Agenda and minutes

To note any changes to the membership.

1.1       There were no changes to membership.

To receive declarations by Members and Officers of the existence and nature of any pecuniary interests or any other significant interest in matters on this agenda.

2.1       There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the Committee’s meetings on 17 June 2021 and 14 July 2021.

3.1       The Committee approved the minutes of its meetings on 17 June 2021 and 14 July 2021.

To receive and review the audited Statement of Accounts for the Council and the Pension Fund following a public inspection period of the accounts from 19th May 2020 to 1st July 2020. To receive the report by the external auditors, Grant Thornton.

4.1       The Committee received the audited Statement of Accounts and Pension Fund report for the financial year ending 31 March 2021, and the reports of Grant Thornton, the Council’s external auditors.

4.2       The Committee was provided an overview by Gerald Almeroth (Executive Director, Finance and Resources) who highlighted that, as a result of the audit, there had been some revisions to the draft accounts previously presented to the Committee in July. The Committee was advised that the recommendation was for agreement of the accounts and audit reports.

4.3       Gerald Almeroth noted that the Value for Money conclusion was on a different timescale and would be expected prior to the end of November 2021.

4.3       Jake Bacchus (Director of Corporate Finance) commented on the audit process, explaining there had been improvements to methodology including around valuations, the accuracy of which was considered particularly important as Westminster City Council had sizeable infrastructure assets. The Committee heard that historical audit recommendations had also been addressed, and the internal controls had been improved. The accounts were therefore considered robust.

4.4       Joanne Brown (Audit Partner, Grant Thornton) introduced the audit finding reports for the Council and its Pension Fund. The anticipated opinion was unmodified, subject to any upcoming concluding matters. Joanne Brown commented that the readiness of the accounts was reflective of the level of work put into those accounts by Council officers, and that Westminster was in a small minority of local authorities whose accounts were ready at this stage. She thanked officers for being receptive to feedback and implementing changes.

4.5       Laurelin Griffiths (Grant Thornton) explained that the regular Pension Fund audit was generally a smooth procedure and that this audit had been no different. The Committee was advised that the Council’s Audit Findings Report had seen outstanding items addressed, and that final quality reviews were proceeding. The Committee also heard that this report included new significant risks, regarding revenue and expenditure recognition – which were noted as being risks for local authorities generally, not specifically Westminster, and were a result of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on funding and expenditures.

4.6       The Committee discussed charges relating to new investments for the Pension Fund, and observed that the audit fee was yet to be confirmed. Gerald Almeroth and Joanne Brown confirmed that the fee was at that time disputed with the Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA) as the authority which appointed auditors for local authorities.

4.7       The Committee queried the significance of the reclassification of Luton Street Development LLP as a joint venture. This was confirmed as being significant in terms of difference in technical changes to accounting processes, but because no cost changes resulted from the reclassification, the change represented no overall significance in terms of costs to the Council.

4.8       RESOLVED: That the Committee note the accounts and audit report.

To review and monitor the City Council’s financial position including revenue forecast outturn, revenue expenditure including key risks and opportunities, capital expenditure and HRA revenue and capital expenditure and reserves.

To review and monitor the quarterly performance results against the 2021/2022 business plans (Quarter 1).

5.1       The Committee received the Finance and Performance Monitoring Reports, which were introduced by Gerald Almeroth.

            Finance Monitoring Report

5.2       For the Finance Report, it was noted that the Revenue budget (General Funds) showed a deficit of £3m against a £182m net budget; and that this was largely because of a shortfall in income resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, though easing of pandemic restrictions had facilitated an increase in some income lines. The Committee was advised that difficulties forecasting budgets remained, but that clearer views were expected.

5.3       The Committee heard that no variations were reported on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), though an underspend of £16m was noted for the general capital programme budget, overall £3m against a budget of £273m. For the Housing capital budget, an underspend of £31m was noted as due to issues with regeneration schemes, against a £197m budget.

5.4       The Committee complimented officers on ensuring that so few budget items were in shortfall given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee queried how the reduction in Government grants would have an impact on Council finances, and Gerald Almeroth confirmed that it remained of concern and that Westminster City Council had written to Government to request an extension. However, he advised that this request was not expected to be granted.

5.5       The Committee commented that the Environment and City Management Community Services spend was significantly down and queried why this was the case. Raj Mistry explained that this was due to the pandemic and connected to reduced use of leisure centres and of the Sayers Croft facility usually used by Westminster schools.

5.6       The Committee enquired about the underspend in the Public Health budget related to reduced numbers of health checks and commented that this would be of concern in terms of disease prevention and early detection.

5.7       The Committee queried the circa 200 Westminster tenants in Temporary Accommodation (TA) whose homelessness applications had been refused. Debbie Jackson (Executive Director, Growth, Planning and Housing) explained that these tenants were to be moved out of TA in stages over the coming seven-month period, being supported to move into settled accommodation. There was an additional query from the Committee regarding the Government’s Homelessness Prevention grant funding and whether it would adequately cover costs associated with TA. Gerald Almeroth commented that, in previous years, the entirety of the grant funding had not been used, meaning that there was a reserve to assist in managing fluctuating pressures on homelessness prevention.

5.8       The Committee noted in relation to the Westminster Employment Service that in previous years where a service had been funded externally, if external funding ceased, the service stopped. Debbie Jackson stated that the service contributed to reduction in demand elsewhere, and its funding was therefore being reviewed.

5.9       The Committee requested information about the HRA underspend. Debbie Jackson stated that the Housing staffing restructure meant that posts were vacant and agency staffing had been used, but that this had clearly not managed to cover all the gaps,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To oversee and monitor the success of the Audit Service in planning and delivering outcomes in addition to establishing an effective and robust internal control framework (Quarter 1).

6.1       The Committee received the Internal Audit Monitoring report, introduced by Moira Mackie (Head of Internal Audit).

6.2       The Committee enquired about resourcing for the Council’s Food Safety team, and whether it was sufficient given Internal Audit’s findings regarding the weaknesses in the Food Safety service. Raj Mistry stated that he had reviewed the Food Safety service, set targets, and recruited more Environmental Health Officers (EHOs), as well as planning procurement for a new IT system with guidance from the Food Standards Agency. He also advised the Committee that new businesses were being prioritised for inspections. The Committee queried whether so-called “dark kitchens” for food preparation were inspected. Raj Mistry stated that many were, as their locations were known, and that, although resourcing for their inspections had been an issue, the increased numbers of EHOs had assisted with this.

6.3       The Committee thanked Internal Audit officers for the report.

6.4       RESOLVED: That the Committee note the report.

To update the Committee on progress since its meeting of 14 July, following the thematic review undertaken on health and safety in schools as part of the Internal Audit Plan.

7.1       The Committee received a verbal update from Moira Mackie (Head of Internal Audit), who explained that, following concerns raised at the previous Committee meeting, she had liaised with Children’s Services, Property, and Health and Safety to investigate issues previously raised as a result of the Internal Audit thematic review into schools. The Committee was advised that Ian Heggs (Bi-Borough Director of Education) would be presenting a report to the Business and Children’s Services Policy and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting in October. Moira Mackie advised the Committee that members would receive an update at the December meeting following the scrutiny committee referral.

7.2       RESOLVED: That the Committee note the verbal update.

To review the Council’s Gifts and Hospitality Policy, as applicable to Council Officers.

8.1       The Committee received a report about Council policy on officers relating to gifts and Hospitality from Lee Witham (Director, People Services). Lee Witham explained to the Committee that the policy had been clarified and re-launched. As a result of this re-launch, Council officers would only be permitted to accept minor gifts of token value, such as pens or notebooks, and hospitality could only be accepted if it were to take place in a venue within the City of Westminster, of modest value, and related to an event that contributed to relationship-building that had no connection with procurement or contracts. Lee Witham advised the Committee that the previous policy had been considered unclear and had incorporated management sign-off, whereas the new policy was considered clearer and placed responsibility on any individual officers who chose to accept any gifts or hospitality.

8.2       RESOLVED: That the Committee note the updated policy.

To review the work programme for the remainder of the municipal year.

9.1       The Committee received a report on and discussed its future Work Programme for the remainder of the municipal year, with a focus on its December meeting.

9.2       The Committee discussed the agenda items proposed for its 1 December meeting, including the twice-yearly Performance Report, immunisations update, and Officers’ remuneration.

9.3       RESOLVED: That the work programme report be noted.

That under Section 100(A) 4 and Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), the public and press be excluded from the meeting for this item of business because it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information on the grounds shown below and it is considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

10.1     The Chairman, Cllr Ian Rowley, advised the Committee that, in light of information before the Committee, Agenda Item 10 concerned matters under Section 100 (A) (4) and paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act (1972) (as amended). Agenda Item 10 featured a report, the contents of which were public, and an appendix, the contents of which were private.

10.2     The Chairman asked members to note the report and appendix, and invited the Committee to vote to conduct this portion of the meeting in private. Following this voting, the Committee unanimously voted to hold this portion of the meeting in private session. The Chairman directed the meeting to be conducted in private.

10.3     RESOLVED: That the Committee note the report and conduct this portion of the meeting in private session.