- \n
- Attendance Details \n\t\t\t
- \nAgenda Frontsheet\n\t\t\t
![\"pdf](\"mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif\")
PDF 81 KB \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n\t\t\t\t - Agenda reports pack\n PDF 3 MB \n\n\t\t\t\t
- \nPrinted minutes\n PDF 90 KB \n\t\t \n\n
Venue: The Guildhall, Westgate, Canterbury
\n\t\tContact: Bob Bennett \n\t\t01227 862 003\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\nItems\n\t\t\nNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tElection of Chairman
\nThe Council have agreed that the Independent\nMember of the Audit Committee shall be Chairman for 2010/11.
\nMinutes:
\nIt was noted that the Independent Member of\nthe Audit Committee would be Chairman for the Council year\n2010/11.
\n\n
At this point the Independent Chairman, Janet\nJerram announced that she would shortly be resigning as the\nIndependent member and that this would be her last meeting. The\nCommittee formally thanked her for the work she had undertaken as\nChairman of the Committee for the last 4 years.
\n\n
The Director of Finance reported that steps\nwould now be taken to advertise for a new Independent member and\nthat applicants would need to meet certain criteria. If none of the\napplicants met the criteria then it would be upto the Council to\nconsider whether it wished to continue with an Independent\nmember.
\nElection of Vice-Chairman
\nMinutes:
\nRESOLVED – That Councillor Samper be\nVice-Chairman of the Committee for the Council Year 2010/11.
\nMembers' Interest
\nIf any Members have any interest in any item\non the agenda, they are invited to declare the nature thereof, ie\npersonal or prejudicial, when the relevant item is considered by\nthe Committee.
\nMinutes:
\nCouncillor Cragg reported that if any debate\ntook place in connection with the Beaney Institute Redevelopment\nProject which was included in the Strategic Risk Register he would\ndeclare a prejudicial interest and leave the meeting during the\ndebate.
\nPublic Participation at Meetings
\nTO RECEIVE representations
\nMinutes:
\nNo representations had been received.
\nTO CONFIRM as a true record the minutes of the\nmeeting held on 22 March 2010.
\nMinutes:
\nThe Chairman signed as a true record the\nminutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 March 2010.
\nMatters Arising
\n\n(a) \nHorsebridge Arts and Community Centre – The Head of Community\nDevelopment will present a report to the next meeting of the\nCommittee in September
\n\n(b) \nCanterbury Football Hub – The Head of Culture and Enterprise\nwill present a report to the next meeting of the Committee in\nSeptember.
\n\n(c) \nData Protection –
\n\n
A\nquestion was raised at the last meeting of the Audit Committee\nabout recent investigations of insurance companies for loss of\npersonal data and if these cases had any relevance to the\ncouncil.
\n\n
The ICO website lists all recent enforcement\nactions. There have been two recent cases investigated by the\nInformation Commissioner involving insurance companies.
\n\n
Royal London Mutual Insurance Society –\nThe theft of eight laptops from their Edinburgh office, two of\nwhich contained the personal information of 2135 policyholders.
\n\n
Zurich Insurance – The loss of an\nencrypted back up disc whilst in transit from the UK to their\nrecord facility in South Africa. The disc had 46,000 policyholder\nrecords.
\n\n
Both companies had to give a signed\nundertaking to the ICO that their record management processes would\nbe improved. No fines were levied as the information was encrypted\nand this was a first incident.
\n\n
There is nothing exceptional about these\nincidents as both follow a familiar set of circumstances. The\ncouncil recently had a theft of a laptop from within the building\nbut thankfully with no data loss implications. What these incidents\ndo show is the need to maintain high standards of information\nsecurity at all times. The council has in place a comprehensive\nInformation Security policy. The difficulty is to guard against\ncomplacency and ensure that staff follow the policy at all\ntimes.
\n.
\nMinutes:
\n\n(a) \nIt was noted that the Head of Community Development and Outdoor\nLeisure would be presenting a report on the Horsebridge Arts and\nCommunity Centre to the next meeting of the Committee in\nSeptember.
\n\n(b) \nIt was noted that the Head of Culture and Enterprise would be\npresenting a report on the Canterbury Football Hub to the next\nmeeting of the Committee in September.
\n\n(c) \nThe Risk Management Officer reported that at the last meeting of\nthe Committee a question was raised about recent investigations of\ninsurance companies for loss of personal data and whether these\ncases had any relevance to the Council. He gave details of two\nrecent cases which had been investigated by the Information\nCommissioner which resulted in both companies having to give a\nsigned undertaking to the Information Commissioner that their\nrecord management processes would be improved.
\n\nHe added that although the Council recently had a theft of a laptop\nfrom within the council offices there were no data loss\nimplications. The Committee were advised that the Council had in\nplace a comprehensive Information policy although the difficulty\nwas to guard against complacency and ensure that staff followed the\npolicy at all times.
\nAudit Opinion Plan 2009/10 PDF 371 KB
\nThe District Auditor to present.
\nMinutes:
\nDeborah Moorhouse, Audit Manager, presented\nthe Audit Opinion Plan 2009/10 which set out the audit work that\nthe Audit Commission proposed to undertake for the audit of\nfinancial statements 2009/10. The plan was based on the Audit\nCommission’s risk based approach to audit planning and\nreflected:
\n\n
\n· \naudit work specified by the Audit Commission for 2009/10;
\n\n· \ncurrent national risks relevant to the city council’s local\ncircumstances; and
\n\n· \nlocal risks for the city council.
\n\n
The Audit Manager advised the committee that\nwhilst she had not identified any new risks, there was a continued\nrisk with regard to the recovery of investments held in Icelandic\nbanks and their valuation in the council’s\naccounts. The Audit\nCommission would continue to monitor the position and discuss the\nvaluation of the investments with city council finance staff.
\n\n
RESOLVED – That the Audit Opinion Plan\n2009/10 be received.
\nAudit and Inspection Plan Letter 2010/11 PDF 29 KB
\nThe District Auditor to present and provide a\nverbal update on the latest position regarding use of resources and\nCAA.
\nMinutes:
\nDeborah Moorhouse, Audit Manager, submitted\ndetails of the audit and inspection work that the Audit Commission\nproposed to undertake for the council during the financial year\n2010/11. The letter\nindicated that the total indicative fee for inspection would be\n£127,000, which compared with the updated fee of\n£120,000 for 2009/10. However, the new audit fee did\nnot include a rebate that the city council would receive in respect\nof International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which\ntotalled approximately £8,745. The Audit Commission had set\ntheir fees within the context of their published work programme and\nscales of fees 2010/11.
\n\n
The Audit Manager reminded the committee that\nthe Comprehensive Area Assessment framework was to be abolished by\nthe new government.
\n\n
One Member noted that within the report, the\nAudit Commission would monitor the council’s progress in\nmanaging the associated risks with regard to the provision of\nvarious shared services and whether a report would come back to the\ncommittee in June 2011. The Audit Manager advised that\nthe report could be submitted earlier than that, but that an update\nreport would be made at the next meeting of the committee.
\n\n
RESOLVED – That the annual audit fee for\n2010/11 be received.
\nThe District Auditor to present.
\nMinutes:
\nDeborah Moorhouse, Audit Manager, circulated a\ncopy of a letter addressed to the Chairman of the council’s\nAudit Committee, that sought her assistance with the Audit\nCommission’s current work on the council’s financial\nstatement for 2009/10. \nThe letter stated that in order to comply with a number of\ninternational auditing standards, the Audit Commission were\nrequired to obtain an understanding of how those charged with\ngovernance exercised oversight of management processes for\nidentifying and reporting the risk of fraud and possible breaches\nof internal control in the council. The letter asked for a brief\nresponse by the Chairman by 30 June 2010. The Chairman indicated that she\nwould send an appropriate response.
\n\n
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
\nMembers' Approval of the Statement of Accounts 2009/10 PDF 121 KB
\nTO CONSIDER
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nThe Head of Finance reminded the committee\nthat although the General Purposes Committee was the committee\ncharged with approving the statement of accounts for 2009/10, the\nreport was being presented to the Audit Committee in order that\nthey could make recommendations to the General Purposes Committee\non it. He reported that\nthe statement was in a prescribed format and that the Audit\nCommission would have to report back their findings on the\nstatement of accounts both to the General Purposes Committee and\nthe Audit Committee in September 2010.
\n\n
To assist the committee, the Head of Finance\nhad prepared a summary and brief explanation of the statement of\naccounts 2009/10, together with the key facts from the statement of\naccounts. In addition,\nhe took the committee through the changes that had been made to the\n2009/10 statement since last year.
\n\n
Finally, the Head of Finance advised that the\nAudit Commission wanted to make some changes to page 23 of the\nstatement of accounts (pension costs) so as to include a disclosure\nfrom the actuary explaining how the council’s share of the\npension fund had been valued. He advised that he would circulate\na revised page 23 to the meeting of the General Purposes Committee\non 28 June 2010. In\nconsidering the report, Members raised one or two points relating\nto the statement of accounts, with particular reference to the\npensions deficit and its effect on the Council’s net worth,\nthe overspend on the housing revenue account, the contribution to\nthe benefits reserve, the level of capital spend and the revenue\neffect of borrowing in future yearsand these points were answered\nby the Head of Finance.
\n\n
RESOLVED – That the General Purposes\nCommittee be asked to recommend approval of the statement of\naccounts 2009/10.
\nTreasury Management Report - Final Quarter 2009/10 PDF 158 KB
\nTO NOTE the report of the Head of Finance.
\nMinutes:
\nThe Director of Finance presented a report\nwhich detailed the results of the council’s treasury\nmanagement activities in the fourth quarter of the financial year\nended 31 March 2010.
\n\n
He reported that investment rates available in\nthe market were at an historical low point, having declined even\nfurther from the last quarter’s very low rates. The average level of funds\navailable for investment purposes in the fourth quarter of 2009/10\nwas £23.42 million. However, the council’s\nperformance on investments had outperformed the benchmark by 58\nbasis points. He\nfurther reported that the prudential indicators had not been\nbreached during the fourth quarter of 2009/10 and that the city\ncouncil had not carried out an debt rescheduling.
\n\n
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
\nReview of the Effectiveness of the Council's Internal Audit Arrangements 2009/10 PDF 95 KB
\nTO CONSIDER the report of the Director of\nFinance and Deputy Chief Executive.
\nMinutes:
\nThe Director of Finance submitted a report\nwhich presented the findings of the review of the effectiveness of\nthe council’s internal audit arrangements for 2009/10, as\nrequired by the Accounts and Audit (Amendment) (England)\nRegulations 2006.
\n\n
He reminded the committee that it should be\nnoted that the review was primarily about effectiveness, not\nprocess. In essence,\nthe need for the review was to ensure that the opinion in the\nannual report of the internal auditors may be relied upon as a key\nsource of evidence for the annual governance statement.\n He stated that the\ninternal audit function was performed by the East Kent Audit\nPartnership (EKAP), which provided internal audit services to the\ncouncils of Dover, Shepway and Thanet, as well as\nCanterbury. As a\nresult of this collaborative approach, the partnership was able to\nbe robustly resourced and provide a mechanism for promulgating best\npractice to the east Kent authorities that used its services.
\n\n
RECOMMENDED – That the Audit Committee\naccept the findings of the review of the effectiveness of the\ncouncil’s internal audit arrangements for 2009/10.
\nUpdate report on risk management/corporate governance PDF 72 KB
\nTO CONSIDER
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nThe committee considered a report from the\nDirector of Finance which provided an update on the key risks\nfacing the council. \nThe report included the latest version of the risk register which\nshowed how risks were being managed and ranked to highlight the\nmajor risks. The Risk\nManagement Officer advised that whilst no new risks had been added,\none risk had been reduced. Furthermore, all risks had been\nreviewed and updated as part of the annual corporate governance\nrisk audit.
\n\n
In considering the report, the committee\nraised a number of issues relating to items on the risk register,\nincluding the following:
\n\n
\n· \nNew Marlowe Theatre – who will finance shortfall if\nfundraising target not achieved? Would there be a cap on the\nfuture subsidy for the theatre? Need for more regular update\nreports to be made to Members on this project.
\n\nDirector of Finance advised that the city council would have to\nborrow or defer other schemes if fundraising target not\nachieved. With regard\nto the subsidy, this would be a matter for Members to decide,\nbearing in mind the financial performance of the theatre.
\n\n· \nFood safety inspections – concern expressed by some Members\nthat whilst this risk was listed in the register as medium/low, it\nappeared that there was a growing backlog of\ninspections. Whilst a\nnew Environmental Health Officer post had been created and filled\nfrom 17 August 2009, there was some uncertainty as to whether the\nperson appointed had left the post. Some Members were concerned that\nthe backlog in inspections should be completed by a certain time,\nand that date should be inserted into the risk\nregister. Another\nMember asked how many food outlets there were in the city and what\nwas the turnover of catering businesses.
\nRESOLVED –
\n(a) That the report be noted
\n\n(b) \nThat the Risk Management Officer arrange for the text in the next\nrisk register report in respect of the food safety inspections to\nbe expanded, taking into account the comments raised by\nMembers.
\n\n(c) \nThat the Committee receive a short report from the project team on\nthe new Marlowe Theatre project at the next meeting of the\nCommittee
\nAnnual Governance Statement to 2009/10 Accounts PDF 100 KB
\nTO CONSIDER the report of the Director of\nFinance.
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nThe Risk Management Officer reported that\nthere was a legal requirement for the council to include an annual\ngovernance statement within its statutory accounts. He therefore submitted the\nrelevant statement which reviewed the council’s corporate\ngovernance and risk management processes and identified any\nsignificant governance issues. He also advised the committee\nthat the statement had been prepared following CIPFA/SOLACE\nguidance. The\nstatement would need to be signed by the Leader of the Council and\nthe Chief Executive.
\n\n
RECOMMENDED – That the annual governance\nstatement to the 2009/10 accounts, as now submitted, be approved\nfor inclusion in the statutory accounts.
\nEast Kent Audit Partnership Annual Report for the Year 2009/10 PDF 277 KB
\nTO CONSIDER
\nMinutes:
\nChristine Parker, East Kent Audit Partnership,\npresented the annual report which summarised the performance of the\nEast Kent Audit Partnership and the work it had performed over the\nfinancial year 2009/10 for Canterbury City Council. The report also provided an\noverall assurance on the system for internal control, based on the\naudit work undertaken throughout the year in accordance with best\npractice. The\ncommittee were advised that the audit plan for 2009/10 had been\ndelivered with 6.94 additional days carried over as work in\nprogress at the year end. The performance figures for the\nEast Kent Audit Partnership as a whole for the year showed\nimpressive performance against target and indeed the East Kent\nAudit Partnership had once again delivered financial savings\nagainst its agreed budget to all its partners in the delivery of\nthe service.
\n\n
In taking the committee through the key issues\nincluded in the annual report, Christine Parker reported that the\nEast Kent Audit Partnership had achieved all of their targets for\nthe city council, which had resulted in a saving to the city\ncouncil of £4,085.
\n\n
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
\nEast Kent Audit Partnership Update Report for the period March 2010 to May 2010 PDF 240 KB
\nTO CONSIDER
\nMinutes:
\nThe committee considered the progress that had\nbeen made against the audit plan which had been approved by them in\nMarch 2009. \nChristopher Parker, East Kent Audit Partnership, advised that six\ninternal audit reviews had been completed for the period March 2010\nto May 2010. The\nreviews had been allocated assurance levels of substantial to\nlimited. In addition,\nthere had been four follow-up reviews completed during the period\nwhich concluded that many of the agreed recommendations had been\nimplemented and the remainder were currently pending\nimplementation. The\nonly exception to this was the follow-up review of mobile\nphones. This was\noriginally limited assurance and it had been found that no\nsignificant improvement had been made. In the circumstances the\nassurance level could not be raised and further improvements had\nbeen recommended.
\n\n
The committee were advised that any discussion\non these individual audits would need to be discussed later in the\nagenda, with the press and public excluded.
\nRole of the audit committee - future work
\nTO DISCUSS and AGREE what further reports are\nrequired from Heads of Service/Service Managers.
\nMinutes:
\nThe committee gave consideration as to what\nfurther reports were required from Heads of Service/service\nmanagers.
\n\n
Reports to the next meeting of the committee\nin September 2010 should include:
\n\n
\n· \nThe Horsebridge Arts and Community Centre
\n\n· \nCanterbury Football Hub
\n\n· \nShort report from the project team on the new Marlowe Theatre
\n\n· \nUse of Investigatory Powers Act – report from the Head of\nLegal and Democratic Services
\nExclusion of the press and public
\nTO RESOLVE – That under Section 100A of\nthe Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the\nmeeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it\nis likely that if members of the public were present during that\nitem there would be disclosure to them of information which falls\nwithin the exemptions under Schedule 12A to the Local Government\nAct 1972 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or both.
\nMinutes:
\nRESOLVED – That under Section 100(A) of the Local\nGovernment Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for\nthe following item of business on the grounds that it is likely\nthat if members of the public were present during that item, there\nwould be disclosure to them of information which falls within the\nexceptions under Schedule 12(A) to the Local Government Act 1972 or\nthe Freedom of Information Act 2000 or both.
\nEast Kent Audit Update Report for the period March 2010 to May 2010 - Confidential
\n\n\nMinutes:
\nArising from the discussion at Minute No 108\nabove, the committee considered the confidential report which\nprovided Members with an update of the work undertaken by the East\nKent Audit Partnership during the period March 2010 to May\n2010.
\n\n
Christopher Parker, East Kent Audit\nPartnership, took the committee through the recommendations for the\ninternal audit reports on procurement, CCTV and security and\nreported that follow-up reviews were still being undertaken in\nrespect of hackney carriage and private hire income, mobile phones\nand sundry debtors. \nWith regard to the follow-up review for sundry debtors, Christopher\nParker advised that 10 main recommendations had arisen from the\nreport and that these were being pursued by officers. He hoped that these should be\ncompleted by August/September 2010. An update report on this follow-up\nreview would be reported to that meeting.
\n\n
A Member raised a question as to whether an\nupdate report would be made to the next meeting of the committee in\nSeptember, following the internal audit report on CCTV. Christopher Parker advised that a\nfollow-up report for September might be too early allowing\nsufficient time for management to take action and providing any\nmeaningful testing of any control improvements they had introduced.\nMembers were assured that the follow up review would therefore\nfeature at a future meeting of the Committee.
\n PDF 81 KB \n\t\t \n\t\t\t PDF 3 MB PDF 90 KB \n\t\t Venue: The Guildhall, Westgate, Canterbury
\n\t\tContact: Bob Bennett \n\t\t01227 862 003\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t| No. | \n\t\t\tItem | \n\t\t
|---|---|
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Election of Chairman \n\n \n\n \nThe Council have agreed that the Independent\nMember of the Audit Committee shall be Chairman for 2010/11. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nIt was noted that the Independent Member of\nthe Audit Committee would be Chairman for the Council year\n2010/11. \n\n At this point the Independent Chairman, Janet\nJerram announced that she would shortly be resigning as the\nIndependent member and that this would be her last meeting. The\nCommittee formally thanked her for the work she had undertaken as\nChairman of the Committee for the last 4 years. \n\n The Director of Finance reported that steps\nwould now be taken to advertise for a new Independent member and\nthat applicants would need to meet certain criteria. If none of the\napplicants met the criteria then it would be upto the Council to\nconsider whether it wished to continue with an Independent\nmember. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Election of Vice-Chairman \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nRESOLVED – That Councillor Samper be\nVice-Chairman of the Committee for the Council Year 2010/11. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Members' Interest \n\n \n\n \nIf any Members have any interest in any item\non the agenda, they are invited to declare the nature thereof, ie\npersonal or prejudicial, when the relevant item is considered by\nthe Committee. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nCouncillor Cragg reported that if any debate\ntook place in connection with the Beaney Institute Redevelopment\nProject which was included in the Strategic Risk Register he would\ndeclare a prejudicial interest and leave the meeting during the\ndebate. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Public Participation at Meetings \n\n \n\n \nTO RECEIVE representations \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nNo representations had been received. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\n \n \n\n \nTO CONFIRM as a true record the minutes of the\nmeeting held on 22 March 2010. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Chairman signed as a true record the\nminutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 March 2010. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Matters Arising \n\n \n\n \n\n(a) \nHorsebridge Arts and Community Centre – The Head of Community\nDevelopment will present a report to the next meeting of the\nCommittee in September \n\n(b) \nCanterbury Football Hub – The Head of Culture and Enterprise\nwill present a report to the next meeting of the Committee in\nSeptember. \n\n(c) \nData Protection – \n\n A\nquestion was raised at the last meeting of the Audit Committee\nabout recent investigations of insurance companies for loss of\npersonal data and if these cases had any relevance to the\ncouncil. \n\n The ICO website lists all recent enforcement\nactions. There have been two recent cases investigated by the\nInformation Commissioner involving insurance companies. \n\n Royal London Mutual Insurance Society –\nThe theft of eight laptops from their Edinburgh office, two of\nwhich contained the personal information of 2135 policyholders. \n\n Zurich Insurance – The loss of an\nencrypted back up disc whilst in transit from the UK to their\nrecord facility in South Africa. The disc had 46,000 policyholder\nrecords. \n\n Both companies had to give a signed\nundertaking to the ICO that their record management processes would\nbe improved. No fines were levied as the information was encrypted\nand this was a first incident. \n\n There is nothing exceptional about these\nincidents as both follow a familiar set of circumstances. The\ncouncil recently had a theft of a laptop from within the building\nbut thankfully with no data loss implications. What these incidents\ndo show is the need to maintain high standards of information\nsecurity at all times. The council has in place a comprehensive\nInformation Security policy. The difficulty is to guard against\ncomplacency and ensure that staff follow the policy at all\ntimes. \n. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \n\n(a) \nIt was noted that the Head of Community Development and Outdoor\nLeisure would be presenting a report on the Horsebridge Arts and\nCommunity Centre to the next meeting of the Committee in\nSeptember. \n\n(b) \nIt was noted that the Head of Culture and Enterprise would be\npresenting a report on the Canterbury Football Hub to the next\nmeeting of the Committee in September. \n\n(c) \nThe Risk Management Officer reported that at the last meeting of\nthe Committee a question was raised about recent investigations of\ninsurance companies for loss of personal data and whether these\ncases had any relevance to the Council. He gave details of two\nrecent cases which had been investigated by the Information\nCommissioner which resulted in both companies having to give a\nsigned undertaking to the Information Commissioner that their\nrecord management processes would be improved. \n\nHe added that although the Council recently had a theft of a laptop\nfrom within the council offices there were no data loss\nimplications. The Committee were advised that the Council had in\nplace a comprehensive Information policy although the difficulty\nwas to guard against complacency and ensure that staff followed the\npolicy at all times. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Audit Opinion Plan 2009/10 \n \n\n \nThe District Auditor to present. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nDeborah Moorhouse, Audit Manager, presented\nthe Audit Opinion Plan 2009/10 which set out the audit work that\nthe Audit Commission proposed to undertake for the audit of\nfinancial statements 2009/10. The plan was based on the Audit\nCommission’s risk based approach to audit planning and\nreflected: \n\n \n· \naudit work specified by the Audit Commission for 2009/10; \n\n· \ncurrent national risks relevant to the city council’s local\ncircumstances; and \n\n· \nlocal risks for the city council. \n\n The Audit Manager advised the committee that\nwhilst she had not identified any new risks, there was a continued\nrisk with regard to the recovery of investments held in Icelandic\nbanks and their valuation in the council’s\naccounts. The Audit\nCommission would continue to monitor the position and discuss the\nvaluation of the investments with city council finance staff. \n\n RESOLVED – That the Audit Opinion Plan\n2009/10 be received. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Audit and Inspection Plan Letter 2010/11 \n \n\n \nThe District Auditor to present and provide a\nverbal update on the latest position regarding use of resources and\nCAA. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nDeborah Moorhouse, Audit Manager, submitted\ndetails of the audit and inspection work that the Audit Commission\nproposed to undertake for the council during the financial year\n2010/11. The letter\nindicated that the total indicative fee for inspection would be\n£127,000, which compared with the updated fee of\n£120,000 for 2009/10. However, the new audit fee did\nnot include a rebate that the city council would receive in respect\nof International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which\ntotalled approximately £8,745. The Audit Commission had set\ntheir fees within the context of their published work programme and\nscales of fees 2010/11. \n\n The Audit Manager reminded the committee that\nthe Comprehensive Area Assessment framework was to be abolished by\nthe new government. \n\n One Member noted that within the report, the\nAudit Commission would monitor the council’s progress in\nmanaging the associated risks with regard to the provision of\nvarious shared services and whether a report would come back to the\ncommittee in June 2011. The Audit Manager advised that\nthe report could be submitted earlier than that, but that an update\nreport would be made at the next meeting of the committee. \n\n RESOLVED – That the annual audit fee for\n2010/11 be received. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n \n \n\n \nThe District Auditor to present. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nDeborah Moorhouse, Audit Manager, circulated a\ncopy of a letter addressed to the Chairman of the council’s\nAudit Committee, that sought her assistance with the Audit\nCommission’s current work on the council’s financial\nstatement for 2009/10. \nThe letter stated that in order to comply with a number of\ninternational auditing standards, the Audit Commission were\nrequired to obtain an understanding of how those charged with\ngovernance exercised oversight of management processes for\nidentifying and reporting the risk of fraud and possible breaches\nof internal control in the council. The letter asked for a brief\nresponse by the Chairman by 30 June 2010. The Chairman indicated that she\nwould send an appropriate response. \n\n RESOLVED – That the report be noted. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Members' Approval of the Statement of Accounts 2009/10 \n \n\n \nTO CONSIDER \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Head of Finance reminded the committee\nthat although the General Purposes Committee was the committee\ncharged with approving the statement of accounts for 2009/10, the\nreport was being presented to the Audit Committee in order that\nthey could make recommendations to the General Purposes Committee\non it. He reported that\nthe statement was in a prescribed format and that the Audit\nCommission would have to report back their findings on the\nstatement of accounts both to the General Purposes Committee and\nthe Audit Committee in September 2010. \n\n To assist the committee, the Head of Finance\nhad prepared a summary and brief explanation of the statement of\naccounts 2009/10, together with the key facts from the statement of\naccounts. In addition,\nhe took the committee through the changes that had been made to the\n2009/10 statement since last year. \n\n Finally, the Head of Finance advised that the\nAudit Commission wanted to make some changes to page 23 of the\nstatement of accounts (pension costs) so as to include a disclosure\nfrom the actuary explaining how the council’s share of the\npension fund had been valued. He advised that he would circulate\na revised page 23 to the meeting of the General Purposes Committee\non 28 June 2010. In\nconsidering the report, Members raised one or two points relating\nto the statement of accounts, with particular reference to the\npensions deficit and its effect on the Council’s net worth,\nthe overspend on the housing revenue account, the contribution to\nthe benefits reserve, the level of capital spend and the revenue\neffect of borrowing in future yearsand these points were answered\nby the Head of Finance. \n\n RESOLVED – That the General Purposes\nCommittee be asked to recommend approval of the statement of\naccounts 2009/10. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Treasury Management Report - Final Quarter 2009/10 \n \n\n \nTO NOTE the report of the Head of Finance. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Director of Finance presented a report\nwhich detailed the results of the council’s treasury\nmanagement activities in the fourth quarter of the financial year\nended 31 March 2010. \n\n He reported that investment rates available in\nthe market were at an historical low point, having declined even\nfurther from the last quarter’s very low rates. The average level of funds\navailable for investment purposes in the fourth quarter of 2009/10\nwas £23.42 million. However, the council’s\nperformance on investments had outperformed the benchmark by 58\nbasis points. He\nfurther reported that the prudential indicators had not been\nbreached during the fourth quarter of 2009/10 and that the city\ncouncil had not carried out an debt rescheduling. \n\n RESOLVED – That the report be noted. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Review of the Effectiveness of the Council's Internal Audit Arrangements 2009/10 \n \n\n \nTO CONSIDER the report of the Director of\nFinance and Deputy Chief Executive. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Director of Finance submitted a report\nwhich presented the findings of the review of the effectiveness of\nthe council’s internal audit arrangements for 2009/10, as\nrequired by the Accounts and Audit (Amendment) (England)\nRegulations 2006. \n\n He reminded the committee that it should be\nnoted that the review was primarily about effectiveness, not\nprocess. In essence,\nthe need for the review was to ensure that the opinion in the\nannual report of the internal auditors may be relied upon as a key\nsource of evidence for the annual governance statement.\n He stated that the\ninternal audit function was performed by the East Kent Audit\nPartnership (EKAP), which provided internal audit services to the\ncouncils of Dover, Shepway and Thanet, as well as\nCanterbury. As a\nresult of this collaborative approach, the partnership was able to\nbe robustly resourced and provide a mechanism for promulgating best\npractice to the east Kent authorities that used its services. \n\n RECOMMENDED – That the Audit Committee\naccept the findings of the review of the effectiveness of the\ncouncil’s internal audit arrangements for 2009/10. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Update report on risk management/corporate governance \n \n\n \nTO CONSIDER \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe committee considered a report from the\nDirector of Finance which provided an update on the key risks\nfacing the council. \nThe report included the latest version of the risk register which\nshowed how risks were being managed and ranked to highlight the\nmajor risks. The Risk\nManagement Officer advised that whilst no new risks had been added,\none risk had been reduced. Furthermore, all risks had been\nreviewed and updated as part of the annual corporate governance\nrisk audit. \n\n In considering the report, the committee\nraised a number of issues relating to items on the risk register,\nincluding the following: \n\n \n· \nNew Marlowe Theatre – who will finance shortfall if\nfundraising target not achieved? Would there be a cap on the\nfuture subsidy for the theatre? Need for more regular update\nreports to be made to Members on this project. \n\nDirector of Finance advised that the city council would have to\nborrow or defer other schemes if fundraising target not\nachieved. With regard\nto the subsidy, this would be a matter for Members to decide,\nbearing in mind the financial performance of the theatre. \n\n· \nFood safety inspections – concern expressed by some Members\nthat whilst this risk was listed in the register as medium/low, it\nappeared that there was a growing backlog of\ninspections. Whilst a\nnew Environmental Health Officer post had been created and filled\nfrom 17 August 2009, there was some uncertainty as to whether the\nperson appointed had left the post. Some Members were concerned that\nthe backlog in inspections should be completed by a certain time,\nand that date should be inserted into the risk\nregister. Another\nMember asked how many food outlets there were in the city and what\nwas the turnover of catering businesses. \nRESOLVED – \n(a) That the report be noted \n\n(b) \nThat the Risk Management Officer arrange for the text in the next\nrisk register report in respect of the food safety inspections to\nbe expanded, taking into account the comments raised by\nMembers. \n\n(c) \nThat the Committee receive a short report from the project team on\nthe new Marlowe Theatre project at the next meeting of the\nCommittee \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Annual Governance Statement to 2009/10 Accounts \n \n\n \nTO CONSIDER the report of the Director of\nFinance. \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Risk Management Officer reported that\nthere was a legal requirement for the council to include an annual\ngovernance statement within its statutory accounts. He therefore submitted the\nrelevant statement which reviewed the council’s corporate\ngovernance and risk management processes and identified any\nsignificant governance issues. He also advised the committee\nthat the statement had been prepared following CIPFA/SOLACE\nguidance. The\nstatement would need to be signed by the Leader of the Council and\nthe Chief Executive. \n\n RECOMMENDED – That the annual governance\nstatement to the 2009/10 accounts, as now submitted, be approved\nfor inclusion in the statutory accounts. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t East Kent Audit Partnership Annual Report for the Year 2009/10 \n \n\n \nTO CONSIDER \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nChristine Parker, East Kent Audit Partnership,\npresented the annual report which summarised the performance of the\nEast Kent Audit Partnership and the work it had performed over the\nfinancial year 2009/10 for Canterbury City Council. The report also provided an\noverall assurance on the system for internal control, based on the\naudit work undertaken throughout the year in accordance with best\npractice. The\ncommittee were advised that the audit plan for 2009/10 had been\ndelivered with 6.94 additional days carried over as work in\nprogress at the year end. The performance figures for the\nEast Kent Audit Partnership as a whole for the year showed\nimpressive performance against target and indeed the East Kent\nAudit Partnership had once again delivered financial savings\nagainst its agreed budget to all its partners in the delivery of\nthe service. \n\n In taking the committee through the key issues\nincluded in the annual report, Christine Parker reported that the\nEast Kent Audit Partnership had achieved all of their targets for\nthe city council, which had resulted in a saving to the city\ncouncil of £4,085. \n\n RESOLVED – That the report be noted. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t East Kent Audit Partnership Update Report for the period March 2010 to May 2010 \n \n\n \nTO CONSIDER \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe committee considered the progress that had\nbeen made against the audit plan which had been approved by them in\nMarch 2009. \nChristopher Parker, East Kent Audit Partnership, advised that six\ninternal audit reviews had been completed for the period March 2010\nto May 2010. The\nreviews had been allocated assurance levels of substantial to\nlimited. In addition,\nthere had been four follow-up reviews completed during the period\nwhich concluded that many of the agreed recommendations had been\nimplemented and the remainder were currently pending\nimplementation. The\nonly exception to this was the follow-up review of mobile\nphones. This was\noriginally limited assurance and it had been found that no\nsignificant improvement had been made. In the circumstances the\nassurance level could not be raised and further improvements had\nbeen recommended. \n\n The committee were advised that any discussion\non these individual audits would need to be discussed later in the\nagenda, with the press and public excluded. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Role of the audit committee - future work \n\n \n\n \nTO DISCUSS and AGREE what further reports are\nrequired from Heads of Service/Service Managers. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe committee gave consideration as to what\nfurther reports were required from Heads of Service/service\nmanagers. \n\n Reports to the next meeting of the committee\nin September 2010 should include: \n\n \n· \nThe Horsebridge Arts and Community Centre \n\n· \nCanterbury Football Hub \n\n· \nShort report from the project team on the new Marlowe Theatre \n\n· \nUse of Investigatory Powers Act – report from the Head of\nLegal and Democratic Services \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Exclusion of the press and public \n\n \n\n \nTO RESOLVE – That under Section 100A of\nthe Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the\nmeeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it\nis likely that if members of the public were present during that\nitem there would be disclosure to them of information which falls\nwithin the exemptions under Schedule 12A to the Local Government\nAct 1972 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or both. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nRESOLVED – That under Section 100(A) of the Local\nGovernment Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for\nthe following item of business on the grounds that it is likely\nthat if members of the public were present during that item, there\nwould be disclosure to them of information which falls within the\nexceptions under Schedule 12(A) to the Local Government Act 1972 or\nthe Freedom of Information Act 2000 or both. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t East Kent Audit Update Report for the period March 2010 to May 2010 - Confidential \n\n\nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nArising from the discussion at Minute No 108\nabove, the committee considered the confidential report which\nprovided Members with an update of the work undertaken by the East\nKent Audit Partnership during the period March 2010 to May\n2010. \n\n Christopher Parker, East Kent Audit\nPartnership, took the committee through the recommendations for the\ninternal audit reports on procurement, CCTV and security and\nreported that follow-up reviews were still being undertaken in\nrespect of hackney carriage and private hire income, mobile phones\nand sundry debtors. \nWith regard to the follow-up review for sundry debtors, Christopher\nParker advised that 10 main recommendations had arisen from the\nreport and that these were being pursued by officers. He hoped that these should be\ncompleted by August/September 2010. An update report on this follow-up\nreview would be reported to that meeting. \n\n A Member raised a question as to whether an\nupdate report would be made to the next meeting of the committee in\nSeptember, following the internal audit report on CCTV. Christopher Parker advised that a\nfollow-up report for September might be too early allowing\nsufficient time for management to take action and providing any\nmeaningful testing of any control improvements they had introduced.\nMembers were assured that the follow up review would therefore\nfeature at a future meeting of the Committee. \n | \n\t\t