To consider the report of the WAO and the Authority’s response.
Minutes:
Documents:
· Financial Resilience Assessment
Issues:
· A national study had been undertaken with authorities receiving individual feedback
· Three areas had been considered – financial planning, financial control and financial governance
· An overall rating of ‘medium’ risk had been given
· An Action Plan would be produced in due course
Discussion:
· The WAO had acknowledged the improved approach taken by the Authority
· The Finance Scrutiny Panel (FSP) had started to have an impact
· Scrutiny of performance was inadequate. The Committee noted that finance and performance would be vested in one Portfolio Holder and hoped that this would improve the situation
· The WAO acknowledged the difficult circumstances in which budgets were being set and noted that traditional budget setting arrangements may no longer be adequate. Investment in the FSP was beginning to show improvements but this should continue to ensure rigorous scrutiny and challenge is ongoing
· Impact assessments had been identified as good practice and the benefits of ensuring rigorous assessment were noted
· Members commented that whilst some service areas had submitted clear and robust impact assessments, others required improvement. The committee would wish to see the initiative continued and improved to increase the usefulness of the documents
· It had previously been acknowledged that scrutiny of finance and performance needed to be strengthened. Proposals for combined reporting are under discussion
· The WAO were asked how Powys ranked against other authorities – it was reiterated that Powys had been classified as ‘medium’ showing that there is more work to do but that there were no concerns that Powys was not attempting to address improvements. There was no precise definition for ‘medium’.
· The FSP had considered the report at a meeting on 11 April and welcomed the acknowledgement the Panel had received. The Panel noted the Business Partner arrangement that was ongoing with the BBC but remained concerned that there were capacity issues which may hinder ongoing work. It had been acknowledged for some time that the Audit Committee’s Finance and Performance working group had not been as effective as hoped but that the committee and working group structure was currently under review. The need for further improvements to impact assessments in some areas had also been commented on
· The Strategic Director was asked whether the risk register would influence the action plan in the response to the WAO. Key elements were being brought together and, whilst there was better correlation between the register and strategic plans, there is not yet a complete overlap.
· The Portfolio Holder for Finance was asked whether outstanding savings from 2014/15 had been achieved. Savings had not been met in the schools service and the Portfolio Holder is awaiting details of plans to cover the shortfall. A further £31K had not been achieved in relation to lease cars but this would be rectified over the three year period of the lease
· The Chair reported Joint Chairs’ Steering Group concerns in relation to the Commissioning and Procurement Board
· The WAO was asked whether it thought the Council was positioned to assess the impacts of future changes. An opinion was expressed that the Council was suitably positioned, with the extent of predictions in the medium term being as robust as could be expected. Assumptions must be revisited on a regular basis.
Outcome:
· An Action Plan to be prepared, incorporating comments made by the Finance Scrutiny Panel, and monitored by the Audit Committee.
Supporting documents: