To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Minutes:
The Chairman read the following questions from Mr N Quinn, a local resident, regarding agenda item 10:
Will Members take note that this report starts with only a single error but, as each paragraph tries to explain the changes between the two Tables, it ends with multiple differences – some going back to 2017.
Q1: Why were these errors not corrected promptly?
Are Members aware that the question at Full Council on 15th December 2021,
referred to in para 2.7, was specifically about the 2020/21 figures. The reply was specific as well “the difference is due to a revised interest payment for one parcel of land on one development” (See Minute 90). There was no mention, at that time, of any other land deals or VAT changes in other years.
Q 2: Can Members be assured the statements in paragraphs 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7
can be relied upon?
Members will note that the report conclusion states that the figures in these tables were not for specific approval – but, surely, that should not have made a difference to the accuracy of information given.
Q 3: Should Members be able to rely on the financial information, given in any
report, being correct – no matter what the purpose of the report?
Will Members note the 2021/22 interest/recharge total of £502.6k, shown in Table 2, was the ‘actual’ amount received up to the end of October 2021 - confirmed by the S151 Officer at the Cabinet meeting on 30th November 2021 (See Minute 111).
Will Members also note that at Cabinet on 1st February 2022, the reported 2021/22 interest/recharge total was only £414.0k. The S151 Officer confirmed this was the actual amount received “up to 31st December 2021” (See Minutes 130 and 152).
If £502.6k had been received at the end of October, but only £414.0k is here at the end of December –then £88,600 has gone missing!
Q 4: Where has this £88,600 gone?
In response the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) stated:
A1. The errors included in the table first provided to this Committee in November 2021 have been apologised for and fully explained and corrected at the next available meeting which was the Audit Committee about 10 days later. The Scrutiny Committee was also sent a correction paper and Cabinet also had the correct table. The errors on the table have absolutely no bearing on the Council’s accounts it was just data which was transposed. The errors were identified by a member of the finance team as the papers went through the rounds and it was flagged up at the earliest opportunity and a corrected table was presented.
A2. The other errors the questioner makes reference to are not errors they are adjustments to data after clarifying further information on recharges and interest applied to transactions between 3 Rivers and the Council that has been explained previously.
A3. With regard to question 2 and 3 the answer is yes.
A4. The November report states that the table below summaries the transactions since the company’s inception. On that basis the interest figure shown in this table has been completed on a cash received basis and I think the questioner makes the point about cash received. The February report states that these figures relate to 2021-2022, therefore these are compiled on an accruals basis and therefore cash received in 2021-2022 relating to prior years is excluded.
The Council’s accounts are produced on an accruals basis and this is what is audited by our external auditor when they arrive at their overall opinion.
The errors that have been identified have been apologised for, corrected and dealt with.
Honorary Alderman David Nation, referring to item 11 on the agenda asked:
Does the Chairman of Scrutiny agree with me that restricting contributions from non-Cabinet Members and showing contempt for members of the public seeking to be involved is contrary to how a Council is meant to operate?
It is undemocratic, dictatorial and brings the Council into disrepute. There was little in the way of debate as Members attempts to contribute were stifled by the Chairman’s insistence that they only put a question. I noticed also that there was a refusal to deal with a question from a member of the public without even an explanation. Members of the public don’t even know what the question was about. As the first Chair of Scrutiny under the present structure it was made very clear to me that non-Cabinet Members must be given every opportunity to express their views and enter into the debate if they express an interest in doing so. That seems to have gone by the board.
Will the Scrutiny Committee urge the Cabinet to reconsider the way they operate?
The Chairman indicated that his questions would be answered when the item was discussed.