Agenda item

Report of the Corporate governance, risk and compliance officer

 The Corporate governance, risk and compliance officer introduced the Anti Fraud and Corruption Policy which was approved by Audit Committee some three years ago but in this time a number of key supporting policies (the Constitution, Employee Code of Conduct, etc) had been reviewed.  The policy before the committee had been considered in great detail, renamed, aligned with other policies and would be an overarching policy.

He referred members to the aims and objectives and highlighted their importance given the changing ways in which the council operated and the responsibilities as set out in the document.  He would be working with the Head of Audit Cotswolds to align the policies across the authorities which would continue to be developed over the coming years in an effort to provide a best practice service.

The policy once approved by Cabinet would be owned by the Head of Audit Cotswold who would be responsible for;

• providing to the Audit Committee an annual report on fraud and corruption activity
• awareness training for employees and Members and
• policy reviews   

The Corporate governance, risk and compliance officer gave the following responses to questions from members of the committee;

• It was felt that the availability of information including the Members’ Code of Conduct (which would soon be published on the council’s website) and the Employee Code of Conduct (available on the Learning Gateway) would aid the identification of fraud and that whistle blowing also had a role to play.  HR was responsible for the Whistle Blowing policy.
• Members considered that the section on Responsibilities should include a reference on how officers deal with complaints that may suggest fraud or corruption. The officer said he would contact the Customer Service Manager regarding the process for managing any complaints that suggest a possible fraud or corruption issue and amend the section within the policy accordingly
• The Head of Audit Cotswold advised that his team would be taking a proactive approach next year to do with education in view of situation whereby an issue had been discussed too much to allow any involvement. 
• Directors received summaries of all complaints on a quarterly basis and Internal Audit assessed the number and nature of complaints and compliments as part of each review which would also help in highlighting possible fraud or corruption issues. 
• In the last few years Internal Audit had been required to submit a survey which covered various frauds, often most notably benefit fraud and this would help to inform the Annual Counter Fraud report scheduled on the work plan for June.  This would be the first report of its kind to come before the committee and it would be for members to decide if they were happy with its content or required more information.  He noted that the Annual Governance Statement would also need to include more detail in relation to counter fraud. 
• Internal Audit looked at matters including stock control and expense claims to identify abuses of such things and he was confident that this was how many were discovered.  The team also had an open door policy which often resulted in staff raising general concerns which were then picked up by Internal Audit.  Allocation of grants would be looked at next year.  The council had an Acceptable Use policy and random spot checks were undertaken which highlighted peaks in use, etc.
• The new staff Code of Conduct had been added to the Learning Gateway and all staff were required to acknowledge that they had read and understood it.  He was unsure whether this needed to be repeated on an annual basis and accepted the suggestion from members that it should, along with the Acceptable Use policy, etc but would check with HR. 

The Chairman pointed out that a policy would not in itself prevent things from happening but with them in place the council was, to a degree, protected.  He raised concerns about the use of the word ‘proven’ in the flowchart (page 67) particularly given the option of prosecution as it referenced the judgement of an investigating officer rather than criminal findings.  The Corporate governance, risk and compliance officer undertook to reconsider the wording and to amend the flow chart prior to the cabinet meeting.

Members felt confident that the report would highlight more cases of the public trying to defraud the council (benefit fraud) rather than staff or members. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOVED that;

1.      Having considered the Counter Fraud and Corruption policy, the suggestions made by the committee, which it considers necessary to strengthen the council’s standards of propriety and accountability be further considered by Officers. 

2.      The Director of Resources be authorised to update the policy with any additional comments following the conclusion of the ongoing consultation with the audit partnership.

3.      Subject to recommendation 1, Cabinet be asked to approve the policy.