Issue - meetings

To receive a report setting out the processes for finalising and publishing the Council’s Annual Governance Statement (AGS) and Annual Financial Report (AFR) for 2024/25.

The Committee received a report (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) which set out the processes for finalising and publishing the Council’s Annual Governance Statement (AGS) and Annual Financial Report (AFR) for 2024/25.

Clare Mellons – Partner EY – External Auditors set out the report, advising the Committee that they did expect to receive substantial assurance over every element of the balance sheet, other than property, plant and equipment and reserves. There was a potential timeline based on the national audit office guidance, and 2027/28 was where they would like to get to in terms of being able to issue a completely clean opinion. Furthermore, over the next couple of years the Committee should see a change in the format of the opinion. An awful lot of work had been undertaken by the Head of Finance, and the Council was on a good track to getting back to a clean financial statement’s opinion again.

In response to questions from the Committee, Clare Mellons – Partner EY – External Auditors, advised that they were trying to prioritise and look at who was going to be the most impacted by LGR. That would be refined over the coming months to be specific about which authorities going into a new body, who would be the main body, noting that it was difficult for a new authority if they had a host of disclaimed opinions. The team were conscious this was coming down the line.

The Committee commented that with LGR, just because an entity had clean accounts before-hand, that did not mean they would remain so in the new body if it does not adapt to or be compatible with the introduction of new systems/culture. Clare Mellons – Partner EY – External Auditors responded that experiences in the past had seen that, however it was the sort of thing the auditors would be picking up in terms of value for money thinking as LGR approached. It was challenging for management to realign systems, but they would have an eye on this over the next few years. The Chief Executive further commented that as the implementation plan came in to being between the present time and vesting day, as part of that it would be expected that there would be a five-year transformation plan for the new unitary, and that is where those key component pieces of work would come into play. There was a sub-committee of the governance democracy risk workstream around procurement because one of the risks of the new unitary was not having sufficiently mapped out existing contracts, not having looked to take economies of scale prior to vesting day, and letting longer contracts than would be good practice before vesting day that would bind the new unitary. That was one aspect of the value for money consideration officers were already thinking of. It was going to be complex but she gave the Committee assurance that officers were already in that space and seeking to undertake due  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29