Meeting Details

The Chair of the Committee introduced an urgent item to the Committee, which had been presented to it by Andrew Small, S151 Officer, and which requested that the Committee delegated to the Chair of the Committee and the S151 Officer the authority to sign the Council’s Accounts for 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23, together with the Letter of Representation, before the Backstop Date of 13 December 2024, in order to achieve Statutory Compliance. The S151 Officer had circulated documentation to the Committee ahead of the meeting, however, in the light of discussions which had taken place prior to the meeting, the Chair did not believe that the Committee was minded to approve the recommendation that delegated authority be provided. The Committee was invited to confirm whether or not it wished to defer the proposed acceptance of disclaimed audit opinions for the Council’s Accounts for 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 until its meeting scheduled for 17 December 2024, when there would have been an opportunity to consider a report as part of the published agenda for this meeting. During the Committee’s discussions with BDO, the Council’s external auditors, prior to the meeting, it had become apparent that some documents had been sent to the Council within the past week which it would benefit all members of the Committee to have sight of.

Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee. He understood why the Committee may be minded to defer approval of the accounts, however, he wished to ensure that the Committee was aware of the reputational damage which would be caused to the Council by the failure to approve the accounts by the backstop date of 13 December 2024. Failure to comply with the backstop date would result in the Council being placed on a published list. CP confirms have discussed this.

The Chair confirmed to the Committee that although in the past he had been happy to sign off audited accounts after the Committee had considered them, he was uncomfortable doing so when there 3 years of disclaimed accounts as was the case on this occasion. He further recognised that there were questions and concerns which the Committee wished to have the opportunity to raise in a public meeting.

Andrew Small, S151 Officer, attended the meeting remotely and addressed the Committee. He understood the Committee’s concerns, and assured it that the position in which it found itself was extremely undesirable for all parties, with 3 year’s accounts being delivered in a rush to achieve resolution. The documents to which the Chair had referred had not been circulated to the Committee as they had not formed part of a complete suite, however, he could provide the Committee with assurance that the documents which the Council did have indicated that BDO had not been able to reach an opinion as there had not been enough time to reach this. The documents did not provide any further assurance to the Committee than it had at the present time. The requested resolution which had been put to the Committee had been brought forward to provide a solution to avoid missing the backstop date. Although the proposed solution was not acceptable as standard practice, the situation was unusual, and it was considered that it was better to proceed with the suggestion to allow the accounts to be signed as opposed to being in breach of Regulations.

A Committee member sought to understand the risk that the Council would take by failing to meet the backstop date, considering that the Council had been missing statutory deadlines for as long as he had been a Councillor. What made this situation any different?

The Chief Operating Officer advised the Committee that it was difficult to quantify the risk faced, as the position was highly unusual with so many sets of accounts to be resolved at the same time across multiple Councils. He was keen for the Committee to understand that there was a risk, and that it made its decision in the light of this. The S151 Officer believed that the risk was largely a reputational one, and the Council would be required to write to the Secretary of State to explain the reason for missing the backstop date, and he was not aware of any sanctions that would be imposed on the Council.

A Committee member recognised that there were a significant number of other Councils in the same position, and although it was not yet known whether any other Councils had failed to approve accounts by the backstop date, the Council would surely not be alone in this. He believed that the real reputational damage was local authorities having years of disclaimed accounts, and that a few days either side of an arbitrary date which had been set by the government was not something that should concern the Committee.

The Committee was very concerned that the Council was unable to meet the deadline which had been set, but considered that to miss this deadline by a few days may be acceptable, and would not cause significant reputational damage to the Council, but to miss it by longer than this would not be acceptable. The consideration of disclaimed audit opinions was an entirely new area for the Committee, and it was important that it had time to assess the relevant documentation ahead of making a decision.

RESOLVED that:

- The statements of Accounts for Colchester City Council for the financial years 2020/2021, 2021/2022 and 2022/23, together with the Letter of Representation, be presented to the Governance and Audit Committee at its meeting scheduled for 17 December 2024. 

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2024, including those minutes contained in Part B of the agenda, be confirmed as a correct record. 

The Committee considered a report which provided details of Colchester City Council's Annual Review Letter for 2024, which was provided by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) detailing the number of complaints it had received regarding each local authority.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee was advised that the Officer’s report which was before it had also been presented to Cabinet earlier in the municipal year, and provided an update from the Ombudsman on the number of complaints it had considered. The report set out key details of the complaints which had been received, together with the findings of the Ombudsman. It was drawn to the attention of the Committee that none of the complaints which had been upheld by the Ombudsman had received a finding of maladministration. All the findings of the Ombudsman could be found online, and links to these webpages had been provided in the Officer’s report.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer confirmed that the local authorities who had received zero complaints were those who did not own or manage their own housing.

The Committee noted how useful it had found it that there was a level of granular detail contained in the Report, together with links to additional information.

RESOLVED that:

- The contents of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Annual Review Letter for 2024 be noted. 

The Committee considered a report requesting that it review the Council’s updated Ethical Governance policies. These were the key policies which set out the standards of conduct and integrity that the Council expected of councillors, staff, partners, suppliers and customers when conducting Council business. They contained procedures for dealing with breaches of the policies and the processes to be followed. The report also requested that the Committee review the Council’s updated Financial Regulations.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee was asked to consider the suite of Ethical Governance Policies which had been presented to it, together with a revised Statement of Intent in relation to ethical and corporate governance, which was the Council’s statement of zero tolerance in relation to fraud and corruption. The Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, together with the Head of the Council’s ICT Service and the Head of Operational Finance had undertaken a review of all the polices and confirmed that all were fit for purpose and were up to date.

The Council’s Financial Regulations had also been presented to the Committee following review by the S151 Officer, and these Regulations were a key policy of the Council’s Corporate Governance Framework as well as being part of the Council’s Constitution. The Regulations had last been reviewed in 2021 prior to their approval by Full Council. It had been agreed with the Council’s S151 Officer that the Regulations should be presented to the Committee, and this would happen in the future as part of the annual review of the Council’s Ethical Governance Policies. The Regulations now reflected the updated publication and approval requirements for the 2024/2025 statements of accounts, and also reflected the change in management structure of the Council, however, no further alternations had been made.

The Committee was asked to consider the Ethical Governance Policies and the Financial Regulations which had bene presented to it, and recommend to Full Council that they be adopted as part of the Council’s Policy Framework.

The Chair of the Committee reminded it that it was the Committee’s responsibility to be aware of the contents of the policies which had been presented to it, and to be familiar with the detail they contained when reviewing them.

In discussion, the Committee noted that the Council’s Password Policy required multi -factor authentication, and although it was happy with the Policy as it had been presented, it wondered whether this would have any impact on Councillors or staff with disabilities. It was also pointed out that the Acceptable use Policy appeared to contain a contradiction, as staff were warned against connecting to unknown Wifi networks, however, the use of a Council-issued mobile phone to create a network hotspot was also discouraged.

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that:

The following revised policies:

- Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy

- Whistleblowing Policy 

- Anti-Money Laundering Policy

- Covert Surveillance Policy

- Data Protection Policy

- Acceptable Use Policy

- Information Security Policy

- Retention Policy

- Processing of Special Category & Criminal Convictions Personal Data Policy

- Password Policy

- Income and Debt Policy

be approved for inclusion in the Council’s Policy Framework;

And that:

The Financial Regulations 2024-25 be approved.

The Committee considered a report requesting that it review the Local Code of Corporate Governance for 2024/2025. The Local Code of Corporate Governance was how the Council demonstrated that its structures complied with the recognised principles of good governance. The Committee was also requested to recommend that Full Council included the Code in its Policy Framework which comprised all of the Authority’s key polices.

Hayley McGrath, Corporate Governance Manager, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. The Committee head that the Council had a responsibility to comply with the Local Code of Corporate Governance (the Code), which had been originally established by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and Solace in 2016, and which set out 6 principles of good governance. The Council carried out an annual review, and set out evidence of its compliance with the 6 principles, and this review had been undertaken for 2024/2025.

There had been a few amendments to the Code, including updating the Council’s Strategic Plan for 2023/2026, together with Cabinet’s vision and priorities and the details of the ‘Fit for the Future’ transformation portfolio. The Council’s productivity Plan had also been added, together with the planned development of the Governance and Audit Committee in line with CIPFA guidance through the year. The setting up of the Council’s new Shareholder Team had also been considered, together with the strategic direction of the Council’s wholly owned companies, and the introduction of the Corporate Landlord Model.

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that:

The updated Local Code of Corporate Governance for 2024/25 be approved for inclusion in the Council’s Policy Framework. 

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee heard that in December 2022, the Council had agreed to adopt the model Local Government Association (LGA) Code of Conduct for Councillors (the Code), and had been operating under the Code since this time. The Code had also been adopted by a number of Town and Parish Councils in the city area, although some were still using other versions of the Code. The Code had been operating well over the preceding year, and it was recommended that the Committee keep this under annual review. The LGA was also keeping the Code under review, and any proposed changes which were made to it would be presented to the Committee. Training on compliance with the Code had been provided to Councillors through the year.

Under the Localism Act, the Council was required to have in place arrangements for Councillors who potentially failed to comply with the code, and these arrangements had been kept under review, were considered to be fit for purpose and it was suggested that they should be retained. The Council was required to appoint at least 2 independent persons, and at its meeting in May 2024, Ful Council had appointed 2 independent persons for a 4 year term. Overall, the Code and arrangements were considered to be working well, but it was recommended that the Committee keep these under review.

It had been announced that there would be a consultation on reforms to the local government standards framework, including a proposal to allow for the suspension of Councillors who had breached the Code, and although this consultation had not yet been released, it would be referred to the Committee when possible. It was also considered that it would be suggested that the requirement to publish Councillors addresses would be removed, although Councillors were currently able to request that their personal data was not published if there was a fear of harassment against them or their family.

In discussion, the Committee noted that training had been offered to Parish Councillors, and wondered how many had received this training? Had the recently appointed independent persons also received training on the Code? Were there any steps which the Council could take to encourage all Town and Parish Councils to adopt the LGA model Code to move towards a common standard of expected behaviour?

The Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer was unable to provide a specific number of Parish Councillors who had received training, however, the Committee was advised that training on the Code had recently been delivered to a whole Parish Council in person, and another similar session had been arranged in the near future. Training had also been delivered online via the Town and Parish Clerks forum, and it was intended to routinely deliver training in the future. The Council’s recently appointed independent persons had received training on the Code.

The Committee heard that the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer had written to all Town and Parish Councils to enquire whether or not they would consider adopting the LGA Model Code, and he would circulate a reminder of this at an appropriate time. Alternative Codes which were being used by Town and Parish Councils were the National Association for Local Councils Code and the older City Council Code of Conduct. These Codes were similar in that they all dealt with disclosable pecuniary interests which was a statutory requirement, but other interests may be dealt with differently.

A Committee member suggested that the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer write to all Councils who had not adopted the most up to date LGA Code to ask for an explanation as to why they had not done so, considering that it was important that all Councils operated to the same standards. Although the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer appreciated this point, he advised the Committee that it was for each individual Council to make this decision themselves, there was no specified Code of Conduct as there had been in the past. The Committee was assured that all of the versions of the Codes of Conduct in use did comply with the Nolan Principles.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted.

The Committee considered a report which requested that it approve the proposed Guidance for Members and Co-opted Members on Dispensations, and that it be included in the Constitution.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee heard that the guidance formed part of the Council’s Constitution and was the subject of regular review and referral to the Committee. No changes were proposed to the Guidance on Dispensations which had previously been approved by the Committee, and on this basis the Committee was invited to approve the guidance which had been presented to it, subject to any clarification which it may wish to seek.

RESOLVED that: the proposed Guidance for Members and Co-opted Members on Dispensations be approved, and that it be included in the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee considered a report which requested that it approve the proposed Guidance for Councillors and Officers on Outside Bodies, and that it be included within the Constitution.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee heard that the Guidance which had been presented to it formed part of the Council’s Constitution and had last been the subject of a review in 2019. No changes had been proposed to the wording of the Guidance, and the Committee was invited to approve it, subject to any clarification it may wish to seek.

RESOLVED that:

- The proposed Guidance for Councillors and Officers on Outside Bodies be approved, and that it be included within the Constitution, and that;

- all Councillors and Officers who were appointed to serve on outside bodies were provided with a copy of the Guidance.

The Committee considered a report which requested that it approve updated guidance for councillors regarding any gifts and hospitality received in their role as a councillor, and for employees in relation to any gifts and hospitality received.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee heard that the Guidance on Gifts and Hospitality was referred to the Committee on a regular basis, and had been approved by it last year. No changes were proposed to either the guidance for Councillors or the Policy for employees, and the Committee was invited to approve the documents presented to it, subject to any clarification it may wish to seek.

RESOLVED that:

- the proposed Guidance for Councillors regarding Gifts and Hospitality be approved, and that it be included in the Council’s Constitution, and that;

- the proposed Gifts and Hospitality Policy for Employees be approved. 

The Committee considered a report inviting it to approve the proposed Member / Officer Protocol and that it be included in the Council’s Constitution.

Andrew Weavers, Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee heard that it was asked to consider and review the proposed document on an annual basis, and it had duly been considered the previous year.

The Committee was asked to note that it had not been possible to implement the process which had been set out at paragraph 16 of the Protocol as had been hoped due to technical difficulties, however, a new way forward had been suggested as part of the Council’s ‘Fit for the Future’ programme, which it was hoped would deliver a superior technological solution in due course. The Committee was slightly disappointed by the delay, but understood the issues which had led to this.

RESOLVED that: The Member / Officer Protocol presented to the Committee be approved and included in the Council’s Constitution. 

The Committee considered a report setting out its work programme for the current municipal year.

Matthew Evans, Democratic Services Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee had already resolved to re-consider the statements of accounts for 2020/2021, 2021/2022 and 2022/2003 at its meeting scheduled for 17 December 2024, and this report would replace the Annual External Audit Letter item at this meeting. Reports scheduled for the meeting of 17 December 2024 in relation to Equality and Safeguarding would no longer be presented to the Committee.

The Chair of the Committee wished to note his concerns in relation to the personnel resources in the Council’s Finance Team, which he felt may be having an impact on the Council’s ability to provide information to its S151 Officer and external auditors in the future. Richard Block, Chief Operating Officer, attended the meeting and advised the Committee that he shared these concerns, together with the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council, and hoped that progress would be made in this area soon.