(Members Code of Conduct – Part 4A of the Constitution)

To receive disclosures of interests from members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

Notes:

(1)       Members must consider their interests, and act according to the following:

(2)       Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.

(3)       Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction applies to them.  A failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. 

(4)       Officers must disclose interests in accordance with Council Standing Order 44.

No disclosures of interest in matters under consideration were received.

Recommended –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2022 be signed as a correct record (previously circulated).

(Fatima Butt – 01274 432227)

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 2022 be signed as a correct record.

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents.

The Interim City Solicitor will submit Document “E” which provides information relating to:

·         The number of authorised and approved covert surveillance operations (Nil return) undertaken by the Councils criminal investigation teams for the first two quarters of 2022.

·         The arrangements for training to be provided to officers of the Council.

·         The use of the Councils CCTV equipment by the Police or Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) for covert surveillance.

Recommended –

(1) That the contents of the report be noted.

(2) That the Councils continued compliance with RIPA as coordinated

      and monitored by the Councils RIPA Coordinator and Monitoring

      Officer and the Senior Responsible Officer be noted.

(3) That the RIPA training arranged be noted.

                                                                        (Richard Winter – 01274 434292)

The Interim City Solicitor submitted Document “E” which provided information relating to:

-       The number of authorised and approved covert surveillance operations (Nil return) undertaken by the Councils criminal investigation teams for the first two quarters of 2022.

-    The arrangements for training to be provided to officers of the Council.

-   The use of the Councils CCTV equipment by the Police or Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) for covert surveillance.

It was reported that a nil return was shown for all relevant departments

which indicated that the enforcement team’s criminal investigators were able to

obtain evidence without the need for covert surveillance under RIPA or the

Human Rights Act 1998.

Members were informed that arrangements would be made for officers to receive training on RIPA by external lawyers and that the Interim City solicitor was now trained in his role as authorised officer.

The Chair stressed the need for the new Director of Governance to receive training on RIPA.

Members sought further clarification in relation to covert and overt surveillance in relation to RIPA and whether a camera which was in operation for littering showed an individual committing an offence other than littering could be prosecuted.

In response the RIPA coordinator stated that it was likely that if an offence was seen by an operator it would be referred to the Police or relevant department depending on the offence. 

In response to Members questions it was reported that there were appropriate procedures in place which had to be satisfied before an officer was given authorisation to undertake covert surveillance under the Human Rights Act – the surveillance required would need to be necessary and proportionate and all other means of gathering evidence should have been explored first.

Resolved –

(1) That the contents of the report be noted.

(2) That the Councils continued compliance with RIPA as

      coordinated and monitored by the Councils RIPA Coordinator

      and Monitoring Officer and the Senior Responsible Officer be

      noted.

(3) That the RIPA training to be arranged be noted.

(4)  That the Director of Governance receive the necessary training on

       RIPA.

Action: Interim City Solicitor

The Council has a duty to protect the public purse and has committed to a zero tolerance approach to fraud, theft, corruption (including bribery), or any other financial irregularity committed against the organisation. Fraud is a prevalent cause of concern in the public sector and continues to pose financial threats to local authoritiesThe Council recognises that each pound lost to fraud represents a loss to the public purse and reduces the Council’s ability to provide services to people who need them.

The Director of Finance and IT will submit Document “F” which reports on the Council’s Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) latest performance information and provides assurance that the Council’s counter fraud arrangements are effective.

Recommended -

That the activity and performance carried out by the Corporate Investigation Unit to prevent, detect and deter the Council from instances of fraud, theft, corruption or any other financial irregularity in 2021/22 be noted.

                                    (Tracey Banfield/Harry Singh – 01274 434794/437256)

The Council has a duty to protect the public purse and has committed to a zero tolerance approach to fraud, theft, corruption (including bribery), or any other financial irregularity committed against the organisation. Fraud is a prevalent cause of concern in the public sector and continues to pose financial threats to local authoritiesThe Council recognises that each pound lost to fraud represents a loss to the public purse and reduces the Council’s ability to provide services to people who need them.

The Director of Finance and IT submitted Document “F” which reported on the Council’s Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) latest performance information and provided assurance that the Council’s counter fraud arrangements were effective.

Members sought further clarification on the contents of the report which included the time taken to recover financial losses.

In response to a Members question it was reported that the majority of  misuse of the blue badge scheme referrals came from Parking Wardens.

Resolved -

That the activity and performance carried out by the Corporate Investigation Unit to prevent, detect and deter the Council from instances of fraud, theft, corruption or any other financial irregularity in 2021/22 be noted.

The Interim City Solicitor will submit Document “G” which reports that the

Council has received a valid petition requesting a Community

Governance Review (CGR) for a proposed change to a Local Council in the

Worth Valley ward. The Committee must now make arrangements for the

CGR, and as a first step must agree its terms of reference. The report

summarises the relevant background issues and the proposes draft Terms of

Reference to initiate the CGR process.

Recommended –

(1)  That the Terms of Reference highlighted in Appendix 1 for a Community Governance Review for a proposed dissolving of an existing Local Council and creation of two new Local Councils in the Worth Valley ward, as detailed in the report, be approved subject to any amendments required by the Committee.

(2)  That the Committee authorise officers to conduct the Community Governance Review in accordance with the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and the statutory guidance which relates to it.

                                                            (Alice Bentley – 01535 618008)

The Interim City Solicitor submitted Document “G” which reported that

the Council had received a valid petition requesting a Community

Governance Review (CGR) for a proposed change to a Local Council

in the Worth Valley ward. The Committee must now make

arrangements for the CGR, and as a first step must agree its terms of

reference. The report summarised the relevant background issues and

the proposed draft Terms of Reference to initiate the CGR process.

Members stressed that the consultation should include the full facts in

relation to the precept.

Resolved –

(1)  That the Terms of Reference highlighted in Appendix 1 for a Community Governance Review for a proposed dissolving of an existing Local Council and creation of two new Local Councils in the Worth Valley ward, as detailed in the report be approved.

(2)  That the Committee authorise officers to conduct the Community Governance Review in accordance with the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and the statutory guidance which relates to it.

Action:  Interim City Solicitor

The Director of Finance and IT will submit (Document “H”) which

reports that the purpose of the report is to inform members of the

Committee about the service Internal Audit has provided to the

Council during the financial year 2021/22.

In particular Members are advised of the following:-

·         Internal Audit completed 83% of the 2021/22 audit plan which was below the target of 90%.

·         Internal Audit’s Client satisfaction identified that 100% of the respondents said that the “recommendations were useful and realistic” and believed that the audit was “of benefit to management.”

·         100% of all high priority recommendations made from the work undertaken were accepted by management.  

Recommended –

That the work carried out by Internal Audit during 2021/22 be recognised and supported.

                                                (Mark St Romaine – 01274 432888)

The Director of Finance and IT submitted (Document “H”)

which reported that the purpose of the report was to inform

members of the Committee about the service Internal Audit

had provided to the Council during the financial year

2021/22.

In particular Members are advised of the following:-

·         Internal Audit completed 83% of the 2021/22 audit plan which was below the target of 90%.

·         Internal Audit’s Client satisfaction identified that 100% of the respondents said that the “recommendations were useful and realistic” and believed that the audit was “of benefit to management.”

·         100% of all high priority recommendations made from the work undertaken were accepted by management.  

Members sought further clarification in relation to Significant Systems at paragraph 2.5 and why there had been a delay in improvements being made.

In response to the above the Head of internal Audit reported that Services were trying their best to make improvements to the outstanding internal audit recommendations.  He reported that the half year monitoring report to the Committee would include an update on Significant Systems.

Resolved –

That the work carried out by Internal Audit during 2021/22 be recognised and supported.

The Director of Finance and IT will submit Document “I” which outline the

benefits of the proposed arrangements for carrying out the external review of

the Council’s Internal Audit function, as required by the Public Sector Internal

Audit Standards (PSIAS).

Recommended –

That Option 2 (the appointment of an independent assessor which is

buying in the review from a professional body such as CIPFA or IIA) be

agreed as the proposed arrangements for carrying out the external review

of the Council’s Internal Audit function, as required by the Public Sector

Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS).

                                                            (Mark St Romaine – 01274 432888)

The Director of Finance and IT submitted Document “I” which outlined

the benefits of the proposed arrangements for carrying out the external

review of the Council’s Internal Audit function, as required by the Public

Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS).

It was reported that external assessment provided assurance that Internal Audit

was focused on the risk management, internal control and proper governance

arrangements which operated within the Council.

The table at paragraph 3.1 of the report provided advantages and disadvantages of the options for the external assessment of Bradford Council’s Internal Audit Service.

Resolved –

That Option 2 (the appointment of an independent assessor which

Is buying in the review from a professional body such as CIPFA or

IIA) be agreed as the proposed arrangements for carrying out the

external review of the Council’s Internal Audit function, as

required by the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS).

Action: Director of Finance and IT