To take any questions from members of the Public.

Please note: Members of the Public are requested to inform the Democratic Services Officer before the meeting begins if they wish to ask a verbal question to the Committee.

No questions were asked or had been submitted by members of the public.

Members are asked to declare the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in respect of any item of business to be considered at the meeting.

No declarations of interest were made by Councillors in items on this agenda.

The Committee is asked to confirm as a true record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 14 April 2016 (attached) and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Audit, Crime & Disorder and Scrutiny Committee held on 14 April 2016 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

This report summarises progress against the audit plan for 2015/16.

The Committee received and noted a report from the Internal Auditor summarising progress against the audit plan for 2015/16. The Committee did not identify any matters of concern contained within the report.

This report advises on the internal audit assurance level for 2015/16 and summarises the performance of internal audit for that year.

The Committee received a report advising it of the internal audit assurance level for 2015/16 and providing a summary of the performance of internal audit for that year.

The Committee noted the following matters with regard to the report:

a)            Procurement actions. The Committee was informed that the majority of management actions which had not yet been implemented related to the Council’s procurement arrangements, and that these were in the process of being addressed. Some actions had been superseded by updated processes, and these had been identified by the Corporate Risk & Governance Manager.

b)            Auditor’s draft reports. The Committee noted that only 44% of draft reports had been released by the internal auditor within the 10 day target. The Internal Auditor acknowledged that this target had not been met.

Following this, the Committee noted the Internal Audit Assurance Report for 2015/16.

This report sets out to propose audit fee for 2016/17.

The Committee received a report presenting the planned audit fee for 2016/17. Following consideration of the report, the Committee noted the planned audit fee for 2016/17.

This report seeks the Committee’s formal approval of the Annual Governance Statement and the arrangements made for its preparation as part of the 2015/16 financial statements.

The Committee received a report seeking its approval to the Annual Governance Statement and the arrangements made for its preparation as part of the 2015/16 financial statements. It was noted that the Strategy and Resources Committee had already approved the Annual Governance Statement in principle at its meeting on 21 June 2016, pending any comments from the Audit, Crime & Disorder and Scrutiny Committee.

Following consideration, the Committee:

(1)          Confirmed the adequacy of the arrangements made for preparing the Annual Governance Statement (AGS).

(2)          Endorsed the 2015/16 AGS prior to it being certified by the Chief Executive and Chairman of the Strategy and Resources Committee.

This report informs the Committee of the performance of the Epsom & Ewell Partnership (CSP) for the year 2015/16.

The Committee received a report informing it of the performance of the Epsom & Ewell Community Safety Partnership (CSP) for 2015/16. The following matters were considered:

a)            Attendance by partners. The Committee noted that attendance at meetings of the CSP had been low from some partners over the past year, and that engaging with them within the forum of the partnership was challenging. The Committee was informed that the partners continued to undertake community safety activities, but in the form of their own discrete initiatives, rather than activities directly coordinated by the Partnership.

b)            Communication of activities undertaken by partners. The Committee suggested that the discrete community safety initiatives undertaken by members of the CSP (but not directly coordinated by it) should be communicated and celebrated more widely.

c)            Grant funding applications. The Committee was informed that the CSP currently received no annual funding from the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), but was able to apply for grants for individual activities. During the past year, the CSP had submitted two grant applications to the PCC, one of which had been successful. This had provided £6,000 for two off-road bikes to assist in tackling antisocial behaviour in the Longmead area. The Committee was informed that applications for such grant funding was not restricted to the CSP, and that the Partnership provided support to other community groups/individuals who wished to apply.

d)            Future of the CSP. The Committee was informed that the Partnership would continue to review the possibility of working with other Boroughs and Districts.

Following consideration of the report, the Committee:

(1)          Noted the performance of the CSP over the year 2015/16, including its role and financial position.

The Committee received a report providing a description of the arrangements for the Council’s current CCTV provision and proposing that they be reviewed.

It was proposed that the review of current CCTV provision be undertaken by an Officer working group that would look at the Council’s CCTV systems utilised in Town Centres (Streetscene), Public car parks, Council venues/other facilities and Council vehicles. Following the reviews, recommendations would be presented to the Audit Crime & Disorder and Scrutiny Committee in October 2016, and to the relevant Policy Committee(s) for consideration.

The need to work with partners in reviewing the Council’s CCTV provision was noted. This was particularly important for the Town Centres (Streetscene) CCTV, as it was utilised by Surrey Police and Surrey County Council Highways. It was noted that Surrey County Council did not currently contribute to the cost of providing the Town Centres (Streetscene) CCTV.

The following matters were considered:

Ward Councillor involvement. The Committee considered that Ward Councillors should be invited to input into the review of Town Centres’ CCTV provision.

Use of CCTV for parking enforcement. The Committee noted that the use of CCTV for parking enforcement was a possibility which would be considered during the reviews.

Monitoring arrangements. The Committee was informed that monitoring of the Council’s Town Centres’ CCTV systems was currently undertaken in Runnymede, but that this arrangement would be reviewed. The decision to monitor footage at the Runnymede centre had been taken whilst the Borough was within Surrey Police’s North Division, and Inspector Elkins informed the Committee that Epsom and Ewell was now contained within the East Division. Inspector Elkins also informed the Committee that if the monitoring was undertaken at the Reigate centre rather than in Runnymede, access to it would be improved for the Borough Police.

Following consideration, the Committee:

(1)          Agreed to undertake a full review of CCTV usage by the Council, in order that recommendations could be made to other relevant committees.

It was noted that an Officer working group would be formed to carry out the review, with a report to be presented to the October 2016 meeting of the Audit, Crime & Disorder Committee. As a part of this review, relevant Ward Councillors would be consulted with regard to Town Centre (Streetscene) CCTV.

In accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to Officers, this report sets out significant decisions taken by officers under delegated powers since 15 April 2015.

The Committee received a report providing a summary of the significant decisions taken by officers under delegated powers since 15 April 2015. The Committee noted that the ‘Date Issued’ for forms 455-458 and 460 given in Annexe 1 of the report was incorrect, and should have stated “2016”.

Following consideration of the report, the Committee noted that twenty one decisions had been recorded on or were pending the use of the Delegated Authority proforma since 15 April 2015.

This report asks the Committee to agree its work programme for 2016/17.

The Committee received a report asking it to agree its work programme for 2016/17. It was noted that no fixed date had been set for the consideration of an update report regarding progress made following the Scrutiny review of the Routecall service. It was intended to present this report a year after implementation of the new Routecall service had begun, and a firm date for its consideration would be set by the next meeting of the Committee.

Following consideration, the Committee:

(1)          Approved the work programme 2016/17.