, Waterdale, Doncaster DN1 3BU
Council Chamber, Civic Office, Waterdale, Doncaster DN1 3BU
Meeting Attendees
Officer
Interim Head of Procurement
Holly Wilson
Not required
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Adults, Wellbeing and Culture
Chair
Councillor Austen White
Apologies
Vice-Chair
Councillor Glenn Bluff
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Iris Beech
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor John Healy
Present, as expected
Co-Optee
Dr Stuart Green
Absent
Agenda
0
A. Reports where the public and press may not be excluded.
1
Apologies for Absence
2
To consider the extent, if any, to which the Public and Press are to be excluded from the meeting.
3
Declarations of Interest, if any
Minutes
No declarations were reported at the meeting.
4
Minutes of the meeting held on 28th November 2024
Attachments:
- Document 281124 final 05 Feb 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 28th November, 2024 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
5
Revisions to Council Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs).
Attachments:
- Document Audit Committee Council Report Amendments to the Contract Procedure Rules (CPR's) 2025 2502042 (003) 05 Feb 2025
- Document Appendix 1a Contract Procedure Rules 05 Feb 2025
- Document Appendix 1b Contract Procedure Rules 05 Feb 2025
- Document Appendix 1c Contract Procedure Rules Final Dec23 05 Feb 2025
Minutes
The Committee considered a report which set out proposed revisions to the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs). It was advised that as these documents form part of the Constitution, they require agreement by Full Council. The proposed revisions to the CPRs were set out in detail at Appendix 1a, with Appendix 1b showing the revised final version and Appendix 1c showing the current CPRs.
The revisions aim to: -
· Ensure the CPRs are compliant with the significant changes to the Public Procurement Legislation specifically the Procurement Act 2023 and the Procurement Regulations 2024; and
· Give clarity for officers, improve governance, are practical to use and ensure contracting practices are conducted compliantly.
As there was nothing to add since the report’s publication, the Chair invited Members to make comment and ask questions.
In referring to Joint Approvals at page 24 of the agenda pack, clarification was sought on what the democratic decision-making procedures were and whether the reference to Doncaster Business at page 39 should state City of Doncaster Council. In response, officers advised that the reference to decision making should be in accordance with the Councils Constitution and the reference regarding the boundary be amended to City of Doncaster Council.
In response to a question as to whether the revisions being made at Doncaster were like other local authorities. It was advised that discussion took place 6 weekly with other authorities where best practice was shared and it was acknowledged that Doncaster was in line with its neighbouring authorities.
Discussion took place regarding CCTV and Solar Panels and concerns raised into a breach of human rights in terms of products produced in China. Officers stated that regarding the modern slavery statement this was reviewed on an annual basis and a tool kit was being currently worked on with Leeds Council taking the lead. It was advised that this was looked at in 2021 and confirmed that no CCTV cameras were purchased from this region. Committee were also advised that this matter was more about security concerns and not ethical and the Council use a framework for purchasing which is subject to high quality controls.
A query was raised regarding purchasing cards and the reference to the specific use in care services. Officers assured Members that purchasing cards were regularly reviewed. As the purchases were relatively low transaction, the team are unable to process through ERP and if they are compliant with procedures, procurement was satisfied. It should also be noted that all managers received full visibility of the purchases made and sign them off.
RESOLVED that the Audit Committee and Elections and Democratic Structures Committee endorsed the revisions to the Council Contract Procedure Rules and recommended the final version as presented at Appendix 1b to the report for adoption by to Full Council and subsequent incorporation into the Council’s Constitution.
The revisions aim to: -
· Ensure the CPRs are compliant with the significant changes to the Public Procurement Legislation specifically the Procurement Act 2023 and the Procurement Regulations 2024; and
· Give clarity for officers, improve governance, are practical to use and ensure contracting practices are conducted compliantly.
As there was nothing to add since the report’s publication, the Chair invited Members to make comment and ask questions.
In referring to Joint Approvals at page 24 of the agenda pack, clarification was sought on what the democratic decision-making procedures were and whether the reference to Doncaster Business at page 39 should state City of Doncaster Council. In response, officers advised that the reference to decision making should be in accordance with the Councils Constitution and the reference regarding the boundary be amended to City of Doncaster Council.
In response to a question as to whether the revisions being made at Doncaster were like other local authorities. It was advised that discussion took place 6 weekly with other authorities where best practice was shared and it was acknowledged that Doncaster was in line with its neighbouring authorities.
Discussion took place regarding CCTV and Solar Panels and concerns raised into a breach of human rights in terms of products produced in China. Officers stated that regarding the modern slavery statement this was reviewed on an annual basis and a tool kit was being currently worked on with Leeds Council taking the lead. It was advised that this was looked at in 2021 and confirmed that no CCTV cameras were purchased from this region. Committee were also advised that this matter was more about security concerns and not ethical and the Council use a framework for purchasing which is subject to high quality controls.
A query was raised regarding purchasing cards and the reference to the specific use in care services. Officers assured Members that purchasing cards were regularly reviewed. As the purchases were relatively low transaction, the team are unable to process through ERP and if they are compliant with procedures, procurement was satisfied. It should also be noted that all managers received full visibility of the purchases made and sign them off.
RESOLVED that the Audit Committee and Elections and Democratic Structures Committee endorsed the revisions to the Council Contract Procedure Rules and recommended the final version as presented at Appendix 1b to the report for adoption by to Full Council and subsequent incorporation into the Council’s Constitution.
6
Audit Committee Action Log.
Attachments:
- Document 6. Audit Committee Action Log 28.11.24 05 Feb 2025
Minutes
The Committee considered a report which provided an update on actions agreed at previous Committee meetings and allowed Members chance to measure the progress scheduled for future dates. It was noted that both actions were now fully complete.
RESOLVED that the Audit Committee note the progress made against the actions.
RESOLVED that the Audit Committee note the progress made against the actions.
7
Taxi Service Progress Report.
Attachments:
- Document Hackney Carriage and Private Hire licensing update report with imps 2025 05 Feb 2025
Minutes
The Committee received a report which updated Members on the progress of the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Licensing Review and identified outstanding audit actions since the last Committee meeting on 1 February 2024.
The report detailed information on the work proposed to be undertaken since the last report and further information on the following: -
· Documented procedures
· Reporting of management information from Assure
· Spot checks/inspections
· Consulting on the Mandatory Introduction of CCTV
· Renewal reports
In addition to the proposed policy changes, in November 2023, the Department for Transport published the document ‘Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Best Practice Guidance for Licensing Authorities’. It was noted that this new guidance proposes several changes in relation to best practice and a report outlining all the recommendations and implications for the service will be brought to the Licensing Committee.
It was advised that whilst the Council’s licensing unit continued to be a small part of the service, it is incredibly busy and a high-profile area of council business, which had made significant achievements over the last 20 months. In terms of any concerns over the remaining outstanding actions, the Head of Internal Audit advised Committee that robust project management was in place, and he was happy with the progress achieved.
In reference to page 102 of the report and the move from paper to online applications for Taxi Licences, there appeared to be a time factor. An incident was referred to where was provided late through no fault of the applicant, but they were required to complete the process and pay again. Officers undertook to provide further details outside of the meeting.
A query was made regarding the renewal reports and the removal of the 2 referee character references. It was advised that it was thought that the 2 references provided minimal value to the process and created delays. The removal of this factor provided a more streamlined application process.
In conclusion, officers advised that the on-line portal was progressing well however, should anyone applying have difficulties with the process, contact can still be made by email and the Councils website.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
The report detailed information on the work proposed to be undertaken since the last report and further information on the following: -
· Documented procedures
· Reporting of management information from Assure
· Spot checks/inspections
· Consulting on the Mandatory Introduction of CCTV
· Renewal reports
In addition to the proposed policy changes, in November 2023, the Department for Transport published the document ‘Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Best Practice Guidance for Licensing Authorities’. It was noted that this new guidance proposes several changes in relation to best practice and a report outlining all the recommendations and implications for the service will be brought to the Licensing Committee.
It was advised that whilst the Council’s licensing unit continued to be a small part of the service, it is incredibly busy and a high-profile area of council business, which had made significant achievements over the last 20 months. In terms of any concerns over the remaining outstanding actions, the Head of Internal Audit advised Committee that robust project management was in place, and he was happy with the progress achieved.
In reference to page 102 of the report and the move from paper to online applications for Taxi Licences, there appeared to be a time factor. An incident was referred to where was provided late through no fault of the applicant, but they were required to complete the process and pay again. Officers undertook to provide further details outside of the meeting.
A query was made regarding the renewal reports and the removal of the 2 referee character references. It was advised that it was thought that the 2 references provided minimal value to the process and created delays. The removal of this factor provided a more streamlined application process.
In conclusion, officers advised that the on-line portal was progressing well however, should anyone applying have difficulties with the process, contact can still be made by email and the Councils website.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
8
Internal Audit Progress Report for the period: October to December 2024.
Attachments:
- Document 8. Internal Audit Progress Report - October to December 13.02.25 05 Feb 2025
Minutes
The Committee considered a report which updated Members on the work undertaken by Internal Audit for the period October to December 2024.
A summary of main points from each of the sections was provided at paragraphs 4 to 17 of the report.
As there was nothing new to add since the report was published, the Chair sought questions and comments from Members as follows: -
· A correction to the report was noted at page 115 (table) of the report which should read No of actions at 31/12/2024 and not 2025.
· The report advised that a number of resources had been unavailable due to sickness and references to ongoing training of staff. Assurance was sought on whether the Head of Internal Audit was able to provide an opinion given these circumstances. It was advised that at the start of 2025 a big commitment was planned to the team individually and wider to increase skills and qualifications.
· Committee were advised that there was allowance for sickness and
whilst it was higher than anticipated the team ensured that work was
prioritised and the work that the team had been able to slip had been
allocated for next year. It was assured that this had not impaired the
ability to offer a positive opinion.
· It was asked whether the work on the Global Internal Audit Standards identified at paragraph 17 of the report was on schedule. It was advised that work was on target which was indicated at Committee’s previous meeting. If the Internal Audit Service is compliant with the existing United Kingdom Public Sector for internal audit standards, the service is a long way to being compliant with the Global Internal Audit Standards. Gap analysis is being carried out which has identified some actions required and Internal Audit will be able to address these.
· Congratulations were expressed on the zero overdue high-risk items.
· In response to a query as to why the IT audit was not presented within this period, it was advised that there were a couple of audits which were undergoing completion at present and will be included in the July’s progress report, unless significant, in which case they would be included in the Annual Report to April’s committee. It was also noted that there was one completed and reported at the November meeting.
· In terms of meeting the new Audit Standards, Committee were assured that as long as the Head of Audit is reporting to a member of the management team, he is considered to be independent from a management perspective. Alongside this, it was also advised that built into the Head of Internal Audit job description, there is direct right of access to Chair and Vice-Chair of Audit Committee, to any of Executive Directors and Chief Executive as required.
· A query was raised regarding the number of low and medium overdue actions and whether there was any concern in this area. In response, it was advised that it was very reassuring that there were no high-risk overdue actions to report. Regarding the number of overdue lower and medium level actions, the Head of Internal Audit was broadly happy with the reasons for extension. Committee were assured that there were very robust authorisation processes followed for any extensions required.
· In conclusion, in referring to the performance information outlined within Section 4.4.-4.6, it was asked whether the Head of Internal Audit had anything further to add. In response, whilst there was nothing to add, there were no serious issues identified that would be considered for next year’s Annual Governance Statement. In overall terms the number of limited assurance reports had been and remained very low and the Council were generally reporting reasonable levels of assurance in the areas been looked at. Planned coverage was sufficient alongside other assurances for the Head of Internal Audit to be happy to provide an opinion and at present there was nothing untoward that was causing concern and looking like an adverse opinion would be presented.
RESOLVED that the Audit Committee noted: -
(1) the position of the Internal Audit Plan;
(2) the Internal Audit work completed in the period;
(3) the position with regards the implementation of management actions arising from Internal Audit recommendations; and
(4) the current position regarding the ability to deliver the annual opinion over the council’s risk, governance and control arrangements.
A summary of main points from each of the sections was provided at paragraphs 4 to 17 of the report.
As there was nothing new to add since the report was published, the Chair sought questions and comments from Members as follows: -
· A correction to the report was noted at page 115 (table) of the report which should read No of actions at 31/12/2024 and not 2025.
· The report advised that a number of resources had been unavailable due to sickness and references to ongoing training of staff. Assurance was sought on whether the Head of Internal Audit was able to provide an opinion given these circumstances. It was advised that at the start of 2025 a big commitment was planned to the team individually and wider to increase skills and qualifications.
· Committee were advised that there was allowance for sickness and
whilst it was higher than anticipated the team ensured that work was
prioritised and the work that the team had been able to slip had been
allocated for next year. It was assured that this had not impaired the
ability to offer a positive opinion.
· It was asked whether the work on the Global Internal Audit Standards identified at paragraph 17 of the report was on schedule. It was advised that work was on target which was indicated at Committee’s previous meeting. If the Internal Audit Service is compliant with the existing United Kingdom Public Sector for internal audit standards, the service is a long way to being compliant with the Global Internal Audit Standards. Gap analysis is being carried out which has identified some actions required and Internal Audit will be able to address these.
· Congratulations were expressed on the zero overdue high-risk items.
· In response to a query as to why the IT audit was not presented within this period, it was advised that there were a couple of audits which were undergoing completion at present and will be included in the July’s progress report, unless significant, in which case they would be included in the Annual Report to April’s committee. It was also noted that there was one completed and reported at the November meeting.
· In terms of meeting the new Audit Standards, Committee were assured that as long as the Head of Audit is reporting to a member of the management team, he is considered to be independent from a management perspective. Alongside this, it was also advised that built into the Head of Internal Audit job description, there is direct right of access to Chair and Vice-Chair of Audit Committee, to any of Executive Directors and Chief Executive as required.
· A query was raised regarding the number of low and medium overdue actions and whether there was any concern in this area. In response, it was advised that it was very reassuring that there were no high-risk overdue actions to report. Regarding the number of overdue lower and medium level actions, the Head of Internal Audit was broadly happy with the reasons for extension. Committee were assured that there were very robust authorisation processes followed for any extensions required.
· In conclusion, in referring to the performance information outlined within Section 4.4.-4.6, it was asked whether the Head of Internal Audit had anything further to add. In response, whilst there was nothing to add, there were no serious issues identified that would be considered for next year’s Annual Governance Statement. In overall terms the number of limited assurance reports had been and remained very low and the Council were generally reporting reasonable levels of assurance in the areas been looked at. Planned coverage was sufficient alongside other assurances for the Head of Internal Audit to be happy to provide an opinion and at present there was nothing untoward that was causing concern and looking like an adverse opinion would be presented.
RESOLVED that the Audit Committee noted: -
(1) the position of the Internal Audit Plan;
(2) the Internal Audit work completed in the period;
(3) the position with regards the implementation of management actions arising from Internal Audit recommendations; and
(4) the current position regarding the ability to deliver the annual opinion over the council’s risk, governance and control arrangements.
9
Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement 2023/24 - Draft ISA 260 Report to Those Charged With Governance.
Attachments:
- Document AC item 9 05 Feb 2025
Minutes
The Committee were presented with a report detailing the Statement of Accounts and Annual Governance Statement 2023/24. Also attached to the report was the draft ISA 260 report to those charged with Governance.
The report stated that Grant Thornton expected to issue an unqualified audit opinion on the Council’s financial statements for 2023/24 subject to all outstanding queries being resolved to their satisfaction. Work had also been completed on their Value for Money (VfM) for 2023/24 and had issued the final Auditor’s Annual Report (AAR), which was included on the agenda for the meeting.
It was reported that overall, the draft ISA 260 report was positive, with 1 material adjustment. The ISA 260 report was attached as an appendix to the report.
Grant Thornton highlighted that since the issuing of the ISA260 report on 18th December there had been 2 additional items identified relating to the Defined Benefit Pension Scheme that had not been adjusted due to not being material: -
· The South Yorkshire Pension Fund (SYPF) auditor had identified an , unadjusted error on pooled investment vehicles in the SYPF accounts of c£68.5m. £9.4m of that related to Doncaster but after the asset ceiling adjustment that fell to £1.4m.
· The benefits paid in year per the actuary report differed by £4.9m from the benefits recorded by the SYPF.
The net effect was that the balance sheet was potentially overstated by £3.5m. This would be included in the updated ISA260 report as audit adjustments not processed by management.
The Section 151 officer reaffirmed on behalf of the Council that she was satisfied that the Statement of Accounts presented a true and fair view the financial position at the end of 2023/24 and the Councils income and expenditure for the 2023/24 financial year.
Grant Thornton stated that the audit had gone well albeit being a little later this year due to their commitments and priorities with the back stop for other Local Authority audits. They placed on record thanks to Faye and the wider finance team and would be happy to present a clean opinion on the accounts by tomorrow. Grant Thornton went on to outline key audit findings within the ISA 260 report.
Following the summary, the report was offered out for comments and questions as follows: -
· In terms of the adjustment for the airport lease clarification was sought on why that was necessary and why was the original figure so far out. Officers advised that airports were unique assets, it had been estimated on the present value for future lease payments which was one of the bases you are allowed to value on. However, it should be the lower of that or the actual value. It was noted that at the time the lease was signed there was no access to have a valuation carried out and finding a valuer took a little time but came through towards the end of November, which provided a more appropriate value and more importantly the split between land and buildings was very different to the original estimate. It was important to note that this was not an indication in any way that the finance team were unable to value appropriately, it was simply due to the timescales for producing the draft accounts.
· In referring to page 20, Information Technology assessment, the level of assessment performed was only at design effectiveness for ITGC, it was asked what the reason was for that and why there was no reference to operating effectiveness. In response, it was advised that this falls within the controls in place at the Council and this area was detailed within Appendix C of the report. It was highlighted that there were a number of areas identified last year and there had been some progress made identified at page 32 onwards. However, there were still some areas that needed progression. Officers felt it important to note that on page 32, that these weaknesses were not considered sufficiently significant to impact on the audit approach or the review of the statements.
· In reference to the AGS, there were 7 significant areas identified, 4 had been effectively managed and removed, 2 new areas had been added, giving a total of 5 areas to focus on for the current AGS. It was noted that the AGS had been delayed due to the revised Audit Committee date for the approval of the accounts, it was asked whether the numbers remained the same. In response, it was advised that as part of the process, the draft was produced in April, and as part of the quarterly process updates are provided in terms of the AGS items. It was confirmed that January was the latest update. Officers assured Committee that the AGS had been reviewed and reflected the latest position.
· The AGS includes an item for the DSG/SEND, officers were asked to comment on the latest position, it was advised that discussion on this would be more relevant to the next item on the agenda.
RESOLVED that the Audit Committee: -
(1) noted the contents of the draft external audit ISA 260 report;
(2) considered the Letter of Representation included in the draft ISA 260 report; and endorsed for signature by the Chair of Audit Committee and the Chief Financial Officer;
(3) approved the Statement of Accounts 2023/24;
(4) Approved the Annual Governance Statement 2023/24, for signature by the Mayor and the Chief Executive; and
(5) delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to agree any adjustments to the Statement of Accounts 2023/24, following completion of the audit by Grant Thornton, should any changes be necessary, prior to signing by the Chief Financial Officer and the Chair of the Audit Committee.
The report stated that Grant Thornton expected to issue an unqualified audit opinion on the Council’s financial statements for 2023/24 subject to all outstanding queries being resolved to their satisfaction. Work had also been completed on their Value for Money (VfM) for 2023/24 and had issued the final Auditor’s Annual Report (AAR), which was included on the agenda for the meeting.
It was reported that overall, the draft ISA 260 report was positive, with 1 material adjustment. The ISA 260 report was attached as an appendix to the report.
Grant Thornton highlighted that since the issuing of the ISA260 report on 18th December there had been 2 additional items identified relating to the Defined Benefit Pension Scheme that had not been adjusted due to not being material: -
· The South Yorkshire Pension Fund (SYPF) auditor had identified an , unadjusted error on pooled investment vehicles in the SYPF accounts of c£68.5m. £9.4m of that related to Doncaster but after the asset ceiling adjustment that fell to £1.4m.
· The benefits paid in year per the actuary report differed by £4.9m from the benefits recorded by the SYPF.
The net effect was that the balance sheet was potentially overstated by £3.5m. This would be included in the updated ISA260 report as audit adjustments not processed by management.
The Section 151 officer reaffirmed on behalf of the Council that she was satisfied that the Statement of Accounts presented a true and fair view the financial position at the end of 2023/24 and the Councils income and expenditure for the 2023/24 financial year.
Grant Thornton stated that the audit had gone well albeit being a little later this year due to their commitments and priorities with the back stop for other Local Authority audits. They placed on record thanks to Faye and the wider finance team and would be happy to present a clean opinion on the accounts by tomorrow. Grant Thornton went on to outline key audit findings within the ISA 260 report.
Following the summary, the report was offered out for comments and questions as follows: -
· In terms of the adjustment for the airport lease clarification was sought on why that was necessary and why was the original figure so far out. Officers advised that airports were unique assets, it had been estimated on the present value for future lease payments which was one of the bases you are allowed to value on. However, it should be the lower of that or the actual value. It was noted that at the time the lease was signed there was no access to have a valuation carried out and finding a valuer took a little time but came through towards the end of November, which provided a more appropriate value and more importantly the split between land and buildings was very different to the original estimate. It was important to note that this was not an indication in any way that the finance team were unable to value appropriately, it was simply due to the timescales for producing the draft accounts.
· In referring to page 20, Information Technology assessment, the level of assessment performed was only at design effectiveness for ITGC, it was asked what the reason was for that and why there was no reference to operating effectiveness. In response, it was advised that this falls within the controls in place at the Council and this area was detailed within Appendix C of the report. It was highlighted that there were a number of areas identified last year and there had been some progress made identified at page 32 onwards. However, there were still some areas that needed progression. Officers felt it important to note that on page 32, that these weaknesses were not considered sufficiently significant to impact on the audit approach or the review of the statements.
· In reference to the AGS, there were 7 significant areas identified, 4 had been effectively managed and removed, 2 new areas had been added, giving a total of 5 areas to focus on for the current AGS. It was noted that the AGS had been delayed due to the revised Audit Committee date for the approval of the accounts, it was asked whether the numbers remained the same. In response, it was advised that as part of the process, the draft was produced in April, and as part of the quarterly process updates are provided in terms of the AGS items. It was confirmed that January was the latest update. Officers assured Committee that the AGS had been reviewed and reflected the latest position.
· The AGS includes an item for the DSG/SEND, officers were asked to comment on the latest position, it was advised that discussion on this would be more relevant to the next item on the agenda.
RESOLVED that the Audit Committee: -
(1) noted the contents of the draft external audit ISA 260 report;
(2) considered the Letter of Representation included in the draft ISA 260 report; and endorsed for signature by the Chair of Audit Committee and the Chief Financial Officer;
(3) approved the Statement of Accounts 2023/24;
(4) Approved the Annual Governance Statement 2023/24, for signature by the Mayor and the Chief Executive; and
(5) delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to agree any adjustments to the Statement of Accounts 2023/24, following completion of the audit by Grant Thornton, should any changes be necessary, prior to signing by the Chief Financial Officer and the Chair of the Audit Committee.
10
Grant Thornton - Auditor's Annual Report 2023/24.
Attachments:
- Document CDC Auditor's Annual Report 2023-24 FINAL for Council 030225 05 Feb 2025
- Document Appendix D -Doncaster Council - SYAC Project - letter of concern - Final to CDC 11.11.2024 05 Feb 2025
Minutes
The Council’s External Auditor’s Grant Thornton attended the meeting to present their Annual Report to the Committee 2023/24 which also included the Value for Money (VfM) Statement.
Gareth Mills and Perminder Sethi presented their findings particularly regarding the Executive Summary identified at page 179 of the report, which RAG rated in terms of financial sustainability, Governance and Improving economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Gareth advised that one key recommendation which was at a high level related to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) position. He stated that this remained and further details would be discussed. The report identified no other significant weaknesses in terms of arrangements for 2023/24 and overall, this was a broadly positive report for the Council.
Further details were presented on the DSG position. However, officers wished to point out that this area had been discussed at length at Committee and Doncaster was not unique in finding itself in this position, Councils across the country were experiencing the same challenges associated with DSG. In addition to the DSG finding, there were a number of small lower-level improvement recommendations raised which were mainly in relation to reporting of financial risks and tracking savings delivery, and the Councils current position with the re-opening of the airport.
The report included a letter sent to the Chief Executive in relation to the airport project, it was noted that this would be a continued area of discussion going forward to the 2024/25 audit.
Following the introduction, the report was offered out for Members comments and questions as follows: -
· In referring to page 179, explanation was sought regarding the decline from Green to Amber in terms of Governance and Improving and the 3 E’s. In response, if an improvement level has been identified as a recommendation, there is an automatic drop into Amber grading. A small number of improvement recommendations had been identified across governance and the 3 Es which were not in the prior year, this could be argued that there had been a slight deterioration in arrangements overall, but it was stressed that they were not identified as significant weaknesses that require a key level recommendation. It was also identified that page 20 of the report outlined the risk management arrangements which required some improvement.
· In terms of the letter sent to the Chief Executive in November regarding the re-opening of the airport, Grant Thornton provided an explanation on their position in writing the letter.
· In terms of Value for Money (VfM), a query was raised regarding the decline in nondomestic business rates, it was asked if this was viewed as a risk and should they be expected to continue to decline in the current climate. Officers wished to point out that in terms of business rates, this was a growing area and not identified as a risk. It was advised that from looking at the budget report, it was reporting an overall forecast increase in retained business rates of £5.6m. In terms of recovery, officers advised that this was positive with growth assumptions identified. It was noted that there is sometimes a delay in achieving the forecast growth.
· In terms of short and medium term risks a lot of authority’s are struggling with the increase in national insurance and pay increases, it was asked whether this was considered within the report. In response, it was advised that arrangements are looked at in terms of constructing the budget, the assumptions, sensitivity analysis that are part of the budget setting process. Any revisions to budget in year is something that Grant Thornton will look at and reflect upon within the report. As previously discussed, the only significant issue raised was DSG, but Doncaster were not unique on this and there will have to be a national response to this challenge.
· Further comments were made with regard to DSG and officers spoke of the approaches made with regard to challenges posed. The Council is doing its upmost in terms of a partnership, engaging with schools, mainstreaming provision, reducing expenditure as much as possible by looking at alternative provision and where we can bring children back into the City, to reduce the need for expensive placements out of authority. Officers wished to point out the £5bn shortfall, that the Local Government Association estimates across the nation. It is acknowledged this was a worrying position which was not of the Councils making, and impacted by the environment, procedures, rules, and regulations set out in terms of the Education, Health and Social Care Plans for children, and is a national challenge.
The Committee wished to thank all officers for their involvement with the challenging DSG position.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
Prior to the conclusion of the meeting, the Chair announced that this was Gareth Mill’s last Audit Committee and placed on record the Committee’s thanks to Gareth for his valued contributions and wished him well for the future. Gareth thanked Committee for their kind words and stated that it had been a privilege to work with officers at Doncaster.
Gareth Mills and Perminder Sethi presented their findings particularly regarding the Executive Summary identified at page 179 of the report, which RAG rated in terms of financial sustainability, Governance and Improving economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Gareth advised that one key recommendation which was at a high level related to the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) position. He stated that this remained and further details would be discussed. The report identified no other significant weaknesses in terms of arrangements for 2023/24 and overall, this was a broadly positive report for the Council.
Further details were presented on the DSG position. However, officers wished to point out that this area had been discussed at length at Committee and Doncaster was not unique in finding itself in this position, Councils across the country were experiencing the same challenges associated with DSG. In addition to the DSG finding, there were a number of small lower-level improvement recommendations raised which were mainly in relation to reporting of financial risks and tracking savings delivery, and the Councils current position with the re-opening of the airport.
The report included a letter sent to the Chief Executive in relation to the airport project, it was noted that this would be a continued area of discussion going forward to the 2024/25 audit.
Following the introduction, the report was offered out for Members comments and questions as follows: -
· In referring to page 179, explanation was sought regarding the decline from Green to Amber in terms of Governance and Improving and the 3 E’s. In response, if an improvement level has been identified as a recommendation, there is an automatic drop into Amber grading. A small number of improvement recommendations had been identified across governance and the 3 Es which were not in the prior year, this could be argued that there had been a slight deterioration in arrangements overall, but it was stressed that they were not identified as significant weaknesses that require a key level recommendation. It was also identified that page 20 of the report outlined the risk management arrangements which required some improvement.
· In terms of the letter sent to the Chief Executive in November regarding the re-opening of the airport, Grant Thornton provided an explanation on their position in writing the letter.
· In terms of Value for Money (VfM), a query was raised regarding the decline in nondomestic business rates, it was asked if this was viewed as a risk and should they be expected to continue to decline in the current climate. Officers wished to point out that in terms of business rates, this was a growing area and not identified as a risk. It was advised that from looking at the budget report, it was reporting an overall forecast increase in retained business rates of £5.6m. In terms of recovery, officers advised that this was positive with growth assumptions identified. It was noted that there is sometimes a delay in achieving the forecast growth.
· In terms of short and medium term risks a lot of authority’s are struggling with the increase in national insurance and pay increases, it was asked whether this was considered within the report. In response, it was advised that arrangements are looked at in terms of constructing the budget, the assumptions, sensitivity analysis that are part of the budget setting process. Any revisions to budget in year is something that Grant Thornton will look at and reflect upon within the report. As previously discussed, the only significant issue raised was DSG, but Doncaster were not unique on this and there will have to be a national response to this challenge.
· Further comments were made with regard to DSG and officers spoke of the approaches made with regard to challenges posed. The Council is doing its upmost in terms of a partnership, engaging with schools, mainstreaming provision, reducing expenditure as much as possible by looking at alternative provision and where we can bring children back into the City, to reduce the need for expensive placements out of authority. Officers wished to point out the £5bn shortfall, that the Local Government Association estimates across the nation. It is acknowledged this was a worrying position which was not of the Councils making, and impacted by the environment, procedures, rules, and regulations set out in terms of the Education, Health and Social Care Plans for children, and is a national challenge.
The Committee wished to thank all officers for their involvement with the challenging DSG position.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
Prior to the conclusion of the meeting, the Chair announced that this was Gareth Mill’s last Audit Committee and placed on record the Committee’s thanks to Gareth for his valued contributions and wished him well for the future. Gareth thanked Committee for their kind words and stated that it had been a privilege to work with officers at Doncaster.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in