Agenda item
Certification of Claims and Returns - London Borough of Tower Hamlets 2008-09
Minutes:
The Certification of Claims and Returns Annual report was introduced by Mr Hayes, who explained that this only covered the claims and returns to Government departments were required to be audited. Attempts were being made to rationalise the process; there were now only 11-12 claims, down from 40. The report highlighted similar numbers of errors and recommendations as other boroughs. The Audit Commission was trying to raise standards across the board.
Mr Finch commented that he had been disappointed that there had been 11 recommendations, but last year the Grants Co-Ordination Officer had been promoted from this role, leaving a vacancy during the audit period. The Council’s response was contained in the Action Plan, and the vacant post had been filled.
Mr Naylor said that there had been a major reorganisation in Corporate Finance, and there was now a new team in place.
Councillor Eaton said that Members look for improvement; was the Audit Commission concerned about the NDC funding. Ms Milton explained that the losses were relatively small amounts, such as a few thousand pounds.
Councillor Eaton said that this was a general problem in quality assurance, and asked why mistakes were being made. Mr Finch responded that the preparation of the accounts was a big complicated process. It was important that the accounts were checked. The accounting process was being reviewed for efficiencies and effectiveness.
In response to Councillor Eaton’s question about invalid expenditure (page 49, para. 20), Mr Naylor responded that this came back to timetabling, and the interface between the finance community and the other parts of the Council. There was now much greater ownership of accounting practices at corporate management level.
In response to Councillor Snowdon, Mr Hayes confirmed that Recommendation 1 ‘Respond to all audit queries within three working days, wherever possible.’ in the report was best practice. Mr Naylor said it was best to have a single point of contact.
Councillor Hawkins asked what impact the improperly recorded expenditure had. Mr Hayes said that the Government may claw back the funding for that expenditure; further, it expenditure is properly accounted for, there is less work for the Audit Commission and costs the Council less in fees, and makes a contribution to efficiency.
The amount clawed back by the Government was £109,000 out of £220 million in funding. Mr Naylor said that the Housing Benefit Subsidy is enormous, and he was least concerned about this money clawed back. The Housing Benefit Subsidy claim was so complex that most councils make errors. There was a balance to be made between the investment in risk management and the impact of the error rate.
Mr Naylor said that an agency could have provided a temporary member of staff in the Grants Co-ordination role, but it might not have been of much benefit. Mr Naylor anticipated improvement next year.
Councillor Eaton said that she was concerned about detection of fraud, and also why the former Grants Co-ordination officer was not consulted as the person still worked for the Council.
Noted.
Supporting documents: