9
The
Committee received the report of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for
Resources who explained that, as before, the EY representatives would take
the Committee through the report. He added that EY had been expected to
issue an unqualified audit opinion and conclude that Waveney District Council
made appropriate arrangements to secure economy, efficiency, and effectiveness
in the use of resources. However, the audit had identified a number
of adjusted and unadjusted differences, which were detailed within Section 4 of
Appendix A. EY had requested that these uncorrected misstatements be corrected
or a rationale as to why they were not corrected be considered and approved by
the Committee and provided within the Letter of Representation. The
Audit Results Report noted that Management have determined not to amend the
statements for these audit differences as they were individually and
cumulatively immaterial. Having consulted further with Finance Officers, they
remained of this opinion and, in addition, were acutely aware of the need for a
final Statement of Accounts to be presented to this Committee, given that it
was now nearly eighteen months after the relevant year end. Members were
also asked to note a number of points regarding the individual items referred
to as unadjusted misstatements:
·
EY previously agreed that the Past
Service Cost item would not be adjusted;
·
There was a difference of view between
Management and EY regarding the “Surplus on available for sale financial
assets” item;
·
The bad debt provision item had
obviously been superseded by the review of, and an increase in, this provision
in the 2019/20 East Suffolk Council Statement of Accounts.
Consequently,
the Cabinet Member proposed that these unadjusted misstatements not be
corrected and that this rationale be approved by the Committee and provided
within the Letter of Representation.
Debbie
Hanson, Associate Partner, explained that Waveney's Audit Results Report was
similar to Suffolk Coastal's except for the Statement of Audit and the
differences identified, and the objection which related to Coastal not
Waveney. Debbie highlighted in particular Section 2 of the report which
contained the key risks, management over-ride, valuation of land and buildings
which included community assets that had a different value. Errors
in the disclosure of grants and Officer's remuneration which were potentially
sensitive but not found to be material were also drawn to Members' attention.
The
Chairman thanked Debbie for her report but pointed out that, again, these were
historic accounts so he did not see why there should be an increase in the fees
because if they had been completed on time, they would have been dealt with
prior to the pandemic occurring. He reiterated his request for EY to
review their fees.
On the
proposition of Councillor Back, seconded by Councillor Cloke, it was
RESOLVED
1. That the findings within the Audit Results
report in respect of Waveney District Council for 2018/19 be noted.
2. That the Cabinet Member's suggested
response to the uncorrected misstatements referred to in paragraph 2.2 and
Section 4 of Appendix A be endorsed and they not be corrected.
3. That EY review their position in relation
to the proposed increase in fees.
Tony
Poynton, EY, left the meeting at this point.
The
Committee adjourned for a comfort break at 7.32pm and returned at 7.37pm.