Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies from Councillors.

No interests were declared.

To follow.

The minutes of the meeting on 23rd February would be submitted to the next meeting for approval.

There were no public questions.

The Committee received a report from the Head of Legal Practice and Monitoring Officer on the review of the Council constitution after nine months of operating with the revised Leader/Cabinet arrangements. The Deputy Leader of the Council also presented a report on the revised terms of reference for the Equalities Panel (Inclusion and Equity Panel).

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

Move to new governance model

i.      Any recommendation to move to a single Overview and Scrutiny Committee should be taken after seeking views from the Chairs and Members of current committees.

ii.    Nine months was not sufficient time to draw conclusions from the new scrutiny process.

iii.   The report compared Cambridge to other councils with just one scrutiny committee, but some councils have as many as four. There could be grounds for having more than two.

iv.  With Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) approximately two years away, further constitutional changes should only be made if they were operationally compelling.

v.    A dedicated Scrutiny Officer had recently been appointed. The current structure ought to continue to give the officer time to familiarise themselves with it.

vi.  The committees had not yet carried out the full spectrum of responsibilities, for example there had been no deep dives. There was still much to do to properly assess the effectiveness of the current system.

vii. Would be keen to see the governance model reviewed annually.

viii.                 The Committee should look at the terms of reference of the Housing Advisory Board. Could it become a scrutiny committee?

ix.  A single scrutiny committee may put an excessive workload on members.

x.    Two Committees provided more focus on specific issues.

xi.  The new governance structure could leave minority groups and independent councillors without an effective voice inside Council.

xii. Political groups should be given the opportunity to review the proposals.

Protocol on Member / Officer Relations

xiii.                  The new version did not highlight sufficiently the importance of political impartiality for officers working closely with the cabinet.

xiv.                 Concerned that the new protocol could discourage Members from approaching officers directly.

xv.The call centre suggestion may not effectively support the democratic role of a councillor in carrying out casework.

xvi.                 The new member induction should include training on how to work with officers, which should also be offered to existing Members.

xvii.               Where officers are required to deal with difficult situations at public events, they should be encouraged to rely on Members for support.

xviii.              Welcomed the emphasis on communications with ward councillors. Officers should reach out to ward councillors for input when devising communications with residents and groups in wards. Better joint working should be promoted.

xix.                 Section 3.2 of the existing protocol should be included in the new version.

xx.Any ‘who does what’ document should include more than just Directors.

xxi.                 The Member role on a regulatory committee should to be made clearer in relation to the ways that Members can deal with planning or licensing matters.

Supplementary Estimates Process  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26/13/Civ

Cllr Bick left the meeting during this item and returned at the start of the following item, therefore was ineligible to vote on this item.

The Committee received a report from the Chief Audit Executive on the updated Risk Management Strategy and Framework.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

i.      Welcomed the glossary.

ii.    Had a risk summary been produced and could officers provide a risk SWOT analysis?

iii.   Were there a lot of key risks? How often did these change?

iv.  Could there be a mechanism for informing Committee members of minor changes approved under the scheme of delegation?

v.    Officers should be trained on how to manage the potential problems arising from the framework.

The Chief Audit Executive said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.      The Council was a dynamic organisation and risks are reviewed regularly. The key overarching strategic risks tended to be consistent, with more change at the lower operational levels of the risk framework.

ii.    There are quarterly risk checkpoint and reviews, with key risks reported quarterly to Cabinet through the performance management framework.

iii.   Minor changes to the framework could be captured within the quarterly Governance Risk and Control updates to the Committee. 

iv.  Officers were trained on how to use the system and how to score risks. Emerging risk trends are communicated internally through risk briefings. Risks added by managers were monitored to assess the bigger picture and internal trends.

The Committee RESOLVED (unanimously) to RECOMMEND to Cabinet:

1.    The revised Risk Management Framework and Strategy.

Delegation of authority to approve minor changes and amendments to the Chief Operating Officer.

The Committee received a report from the Chief Audit Executive which provided an update on internal audit activity, assurance outcomes and strategic developments.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

i.      Welcomed the progress on establishing an audit apprenticeship.

ii.    Welcomed the full, modern termly audit.

iii.   What had been the outcome of the review into Home Upgrade Grant 2? Did the work cover anything the Council could have done differently?

iv.  Was the root cause analysis an additional piece of software or a way to make adaptations to how the audit process worked?

v.    Proposed inclusion of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and ICT into the risk analysis framework.

vi.  Could the apprenticeship also contain work on business analysis?

The Chief Audit Executive said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.      The role of internal audit in relation to the Home Upgrade Grant 2 was to review the grant certification.

ii.    The root cause analysis was a process of focussing on key items and establishing the cause, how it could be rectified and prevented from happening again. It is a process of identifying patterns and sharing information to provide managers and the committee with insight.

iii.   LGR would be looked at in terms of preparedness for change and also maintaining the basic key controls to provide assurances to stakeholders. The team was already learning from other authorities who had been through the process.

iv.  With regard to the apprenticeship, the team could additionally look into leveraging skills from other complimentary areas, for example business or data analysis, to supplement the audit work.

The Committee RESOLVED (unanimously) to:

1.    Note the report.

The Committee received a report from the Chief Audit Executive and the Democratic Services Manager (Deputy Monitoring Officer) on the work of the Civic Affairs and Audit Committee since its inception in May 2025.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

i.      The Committee’s role was explained clearly and in a useful way.

ii.    The Committee reviewed and considered partnerships and collaborations – could examples be included?

iii.   Welcomed the inclusion of civic functions within the report.

iv.  Could the Civic Affairs and Audit Committee review the early voting pilot scheme?

The Committee RESOLVED (unanimously) to:

1.    Approve the draft Annual Civic Affairs and Audit Committee report for submission to Council and the Annual Meeting.

2.    Delegate authority to the Chair, in consultation with the Committee, to agree any minor changes to the report before submission to Council.