Agenda item

Information Governance and Assurance Update

Meeting of Cabinet, Tuesday, 20th January 2015 10.00 a.m. (Item 79.)

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Blamire & Bryning)

Joint Report of Chief Officer (Resources) & Chief Officer (Governance)

Minutes:

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Blamire and Bryning)

Cabinet received a joint report from the Chief Officer (Resources) & Chief Officer (Governance) which sought approval for strengthening the Council’s information governance and other assurance arrangements (covering Information and Communications Technology (ICT), information management, corporate anti-fraud and internal audit generally), using budgetary growth approved in February 2014.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

ICT/Information Governance

Option 1 – Approve Officer proposals (covering ICT and Corporate Information Governance).

Option 2 – Do not approve Officer proposals and require alternatives to be developed.

	Option 1 – Approve Officer Proposals to develop functions as proposed	Option 2- Do not approve proposals: require Officers to develop alternative proposals.
Advantages	Will enable and support better service provision through the development of ICT, corporate policies, procedures and standards of information governance. Will enable exploration of options for better use and sharing of information. Provision of greater assurance regarding information management and security; reduce the risks of inappropriate disclosure and any associated penalties.	None identified.
Disadvantages	Costs associated with additional resources (although these are already budgeted for.)	Further delays in improving service areas. Inability to develop standards and respond to future development challenges in the interim. Unable to provide assurance regarding the security and effective management/use of information. No suitable alternatives identified to date.
Risks	Inability to recruit the requisite resources.	Increasing risk of information security incidents and associated penalties/adverse publicity. Inability to respond to change and to take advantage of opportunities for better information sharing arrangements. Risk of wasting time and resources, with no prospect of identifying a better solution for the medium term.

Option 1 is the officer preferred option. Dedicated resources are required to provide the expertise, capacity, and guidance necessary to enable the Council to fulfil its information governance responsibilities and to make the best possible use of ICT and information in service delivery.

Corporate Anti-Fraud Arrangements

Option 1: To approve the proposals for establishing a Corporate Fraud Team on a collaborative basis with the Council’s partners (Preston CC and Fylde BC).

Option 2: Not to approve the proposal, and require Officers to develop alternative proposals for meeting the Council’s residual obligations for tackling fraud, on transfer of staff to SFIS in June 2015.

	Option 1 – Approve the establishment of a Corporate Fraud Team on a collaborative basis with Preston CC and Fylde BC	Option 2- Do not approve the proposal / seek alternatives.
Advantages	Objective would be for the team to be self-financing. Opportunity to make use of existing staff capacity and expertise. Benefits from larger scale of operation. Would enable links and collaboration to be maintained with Internal Audit. Flexibility and responsiveness to changing levels of demand/need within the partner organisations. Benefits from Central Government funding which has been awarded. Has the resource to engage with other interested parties.	None identified.
Disadvantages	Additional managerial oversight to ensure that partners’ priorities and calls on the team are managed effectively.	Shortage of specialist anti-fraud skills within current Internal Audit resource. Lost opportunity for tackling fraud in a cost-effective, collaborative manner.
Risks	Failure to achieve self-financing objective. Success dependent on retaining / recruiting suitably experienced skilled staff.	Linked to uncertainty. In the interim: Inability to respond effectively to a significant incident. May not be able to provide an effective level of deterrence. High demand on anti-fraud matters could adversely affect core audit work, or incur more costs. Reputational risks with partners.

Option 1 is the officer preferred option. This provides a number of opportunities to take advantage of existing strengths and expertise within the current Revenues and Benefits Shared Service and the availability of external funding. It is stressed that the overall financial objective of the proposal is that the corporate team would be self-financing and this must be regarded as an immutable principle. Arrangements would be put in place for ongoing monitoring and review of performance.

Given that the formation of a Corporate Fraud Team requires decisions from other partners and recruitment arrangements being resolved before 1st June 2015, a final decision is being sought now, rather than it being subject to the budget process. This fits with financial strategy, given that no additional budgetary pressures are involved.

Councillor Blamire proposed, seconded by Councillor Bryning:-

“(1) That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That Cabinet approves the development of the ICT service and the corporate information governance function as outlined in the report, to be financed from within existing budgets.

(2) That Cabinet supports the setting-up of a corporate anti-fraud team in collaboration with Preston City Council and Fylde Borough Council on the basis outlined in the report, subject to it being at least cost neutral.

(3) That Cabinet notes the proposed widening of the Internal Audit service’s remit, subject to consideration by Audit Committee at its next meeting.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Officer (Resources)

Chief Officer (Governance)

Reasons for making the decision:

Much work has been done to develop proposals that strengthen the Council’s service provision, whilst containing costs within existing budgets and/or providing opportunities to secure savings. Whilst the service areas may not necessarily be appreciated directly by the public, nonetheless they are essential for effective service delivery and the safeguarding of resources. A key element in ensuring the successful delivery of the Corporate Plan is having sound governance arrangements in place. The proposals also fit with the Council’s ethos.

Supporting documents: