Meeting documents

Audit Committee
Thursday, 20th October, 2005 7.00 pm

Date:
Thursday, 20th October, 2005
Time:
7.00pm
Place:
Lancashire Fusiliers Room, Town Hall, Bury
 

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillor J P Costello (in the Chair);
Councillors K Audin, R A Bibby, A J Garner, I Gartside, A K Matthews, K Rothwell, G Sharkey and B Vincent
Co-opted:
No members of the public attended the meeting
Apologies for absence:
Mr A Withington (Co-opted Member)
Buttons
Item Description Decision
Open
AU.627 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 There were no declarations of interest recorded with regard to any items on the Agenda.
AU.628 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
 There were no members of the public present to ask questions at the meeting.
AU.629 Minutes of the Meeting held on Wednesday, 27th July, 2005 7.00pm
 Delegated decision:

That the Minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
AU.630 STATEMENT OF AUDITING STANDARD 610
Preamble for item AU.630
Delegated decisions:

1. That the Financial Statements Report (SAS 610) be approved.

2. That the staff from the Audit Commission be thanked for their hard work in Auditing the Accounts 2004/2005.
AU.631 AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS 2004/05
Preamble for item AU.631
Delegated decision:

That approval of the amendments to the accounts be delegated to the Director of Finance and E-Government following consultation with the Chair of the Audit Committee, the Executive Member for Quality Control (Resource and Performance), representatives from the Minority parties and the Audit Committee Co-opted Members.
AU.632 REVIEW OF HOME TO SCHOOL TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS
Preamble for item AU.632
Delegated decision:

That the report author be invited to attend a future meeting of the Audit Committee to explain the review outcomes in more detail.
AU.633 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
 Delegated decision:

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business since they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to any action taken, or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation and prosecution of crime.
Exempt
AU.634 INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRESS REPORT
  • (Attachment: 4)A report from the Head of Audit and Risk Management
  • |
    (Attachment: 5)Appendix A
  • |
    (Attachment: 6)Appendix B
  • |
    (Attachment: 7)Appendix C
  
AU.635 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORTS - MEMBERS' FEEDBACK
  • (Attachment: 8)A report from the Head of Audit and Risk Management
  
The meeting started at 7 pm and finished at 8.35 pm

Preamble

Preamble
ItemPreamble
AU.630Clive Portman and Linda Kettles from the Audit Commission presented the Statement of Auditing Standard (SAS 610), which required auditors to report certain matters arising from the audit of financial statements to those charged with governance.

It was explained that the work on the financial statements was substantially complete. There were two significant matters which would need to be resolved by Officers before the Audit Commission could issue their opinion. These were as follows:-

- Bank Reconciliation
Officers were preparing an amended bank reconciliation following resolution of the discrepancies identified from the audit review of the original bank reconciliation working papers.


- National Non-Domestic Rates
Officers were reviewing the appropriateness of the National Non-Domestic Rating (NNDR) exchequer creditor balance (£4.335 million). Depending on the outcome, this could result in material adjustments to the sundry creditors and sundry debtors balances.

It was explained that subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the work outstanding, the Audit Commission anticipated being in a position to issue an unqualified opinion by 31 October 2005.

The Audit Committee was required to report all misstatements, any material weaknesses, other auditing standards and any other matters which it was felt the Committee needed to be informed of.

There was one unadjusted misstatement concerning disability equipment stock. There were no material weaknesses and no other matters or auditing standards which the Commission felt should be drawn to the attention of the Committee.

It was also explained that there would be extra pressures in preparing the accounts for the next municipal year as the deadlines have been brought forward by one month. The Audit Commission stated that staffing levels should be monitored to ensure that there was adequate support at the critical time.
AU.631The Director of Finance and E-Government thanked all members of staff from District Audit who had been involved with preparing the Financial Statement Report (SAS 610).

A presentation was given outlining the Audit of Accounts 2004/2005. It was explained that the impact from the ongoing system replacement work had been significant, and had affected the production of the bank reconciliation. The NNDR had been produced using the new system. The judgement that had been identified by District Audit concerning the stock adjustment was accepted and an Internal Audit Review would be undertaken in the area. There would be no amendment to the Accounts because of this.

It was explained that there were still amendments to be made to the Accounts and it was suggested that the final accounts approval be delegated to the Director of Finance and E-Government in consultation with the Chair of the Audit Committee, Executive Member for Quality Council (Resource and Performance), representatives from the Minority parties and the Audit Committee Co-opted Member.
AU.632Linda Kettles, the Audit Commission Manager presented a report containing the outcome of a review of home to school transport arrangements within Bury Metropolitan Borough, provided by Bury Local Education Authority.

It was explained that the main objective of the audit review was to help Bury MBC obtain a better understanding of the costs of its home to school transport service, and improve its cost effectiveness by:

- Seeking any available cost comparisons with Metropolitan Authorities within Greater Manchester and nationally; and
- Comparing the nature and level of Bury’s ‘door to door’ service provision with other Metropolitan Authorities that provide the same kind of service with any national standards that may apply, and with identified good practice.

It was explained that the author of the report would be able to answer any queries in more detail if the Committee wanted to explore the findings of the review in more detail.