City of Edinburgh Council - Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee

Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee - Tuesday, 7th May, 2024 10.00 am

May 7, 2024 View on council website

Transcript

at months meeting of GRBV. We are welcoming Councillor McFarland instead of Councillor CUMAR today. I don't think we have any other substitutions that I'm aware of, so welcome to everyone. So this meeting is being held in the Dean of Guild Courtroom in the City Chambers High Street in Edinburgh and remotely by Microsoft Teams. It will be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the Council's website. The Council is a data controller under the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. We broadcast Council meetings to fulfill our public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council's published policy. Andrew.

Okay, so version two of the meeting papers were published on the 5th of May, 2024. Motion and amendments have been circulated electronically. For members joining online, if you could please use the hands up function to indicate to the convener that you wish to speak. If members are planning to substitute for a particular item or a particular point, please make this clear to the convener by confirming who has left and who has joined the meeting. Please note that under Standing Order 2215, each item is subject to a 40 minute time limit unless agreed by committee under the order of business. The convener has discretion to allow proceedings to continue beyond this time limit.
Thank you, Andrew. Just a slight change to the order of business. We have Councillor Lang's motion at 8.2. We thought it was quite helpful to have Councillor Lang come and speak to us about it. And so he has come, but just in order to facilitate that, is everyone happy if we take that as the first item? Then we'll go to deputations and then we'll pick up the order of business as set out in the papers of everyone's agreeable with that. That's grand. Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 2.1, which is declarations of interest. The Councillor's code of conduct requires members to publicly declare interest in the items being considered at the meeting. These interest can be financial or non-financial.
Are there any declarations? Councillor uni.
Just on item, sorry, 8.13 I'm gonna step up because I was in the Finance and Resources meeting of the 30th April that referred this on to this meeting.
Thank you, Councillor uni. Okay, I don't think there are any other declarations of interest, so I think we're good to move on to 8.2.
Okay, so the next item is item 8.2, motion by Councillor Lang, safety of Council operated heavy vehicles, referral from the City of Edinburgh Council, and Councillor Lang, speaking of his report.
That's my line.
Thank you very much, Counvenor, and thank you to the Committee for rearranging the order of business, so that I was able to come and speak to this. I'm very grateful. So as members of the Committee will be aware, my interest in this whole issue came about because of the death of Thomas Wong, and a living year old boy, who was tragically killed following a collision with a commercial bin lorry on White House Road in Crammond, in Crammond and Barnton, in my ward, back on the 1st of March. A number of measures are being taken forward in response to that tragedy, and have been a matter of some discussion at Transport Committee. But I think it's important, as I said it through Council, when this motion was passed, not to view Thomas' death in isolation, because we have seen other tragedies involving HGVs in other parts of Scotland, most recently, the death of a living year old Elizabeth Bell in the borders, and a 56 year old cyclist in Beers Dayne, both of which, both of whom died after a collision with publicly owned bin lorries. Now as I see, the tragedy that happened in Barnton did not involve a council owned or operated bin lorry, but I think all of these tragedies together, I think should give us cause to think and reflect as to whether we are doing everything we can to improve safety and minimise the risk of collisions, injuries, and fatalities. And I was very grateful when, you know, I got unanimity across Council for the motion that's been referred here to the Committee today. Now I appreciate that this is a bit of a two stage process. The Council's decision should be a discussion here, but this is a very much a precursor to the report that I know is being worked on now, and which will come back to this Committee in due course. But I thought it might be a helpful convener for today to maybe set out the five key questions that I am looking to get a student's own, in which I hope the report that comes forward will be able to answer, and upon which this Committee and policy and sustainability will be able to scrutinise. Question one is, are we making the best use of technology to help maximise the safety of our existing HGV fleets? Because we know there is technology out there that can and should be used. Two, if we're not making best use of technology, what are the barriers to us using that technology and how best can we overcome them? Three, what are the training and fitness to operate requirements, both initial and ongoing for operators of large vehicles, and are these requirements being rigorously enforced? Four, what if any operational changes are available in terms of when and where HGVs are deployed to minimise the risk to others, and particularly to more vulnerable groups? And five, what is the process for review, learning from best practice from others, and ensuring that we are constantly learning about further safety enhancements going forward? I want to finish simply by saying that I know that officers have taken all of these issues extremely seriously. I know there is a real interest and a real desire to use the tragedy that we saw with Thomas Wong, but elsewhere, to ensure that we really are doing everything we possibly can going forward. We cannot remove risk entirely, conveniently, but for this committee in particular, given the issues that you look at every month, I think it's right that you are satisfied that the Council is doing what it can to minimise tragedies like this in the future.
Thank you very much, Councillor Lang for that. So one of the things you've asked is for that report to PNS, but also for an addition to the internal audit plan. And I have put an amendment to that report to ask officers in internal audit to view the webcast of this discussion when they're looking at the scope of that audit. So I think those things will be picked up as well. I wondered, I don't know if any officers, if Gareth or anyone wants to add anything, and then we'll go to questions from the committee.
Thanks, convenient. So I would agree with Councillor Lang, as you'd expect. Councillor Lang have spoken, and now I've spoken on this on notifications. I am confident that operationally, we have good controls in place, but I recognise for nothing else for parents across the city after what happened in Banton, it's good reassurance to have on public record that we are looking into this. So the addition to internal audit subject to lowering the team's agreement on this report, we're more than happy to come back to committee and give a thorough update on that.
Thank you, Gareth. Are there any questions either to Councillor Lang, or Gareth, Councillor Thornely.
Thanks, Covina, and thanks, Councillor Lang. It was reported in the evening news a little while ago after a Freedom of Information request, I think that only about half of Council HDVs at the moment have this advanced braking system you mentioned, in the context of pushing forward on best practice for this, and given we already have that data in hand, what do you see this audit particularly under report PNS ultimately adding to our discussion on that?
Yeah, so I think the information that came out showed that in terms of purchasing new vehicles, I think it is as a matter of course that this AEBS system is applied. Obviously, it was a specific recommendation of the 2015 fatal accident inquiry that local authorities should seek to retrofit that technology on existing fleets. But the data suggests that only around half of the existing fleets are equipped with that. Now, I recognise that is not a cheap process, but I would hope that that would be one area that can be looked at, and I see that because mercifully, we, cases like what happened in Barton, are very, very rare. But we do have data that shows that in terms of number of collisions, actually collisions can happen a lot. The data suggested around 200 a year. So the risk is there, but I think the question is how can we ensure that not just the new equipment that we are purchasing, but the other equipment which we're still using, how that can be made more safe. And I think that's going to be a key area to be looked at going forward.
Councillor Schender.
Thank you, Counvina. Councillor Lange, there's quite extensive research being done not just in the UK, but across Europe, especially by the European Transport Workers' Federation, about the causes of accidents. And one of the consistent factors is the poor working conditions and the driver fatigue that exists in what is seen to be quite a chaotic sector, where working conditions are very poor. So I wonder what thoughts you had about that, because although there are certain things that are within our control, within our workforce as a council about safety aspects, we still are dealing with a private sector that at times, and I'm not going to say is always that way, doesn't look after their workers, and we've got that aspect of the fatigue, which is it's been in reports up to 60% of accidents have been because of driver fatigue.
Councillor Fletcher, I think that's an exceptionally important point, and I'm very clear that there is no single thing that needs to be done. It will need to be a package of things, and in fact, one of the things I think which actually came about, I think I'm right in the same, it's because of a very helpful SNP addendum on what we might be able to do when it comes to the very significant number of commercial HDVs are operated, 'cause I wanna make sure that we've got our house in order, but you're absolutely right. When you're thinking about risk to the public, actually just in terms of volume, actually the biggest risk comes from non-counsel operated vehicles, and I remember the amendment that came forward that looked to the scheme that's been established in London, I think we would need additional powers to implement here in Scotland, but I think to take your wider point around the need for us to look holistically across the piece, including looking at how commercial operators are working, and how they use their fleet, and the conditions which apply for drivers, I think that's an exceptionally important point.
I can't see any further questions from committee, so thank you very much, Councillor Lang, and I'm sure in turn, it will view that discussion when looking at the scope as well, and I'm sure Garret's team will also take on board that discussion when we're going forward that report, so thank you, Councillor Lang. So, are there any further contributions on this, or are we happy to agree, 8.2? Agreed, sorry, Councillor Heatman.
Yeah, it's just a kind of factual question for officers. We will keep on your show records where a CEC vehicle has been involved in an accident, whether it's an injury or worse. I take it, we are collecting that data, and that's under scrutiny, very pretty frequently.
Yeah, thanks, Councillor. So, we absolutely do have the Council Health and Safety Group that's led by senior officers, and their collection and data is presented to the Health and Safety Group on a regular basis, and monitored with through-course analysis to say to the points that have been made by Councillor Pergender, what kind of causational issues that might be driver error, maybe there's lots of, you can imagine the fleet of the size we have, there are lots of vehicle-related incidents, many don't result in an injury, mercifully, a few do, but not serious, so we take that very, very seriously and do scrutinise that, yeah.
Just so, is that available to Councillors and what one form or another?
It certainly can be, it's collated information. I'm mindful of, I think health and safety reports normally go to F&R as the parent committee, I hope it be in us, but certainly in terms of that dashboard, we collect that officer level, so I don't see any issues starting to build that into more kind of regular committee reporting alongside other health and safety data, if that's helpful.
Okay, so I can't see any further questions for officers, so we're happy to agree that report. Thank you, okay, so we'll move to deputations.
Okay, so the next item is deputations, we have one deputation submitted today, our committee, happy to hear the deputation.
So, I wonder if possibly before we move into this deputation, I'm looking slightly at Gavin or I don't know if Kevin's here, I'm just to kind of outline the parameters of this, so, Nick is online, Nick, do you want to give us just a kind of summary?
Yeah, yeah, I can, thank you very much. Just to confirm, by dinner of a quirk of timing, this report's obviously been referred on from a separate committee, and normally we wouldn't hear these during live process. As committee will be aware, we are currently during the live process, we're in the middle of a standstill period, so it's just to say we're happy to committee and obviously to say to hear the deputation and to say to hear the report, but my recommendation would be that a later duration of the report later on the agenda may be appropriate, given you would then have the full process concluded, but should committee wish to hear the deputation then that would be acceptable. And I should also just add to convener that is just to clarify for the deputation as well, that this isn't some sort of appeal committee, and this is a scrutiny committee, so the decision obviously taken last week by Finance Resources Committee still stands.
So my recommendation is convener, and obviously it's up to committee, and if we have a division we can have a vote or whatever, but my recommendation would be that we hear the deputation because they've made clear that they would like to come and communicate with us, but we've got this report during the standstill period, which means that we do have to be, I think quite mindful of the questions we ask, so I think we should hear the deputation, and then I think we should agree to defer the report for another cycle so that we can have a much more in-depth discussion when we're not in the standstill period of the contract, and then we can scrutinise, and obviously I think Nick has just said, we can't overturn a decision made at Finance Resources, we're looking back committee, and I feel like we're looking back, maybe a little too soon at this point in time, and obviously if we do defer the report for one cycle, we won't be in the standstill period, deputations would be welcome to come back, and at that point we could ask questions, so that would be my recommendation, but obviously it is up to committee, so I can see kind of general nods, is everyone happy with that as the process? Councillor Fagenda.
Okay, yeah, I'm just trying to clarify this in my head, so yeah, we are this sort of kind of slightly toothless committee that looks at things and criticises them and gets angry, but can't change the decisions, so at the moment, I just want to clarify, and this is probably for Nick, what happens is that we were going to scrutinise the awarding of that and comment on it, but it wouldn't make any changes, the only thing that can change that contract awarding process at this point would be legal action, is that the only way back from that at the moment, is that because it's been voted through by the Finance and Resource Committee, is that right?
Yeah, in simple terms, yes, that's right, Councillor. We are in that stand still here, this is all open to any party to take appropriate legal action, and obviously committee were given advice last week in advance of the decision that they took, that decision has now been taken, and I guess the simple answer is it's not open to this committee to do anything other, and look at that decision. My view and recommendation, as the community has just said, is that the best time to look at that decision would be when you have the full information, and that would be the conclusion of the contract award.
Did you want to add something, Kevin?
No, sorry, I was just conscious that Nick was breaking up a bit there, so I thought I would come down just in case I had to step in.
Okay, is everyone happy with that as a way forward but, yep, okay, okay, so I think we can invite, is it Jeff?
Jeff Duke, Julie Ogilvy, and Mark Haynes from GC Live in relation to item 8.13, a little bit somewhere. Award of contract for Edinburgh's Winter festivals referral from the Finance and Resources Committee.
So welcome, Jeff, you have five minutes, no, ordinarily we would do questions, but as you've heard, we've agreed not to do questions this time that we will be deferring the report, but you're obviously be welcome to come back at that point, and we have a report back in front of us.
Thank you, it's very helpful, my understanding was that the contract had not quite yet been appointed, but we were waiting for the outcome of the sessions, my understanding was slightly different to what's been presented this morning. If I could appeal this morning to request a slightly elongated disposition, the deputation, the reason I ask for that is because some of the points we're looking to raise this morning are very important, and I feel that if they're not aired appropriately, then the due level of cognizance and consideration will not be granted or given, and all I'm asking for is 12 minutes instead of five, I have drafted two deposition presentations, one is six minutes, and one is 12 minutes. I'd ask for the 12 minutes if possible.
So, it's not up to me, it's up to committee. I feel that we have a very long agenda today, and I have already said this in my email that I think that we should stick to the five minutes, which is the standing orders, and that's what we would normally allow. As we have said, we've taken the decision to defer this report, and you will have another opportunity to come back, but also I think it's important to be clear, we are not able, as a committee, to overturn a decision that has been made in another committee, so we are a scrutiny committee, and that is our role here.
Okay, understood, thank you very much, and thank you very much for affording me the time this morning. I do have a printout of notes and support of deposition that were sent to Councillors yesterday. I allowed to distribute those to Councillors, they were sent out yesterday, so you should already have a copy.
I think you could pass them along, but I mean--
Thank you.
Time is already ticking, and we have already received those, so.
Yep, understood, thank you very much. Okay, so I'll introduce myself, Geoff Crow, Director at GT Live. I am representing the GT Live Consortium team here today. I'm here this morning to raise concerns that we have regarding irregularities, the poverty, transparency, and fairness of the process, leading to the appointment of the preferred bidder for the Winter Festival's contract. I appreciate that some of what I am sharing today may be contentious, but assure Councillors and officers that I am raising these issues and concerns today in the spirit of fairness, good faith, and reputation. Forgive me, I'm gonna have to need to move fast to get through some of these points today. Firstly, I'd like to cover off financial assessment criteria. The financial assessment pass/fail criteria were clearly set out at stage one. Stage one assessments are designed within a tender process to prevent a bidder who would not pass the basic financial criteria pass/fail criteria to process to later stages of a process, to save them wasting time, considerable time, and money in creating a detailed submission. That cannot then be assessed. Now, from our view of publicly available information, I should reiterate that everything I'm sharing today is in the public domain. And using the Council's own assessment criteria listed within tables one, tables two of appendix two of the tender specification documents, we're querying how it is actually possible for the preferred bidder to have managed to pass stage one of the process at the time of the stage one assessment. Now, to assess Councillors with this point, we have drafted up some numbers. We have drawn down basic information that is available within the public domain on the preferred bidder and our own bid. To pick out a couple of points to reiterate my position, credit rating of the preferred bidder at the time of stage one assessment, which is November 2023, the credit rating of the preferred bidder is 14. That is assessed by experience to be maximum risk. Our bid was 88. That is considered to be low risk. The current liabilities of the preferred bidder at that time was 727,000 pounds in debt. GC Live, our bid was 5,800 pounds. The asset and liabilities ratio, a pass field criteria set by the Council was 1.2. That means that assets need to be 1.2 times more than the liabilities of the bidding entity. The preferred bidder at that time was 0.3, which failed to the criteria. Our bid was 59.6. These stats were current at the time of the assessment and would have resulted in the preferred bidder failing the process. So a question that I'd ask Councillors to put to officers is that did Council officers loosen the assessment criteria at any stage of the process to enable any of the bidders to continue in the process that would otherwise have failed that criteria. And the reason I ask this question is important because I believe that one bidder was excluded from the process at that stage for not meeting set criteria, as listed within the F&R Committee report. However, we believe the preferred bidder also did not pass criteria, but seemingly was allowed to continue. The second point I'd like to cover off is bias or perceived bias towards the preferred bidder. We believe bias began with Edmond Council awarding the emergency Christmas contract to the preferred bidder via newly formed SPV. That's a special purpose vehicle on the 2nd of August 2022. This SPV bypassed the tender processes and financial checks that are normally undertaken of a bidding entity. So a question to Councillors to ask the public officers what, under what contractual terms or tender rules with the City of Edmond Council able to bypass tender processes and contract an SPV that was an empty entity at that time and not the winning bidder directly. I understand that may have been covered under other committee, but the reason this is important was because I believe bias continued when Council officers allowed the ownership structure of a SPV which had been set up under the winning bidder to change post-appointment to altogether different entities that were not connected or related. The reason that's important is because the parent company of the business and entity that is now at the parent business or parent entity of the SPV was £248,000 in debt. So when you combine the £248,000 with the £727,000 of liabilities associated with the SPV from last year, that trading entity was almost £1,000,000 in debt between the parent company and the SPV at the time of tender.
And Jeff, if you start to bring it to a close now, you've almost reached five minutes if you bring it to me.
Okay, thank you very much, understand. So in terms of additional bias, we have raised queries and concerns within the report put to you regarding Council officers who involved in the process who at the time of process were under investigation for potential conflicts of interest in connection with the appointment of Edinburgh's Christmas by Vincent Mason. In cases of conflict interest, we would have expected involved officers and parties to recuse themselves from the process. However, that was not the case on this occasion which resulted in, sorry, I should say a question to ask, do Councils consider it appropriate that Council officers who were under investigation of conflict of interest were able to continue their involvement resulting in recommendation on the same bidder being awarded the contract again. I will conclude. - Okay, that is time.
Thank you, I'm able to conclude.
30 seconds, thank you. - Thank you very much. As you will be aware, we have legal Council assessing each of the points that we've raised in the preparation for legal challenge. We understand this position putting Councils in and we want to press for a fair and level playing field to engage in exciting opportunities such as this. What we do not want to do is damage the prospect of Christmas being delivered in Edinburgh this year. In balance therefore, we're proposing to Councillors that we would forgo this year's opportunity and drop the current legal challenge and accept the recommendation of Council officers to appoint the preferred bidder on the premise that it's for one year only and granted to the preferred bidder to enable this year's Christmas to go ahead. Lessons learned, no conflicts of interest and the processes rerun properly but critically independently because this is about good faith and reputation. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for that, Geoff. So we will not, we've agreed that we will not actually do any questions today and we will bring this report back and just to be clear, as the scrutiny committee, we are not able to overturn the decision of any other committee or make any changes to it. But I'm sure you've given us some food for thought and we've all received the written documentation that you've sent through and when this report comes back, I'm sure we will be asking those questions and scrutinising thoroughly to process around this. So thank you very much for your time today.
Thank you, very grateful.
Okay. Okay, so the next item is item, which is... Oh. Okay, so the next item is item 4.1 minutes of GIBV of the 20th of February and these have been submitted for approval as a correct record.
Can I be approved? Thank you.
Okay, so the next item is item 4.2 which are the minutes of the 19th of March 2024 and these have been submitted for approval as a correct record.
Great. Thank you.
So that takes us to item 5.1, which is the outstanding actions. There are six actions recommended for closure. There was being actions 1, actions 2.2, actions 3.1, actions 4.1, action 5, and actions 9.2. Committee are asked to otherwise note the remaining outstanding actions.
Can I be agreed? Thank you.
So this is item 6.1, which is the work programme and committee is asked to note the work programme.
The work programme be noted. Yes?
Okay.
Oh.
I was just going to say that.
Okay.
It's a frequency thing, so we leave the microphones as they are. It's a technical issue that is being addressed. So, sorry. But we can note the work programme.
Okay.
Two main people online. So item is item 7.1, which is the business bulletin. They're asked to note the business bulletin.
So I have some questions on the business bulletin, which was about the loan stock, which is something that we had asked about previously. I think we'd asked for a briefing note, and then we haven't been given a briefing note, but we've been given in the business bulletin as a response to that request a link to the EICC Convention Bureau funding report, specifically Appendix 4, which sets out some information about the loan stock. So I'm just sorry, I'm following links through, because I have a few questions. I think possibly Richard might be the person to answer these. So the thing that I was slightly confused about from that briefing was it said that we spent all of the money that was the remaining balance when the income trust was spent on the additional function space, and so that the income trust was essentially emptied out. However, there have been a series of payments made to EICC since then, which looked like they're coming from C.C. holdings and then C.C. And I just wondered where that funding was coming from if it wasn't from the income trust.
I probably just can be, I have to be perfectly honest, I don't know, so I will make sure we note that and I will provide a written response to you on that.
Okay, so I have a series of questions 'cause it looks to me from the briefing though, as though what had happened is there had been a profit made on the additional function space, and that funding had been put into the income trust. And then it looks like the income trust has been funding EICC. So I do have quite a number of questions. Was there additional funding that went in? What's the current balance on the income trust? And then the process of approval for funding going back to EICC 'cause it looks like last year, 700,000 pounds, roughly, I've not, the report's not loading, hopefully. But it looks like 700,000 pounds were given to EICC for capital works. And I just wondered, so I went through all the previous budgets. There was no approval in council budgets process, I don't think, and I just want to think it would be really helpful as councillors to understand what is the approval process for funding going out of the income trust to EICC? And I think that briefing note, I would like the briefing note that we'd asked to come back covering those areas, which I don't think are covered by the appendix. I can see Alison Henry's come, should we allow Alison to come in?
Morning, Councillor Campbell. Just to answer the question, I think what we just said in the appendix for is that the Lothian Road Income Trust is earmarked for the capital expenditure, so there is still some funds remaining. I think we had put a figure in the appendix apologies, I don't have it to hand. Those monies will continue to be used to fund the capital expenditure under the original agreement. We'd have to go back to the original time when the trust was set up and the purposes behind it. And once that funding runs out, then EICC would be liable to pay for its own capital expenditure. Thanks Alison, but my understanding was that quite a significant amount of profit was made by the Council on the additional function space. And I had understood that that had come back to the Council, but it looks to me like it has gone into the income trust. And I would like to understand how much that was and what the balance was initially when that went in, what the current balance is. And again, from the briefing note, it did not look like that funding was initially set up to be earmarked as this is just a fund for EICC. It looked like it was set up for the whole exchange area and that it was actually Council monies, but it looks again like those Council monies have just been going out to EICC. I don't know what the scrutiny or the approval process is around that and it doesn't look like Council has been involved, but maybe I'm missing something. But those are the questions that I have that I would like a briefing note to kind of explain that to us. I think that is the kind of level of transparency we should be expecting around this if that's acceptable for a committee.
Absolutely, we will commit to doing that convener. But also just to know that we are planning to bring either to June F&R or to a subsequent F&R, a formal policy on our application parameters around loan stock.
Okay, that helps, well, thank you. Okay, I can't see any further questions on the business bulletin, so we're happy to note the business bulletin. Thank you.
Okay, so the next item is item 8.1, internal audit open, and overdue internal audit actions, performance dashboard as at the 29th of April 2024. And we have Laura Colder speaking to this item.
Is there anything you want to add to Laura?
I'm just a short update on the overdue actions at Appendix 2, so it's just to let you know that the transitions actions, which are reference 10, and I think it's 10.11, I've wrote 12 here, which are actions 3.2 and 3.3, they're actually now closed. So we're reviewing the events at the time and this report was written. And the other two actions for the transitions audit are probably about 90% complete. There's just a bit more to do than that, so they're still outstanding, and I'm sure officers can get an update if required to answer on that, thank you.
Thank you, Laura, and there are any questions on this report, Councillor Jenkinson.
Thanks, Convener, just a brief question. If I look at Appendix 1 and the first diagram on the top left-hand corner, I can see that the management actions are significantly increasing. And I suppose my question is, are we comfortable that what we're asking is doable within the kind of tolerance that we've set, and that we're not going to end up increasing the red as things fall off the end. We're not maybe asking too much.
So I think that's a great question. I think probably just a bit of background, we are doing more audits probably now than we did in April 23. So it's probably one of the things that means there more. And I think the real important thing is we're doing more cross-direction audits, so a lot of the audits that we do sometimes end up with four actions for each other action because each director that gets their own action to make sure they do it. So that does increase a fair bit. And I guess it's just a bit of a timing thing. You can see, I think it's something like saving the actions we're closed during the quarter. So it kind of goes up and down and depends on the progress. But I think what's really important is if you look at the age in the graph, actually the age of the actions, they're been dealt with in a fairly, and within the time scales, we're only looking at 8% overdue actions, which is much lower than it has been. So I don't think it's there's any issues. And the annual report that will come in September will give a graph that will kind of give that feeling of how many highs and how many lows, 'cause I think it's a really good question to ask what are the proportions of highs and lows and mediums that are coming out. And I think for the global internal audit standards, which is the new standards that are coming out, there's a requirement for internal audit to prioritize audit actions, which we've already done. So we have the high priority medium prior to low priority. And I think the thing to remember is the high priority for us and for as far as internal audit concerned is about dealing with that as a matter of priority. So it's not sometimes necessary about the risk that's associated is about actually dealing with it within a high, dealing with it within a time scale so that we're not exposed to the risk for longer. So I don't necessarily think having loads of high actions is a bad thing because it's about prioritizing actions. I don't know if that's answered right here, but sort of where we come from on it.
Okay, and there are any other questions on this report? No, I can't see any further questions, so we're happy to agree the recommendations. Thank you.
Okay, so that takes us to item 8.3, internal audit update report, quarter four, 23, 24. We have an SMP group addendum and I'll add them group addendum and also just to remind members that there's also a B agenda appendix to this report and we have Laura Cowell there speaking to this item.
Thanks, Andrew. Is there anything you want to add, Laura?
Just to say there are a number of things contained in this report. So this means how members want to take questions but we've got the outcomes for the most recently complete audits and the ones with high rated findings are included here to be scrutinized today. We also have the annual validation audit which we do every year which we've presented for scrutiny. So that's where we went back and looked at all the actions that have been closed to check that they're still working in the way that they said they would. There's the outcomes of behavioral social care audit that was referred from a policy and sustainability and we also had an audit in our plan at the time. And then there is the two additional audits, the one that counts our land was today speaking about. So that's in there for members, it's ultimately up to members to decide whether it's included that we have looked at the model and we can support that extra work because we have some contingencies so it's up to members. And there was also another additional audit of early years cross-bounding crisis which was requested at both counts as well. So that's there for members. And then just finally, members read a member, there was a query on the charter at the May committee, sort of the March committee. So that's presented back for members to review and approve.
So I was saying earlier this one report feels like an entire committee's worth because there's so many things going on. So what I would propose is maybe if we deal with the main report first and then we go through the audits individually 'cause they kind of feel like some reports and I think they merit quite a bit of consideration, quite a few of them at least. So just in terms of the main report and there are any questions for Laura on this. I will maybe start if anyone wants to come in on anything. And so one of the things that I wasn't sure about. So we've agreed, so you've got in there the two additional audits to go in the plan and I suspect that we will agree to add those. They both feel like they are definitely worthy of being added in the plan. But I did wonder a bit for me around the process because I think one of them at least was not picked up necessarily at full council that if someone writes a motion at full council and says gets an urgent order, we have to be aware as council is probably within our groups to say if we do that we need to take something out of the audit plan because the audit is very tightly managed in terms of days, allocated, et cetera. And it does need to be a recommendation to come to this committee to agree to swap something in and out of the order. So I just think there's maybe a bit on governance if you could say anything about that. So I agree, I think we're okay just now 'cause we're at the start of the year so it's quite easy to move the audits around and slow additional audits in. But obviously if requests are coming in the same but are January then it becomes more difficult to slow to in and ultimately then a decision potentially could have to be made. Whether another audit comes out or whether we bring external help in to support us 'cause obviously it's up to committee to decide if they want an audit done then we meet that happen. It's just how we meet that. So I think it's right that we make sure if there's a request to think counsel that it comes to GRIB to consider.
I think is that something in governance terms, Gavin, that your team can pick up because I think just making sure that if a motion comes in that says, you know, gets an urgent audit that then kind of the challenge goes back of are you allocating funding for external resources or are you asking GRIB to take an audit out of the plan and then it's a decision for this committee not for full council just in terms of the kind of competence around can that be something that's kind of discussed within the governance team?
Yes, Camino, that's grand. That's something that we're happy to pick up and to have conversations with elected members and I suppose point out the situation and all the elements that come into that so that we can have that lined up before they come to committee. Also, we'll also am the A's with Laura about that too.
That's helpful, thank you. Are there any other questions, Councillor Mark?
Yes, it's page 78 and it's paragraph 4.13 which is the key thematic issues raised in completed council orders. Our highest rated one which means it was raised across most of them is roles and responsibilities and I think some of us were doing some personnel appeals training yesterday and this came up as a matter of discussion that sometimes you see it 'cause you see it from both sides that actually some of the issues are about people not being clear about what they're doing. So what I wanted to know is how is that being raised cross-directorate because that seems to me to be an important action and how does that finding translate into improvement across the council? Who gets made aware of it to incorporate it in their forward plan?
I'll come initially and then I don't know of any other of the directors want to come in. We did actually chat about this at CLT so the support goes to CLT before it comes to it and it was raised and I've already did it and the June paper for committee and roles and responsibilities has come up again and I've been a bit clearer in that paper to see actually what needs to happen. It is in here as well that management need to be looking at what is it, about roles and responsibilities that aren't clear. So in the summary that's in appendix two it does tell you quite often it's purposed as my seizures. They're not clear about what people would expect to do. So when we go out and we speak to people sometimes people aren't sure what they're doing or they're doing something because they did it 10 years ago and the process has changed so I think for me and it does really link to policy and procedures. I think people think that it's a belt and braces and all that have been a bit tough about policies, procedures but they are absolutely the foundation of a control framework and if we don't have things clearer then we can't expect officers to know what they're doing. So it has been raised at CLT. It will come back to this committee in June again because it is a key thing and when we do the annual report we'll put some more information on it but I don't know and I'm looking at Gareth because Gareth's about the only one in the three but I don't know if Gareth wants to add anything to about policy and procedures.
Only that I would agree with what Laura says. I think, as you say, Councillor there's a bit of, I see some of those issues myself where there's a need. We probably need to get a bit better at good old version control and updating processes particularly after organisational changes or after levers. I think my view would be in the more technical roles that are underpinned by other codes of practice or guidance and clarity, I think we're better in that but there are some operational teams where over time we've lost a bit of that capacity selling us people at my responsibility to make sure that we take the findings like Laura and the team have put forward and when we may be in some case I have to give some resource back into those teams to get better at because I don't think it's for the, no, it's because colleagues don't take it serious but we need to get better at updating things. That can be anything from health and safety risk assessment through to key processes for, obviously just an important task that we do in the department. So, yeah, I would just agree with what Laura says.
So, can I, 'cause I noticed roles in responsibilities but also policies and procedures which I feel like really strongly comes through in a lot of orders and they're so interlinked. So, I mean, is there something that we as councillors need to be like, we need to put additional results into this or are there kind of problems? 'Cause I do think it's something that's thematic throughout the whole council that we're just not doing great and I think I'm sure the pandemic has impacted on that in some ways but actually for a lot of hours you look back and it's pre-pandemic that actually the issue started. So, is there additional resources that we need or is there something councillors should be doing to support that?
I'll maybe let others come in but my natural response is that operational it should for us as senior officers to address. It's not an additional part of the job that should be seen as a further investment. It's something we need to do. Obviously the audit process is there to highlight concerns to us and I think certainly as Laura said, this was discussed at CLT so I know it's been taken for a very serious, yeah, I would say before we look at whether the additional resources needed, we need to take away senior officers and just assure ourselves through either self-assurance processes or maybe a bit of sampling how big an issue this is 'cause as I say, I don't think it's fully widespread but as you can see from Laura's report, it's come up in enough audits to say that we need to do a bit of a deep dive into it.
Thanks, Gary.
Yeah, I do wonder and it's something that has come up whether the council needs to be based on a system for making sure the policies and procedures are kept up to date. So one of the things that we find is that people are, they're done in lots of different ways so there is a template for policies and procedures that they're done in lots of different ways. There's a lot of reliance on key members of staff such as the operations managers to have registers and it is something that was spoken about and I know that Dave says something and maybe potentially looking at SharePoint because there's a lot of, so at the moment there's a lot of reliance on people remembering to do it rather than actually we had a system that was seen in triggers and reminders 'cause the real important thing in terms of policies is there's a link to IIS and if the process is started early enough then you're making sure the IIE process because that's something that has been a discussion on that that is really helpful or Gavin, you want it to come in as well?
Yeah, thank you. I mean, I think obviously any software solution would be good but in the absence of that. I mean, obviously also policies and procedures are slightly different. So policies are something that we take through to committee and need committee approval and we have a lot more rigor, I think, in terms of how we deal with that. So, for instance, the policy register is there. It is, we have a requirement for reports to be policies to become up to committee on an annual basis or at least checked on an annual basis so that process is in place. And in terms of just the people who weren't here that was quite a big change in terms of councils. Not many local authorities had such a thing as a policy register, NHS came in and copied elements and so over the council. So there has been good practice there but it has slipped in recent years and there was a resource taken out at a point and not put in, and that has been rectified. And as part of the governance and assurance work that we're doing in parts of that framework, we've set up a group with the operations managers to a regular group to discuss policies, to be able to try to make that as a more business as usual element of it, but also have reminders and be able to push about how we can get the message out to service managers as well about the importance of this and how it benefits their service to keep it up to date and to ensure that it works effectively for them. I suppose the element that it is worth mentioning that, that doesn't include procedures though. So that is a policy register but procedures are the documents that sit below committee level. So they are approved normally by service directors, heads of service exec directors and do sit below the committee level. And my team, for instance, we aren't monitoring the procedures element of that, just the policies. So hopefully, obviously, it just gives you a little bit of context of the work that's going on.
So maybe we need to think a bit more about procedures and actually maybe given what Gavin's just said, is it worth, in the thematic bit, splitting out policy and procedure? 'Cause we know that there's work being done on policy and that is being implemented, but actually it feels to me like quite a lot of the issues are actually probably more around procedures in terms of what we're saying, coming back in order to find things.
So I think that's absolutely right. And the key themes and appendix too, it does actually talk about procedures, documented processes, quite a lot. So that is Gavin's absolutely right. There is a good process in the governance team for keeping a hold or posting procedures and making sure they go through the register. But that's when we go to committee and after the paper reminders, I do think there's still a bit of work to keep that working in direct to its direct that's all to it differently. It's not done the same in direct to this, but we can absolutely start to say that out a bit, so we're clear about what's policy related, which is, and we did a previous order of posting procedures, there is definitions about what policy is and what procedure is and what a process is, so we can make that a bit clearer so that members know where the issues are. But it is mainly operational procedures, the pieces of work that direct people to do the job. It's maybe, and I will be back in a month and we've got another report, so maybe it's something we might want to think about asking for a bit of, maybe having a discussion with officers about what would be helpful, but I do feel like as a committee monitoring procedures, we'll have a think, we'll maybe come up with a cross party, amendment or something. Okay, thank you for that. Are there any other questions on the main report? I know we're happy to kind of, at this point, just for tidiness to agree that we'll include the two orders. We're not agreeing the recommendations at this point, but we're not going to have further discussion on that. Is that everyone happy with that? Okay, should we move on to the orders? So the first one is community centres, are there any questions for officers on this? Councillor Thornely.
Thanks, can you hear, I'll give Andrew a second (laughs) to get comfy. (laughing) Obviously it's quite a concerning read, Andrew. Given you're a newer service area, and we've heard a lot of culture and communities about the process of getting out of set up that's been a large amount of your work for the last year, it says in the audit here that the rest register for community centres was due to be completed in April. So if I could ask, was that the case? And how did we get that far without having one?
Sorry, could you just, how did we get to the stage where this audit was being done and a risk register wasn't already in place?
Right, so we were established in June of last year as a new service, and we'd want to reassure the committee that in particular relation to community centres, the actual risks have been captured in the wider place directory. So what this audit is pointing out is that my new service hadn't yet completed a risk register for my overall service. That was a work in progress, but I would like to, and it has been completed now. I've just approved a draft risk register for my overall service, but we'd want to emphasise that the big risks in relation to community centres, the risks around repairs requirements, the risks around investment requirements, et cetera, have been captured in the wider place risk register. What would happen since I was put in post, essentially I'd be meeting to talk about risk on a monthly basis, and the work to progress and develop my own services risk register. So it's just been a work in progress over the last few months, but we haven't now got a draft in place.
Councillor Nourh.
Thank you, Covina, and thank you, Andrew, and Laura. I've got two questions. I think once these are sort of teased out, you're probably going to start addressing the issues that has been flagged, and those, you know, some of us are aware that this has been under review for quite a long time, but there's two outstanding issues of concern that, and it's in finding one about the roles and responsibilities, and so you've said the community strategy, the full review of leases is planned once, the community centre strategy has been finalised, so when will that strategy be finalised? And also in September and 2020-21, ensure it's, well, the previous service, your previous service was advised that insurance clauses and leases were not fit for purpose. So why is this still an outstanding action, and is it a still an outstanding action?
Yes, it is still an outstanding action, and I would like to stress that, and our sense, that's my responsibility, because the overall lease review would be carried out by the estate service. When I came into post, I know the Otter States team are very, very keen to carry out this lease review. They're very aware of what they'd said to previously committee. In a practical sense, it was me who, in a sense, put the stall on that, had a discussion with other estates colleagues, and we reached a view, a consensus view, that essentially it was a bit pointless us trying to review every individual lease of individual community centres across the city until the council had formed a view on its strategic direction. The leases should follow once we have agreed as a council, what out approach to community centres in a strategic sense would be. And I'm due to report the make committee of culture and communities on that strategic update, if you like, on community centres. So in a sense, we're ready to go with the lease review. That is in well-formed part two of my services, year two, what programme with our colleagues in estates? Have a follow-up. So you said you're reporting to culture and communities in May with the strategic review. Is that the finalised strategic review, or is it the first stage in something that will go out for consultation, and what's the estimated time scale for that? 'Cause I think we've got a big issue hanging, so it would be nice to know when we can, when are we going to expect to see these actions closed off 'cause you can't close them off until you've done that.
Yes, well we're confident that the lease review will take place in this financial year. So that's when we'll launch it with estimated down date, we'll put an April of next year. So we'll be carrying that out over this year. I mean, the report I'm taking to me, it's difficult to talk about a report that's not been to committee, you appreciate it. But you know, that is going to be talking about what year two, what programme looks like in leases is one of the first things that we're going to be addressing.
So can I just ask on that? So you've got a strategic review and you don't want to review leases. But I mean, there's problems in terms of those kind of insurance gaps and tell that review of leases is done, which feels quite risky and problematic for some of the accounts at all. And so what is it about the strategic review that means that it, that might impact on the leases? Because for me, I'm kind of not really understanding like surely we're going to meet whatever the strategic review is and whether or not we kind of reset the relationship a bit with community centres. We're still going to need leases in place. So I just wondered why the holder.
Yes, you're right. We're going to need leases in place and the leases as the audit report points out are sort of well out of date and what most of them date from the 1980s, et cetera. I mean, part of the big discussion and it's a discussion we'll be having both with obviously local members and but most very, very importantly, management committees themselves is what does a lease look like for this particular centre? In other words, we're going to have to work over the coming year about whether or not you can take a generic approach to leasing in community centres or whether you need to take a more tailored and individual approach to leasing centres. And that's why we've decided in a sense not to really get into that until if you like the framework around which we're going to be making future decisions is approved by committee.
So if you're doing kind of bespoke leases for each community centre, that feels like that would be quite lengthy process and potentially might take us beyond the next financial year.
Well, we're hoping we can achieve a later review within the coming year and we're not necessarily going to be taken and bespoke approach to leasing arrangements. It's a matter that we will have to sort of if you like internally discuss about what is going to be the best approach for us to take.
Okay, thanks Andrew. I have another question in my account.
Thanks, Commissioner. I was interested in what you said about, so before your team were set up, Andrew, the risks were held by the wider place directorate. So where was the management of those risks? Because reading through this, though those issues that are being identified more proactively now perhaps and have been previously done about key holding, about health and safety, specifically as a massive concern and where the liability exists between the council and the management committees as well who are primarily volunteers. Why haven't we been supporting these community centers? Before we're taking that deep look now, why have these issues been allowed to continue and I appreciate pandemic will have been formed apart of that? But can I just ask kind of prior to Andrew's team being set up how those risks were managed and looked after during that period of time? 'Cause it's a bit concerning that now all of a sudden there's a great movement towards rectifying this, but prior to that we were a significant risk. I would say with the lack of oversight.
Yeah, I wouldn't have said that risks were not managed prior to our service being put into existence. And I think the thing to appreciate about community centers is a number of different council service areas have got a different level of responsibility with community centers. So for example, property condition, repairs issues would all be handled by our facilities management teams, et cetera, and our asset planning teams. And those risks would and were recognized in the wider place I would actually risk registers because I've seen them and been involved in them. Other risks in relation to sort of management committee operation and function at that time prior to our organizational review, that would have been handled by the children and education service. And I presume that risks captured in that type of environment would be reflected in their individual service risk registers. So I think it's not so much that people were unaware of risk and risk wasn't covered in community centers. I just think it was spread more, it was disparate across various council services, I guess. And one of the desirable outcomes of my particular service is that although these risks may still be owned by other service areas, my team will have a more collegiate overview of all of the risks relating to the community center of state.
Sorry, Commander, if I can just start briefly. So to your point, Councillor, this, as Andrew says, this was previously managed in the locality structure that we had in place before they were built into local lifelong learning teams. And just to reassure, and I think this comes across in the audit, we have colleagues in the facilities management service, for example, facilities technicians that do the kind of standard safety checks you'd expect, fire panels, fire doors, Legionella sampling happens, all the core health and safety attacks happen. The issue, and to come back to the lease actually, the lease is a, at least review sounds simple, but obviously it will impact on the operating model of a management committee as much as the council. In changing, if you're trying to change the goal post as it stands right now, what the council says is, we'll provide the people that do the checks and we'll assume the risk in making sure the checks are there and compliant. But clearly we want to empower communities to have as much use of the building as possible. They kind of rub up against each other 'cause one of the causes and the leases that we did discuss in PNS during the recovery from COVID when we had the service resumption work-streamers that the council accepts all liability for any harm caused in the use of that building. That's clearly well out of our risk appetite as a council. That needs to be revised, but we can't simply fix that without having a ripple effect onto the resource, as you say that are predominantly volunteers in management committee. So, Andrew and the team have got the, in my view, difficult task of balancing, bringing that risk appetite back into Odewanis as a council without placing an undue burden on these, as well as the fact that there's also a risk around financial strategy and the capital sums that we see regular reporting, capital reports, which I think is somewhere in between 17 and 20 million pounds last time I saw it of investment in these to happen. So, pulling that together is kind of the strategy's aim, but just to reassure the kind of core health and safety functions that happen right now are taking care of. I think I would, I think I could speak on the offer management committee's, however, they would probably show us lots of photos of things that functionally aren't great in community centers. So, I'm not gonna shy away from that. You know, keeping it wind and water tight and safer people is different to, for example, the aesthetics and the quality of space. I just think it's important before any management committee walks this and thinks we're comfortable with the level of repairs. Certainly not saying that's the case, but from a health and safety point of view, we are comfortable.
Thanks, Sarah, that's helpful and actually probably leads a bit into my next question because there is, it is this tension between the council's risk acceptance and the council's responsibility there, but also they are called community centers and they are meant to be for the community and there's meant to be a flexibility there for community use. And one of the things I was gonna do, Laura, was actually just push back slightly on one of the internal audit recommendations, which for me felt maybe a bit onerous, which was 1.2, and whether the council should consider implementing a central event booking process, inclusive of all communities, to ensure events held in the buildings have been risk assessed in the line in terms of the lease. And for me, when I read that, I kind of was thinking about my community centers and particularly, as you said, when they're trying to respond to one of the issues they had was during COVID, they were closed and lots of other third sector buildings were open because we were too risk averse to open the buildings when things were really needed, like food distribution in the community. And then when they were able to open, having that flexibility to respond to community needs and be kind of very flexible around that, how do we get that balance right? And is it maybe slightly overkill, 1.2, to try and centralise that? Is it more about kind of training and saying, you know, that relationship? This is what we expect of you and these are the criteria. My thought on it.
Absolutely, so it links back to the lease, so the lease terms at the moment state that you know what the purpose of community center should be and they do at the present state that actually they shouldn't be used for any of our purpose without approval from the council. So obviously that's what the lease stages know. So that's where that recommendation has come from. But actually, when we were doing the audit, there was a trial of a central booking system. I don't know, Andrea, if that's continued. So, and it was only for ones where the business support officer. So for us, the reason it's there is if there's a child and it's working and we think that it could help another community centers and it's worth being aware of that. But I guess it's linking back to that we have leases that are potentially at the end of their not going to be in line operations, you know, getting them up to date and then thinking about the no-con effect of the leases. So the leases are being made up to date to see the community centers will have more control about what will be booked than what, how will that become the manager? So that's where that's going.
So it may be a bit of a watching brief for culture communities to kind of think about.
Yeah, and we're glad to that. We must bear in mind that management committees are stand on charities, okay? The council are not going to be in a position and we lease these buildings to them. The council will not be in a comfortable position if I go along to meet with management committees and try and enforce a central booking system for the city. It's very, very important to us that management committees control their own lighting. They're very, very keen on that. They see that as one of their key core purposes and we wouldn't want to upset that but we will certainly have that type of conversation. So as with many of the other recommendations and the support that's going to be one of those that is going to involve us in ongoing conversation with management committees and feeding back the consideration of what they are telling us about that particular recommendation.
That is helpful, thank you Andrew. Are there any other questions? Councillor Follum.
Thank you, just another one. On key holding, which I know we discussed at the APOG, if you could just provide a wee bit of an update because it's obviously quite an urgent recommendation but also a sensitive one too. Because again, as Councillor Campbell was saying, communities own their community centers and so kind of giving out a key is something that should be within their control but also controlled within their liability and risk appetite of their council. So can you just give us a wee bit of an update and assurance on how that work is progressing?
Yes, that work is probably progressing the fastest of all of the recommendations and the support because it's not one that we started from a sort of a zero base on. I was looking at the updates this morning actually before I came into committee. Most of the management committees across the city that have key holding, most of the key holders in those community centers, the majority of them are actually council staff from a whole range of different service areas. The other majority key holder in a community center tends to be a member of a management committee. Now we're confident that all of them have went through key holding training with us and have adhered to the council policy, et cetera. And in our smaller number of cases, we've got key holders who tend to be user groups. So in some community centers, the Cubs, for example, or the local nursery will be and do have a key. So what's going to be really important for us is to consolidate all the information as much as possible. And when we go out to speak with management committees following the committee, I've mentioned earlier where we're taking a report to, that's going to be one of our early conversations with management committees on an individual basis. I look, our data is telling us we have five key holders for this building and they are do, do, do, is that right? In terms of the other recommendation, which is about security locks and changing the locks, et cetera. Again, that's something we will engage with management committees about, of course. We're not going to go in heavy handed and start changing all the locks with all the community centers across the city. We want this as much as possible to be a process that we're engaging with committees on. But I'm confident really by the autumn, we should be in a really good place in terms of knowing everything about who's got keys for our buildings.
Thank you. I can't see any further questions. We're happy to move on from community centers. And I think we'll move on to corporate property help desk. I think that is. So I have a kind of, you wanted to add something.
It's just to make committee a rear that the support is slightly different. So it does look like a traditional audit report got the corporate operating help base moved last year in September from corporate services to place. And we did this audit in December. So it doesn't have an overall audit rating because ultimately the team were taken over post-cases that I've been dealt with somewhere else. And I think it's really important to say that the team responded really well. I mean, this is quite chunky and there's a lot of things in there but they responded really positively to the audit. And I think most things were agreed to. So it was just to kind of give that perspective. But we will track these actions. So they were still given that priority. There's what to be spoke about. So we've seen it's high. So we think it's did the deal with as amount of priorities. So we will still track them but it was just to make members a load of that.
That was literally my questions or it's so, 'cause I did think it's quite, you know, it's in the audit report but it's not an actual audit but that's the reason it was because it's a new team. Okay. And the actions will still be tracked. Are there any other questions? Can't stand that up.
Yeah. Just on page 10 of the audit and one, one, four of our papers, it does say that they would have expanded the KPI information from January 2024. And I just wondered if there's an update about whether that was in place and had been completed on time.
So we've not had an update yet because the actions are slightly different. I don't know Garitha.
Thanks, Garitha. My colleague, Gohar's actually on the call and might be able to give an update on that. Is that possible, Gohar?
Yes, it is. Thanks, Garith. Thanks for the question, Councillor. Yes, we have a suite of KPIs that are currently produced and we are looking to expand those KPIs in relation to discussions with our contractors. So the evidence we have got, those KPIs are reported at the R&M board and the contractor meetings as well. We have completed that action. Evidence has been produced and we are looking now to close that action down.
Thank you. Okay, I can't see any, oh, sorry, Councillor.
Thank you very much. I've got a couple of questions here around the repairs. So two questions really. So firstly, the summary says there's about 20 emergency repairs a day requested. I know the Council obviously has a big estate, but it sounds like a lot, 20 a day. Do we have a sense of if there is a lot and how that's changed every time? Is that getting worse? Is that getting better? And is that ringing the right alarm bells in the right places in the Council to think, okay, if we have this many immense repairs, are we getting our broad maintenance strategy right?
So I'll maybe start and go home. I might want to come in. The definition of emergency in this in property sense is quite broad, Council, because it can be, because of service impact, for example, it can be because of a health and safety risk. So for example, the loss of taps in a toilet aren't necessarily an emergency. The loss of all the taps in a toilet are critical to, for example, a school functioning and children not having to be sent home. So there's a bit of context in what is defined as an emergency. So I would say across this circuit, certainly around 400 or 600 buildings, depending on how you define the individual buildings, or we've got a bigger state, as you say. We don't have benchmarking data, so I think that's a fair call to actually look at what benchmarking data is available and we should take that way off to level, but I don't think it's out of the ordinary to be getting, if you kind of assume emergency isn't in road, for example, emergency would be life and limb. I think in property emergency, as there's a critical service impact raising from health and safety to potentially, this premise will have to close if we don't fix that. So 20, I think, is unfortunately pretty normal, but I think it's a fair shout that we need to be able to have it in the start and show that that is normal against benchmarking.
Thank you, if I can follow up. Just on page 10, there's a table that says for the different priority types of repair, how many are depleted within time scale, and not, and even for the most urgent, it's about 30% or 70% that are not. And obviously, again, it depends on the type, the thing we're talking about, but if you don't do a repair in time, potentially it gets worse and it's a bigger cost. So has that been considered, if we are even for the most urgent ones, 70% of them are not being done in time, is that, again, is that really the right, along bars in terms of, oh, do we need to get better at this, because also it's going to cost us more if we're not doing the repairs quick enough.
Yeah, so, absolutely, your point of the end is correct. We have to get better at this. Certainly, we use this information as go-house as we have a repair and maintenance board, and we have a contract management team that manages the FM contractors. When you look at the way the KPI records, the job being completed is from beginning to end, so the thing actually being fixed often in the middle you'll find a make safe. So it may be the case that a contractor's called into one of our buildings, and the issue is made safe, so it's no longer a risk, but clearly it's not finished because the item needs to be replaced, and there's a lot of issues we've drilled into root cause, for example, standardization of stock. Over many, many years, we've developed lots of different stock items of even simple things like taps in our buildings, and clearly the variables in the different types of caps, taps that can be recalled out to replace, we're working with the contractors to look to standardize that, so, again, there's an increased chance of a right first time repair, because we can get a better of that, why fittings, all those things across the estate, so if you take, the issues that often will prevent a repair happening first time will be things like stock availability, we can improve that, access to buildings, we can improve that, so what we are doing as officers is chipping away, doing the analysis at root cause and fixing the things we can fix, and that's, you know, go hiring colleagues within the team, that's their core day job, and we have regular contract meetings, and if we believe it's a contract issue as well, we will serve early warning notices in the contract system, make sure that we're making them aware of their responsibilities.
Council Member Follum.
Thank you, just to be questioned on the threshold of 500 pounds, and I see the recommendations for how that can be addressed in terms of going through that process, but it's 500 pounds as a threshold, slightly too low for that kind of approvals process with inflation, with everything, price of materials, et cetera, going up. I imagine quite a lot more jobs now are hitting that threshold than we'd be previously, but it's the same job that's needing done.
Yeah, I think you've hit on an important point in the way of discussing those officers' councils. That was set up as a threshold in the contract when it went live. Obviously we've gone through a period of record inflation. Clearly, what go-har colleagues at Mark's Denhouse and I've been discussing is clearly on a risk basis, we need, I think it is, my view is we need to revise that 500 pound figure, but I just need to be assured that the figure we set out represents the kind of optimum balance of increasing the likelihood of repairs happening while still representing value for money. So we are taking that up at officer level and I suspect at a point in time we'll be looking at a contract variation to revise that.
Okay, I can't see any further questions on this. I am conscious, we've definitely overrun our time, but I think we usually agree an extension on the audit reports. We're trying not to do 40 minutes on each though, so much, but so we're moving on now to the Health and Social Care Partnership Financial Sustainability Monitoring. I would suggest after that we maybe take a break if we can aim for this one to be about 10 minutes. We'll see, I'm looking at Councillor Miller, but we'll see. And then come back and finish the rest of the reports after a cup of coffee. So any questions, Councillor Miller?
I can't think about you were looking at me when you said 10 minutes.
I thought we were going to break.
Yeah, after I've spoken. So I had a few questions on this one, but I'll try and meet them brief. So on 1.1, the recommendation 1.1, it says the GSNAs should be used to determine future changes in service demand for each individual service area. Management have commented that they would only partially agree with that recommendation. And I would just, I would quite like to explore that a little bit, 'cause I didn't reach the recommendation as saying that it was the only determinant. And I think it's been interpreted as if that is the audit recommendation. So I'd be interested if Laura can comment on how the recommendation was meant and whether the management reaction to that recommendation is what you would have anticipated.
So interestingly, there was a fear about discussion on this recommendation and management action with Moira. And so you're absolutely right. So we've said that the GSNAs should be used as part of that. It's the piece that we found in the recommendation, but we do speak about the other controls that management use to help them develop the budgets. I think the thing here is it's really important that for audit, we make a recommendation. It's linked to the community centers one. We make recommendations, which for us are usually linked to policies, procedures and controls in place. And we make these recommendations, but sometimes management won't agree. They might have another way that they think to do it or it's not the way that they want to do it. And sometimes there's a compromise in audit where we will change our recommendation slightly depending on the risk. But this is when we're actually audit, kind of state quite firm in what we recommended and management state firm in the fact that they, so I think it's probably one for Moira to come in in. But actually, it's quite important that I say that it's okay for management in audit to some things not agree. We are not managing the service, you know, we can say what we think, but actually it is the officers who are working in the real world. So I thought that it was a good management action in terms of what the management then said they were also doing, but we still stand for them that we think the GIS any should be used. Is that a help? Did you want to come in, Pat?
Thank you, and thank you for the question, Councillor Miller. It's just a add to this, because I think that it was absolutely spot on. We don't ignore the importance of the GIS any, of course we don't. It gives us an opportunity to project demand and growth based on the population changes, but we are operating in a demand-led service. The last five years has been seriously unpredictable, and we suspect that there'll be a number of things that will play into our MTFS as we move forward, which will be under control. There are probably a couple of key things to mention, which we would not be able to consider within the GIS NA. So last year, for example, compared to the previous year, we've seen a 25% increase in adaptation of errors. We have seen a sustained increase in compulsory treatment orders of 40% here in Edinburgh over the last five years. It doesn't look like it's fallen. And in an international context, I don't think anybody really could see that coming. There are also the two inspections that we had last year that were highly critical of the service. And what we often find is that when you come out of inspections like that, or for example, significant case reviews where an adult or a child has died, you tend to have a more risk of worse workforce, which partially explain the requirement for increased activity that we've seen within the service. But all of this is very, very difficult to predict. Another change is, for example, if a care home was to close, it's beyond our control. It doesn't sit within one of our own care homes. Then there's an all-coin effect of the financial consequences of all of that. So it's really important, and of course, their GIS NA will play into their IGB strategy. And we will anticipate demand and grow through that lens, but there are so many other things that play here. So I think I appreciate and agree with everything that you've both said there. And I think it's helpful just to have that conversation here so that people can hear and appreciate that. I think for me, the thing that I would like to carry forward probably is just keep that eye on the difference of opinion, I guess, between internal logic and the strength of the recommendation versus the response to that. And also the fact that you quite rightly said part that it's demand-led service, but it's not a demand-led budget. So we've got an inherent conflict there, which we obviously need to keep an eye on. Had two other questions if that's okay?
Yeah, I mean, I just maybe wanted to come in on that because I picked up on that, and I read the management response as a bit defensive if I'm honest, because it did feel like I completely appreciate that there's a number of different criteria that need to feed in, but actually the recommendation to use the JSNAT seemed quite reasonable, and I kind of felt like it maybe could have been a bit more embraced. Management response is like one of those criteria, because I think looking through this whole report, it is a lot about, or the whole audit report is about forecasting and anticipating, and I think you touched on one of the things like the care inspector reports that asked that you needed more packages of care, and actually there's a good story there because more packages of care were being provided, it was just the estimation, the costs, I think that's right, and so I suppose it is, like there's partially a very good story behind this, but actually there's a bit about how is that then feeding across into the financial data and the expectations, and that's the bit that's kind of, I suppose we're trying to see assurance, and PNS will be trying to see assurance, but of course the IJB will be trying to see assurance that that data is improving, or becoming more assured, and just I suppose taking as many different inputs into that as possible seems that that would be helpful.
Thank you, Conveno, and perhaps it's the language that's used, we fully embrace the JISNA, of course we do, it's what drives our IJB strategy, perhaps the language should have been along the lines of In addition to. So there is the JISNA, which is obviously important, but there's all those factors that are described a couple of minutes ago, so perhaps it's more along the language, it was not intended to be offensive.
Okay, thank you Pat, that's reassuring. Councillor Minnan, you had other questions.
Thank you, this one should hopefully be a little bit more simple, but it's kind of along the same lines, 1.3 is talking about seeing the financial costs of any proposed initiatives to prove performance and service delivery should be assessed prior to approval and commencement, and if approved, an estimated cost should be built into the overall financial forecasts, and the management response comments on that, but doesn't explicitly, I don't think, see that that recommendation will be implemented, so I just wanted to ask Pat if he can confirm that indeed management is accepting and implementing that recommendation as it's written.
Thank you, Councillor Martin, yes, is the short answer. I think we've expanded on that to say that we would agree, but again, the text there is an attempt to illustrate just how complicated the landscape is, that there's a number of additional factors that really need to play it into all of this. We've been very, very clear about this, particularly through our NTFS, so when it was approved in 18th of March, anything that we do, we need to be costed, changes to policy, changes to legislation, for example, we'll have a requirement to be costed, and we will only be able to deliver on the services that are quite specifically delegated to the Health and Social Care Partnership, so there's a particular lens here that this needs to be seen through, but yes, again, it's in addition to, thank you.
I'm glad to hear that, and the third question that I had was on recommendation 3.1, so it's talking about a procedure setting out the end-to-end process for creation and management of council-related elements of the financial strategy, and it's a pretty significant recommendation, I think, from what I'm reading, but it's got a target date of the end of July this year, and I just wondered if you could comment a little bit on whether you feel that that's going to be fully completed and ready to yield benefits by that date?
Thank you, again, Councillor Miller, yes. The process has been put in place, the reason we've suggested July is really because that's the first time that we'll have our first formal council financial projections, and the activities already been put in place, the change board and all the associated oversight governance arrangements that will be chilled with myself, and the finance officer are already in place, they're already in the diary, the templates have been agreed, the senior responsible officers for all 25 work streams associated with the medium-term financial strategy are all explicitly clear on what their role is and how they have to report, and the principles attached to all of these changes have, through the middle of it, are a process which is allowing us to take corrective action, wherever possible, the scale of this is 60 million pound across 25 different work streams, so there's a number of quite considerable assumptions against all of this, so we need to be able to take corrective action very quickly based on each financial period, thank you.
I wanted to ask about 4.1, so it was just, it was about the updating of financial information into SWIFT system, and that this can take between six months and two years, and so that feels like, I mean, that feels like a huge, if you're trying to sort of accurately estimate budgets, but your information in terms of, I'm guessing this is information in terms of packages of care, expected discharges in hospital, if that information is so delighted, then we must be really, really behind the curve in terms of trying to estimate, and it just feels like, of course, that will have a really big impact, so I suppose you could comment on that, and then what steps are you taking in order to make sure that that is much more accurately and speed to me, getting updated?
Thank you, Conveno. This is one of the major risks that we have, within achieving our budget and our savings proposals. There's a number of things that's been happening I have since shared three meetings with everybody concerned, it's one of those meetings that just seems to be increasing everything we convene, given the complexity of it, and there's a red cross here between the Health and Social Care Partnership and the services that are still set within the council, in relation to the inputting, and then ultimately the extrapolating of the information from there. There are targets, for example, for inputting financial details of, for example, to work out services' contributions that are taken far too long. So we have an agreement that we are going to mitigate against this by reducing those targets to come in somewhere, but it's more realistic. So there is a piece of work that will continue in relation to this. For everybody that's involved in it, they are explicitly clear in what their role is, and this piece of work will report directly into myself and to Dave Smart. So it's a matter that is well and truly in hand, but nonetheless, I suspect that we'll do very well if we can mitigate the risk as much as possible, but given the well-known problems with the system, it will be challenging.
And how much of it, because Swift is getting replaced, so is it kind of managing it in the short term? How quickly are we expecting Swift to get rid? You can see Deb smiling, replaced, and will that make a huge kind of difference in terms of...
Thank you, Convena, and I think in all fairness, it's taken us probably about three meetings just to understand the problem, and I think we're much clearer on what the issues are, and we now need to move into solving the issue. Time is against this, so everybody involved in these discussions are well aware that there has to be a very quick time a ton of round noise in this. That's helpful, and I can see Liffa has popped up on screen, you'd want to update on the replacement of Swift.
Nice, thanks, Convena. The programme is kicking off right now, we're expecting to start the programme on the 1st of July, right now we've done some good planning with the Access Group and with CGI, and we're now mobilising a team, so it'll be an 18-month to a two-year rollout rolling out in a big buying approach, so about 18 months to two years from the 1st of July. And that's to a full implementation, and we completely remove Swift first, that's good.
Bill of communication, yep, that's great. Okay, did you have a question, Councillor McFarlane?
Yes, thank you, Convena, it's on 4.1 as well. So I'm just curious to know if every locality follows the same procedures strictly in terms of reporting on size of package or care increasing, demand increasing, et cetera. And given that there's a wider restructure of localities being muted and that this reference 4.1, it's stated that that'll be taken forward by the locality managers, who will be taken forward this work, given that there's a wider restructure happening.
Thank you, Councillor McFarlane. There's probably a number of areas to highlight here. So it goes back to probably about sort of October period last year, we stood up a high cost and a low cost financial oversight group, which is shared by senior managers across the organization and that's to give us that degree of consistency. And those oversight arrangements take place every week, multiple times per week, and we're currently reviewing that, again, to try and determine if we can increase some of the efficiencies around that. But it certainly gives us the consistency around what is the difference in our higher cost package to care and a lower cost package of care. And that's working and it's working well. There is also the review of the current scheme of financial delegation, which will be coming to our own Exact Team shortly. And again, that will give consistency by way of financial governance across the whole of the system, depending on the grade that you are within the organization, it will determine how much you are in a position to approve. For example, so again, given as the consistency. And a lot of point you'd mentioned there, just around the reorganization of the structure, that is now formally commenced. We are now in the formal consultation process, with the workforce, the trade unions, and that kicked off about a week and a half ago. And again, the restructure will hopefully give us that consistency, given that we are looking at a more stratified response to all of the service delivery, as opposed to four different interpretations. Thank you.
Okay, I can't see any further questions on this order. So shall we take a pause, mid-report, and go and get a cup of coffee, and come back at quarter two? Is that enough time for everyone? Grant, thank you. The next audit report is scaffolding for housing repairs. I think we've got Derek, can you come in, come in down for questions? So are there any questions on this report? Councillor Heaton.
Thank you, I've got a few questions, I think. Firstly, obviously the report lays out the kind of process around scaffolding, and the overall costs. Has there been consideration, obviously most scaffolding, as I understand it, is done by external contractors who have got in. Has it been any consideration of whether it would be cheaper to have our own scaffolders and scaffolding?
Do you want to?
Too many things, sorry. Through yourself, can be enough, thanks, Councillor Heaton. Yes, this is an ongoing discussion we have around for paper services, to have in-house in what we contract. I think at the moment it's seen as being more cost-effective, taking into account the findings of the audit in order to have contractors do that work for us in terms of capacity, in terms of availability and materials, et cetera. So it's something, there's a general trend towards looking to in-house as much of the work as we can. We understand that, I think reality is at the moment we need to continue with some contractor in order to do that.
Thank you, Councillor, for that. Is that under kind of active consideration? Having some, I'm not saying we've been in a position to take over every scaffolding job, but is it under consideration to have some element of in-house scaffolding capacity?
Through yourself again, Councillor. Yes, I think way more than that is all aspects of contracting work that we do at under active consideration.
Councillor, a separate question, it's quite a specific one. So the report notes that 20 something thousand was spent on scaffolding a three-story building to clean the gutters. And I don't know the going rate of scaffolding, but that seems expensive. And I think that is in there to draw attention to the broader kind of issues around tracking and governance. But could you speak to that example? I mean, how is it that we spent that much on scaffolding to clean some gutters?
Through yourself, convenient, I would probably need to come back to on that if that's okay, that specific job. I can imagine there is a reason for it. In terms of quite often we get, once the scaffolding's up, and you're at that height, you find other things that you've done, but we'll be happy to circulate if that's okay, through yourself, can be in a full commitment.
Yep, we'll get that circulated. So I had a couple of questions on this. So this was, maybe it's a language thing. At 2.1, there was a request that a process to monitor and provide an overview of scaffold should be created in stored centrally. And then management response was, however, the storage space is limited to enable this to be stored centrally. Now, for me, I thought it was like a digital storage, is what I imagined? So you saying that housing property doesn't have enough digital storage space to manage a register of scaffolding? Because that's extremely concerning, if that's the case.
I understand conveying that this is space or in the server that's available to hold down. Digital space, that's what I was told. Yes.
I'm astonished. I mean, that would be like some kind of Excel file or something, surely. Like it's a digital register. And housing property does not have access to enough storage space.
Yes, please.
There's probably something about the types of files that support it, so they're pictured and they could be quite big size. So I think that's probably important. But I don't think that the server and the G-Jive is the only way that that information could be held. There could be other ways that that information could be held. And I think the thing that we picked up was, and it's a theme through the report, it was really difficult for us to pick through the records. And there's a lot of reliance on corporate knowledge and people know things and that puts us in another within your just possession.
So that was gonna kind of lead into my next questions 'cause the whole from like 2.1 to 2.4, I did feel like it feels like management are not accepting the findings and the recommendations. And it's very kind of caveatated. And actually, these are things about best value for the HRA, which is tenants' money. And I don't have confidence. So quite simple things like a documented procedure. We've talked about procedures already today and their need for them. For high level, scaffold orders should be created and this talk about a flow chart, but it's not really sort of confirming that that will be done. And there's a thing about looking at if scaffolding is required over the seven days, making sure that it is actually needed, that it's not just being left up. And in terms of the invoice checking that it would only be done if the invoice, like the initial amount, I think, and the invoice match. So like the quote and the invoice match, but other than that won't be, it would just be automatically done and not checked. And for me, that felt pretty concerned and given, you know, it's been left up for a very long period of time, maybe because the work hasn't been planned and it's a very high level. We're not automatically, we are automatically approving that and we're not going through a checking process depending on the level. So for me, it feels, the management responses did feel a bit like, oh, it's fine nothing to see here. And I feel like there are a few things that do need to be seen.
If I could clarify, but we accept the findings of the audit, no question about that. I think that I'm looking at the report here. So the automation aspect, my understanding is that's what happens currently and we're seeing we're going to review that to be more robust about it. I think that's where the audit's picked up. Not that that's what we're going to move to and we're going to have picked you up incorrectly. So I think fair to say there were good discussions about the outcomes here and what we're going to do, but service director, I accept that there are areas we need to improve on here and there's no question we will.
And we are, I mean, I've cut down an amendment, which I hope people will agree with other commitments. I agree with to refer this report to housing homelessness and fair work because I think as the GRBV member, I would like to know that that committee is kind of asking for some reassurance around that process. Is that something you'd be kind of happy to report back to housing with and say how you're improving those policies and procedures that's helpful? I have Councillor McVay, then Councillor Heap, then Councillor my work.
Thanks, King Vitter. And I think really helpful if housing homelessness and fair work can look into this in a bit more detail because certainly from how it's presented even from a kind of audit perspective, I slightly worry that corporately, the council is in a bit of a tick box space. And this whereas I think we need some really, really quite tight gripping control over this area. I think some really helpful questions here from Councillor Heap and yourself around the model of this. And I think the model is, leads to council in quite a difficult space. And I can't wait to ask about that specifically. And it's not a million miles away from Councillor Heap's question, but in terms of the nature of some of these requirements, they are of an emergency situation sometimes who have to get things incredibly quickly done with buildings at potentially at risk. There's an example of which people will be aware of in Ankerfield right now where the council stepped in and procured scaffolding, but scaffolders have told those residents that the rates the council is quoting for what they're paying are, I think the word criminal was used by one of the scaffolding companies that were asked about the rates that were being quoted. So can I just ask before we get to a point of acquiring or using people in a framework, there's obviously a process which has quite ticked box in terms of the council testing the market and making sure that the council is getting the best price for it through the council process, but can I ask what independent market analysis there is or these costs as part of that process? Because last thing we want to do is get to position where the council is uniquely, and it could be in this situation where the council's facing costs are dramatically higher and residents would be able to secure in the normal kind of private market. And I suppose I'd want a bit more assurance on premiums paid for quick delivery where that is essential in quite a lot of cases that we're doing that.
Thanks for yourself, Camino.
Thanks, Councillor McVay. There's probably some points there only to combat you, and I think in terms of the analysis done to get onto the framework that's done, that's robust, that's done with procurement colleagues, later after I couldn't answer the point a Councillor knows McVay. So if you're happy, I'll come back through convening it and circulate that to committee just to give you clarity.
I think that's fine. I mean, we're not the executive committee on this, and I would be quite happy. If I can almost fair work, we're into these matters in a lot more detail than we'll be able to today. But it might be helpful to convener if that kind of comes full circle in that discussion and outcome, once it's looked into a lot more detail from your own suggestion that that comes back to this committee just so that we can sort of take a look at what any outcomes potentially are, 'cause I'm not sure as things stand now have ringing endorsement of the procurement process and the cost of the Council is paying for these services.
Thanks, Councillor Knows McVay. I suppose I'm thinking through the comes full circle, 'cause we're really referring this audit report to them with a couple of suggestions, but in terms of coming full circle, I mean, I'm hoping that that executive committee will ask for a report based on this to kind of say where is, what's the future of scaffold management for the Council? And I suppose if any report, I mean, we could specify, we can't tell them, but we could say we'd quite like it if you'd request a report on this and then send it back to us for review and see if they do want to do that in that committee, if people are happy to make a little amendment to the amendment, so I'll maybe have a think about that and bring in other questions. So there's Councillor Heep and they're not going to Council them out.
So let's just come back on the storage issue of the pictures. I think it'd just be useful to get some clarity on this because we pay CGI millions of pounds and if it's the case that we can't give us some enough storage to have some pictures of scaffolding, that's pretty ridiculous. I suspect that's not the case, but it does, I don't want to get who hung up on these particular pictures, but raise a broad issue that if that is the case, then that doesn't seem like we're getting the service we need from that IT service.
So do you want to come back on that, Derek?
I can maybe, I suspect you're right, Councillor Eber. I think because my service has a similar system where I would imagine Derek's colleagues are looking to store this on the actual asset system, Northgate in this case. So colleagues that are working on properties can see the scaffolding photos alongside the case. What is usually the case is that the back-to-back contract with that IT provider has a certain amount of memory space built into it because it's either on or off site. So I think we can take that away. I think it's probably likely that it's actually in that system where colleagues would want to be hyperlinking at that provider is saying we need to procure more space, but given the discussion we've had today around process and procedures, if we can make that process better by having these pictures in that place and that's a business cost we just need to take on.
Can I just think that it's important to be clear? My understanding is that it's not kept within Northgate at the moment, and I think it does link back to the lack of an overall process to be clear where the information's held. There is a reliance on things being held in people's emails, which at just from a record's point of view is not good. So I think there just, you know, it links to making sure the process is reviewed properly, and as part of that, the records requirements are considered, and I will be honest, I don't think the management action is robust enough to really consider what all that had recommended, but back to the conversation that we have with Councillor Miller-Aerler, you know, in general that has to respect that it is up to management to manage the risks, but that is why we present it to committee so that committee has the opportunity to scrutinise that.
Thanks, Laura, Councillor Mayard.
Thank you, Kavina. I have to say that anyone who has had to sit through the statutory notices scandal from the Council, the words scaffolding do bring a certain amount of concern, and there's nothing to allay that my lizard brain memory of, you know, residents being charged, it's extortionate amounts of money, often related to scaffolding. And having been through that, lessons should have been learned. It is highly disappointing to hear that we do not have sufficient processes in place so that someone knows why scaffolds there, who's put it up, and that we're invoicing twice. This is, I just, I cannot believe that we are back here, having been through that. So it's hugely disappointing to have this in front of us. And I have to say it's very unsatisfactory to hear that management decisions, management are not wanting to implement fully, what audit is recommending, because audit is responding to how we keep the organisation safe. This looks as if the organisation is at risk, not only from double invoicing, but also we sometimes pass these costs on to residents, so we're putting residents' monies at risk as well, by not having a sufficient system. I'm not, I think most of the questions have been answered, but I suppose the overlying question is how are we in a position when we're just not tracking that? And anyone who lived through the statutory notice of scandal will know that scaffolding was an area where it was very, very difficult to get clarity on things because of the nature of the scaffolding industry. And that's one of my concerns. So I think we will have difficulties enforcing this, getting the scaffolding firms to sort of necessarily enforce it, but we can do our bit at our end saying, we know why it's being procured, how long it's going to be there, are the permissions in place, we can be sound, even if the industry is difficult to deal with. And I think that's what we're looking at of this. So any, this has to go to housing home as some fair work, and if it needs to come back, it probably does need to come back at some point to check that they have recognised the concerns.
That is helpful, Councillor Milne. Councillor Jenkinson.
I did not see you, Councillor Fegender, but I'll bring you in and then Councillor Jenkinson, and then back to Councillor Heaton.
Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I mean, in one way, something as bad as this is a great advertised, I think why we should have more in-house capacity. What I've not really heard is what kind of process we have, so going into the CGI stuff or just the general take chaos that exists within the council, that when we recognise, when we identify that not having a system in place is actually impeding the work being done properly, what is in place, can anyone answer this, what is in place so that that department can then access or even build something or have something built for them, which will allow them to do their work properly and in a way that we think is accessible and transparent and keeping all the right records as well. So that's question number one. Question number two is more of a general sort of framework one. How do we, in an area that is quite specialised, like scaffolding, stop the people that are in our framework working like a cartel and inflating the prices and keeping the prices high for the work that they're doing? Because the idea, for those of the people that are in favour of private delivery of services, I thought was supposed to be competition, so you got to think it's for cheaper, but this certainly doesn't seem to be working in this area and in other areas as well. So how do we do that? It's what Councillor McVay said about some kind of independent market analysis or something to actually look at those prices as well. So that was the other one. And then just the last question, when we invoice people twice, do we get the money back?
A few things there. Deb, do you want to come in on the question about procurement?
I wondered whether Nicola wanted to come in 'cause she did come up on the screen around IT procurement.
Thanks, Deb. I'll come in around IT just to answer the first question that was asked around process. So there is a pretty robust process in place where a service area needs additional kit whether it's storage or whether it's an additional system that the service area will pull together a business case that goes forward into approval within their own direct to it, gets approved by finance, and then it works its way into digital services where it will work through that change process. That's if the service area once supported IT but the service area also have the additional, I guess, choice to be able to go and procure outside of the CGI contract. It's part of that procurement process and maybe some procurement colleagues will want to come on and maybe Richard will want to come in. But now it's part of that procurement process that is a category on the procurement form that indicates whether the service area wants additional IT and whether they're going outside of the contract to procure that just so we can make sure that we can keep tabs on all non-supported IT that's procured. Hopefully that goes some way to answer a bit of your question.
Okay, thanks, Nicola. In terms of the other parts, do you want to come in, Derek?
Yeah, thanks. Can we not? Excuse me. The system's in place. So in terms of a system that isn't working, whether it's an IT system, a people's system, a policy, whatever, ultimately that's doing to me to reach out to the internal colleagues to take the steps to fix it. That's what we're doing here. And if I could just say to Councillor Mowitt, this isn't a position where the management don't accept the audit recommendations here. We understand why they're there. We understand what we need to do. So it's certainly not the position that we don't accept them. We'll be doing that. The management actions are identified there. We'll be taken, as I'm named there, I'll be taking responsibility for making sure they happen. In terms of the equations about the framework, I need to take that away. I wasn't involved in the framework negotiations around this. It says here that there are two key scaffolding contractors. I don't know what's available in the city. I don't know how many are. So that's a question I need to take away and speak to procurement colleagues about. And in terms of, do we give the money back? If we know we have issued an invoice twice and received payment twice, then yes, of course. We'd be giving the money back. We'll identify that.
Thank you, Derek. Councillor Jenkinson.
So when it comes in regards to storage, which I think has been one of the reasons that's been quoted in the paper, whether that's internal or external storage, storage has never been cheaper. So I actually don't accept that position at all. It can be procured for next to nothing these days. I think there's a theme that comes out and it comes to this committee quite regularly around whether we're in control. And I think we've got more of our records. Management question, to be answered, rather than a storage issue to be solved. And I think it is right in proper that this goes to the relevant executive committee and that is therefore walked through and scrutinized by that committee. And then comes back so that we can see that there has been an improvement because I've got a general concern about records management in the council. And I think the storage issue, for me seems to be the one in a number of, and I don't like to use the phrase excuses as to why things haven't been done. But I think as excuses go, storage is a pretty poor one.
I think we do probably wholeheartedly agree with that, Councillor Jenkinson, Councillor Heath.
My question was already, I don't ask.
That's helpful. So we have, I've got an amendment. And then I'm really thinking, just from actually this discussion, which has been really helpful. And I'm sure Derek, 'cause in no uncertain terms, very clear that we feel that this needs further scrutiny. I'm trying to think about the best way to process this or I am slightly looking at Gavin because we've talked about this, so we had our, I can't remember what it was called, we had a workshop last week. And it was about sort of how we, our processes. And one of the things we talked about is when we refer reports, sometimes we're referring them. But I think we've had a very detailed discussion, we've raised some very key and specific areas that we feel need addressed as a entity. And I feel like to refer this to housing homelessness and fair work, it would be really fantastic to see someone, an officer in some department could summarize that because we can't be webcast. But we don't know, it can be quite challenging for other people at a lot of time. And I think that actually to refer this with a summary of the discussion that we've had, is that something, I mean, who could, who could do that Gavin? Is that something internal audit might be able to do or would that be better done in the service area or governance?
I mean, I think we could, if you, if you refer this and ask that we include the, the main points of the committee, we can provide that and we'll liaise with Laura and team just to make sure that we all agree and we've managed to fully see what the committee are doing. And we can send around the committee as well, just to make sure.
Okay, that would be great. I've also just from the discussion that we've had and Councillor McVay's point, knows McVay's point about something to come back to us. And actually, I think we sort of asking them and we can only request, we'll politely request, but I think the strength of feeling on this in the kind of level of concern. So I would propose to add, verbally, and I've written it down for you, would be, that we add at the end, requests that a report is asked for by Housing Homelessness and Fair Work to cover the approach housing property will take to address these issues raised in the order and the, in the audit findings and that report is referred back to G.O.B.V. for scrutiny of improvements to processes and procedures and also covers, 'cause I've been adding as we've been talking, and also covers a review of the procurement and framework arrangements because that's something that's definitely come up as well. Do you want me to read it again or people are happy with that? I mean, we could send it round. Should we send it round? I'll type it up. Should we take just five minutes and I'll type it up. (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) So I've sent that to Andrew who will send that around and actually in writing it. I think I tied it up slightly from what I said to you. But so I think that we can kind of put that to one side 'cause we still have a couple more audits to go through. So if we go through them and then we can summarize everything at the end. So the next one is the agenda. Do we want to, just in terms of, I mean, I suppose it doesn't really matter. We're not going back anyway. So should we just do the be a gender and then we'll come back and do the last couple of audits. Okay, so we turned the webcast on to turn it back off again if everyone's happy to go into a be a gender session. Thank you. (silence) Are we back, Clive? Perfect, okay. Okay, so next one is annual validation audit. Are there any questions on the annual validation audit? So I had one on the allios. It was about the financial reporting and I just wondered, so obviously there is no financial reporting in some instances. And I wondered if there'd been any assessment of the potential financial impact on the council of us not monitoring that or if that would be something that we might be looking into. I don't know if Gabby maybe wants to pick that up. Doesn't that look like he does? Yes, I will happily repeat the question. So it was about, so in the annual validation audit, one of the red findings was around the allio financial sustainability. And it was just that there had been no, it said that there had been no financial reporting of some allios in some instances at all. And I just wondered if there had been any kind of financial impact in terms of the fact that we're not monitoring the finances of allios, if we've done any kind of assessment of what financially the impact of the risk for us could be of not doing that. If we end up obviously being as happened in the pandemic, where we had to bail out a number of allios and support them in various ways, if there's been any kind of assessment of the financial risk that sits around us not having that reporting coming in. Thanks, Kavina. So I think one element that is useful is that the financial impact of allios is included in annual assurance for each directorate. So it's a question on the annual assurance schedules. For each directorate, is there anything in those allios accounts that would impact on the financial accounts of the council? And we also send annual assurance schedules to each of our main allios to ask them the exact questions. So there are elements, for instance, which are picked up to ensure that any issues that come around about allios would be picked up through our processes. Obviously, there's also a close relationship with directors and the allios to ensure that if there was any issues that came up, that was reported to finance and through Richard's team. So there are processes which are in place, despite that lack of financial reporting. But I think there is a question about how we can improve that and how we can ensure that that is taken into account more. One of the things that I think is clear in terms of looking at the allios in terms of the governance framework is that actually the importance of allios and their impact on the budget is quite significant. The council's obviously got a huge budget. But actually a large part of that is not discretionary. A large part of that goes to statutory services and staff. So actually £10 million to this allio £10 million to the allio is actually a huge part of that discretionary budget. And the importance of that, I think, needs to be looked at more. So how we look upon that and how that goes through the system needs to be worked on more. And we need to be ensuring that we're doing that in a more comprehensive manner. Part of that is due to the work that we're doing on the governance framework. That is going to be talked about how we do things better in terms of officer internally and about how we ensure that those reports and those issues are going up to CLT and going up to the executive directors in a better and more structured way. So that's part of the work that we're trying to do and every director and the chief executive that's spoken to is very keen for that to be pushed forward and for us to come up with a more structured way of doing that. Also, in terms of that framework, we're looking at reporting to committee and making sure that we get that right and making sure that we are providing the information that should be provided to committee that it is proportionate, that it is appropriate, that it is not trying to do the job of the board of the company, but it is given the council the information that it is necessary. So that will be another stream of the framework that we're looking at and reporting. And we have been looking at that and discussing that with the different organizations as well. So for me, there's a couple of elements that we need to work on, which will look to improve that. I suppose finally the next element I think is useful for us to look at. I suppose that impact on the council is the LAO itself. And one of the recommendations we'll be putting in the LAO framework is that following the framework being agreed, hopefully, that a review of that organization, its future, how it is, working is it doing what the council wants to be doing, should be done in a different way. Does that organization want to do something different? The whole shebang, so to speak, needs to be looked at and reviewed and filtered through the committee system. So I think for me it's those three elements, how we can improve our governance internally to make sure that we're looking at that financial elements more, to have better, greater clarity on the reporting and to ensure that that is doing what we need it to be, but that is appropriate and proportionate. And that we're considering the future of LAOs with those organizations and working out what is the best way forward. Hopefully that's answered what you're looking for. Thank you, Gavin. Councillor MART. Yes, sorry, I took a bit of time to navigate where we were in the papers, but I found myself wrong now. I had a question about the operational processes for admissions and appeals, and we talk about checks on addresses, and we talk about birth certificates. Now, a birth certificate is not going to give you a proof of address. So without getting into the details particularly, I think they're talking about something different possibly. Can we just confirm that those checks are in place, that that's all happening, and that that action has been dealt with in order, are sort of happy with that, because given the pressure on schools and at that time of year again, this is quite an important one. That is in place. There's a new online portal that makes all those checks, so that bit of the process is working. Can I ask you an order of seeing that and I'm happy? I need to confirm. I think the thing for us was actually about QA on that, so it's about the checks that have been done to check that that's working right, and that's where we were coming from at Fort, and I think when we went out to validate this, management felt that wasn't required because of the new process that was in place. Does that make sense? Because when we originally did this, the gateway portal was not in place, it was a really manual process that people were taking things into schools. So all I want to know from both the director and from the head of internal audit, we're both happy this is happening and that action is all signed off, even if it's in a slightly different way than any other. Okay, I can't see any further questions on this order. So should we move to the change program, an older people's pathway plus where this is a good audit with significant assurance? So there may be no questions on it. I can't see any questions on it. We might actually finish off with it by lunchtime at this rate. And then that was the audit since the internal charter, and we'd had that discussion on that, but I think that would have been picked up in the first discussion on the report. So I think possibly we might be at the end of the internal audit report. So I was going to move the report with my addendum, which I have also circulated a variable amendment to around the committee, which I hope everyone's seen and is okay with. And just given what we've just been talking about in the B agenda that we would have also a business bulletin update on that monitoring as well, which may have to be quite strangely a B agenda business bulletin, but that will be very exciting if that happens. So with that, I'm happy to move the report and my amendment with those verbal adjustments. Can I get a second up? Formally seconded, you know. Thank you, Councillor McPherland. Oh, and I should say be very happy to accept as an addendum to that, Councillor Thorne, these amendments as well. So if you want to move. Thanks, Governor. I've got a small verbal adjustment as well, just to add at the end, I've sent Andrew the wording just to add at the end, and requests to consider monitoring progress on implementing the recommendations, just to keep it in line with the discussions we've had as a committee about making clear why we're referring something. I think there's not much more to say. I move. Thank you, Councillor Thorne Lee. And to second? Yeah, formally. Thank you, Councillor Unite. So I think we can, I think we're all in agreement on that. We are happy to agree with the recommendations as amended. Thank you. Shall we take a break for an answer? Come back in 45 minutes, 42. Thank you. Okay, welcome back, everyone. I hope everyone is suitably refreshed, so we're going to 8.4, Andrew. Okay, so the next item is item 8.4, the public performance scorecard quarter three. We have an SMP group addendum to this item, and we have Catherine Stewart and Julie Severn speaking to the report. Welcome, Catherine, is there anything you want to add to the report? Yeah, I was just going to say, so this is performance. It's the second version of the quarterly performance scorecard that you've seen. It gives you data up to the end of December. I know elected members are very keen to be talking to us about additional measures. We have arranged a workshop for the 30th of May, so we'll pick them up there. Other than that, happy to take any questions. So can I just ask, in terms of the workshop, we're going to have a quite detailed look at the measures, but also kind of the way things are laid out, the information we're being given, and we'll be able to, because I think that was one of the things that we'd had. This is new performance reporting, which is really good that it's coming here, but I think we'd had a few kind of discussions around the first one, and that's why we put in a workshop, but we've had the second iteration come out, the second quarter, before we've managed to get the workshop in, but there is still quite a lot of scope for change, and is that right? Absolutely, I should just mention that on your initial feedback, we've already changed the charts, so we've taken away the average, and we've put in that kind of longer-term trend for you. That's the only change we've made this time round, but you're right, the workshop. We'll get into the due sale discussion of format and measures. That's great. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Councilor Mina? The answer to this might be bringing it to the workshop, so if that's the answer, that's fine, but I have a couple of questions about communication of the scorecard. First of all, on the broader piece, putting a PDF or any kind of document on the Council's website is one way of reporting a scorecard. I wonder whether there's also something about taking the measures for specific services and putting them into the sections on the website that relates to that service, so that if you're an end-user looking at saying, Oh, my waste bin hasn't been collected, or something like that, you can actually see how many bins the Council collects, and what performance looks like while you're logging in to do that, so that you've got a sense of where you are in the bigger picture, because I think that having a scorecard sitting to one side or reported in a specific area is useful, because you can see all the measures in one place, but if I'm a resident, I'm probably not interested in all of those things, but I'm particularly having a problem with one thing, and having that sitting at the front of that section might be interesting, so that was one thing, it was more of a comment and a question, I hate to be that person. And the other thing was on the promotion, so in the report, you said that there's going to be promotion via Facebook and LinkedIn, and I guess my question was, is it anticipated that that would be from the point of view of sharing factual information with our public, or is that from the point of view of some of these statistics are a great, good news story, and we are promoting how well the Council is doing, because my hope is that it be the former, but I'm a bit concerned it might be the latter, so I just wanted to ask about that. So, thanks for your comment on format, we kind of continually look at how we can be more transparent, so I'll take that way and take that into consideration. Yeah, from the data performance point of view, we would always try and give that more kind of factual, here's how we're performing, we always try and give that balance, rather than it's a shiny, shiny. Councillor McPherland. Thank you, so just firstly, a comment, I think that the layout, for me, as a visitor's committee also is amazingly clear and understandable, so a good job to your team for producing it in that way. My question, again, as a bit of a visitor's committee, is that there's no theme or indicator for access to culture or physical activity in sports, which we've got two massive strategies, and a new citywide culture strategy also, which is quite important, it seems like we're kind of missing out on, especially in a city like Edinburgh, so I just wonder if you can touch on that if there's an opportunity for expansion. Thanks, so we are set, we've got a workshop in the 30s of me, specifically because this is kind of the first version, we want that kind of feedback about other areas, all other comments that have come in on various different areas, including culture, that kind of in a long list for us to cover that workshop, just to see that kind of opportunity. Oh, Councillor HEAP. Thank you very much. Can I just ask about the climate section of the report, the climate change section. So this has a single indicator, which is CO2 emissions. It's obviously a major indicator, but it's not the only one. We can look at other things that are in a control like tree planting. It would be useful to have some indicators around the nature. So what scope is there for perhaps broadening out the indicators here? So we have a better overview of our struggle against climate change, other than just emissions. So thanks for your question. So we're aware that climate change, we've got one. I guess there's a couple of challenges in that area that's around this report is around, because it's coming here quarterly, we want to kind of give you the indicators that are updated on a regular basis, quite a lot in the climate changes around annual figures. It doesn't mean we wouldn't include them, but it's just a consideration. And I think the other thing is about those longer term indicators. So quite a lot of the work in the climate change is something that we're trying to do and say a two year thing, and then it's done and dusted and we move on to the next thing. So we're not trying to put projects in here. I do know that you've been having conversations with elected members about, sorry, council officers have been having conversations with elected members about additional indicators that might be pulled in here around sustainability, climate change, and all of that. We'll bring that, I hate to keep on seeing it, but we'll bring it to the workshop types that consider how we can include the next one. So we would expect climate change to get bigger. Thank you. So I wanted to ask, I've got, and I know I did really think about right in this, or maybe I shouldn't because we've got the workshop and I know we've got the workshop, but it just feels like a really important indicator to me and it sort of jumped out that there was no data. There is data for looked after children achieving literacy, but there's no data for numeracy, and I just wondered why that was, and then why when we get to levers, and I've realised I hadn't been that specific in the amendment, but it was specifically around looked after digit, so there's data around deprived areas but not looked after children, and that in terms of like a key monitor, the thing we should be monitoring is around the attainment gap. That felt important, and I just wondered why that wasn't available. So the more we're trying to do here is find that balance between enough indicators that give you all of the perspectives you need. Without kind of adding in extra indicators that give you the same perspective. So for looked after children, we do monitor both literacy and numeracy. They're both telling the same story that there's a gap and we're working hard on that. So at the time, just because of the numbers that were already in the education space, we decided just to put one in. So we put literacy and we could have put numeracy in. We've got it, so we can definitely add it, but it's going to tell you the same story. So I appreciate it might tell the same story today, but if we don't add it in and maybe in the next quarter, it might tell a different story and we've not got that indicator. So for me, the data on looked after children feels important. I don't want to do a free-for-all look like, well, I did everything. I think the workshops are really important in space, but I feel like we have a kind of duty of care. We are corporate parents. I feel like we should be monitoring looked after children in terms of these indicators. And that's fine. I mean, internally, I guess I was trying to reassure you that internally we are tracking both of them because you're both key, so there's no reason why it can't go in. That is helpful. I can't see any other questions on this. I'm sure everyone's really looking forward to the workshop at the end of the month. So I'll move the amendment. If I can just maybe add in for all, I'll read it out. I'm going to add in another looked after to be really clear that that's what I'm talking about. So notes that in the education section, no score is given for primary looked after children achieving numeracy and there is no attainment gap data at all for -- and I want to add in looked after secondary school pupils or levers, because there is data for secondary school pupils or levers, but it's not looked after one. So if everyone's happy with me adding that in, I will just move that. And I think I've just said quite clearly why I think we should be monitoring that data as well. So I will move the report as amended if I can get a second up. >> Thank you. Is there any other positions or committee happy to accept that? That's grand. Okay. So thank you, Catherine. I think that's the report approved. >> Okay. So the next item is item 8.5. The corporate leadership team risk report as of 25th of March, 2024. And we have Chris Lawson and Michelle McMillan speaking to this item. >> Welcome, Chris. Michelle, is there anything that you want to add to the report? >> Nothing to add to the report can be done. >> Okay. Are there any questions? Councillor Menner. >> Thank you very much for the report. And just one question about how we might achieve this. So I'm interested in the report potentially in the future showing us more about the path towards target risk appetite. And I just wondered if you had any thoughts about how best to show that potentially in the report if we chose to do that. Because I think that's possibly with some of the risks being out with appetite, something that we need to be thinking about. >> Can we answer you? So, yeah, that's something that we're actively looking at in terms of how we include that that can feature under the post in the future. I suppose one of the things we touched on here previously is that it can be challenging because while we can create dialogue with the directors and looking at the risk responses, we can create what would be that path to within risk appetite as it stands at the moment. But there can often be additional factors that take place during that path to becoming within risk appetite. But then, again, push you back out towards being out with risk appetite or require additional action and can create competing demands in terms of achieving that overall time scale. So I think for all we can look to articulate that in a way that will set a clearer time scale for being back within risk appetite. I think we just need to bear in mind that there can be other factors that can encroach that and can have an overall impact on whether we can achieve that definitely or not. [inaudible] >> Inclusion of heat apps and future reporting will certainly help in terms of risk tolerance because you'll be able to see the risks coming out of the day. You'll see the movement more easily than what you see currently in the current reporting format, so that will support. >> Yeah, I think if there's any movement in where we are with a risk that's helpful to see that. And it's then trying to work out without giving ourselves too much work or unnecessary sort of reporting just a bit of a sense of what are the key things that need to be done that will bring us back in appetite. What are the barriers to that happening, whether it's financial, organizational, whatever the thing is that's preventing us from getting there. It's just that very high level and I think it's fine if something happens that means that we're stymied, you know, it's not fine, but it's understandable. But it's just about being honest with the committee and making sure that we are well-cited on that so that we understand what's happening in the world. That means that we're being prevented from getting ourselves back within appetite. >> Yeah, just excuse me, just briefly. I'm pleased to hear that heat maps are going to be included in further iterations of their support, because I've kind of always felt that it would ease explaining kind of narrative in the general direction of travel. And I've kind of always felt that whilst having a rag state, it tells a story without a kind of heat map behind it. It's just colors, sometimes just colors on a screen. So I'm pleased to hear that and I would encourage you to do that. So that's good. Thank you. >> Do you want to respond on that, Michelle? I wondered if it might be helpful, because we did have a workshop, but not all members could attend, because members are obviously working as well. And I do wonder if it would be helpful to kind of go over a bit of the longer term plan, because at the moment, this is kind of reporting. It's kind of changing every time it comes back, and I think we can all see that we're getting more information and it's responding to members' questions. But there is a bit of a larger overhaul that you're planning and you're thinking about tolerance and appetite and how we monitor that. And I wonder if you maybe want to outline that, Michelle? >> Yeah, thank you, Commissioner. So what we want to look at in future is really the difference between appetite and tolerance. So tolerance is really about how you control the risk and then we're looking at the heat map. But appetite is really more about the amount of risk that the organisation is willing to take, and it's really based on the different behaviours. So we think that would be the best emphasis. So looking at appetite linked to risk category, so for example, health and safety type risks, we would be aware. So we would want to make sure that that was all clear, that the risk categories were properly defined and aligned, and through the risk workshops that myself and Craig Patterson and the risk team undertake. We would really be spreading the word on that, and I think that would really support in terms of the reporting as well as the decision making. So that's the direction of travel that we're looking at. >> Thanks, Michelle, and I think we were talking in that about, so obviously we as a committee don't set the risk appetite, PNS set the risk appetite, but then we monitor the risk appetite. But we did have a discussion on that committee, which also had PNS members there, so everyone was present or was able to attend anyway, that you would in setting out the next risk appetite that that's something that would be circulated to members of our committee. And we could come back together and have another workshop where we can all kind of, because last time there were, you know, we had different views and people wanted to change it, so we can have that quite robust discussion and quite detailed discussion about where we think the risk appetite will be. And then even though we may come to that committee, PNS, which obviously is different from ours, trying to set different risk appetites, at least we'll have had that kind of discussion and debate and understand where that's coming from. So I think that would be helpful. I don't know if there's anything you wanted to add, Chris or Michelle? >> Yeah, just I think that would be fantastic, just to look at what the proposals are and to look at what the examples and almost scenarios to make sense for that would be great. Okay, so I do have like one slightly more detailed question, it's just something that jumped out at me, and it was around the finance and budgets of one for Richard. I wasn't quite sure, so under the current controls, at the end of the first paragraph, it says the IGB pressure. The net pressure is, however, being contained within the overall council would balance position with an assumption that the majority of the overspend being met by the council in 2324 will then be repaid over a period of three years. And I just wondered, is that repayment coming from, that we're repaying ourselves effectively, because we think we'll save it from with our own budgets? Are we expecting a saving from the IGB over three years, because I think I'm looking at that phase? That feels unlikely to me, so I just wondered what was going to sit in behind that? I think it's very fair question can be now, and currently, as it's worded, and the recommendation that would go into the outside report would be that what we would anticipate would be proposing is, out of the anticipated IGB overspend position, two million of that relates to transitions that the council has passed over, as in transition packages that have passed over the council, that remain there is other source of overspend within the IGB. We would be putting forward that we would address our overspend as part of the wider corporate picture for the council, but as I say, we're a repayment period now. As I said, we obviously know that the IGB is under a huge amount of pressure financially, whether we would want to enforce that repayment would be something we would want to consistently monitor in debate, whether we would want to do that, given the position and the evolving financial risks. But that was the current thinking at that time at the moment. Okay, so it's the current thinking, but I mean to me it feels very unlikely given in the conversation, but it feels quite difficult. And I suppose I would like in part of this, looking at the controls around this, I suppose I'd want to know that we are a scenario planning within the council that we would have to, but how we would cope if we have to absorb that and that's kind of built into our financial planning as well. Yeah, I can absolutely show you a convener that's built into the current plans. So over the last few months since the last monitoring report, we have put in individual service plans to mitigate down the overspends that were reported at the period 10 report. So we have seen improvement, we're still confirming the final figures, provisional out turn that would still be subject to the audit. We were planning to provide that report of the F&R on 27 June, which will include that. Okay, thank you. Council agenda. It's a short question, but it kind of fits into some of my favourite themes. One of my big concerns about even the existence of this committee and the concept of good value and risk is that quite often it's really just an artifice to kind of pretend that somehow we're in control of local government delivering services when we've almost lost control because we don't have enough money to actually deliver the services that we know we should be. I was a bit curious about what the meaning of this is that there's a couple of the reports where at the end it says that the risk appetite is being reviewed on a constant basis and that's it. But then we do which is the finance one and the health and social care one, but then we have health and safety who have actually given a date that's not, well, just actually said it will remain out with appetite through 2024. So what's the difference between admitting that it's going to remain out with and saying that we're constantly going to review it, because as someone who's not an expert on that, they were going to constantly review it. It doesn't actually seem very meaningful to me as the sort of timeline when risk should be back with an appetite. And are we allowed to just say, under current circumstances, there is absolutely no way that this can be brought under control? I mean, I'm not an expert on these things, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Absolutely, so I'll try and break it down into the different aspects of your question. But I think in terms of the continuous basis, I think that's just very much an abbreviation of a continuous financial process of reviewing expenditure, reviewing budgets, income streams, having insurance framework in place and financial controls in place. All the normal things that you would expect any organisation to do, and also all of the statutory responsibilities that we do have, such as producing the statement of accounts, reviewing the balance sheet, all of the financial returns that we provide. So I think it's very much an umbrella term for us assessing financial risk to the council in probably a very short sentence. However, I'm always happy to expand on the ways that we do that, and we mitigate risk and try and get ourselves back. I think just in the second part of your question, and I think I would be happy to provide further detail on this, I think in terms of reaching back out towards the amber risk appetite in the finance section. I think this is all completely dependent on the budget process for the 25/26 financial year. So I think this is a really important point that you bring out, Councillor, that we should absolutely have a plan and a report that would bring this back to having an amber risk at an amber level of risk within the finances. So at the moment, we have got a quite wide range of risk and scenarios that were within the budget. So, as it says in a report here, 160 million over the period of the MTFP, we really need to make sure that we have got really robust plans in place, especially for the impending year, but making sure that we make decisions that are going to affect the medium term and getting us on to a sustainable footing. We have got the first F&R report that is bringing the next revenue framework update, and I think one of the things that we want to look at as part of this work that we're doing with the risk appetite and risk tolerance level is make sure that we absolutely position that report in terms of the options that we'll put in front of members that these are important decisions that will move us more towards an amber target in terms of risk. Chris, you want to come in? Thank you, Kimbina. So this was one of the points that we touched on during the member workshop around an exercise that we'll undertake in the risk team to try and map back the risk appetite as it stands just now, again, to what are the underpinnings that currently drive us towards having the risk appetites that we have at the moment. Is it statutory based? Is it policy based within the organisation? And through that, we can have a more informed position when we come to engage members further on the next setting of the risk appetite and risk tolerance within the organisation. What we need to see is that this is a decision-making tool for the organisation, while it may have underpinnings that link to regulated requirements and obligations, the risk management approach itself is not a regulated approach. At an organisational tool to help in decision-making, prioritising where spend or activity should perhaps take place over somewhere else. And I think given a particular challenge is that public sector faces with the pressure-run resources, actually risk management tools potentially can program a far more powerful tool in helping make those decisions and help explain why decisions are taking in particular points in time based on a range of pressures, both internally and externally. Thanks, Chris. I can't see any further questions on this report. So with that, are we happy to agree the recommendations? Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 8.6, the Strategic Program Board, and we have Stuart Connell and Julie Severn speaking to this item. Hi Stuart, is there anything that you want to add to the report? Hi, nothing further to add, happy to take comment. I've got a question if no one else has anything straight off the bat. I've got a couple of questions actually. So one of the things that I was trying to understand about this report is there's a number of projects in here and I'm wondering what we're doing with them. I'm wondering what the role of this report coming to this committee is because I have the feeling that some of these projects should be going to Executive Committee. So if I look at the projects, I'm looking at one, for example, the first one, the Inclusion Service Project. So I think, although I'm not totally sure that that's ESB/ESP, that has been on our program board for a while and I didn't really understand what it was because this is a very, very small paragraph of information that we have. And then found out all about what it was when parents of disabled children were coming to me really terrified about what was happening in terms of the next school year. And I had, and collectively as Councillors, we've had a lot of concerns about that process and that had come to light and it hadn't come to Councillors at all. And so it really worries me that this has come to this committee and I'm not having a degree because I realise that you are the overseer of this, the board as such, but not of the individual projects. But I have real concerns that there's projects in here that should be going to committees, that should be getting that detailed policy because I think if that first one had gone to Education Committee, there would have been quite a lot of issues raised, that probably would have been headed off earlier, discussions with parents, that kind of engagement that didn't happen. And so I suppose my first question is, is there a process within the board where you're looking through the project? And one of the first things is, is there oversight of this project other than at the strategic program board? Is it going to committee? Is it politically sensitive? Is it something that should be getting oversight from Councillors, and is it getting the right level of oversight and approval as we're moving through the process? So that may be a question for you, it may not be a question for you, it may be for someone else, but I would appreciate if someone could answer that. Do you want to start? I was going to say I can come in, but it looks like Deb's. Yeah, I'm just going to say each of the projects, thank you for the question first of all, each of the projects reports to the strategic program board, and we understand that they should, or we'll go to different executive committees. The role of the strategic program board is just to make sure that all the governance is placed, to make sure that the projects are progressing as they should. But I think in terms of the actual tracking, when we look at them monthly, I think the question that we don't probably ask is, or we could ask is, is it going to certain committees? And we can take that forward, but I'll pass to Deb's. So I think when you've asked questions convener about why does this report come to this committee, and I guess that's always a bit of a difficult one in the sense of, we're not really asking you to scrutinise the individual projects. But to have scrutiny over the governance of the program, and are we kind of monitoring the right things? And I think therefore, are they going to the relevant committees and when have they been, is something we could look to add into the report? Because I know we've sort of struggled on a couple of days to think about what is the most useful information we can bring to this committee. And again, we're happy to have a workshop with committee, if that's helpful, I know another workshop, but maybe that is helpful. I don't know, maybe it's not, but we can just take it up offline, because as we bring more and more projects into the strategic program board to monitor at the officer level, that they are delivering the outcomes required, which will have clearly a more and more key focus on the financial sustainability of the organisation. I think that's very key that we get the relevant work going to the exact committees to oversee those, and then providing this committee with the relevant information to scrutinise the governance and that process. So happy to continue to work on that with you all. I'll come to the minute, Councillor MURPHY, and just want to follow up on that. So I appreciate that. So I think one of the governance things that I would like to see is this getting the proper scrutiny? No, I don't want to go through every individual project, because that's not our job, but I think it's our job to make sure that we're required the executive committees are doing that. And then the other thing is, so my first question, what is this for? I was looking at this going. So if this is about financial long-term sustainability of the organisation, then I'm not getting that financial information in here either. And so maybe we're quite workshop-heavy, but maybe we don't need a bit of a workshop to say, if this is something that's going to report to us, what is it we need to understand? Because for me, it feels like it's that financial monitoring part of our role, and I think we need to have a bit more detail. So actually having a kind of offline discussion I think would be helpful, so let's do that at some point. Okay, I can see none. Councilor McFarland? Thanks, Commissioner. Again, as a kind of naive person visiting this committee, I just interesting in the kind of, when you distill down some of these projects into a tiny paragraph, it's very different to how you receive them at executive committees. So I'm looking at future libraries, for example, and the work streams, and it's quite clear in terms of what that review is expecting to do, such as deliver services in fewer buildings, reduce opening hours, and other reviews that were kind of very much in the scope. And just so wondering then, just comment on how when you come to GRBV, it's quite distilled in terms of the intention of that review, but it's kind of packaged quite differently if you're an executive committee, including some democratic decisions that have taken since then, including amendments that have been passed contrary to some of the comments that are the expected outcome of that review, yet they're marked green. So I wonder if why amendments that have been passed since then are not kind of flagging up as an amber, surely, as because actually there is a problem because there isn't democratic agreement to pursue some of those intended outcomes. I hope that makes sense. Yeah, I can come in there. The level of detail that we provide on some of these reports, I think, as Deb says, just indicated that it's just quite is quite high level and they will report to different executive committees, things like libraries, for example. I don't want to comment on individual ones that I'm not the project manager or the SRO for. So within this strategic program board, we monitor them. This is just as of March. So we've not got the April update there. So if the status of that has changed, it would be based on the SRO and the project manager updating us at the strategic program board, which is at the end of May. Sorry, Commander, can I just briefly add something on that? I think possible links to the point before as well. So I think Councilor Mullins created there was a motion or a amendment that was approved that sets out selling the intention to not to seek to close buildings, but I think the key thing for here. And put into your point as well, Commander, if we were, for example, illustrating a table here that said, what is the scope of this project financially and timeline wise? Members would at that point say, okay, well, in terms of why are you doing this and how long is it going to take? You'd say, yeah, as with all projects, we should set out a scope that says, what are we trying to achieve, what the benefits we're seeking to achieve? We do that, but it's clearly doesn't come through in this because actually this is carrying on what used to be called the major projects. Members have been around for a long time, at least the major projects portfolio, that's kind of moved on into the strategic program board. But actually the difference between major projects and this is actually, major projects were generally kind of big capital projects, whereas this is moving into more transformation and capital projects. So there's maybe, I mean, I'm telling, do you want to suck eggs? He knows this better than I do. But if we were to maybe update this, that said to members, okay, actually, broadly, is this for the benefit of the MTFP or is it just service improvement? And if it's for the MTFP, what's the expected saving? I think it's a fair challenge that maybe we should take away between colleagues and say, actually, who sponsors this scope? Because standing orders would say, if you're taking a contentious decision, members take that, and actually, I think what I'm hearing from some councils is, wait a minute. And again, Monday's area on the inclusion. But if there is a view of members, wait a minute, we want to sponsor that scope before you as officers start working on it. Then I think I'm fair in saying that I'm sure colleagues with agree, we can weave that into governance to make sure that members get to sign off that scope. Yeah, I think there's a bit about governance. It feels that there's a missing bit of governance in terms of exactly as Council McFarland has said, have there been amendments that might impact the strategic program? Board is working to one set of outcomes, but members might have taken different decisions, but also has there been that back and forward between members in terms of governance around it. So that's something to think about maybe for a workshop. Councillor Mallet. Thanks. I've got two questions, now I have to get my glasses on. First about the community transport, new demand responsive travel management system. And whilst I know we're not nitpicking over individual projects, I just wanted to confirmation from Gareth. Is this the one that's been in the scope for like about the last five years under various different titles? That's the one, Councillor. If that is the one, and I've got a question about why we're now aiming, the new aim of this seems to be a world-class travel service for the Council. Given it's taken us five years to deliver anything, could we just lose the world-class on that and just have a service that does what we need it to do? Because I don't think we need it to be, given the difficulties of getting there, I think that's over-ambitious. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. If I could have just a second, which is a very quick one, and it's just on where we've got an SRO named who's leaving the Council, when will that be updated, and when will the responsibilities. We have this 20 minute neighbourhood. In terms of that particular project, we are, there's interim arrangements being put in place of Daisy. He's obviously moving on, so you will see in the next update there'll be a new SRO that would feed him through Stuart and the team and that would come through into this portfolio pack. Okay, but also I think we've agreed to workshop on that to think about reformatting it slightly. So that would be another fun thing for our GRBV diaries. Okay, I can't see any further questions. Oh, sorry, Councillor Heep. Thank you, Kavina. If I can ask about the waste and cleansing best value review, appreciate this question, might be on the board line between GRBV and the relevant executive community. So that's going to be an investor, or is an investigation into service efficiency and best value. Would those mean different things, different people? So can you tell us a bit about what specifically it's looking at and whether there's any, whether jobs are in scope, whether there could be any impact on the number of jobs available in that service? Yeah, if that, Councillor, so I can't link to the earlier point, actually, so transport and environment as a parent committee have signed off the outline of that review. It has a number of strungs. There is one service review going on right now in the waste disposal area, so that's the recycling centres. I know there is some staffing involved, but there's certainly no job losses. So the intention for us, and I think it has been put in writing, is that this is focusing on an efficient in-house service. So I know with, with trade union colleagues who have had maybe concerns in the past, this isn't looking at anything other than being in line with a Councillor's business plan. This is about having an efficient in-house service. I think as a report sets out and certainly credits to staff and trade unions, it's been a lot of good work on this. We are, you know, 2.5 million that members approved as part of the budget has been phased at £500,000. Last year have further £500,000 this year, and then £1.5 million in 2526, and Transport and Environment Committee members are fully aware that they're kind of big saving at the end. We think comes through the redesign of our curbside collection service, but again, that's within in-house service. So this, if you take this year, the way the savings been met this year was the approval of the increased garden waste charge. We've assumed, we've consumed demographic funding, but we're able to contain that within the existing collection round. So again, that's three more efficient working from our in-house teams. And we made a saving from bringing common all-glass collections back in-house from an external contractor. So they are the three way so far that that million pounds has been accounted for. Follow that up. I still hear you a little bit when you're talking about job loss, but you were saying that there's going to be no job losses. And also, can I just ask the thing, as you mentioned, about the garden waste service? No, apologies. The first question is fine, actually. Yeah, so obviously the Council has no compulsory redundancy policy, and certainly that we are working with colleagues that I'm confident with the turnover we have in the waste and cleansing service that we are redesigning jobs, but certainly no one will be losing a job unless they voluntarily wish to, which is part of our managing change policy, but certainly nobody leaving on anything on the voluntary basis. Okay, I can't see any further questions, so are we happy to agree the recommendations? Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 8.7, which is the whistle-blowing annual report, and we have Sarah Sterling, Kevin McKee, and Nick Smith speaking to this item. Okay, Councillors, not too much to add to the report. It's a slight misnomer in terms of annual report, given that it comes to this committee on a six-month basis, and that's an overlay on the quarterly report to the whistle-blowing subcommittee, which delve into the details. So this is an update on various improvements in whistle-blowing practice and some statistics in relation to the investigations that have been conducted over the previous year, so happy to take any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions? Councillor MURPHY. Yes, thank you. We list this as the whistle-blowing report, but it's actually the safe call report, because there's other ways of -- this is about safe calls statistics and how well they've done, but are we capturing other forms of whistle-blowing? Because -- or other forms of instances, how does that get fed into whistle-blowing, or do we only capture anything that's going via safe call? And I ask this because I know there's other people who are whistle-blowing in different ways coming in, but we're only presenting safe call stats here, so we're just filtering it all through that, or -- Yeah, thanks for the question, Councillor. The reality is, there shouldn't be any whistle-blowing that is not covered by safe call, so if people are whistle-blowing that it's not -- and they feel it's not covered by safe call, that shouldn't be happening. So either people are phoning safe call direct, and then that comes through our system, or people should be making a management referral, which should get referred through the whistle-blowing team, which should then get passed on to safe call. So the whole point in having safe call there is to ensure that any whistle-blowing that happens in this authority has external oversight by an independent body, which is a safe call, and then comes on to this committee. Anything that falls out with that HR type aspect wouldn't be part of this report, so you're correct in that this report should reflect -- or does reflect safe calls, but the two should be identical. So there shouldn't be any whistle-blowing that safe call is not across, and I'll be of concern if there weren't. I've got two follow-ups to that. There are instances where people come forward with information that is whistle-blowing. Now, when they come to me, and I just say you need to go through safe call, because I'm a member of GRB and I've been doing this since we started doing whistle-blowing in the council. I know there are other councils that will do that as well. There are some people that will not go to safe call. So how are we doing with that? And also, since we've sent up the in-house team under Tana, where are they in that picture if everything is going through safe call? Right, so taking the last part first, you've got the governance team, which sits within Gavin's area, who managed the whistle-blowing, and that was Laura Callender, who's now sadly left the council out of to happily retire. And they deal on a day-to-day basis, working with Craig Russell and his team, along with safe call on triage. So when any issue comes in, I think, as we discussed quite some time ago now, one of the things we were struggling with when we were looking at implementing Tana was working at all the front door, how everything comes in, and what we want to make sure is everything's coming in and getting appropriately triaged. So once something with the agreement of safe call is determined to be whistle-blowing, it sits in that whistle-blowing bucket for one to a bit of word. And it is then overseen by safe call throughout that process, working through Laura Callender's or the governance team. The investigations themselves, if it's going to be investigated internally rather than externally, will be done through Craig Russell's team, who cover both whistle-blowing and HR matters. For the whistle-blowing aspects, once that investigation is concluded, if it's been approved by safe call to be being done internally, it then gets passed back to safe call to check the work that's been done and make sure that they are happy. In addition to myself and my team, through the governance team, being happy, all the aspects have been looked at, and it is now appropriate once signed up for safe call to come back to the committee. And apologies. I've forgotten your first question. Can you remind me, please? Or it may have been the same question. Oh, people who don't want to go to safe call. So this was something that was identified through TANR, where people felt that they had whistle-blowing, but it hadn't been noted. We weren't aware of it through the whistle-blowing team. The answer is, we can try and make the system as safe as we can. And I really appreciate all the efforts that Council has made to say, please go to safe call or the police or any other body that is appropriate. We want people to bring forward their concerns. If they are unhappy about doing so through safe call, for hopefully no good reason, then I'm happy to speak to them. They are more than welcome to speak to people in the governance team. We also have, as noted here, the Speak Up supporters who are staff from across the Council, who are, in some cases, a more junior level. That people might feel appropriate. We've set that up so that individuals can also speak across direct to it. So someone from Children's Services may not want to speak to someone in their own service. They can go to one of the Speak Up supporters in a different department. The short answer is, we want people to be able to feel they can raise issues and have those independently looked at within the Council, but that's partly our cultural thing. So I had a question, so I know we talked about how the numbers, like previously, had been going up and up and there was some work done around. Well, a lot to do with Craig Russell's team, but about triaging and the numbers have come down slightly by 10. Does that feel like it's a trend? Is it because things are getting picked up and the teams working effectively? Also, I know there's none still to be determined, so everything had been determined more quickly. Do we feel it's a better oiled machine than it was a year ago? So it's definitely a better oiled machine. You can see from the statistics, we're getting through more work. I think there are a combination of things happening, and I have my own view. So some of you who have been here a long time will remember me saying quite some time ago, what is good? Does it mean that if we get fewer whistle-blowing, is that a good thing? Because actually stuff's getting dealt with in the line. People can have conversations with their bosses and their colleagues and say that's not acceptable. So rather than picking up the hotline, they're actually dealing with things at birth for one of a better way of putting it. Or should we be seeing now we've got this better system, more whistle-blowing? I don't know the answer to that, and I can't give you an answer to that. I'd be very concerned if we weren't getting that much. What I will say is we've gone, if you look, I can't certainly remember this, if you look a few years ago, we were getting probably on average between 20 and 25 whistle-blows, so from 2013 onwards. When Tanner came along, we suddenly shot up, it's a great thing, and we went up to about 70. But some of those were, I think it was nine in relation to the same issue. So you've got to, there's an element, a double count there. The statistics for this year are probably slightly lower. Now that can be a combination of factors. That could be because, as you know, we're now triaging out a lot of the HR matters. So where people previously felt that they didn't trust the HR system or the HR investigation system, whether rightly or not, because it was getting investigated by their own department, that's now not happening. It gets investigated through the independent investigations team. So I think there's more trust in the system from that perspective. So a lot of that, forgive the phrase, but sort of noise that was coming through from an HR perspective, through whistle-blowing, is no longer there. However, my personal view, and we'll see how this bears out, we kind of as many policies, procedures, this is all down to culture. It's about people being able to speak to each other, it's about people feeling able to raise issues. As Council March just said, she is speaking to people who don't want to raise issues. That is a significant concern to me. It is not something that we as a whistle-blowing team can solve. That is a whole system managerial issue, as Gareth said. Everyone needs state responsibility and encourage it and make sure people are feeling safe to come forward. So I don't know the answer to your question in terms of whether good, you know, higher numbers are better or not. All I care about is that people are able to raise issues and that they will get investigated and then any issues can be dealt with. Thanks, Nick. I mean, I suppose I did also notice that the number of major disclosures were almost the same. And in a way that maybe feels quite healthy, that if it is significant, then people are coming forward. And that we definitely want major disclosures to come forward, so we certainly wouldn't want to discourage that. I can't see any further questions on this, are we happy to agree the recommendations? Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 8.8, which is the Annual Treasury Management Strategy 24/25. This is a referral from the City of Edinburgh Council, and we have Innes Edwards and Richard Lloyd-Bittle speaking to this report. Thanks, Andrew. Anything you wanted to add? Nothing to add, Kamina? No. Any questions on this report? No. I'll cancel it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kamina. If I can just refer, please, to Section 8.1, so it's talking about environmental social governance and the Treasury, and it's quoting the Treasury Code that says it's not implied that the organisations, the Council's, ESG policy, will currently include ESG scoring or other real-time criteria at individual investment level. Can you just explain why, why not, and what impact that might have on our knowledge of where the investments are going from a climate perspective? Yeah, I can talk about that in general terms, so I think, and also just wanted to point towards a response to the motion and the commitment that we'll get back to the report within three cycles on the ESG. But I'll cover off again what some of the barriers that we have got at the moment, which we'll need to overcome for this report. Essentially, it is availability of data to make those investment decisions, to establish criteria of policies, which we would conduct the Treasury Management Strategy a lot, which would execute the Treasury Management under the strategy. And we would need access to better data in terms of the investment and the ESG worthiness. So there's a number of frameworks out there, and assessments and institutions that can assess the ESG worthiness or green credentials of a counterparty that we may invest in. But we're going to have to assess options for what that data source would be and what the most appropriate partner to provide that data would be, and what I would be aiming to do as part of this report is to look at how we would incorporate that into the strategy, and therefore the policies and schedules in which we'd execute the day-to-day Treasury Management under those. Thank you, that's a very helpful and key to our answer. Can I just ask a question about the same part of the report on that ESG issue? So it's April 1, Environmental Social Governance is at an early stage of development in the Treasury Management Environment, an early stage of development. But we do have a 2030 strategy, and it's 2024. Do you accept that we really should be further on now in 2024, rather than being at an early stage given the broader climate change picture? It's hard for me to say, because this sounds like a bit of a deflection, but I think since I've come in, I think looking forward, I would like us to accelerate our considerations on this. I think nationally it's fair to say that the councils and the Treasury Management Functions aren't as well developed as other areas, such as if we look at pension funds where they've got really quite clear care and strategies on responsible investment, I would be very keen and we've committed to making sure that we bring back some options on that and accelerate and bring us up to speed on that. So, yeah. Right, I can't see any further questions. Are we happy to agree the report? Thank you. So, the next item is item 8.9, Capital Strategy 2434 Annual Report, and this is a referral from the Finance Resources Committee, and we have Richard Lloyd-Bittle and Rebecca Andrew speaking to this item. Anything you want to add, Richard or Rebecca? Nothing for me. Are there any questions on this report? Councillor HEAP. Thank you. Sorry, I'm going to ask probably the same question that I've just asked, but in a capital context. So, at 9.5, it says the full capital costs associated with achieving the Council's 2030 net zero carbon target, and mitigating climate change is likely to be significant, but is still to be funded. Could you just explain that a bit more, so how much more is there to be funded? Again, bearing in mind that we're only six years away from it. I may have to defer to my learner colleague. It's significant, certainly, the cost, for example, of retrofitting all the Council buildings could be in excess of about £2 billion. So, given that is the full capital program we have for the whole HRA plus general fund over that period, and that's just the general fund side on top of that, you'd have the HRA side, and there is some work and some budget achieving those targets in that budget, but that's dependent on the Council tax rise of 7% going forward for 10 years, and has also kind of had problems with the reduction in grants. So, it's a significant challenge, and it's unlikely that the Council can fund it all within its own resources. We'll need a significant external funding. Can I just follow up on that answer, which was very helpful. If I can just follow the last bit, were you talking about external funding to supplement the Council's funding? Can you tell us a little bit more about where that funding is and the work under way to access that? I'm not sure it is there yet. It'd be something we'd be making representations, and it's supposed to be a UK government Scottish government. It's that kind of level where we can leverage in private sector funding, but the problem with private sector funding is that they need a way of repaying that funding, so it's developing business cases, and there will be some business cases where it makes sense that you can do a kind of invest-to-save issue and that will deliver it, but it's a lot that we just can't afford. Just one more follow-up on my convene, and again, thank you for your helpful answers. If I can go back to the first point about progress towards finding funding for the capital approach to giving net zero, can I invite you to part not a figure, because I don't know if that exists, but a qualitative description of where we are in terms of the capital approach to achieving net zero, and how far we are on in terms of getting funding. I think just housing, as you said, was too brilliant, sorry. I mean, I'm, as it's most of the I'll bring Richard in, in terms of work through Cosler. Within the city, there's a kind of group that brings together the university, and other groups of government that's a net zero leadership board, which is looking about how the city can address it as a whole, but there'd be a wider government approach, which you can maybe elaborate on a bit. Yeah, I'll maybe come in just on the property point, Cosler, because, clearly, this is at the forefront of all our minds as officers. We have the emissions reduction plan as the council, which does report through PNS, and I think it's, you know, members see and screw to nice performance on that. Our emissions, whilst our emissions reduction is projected in a linear fashion, i.e., like that, in actual fact, you're probably expecting more of a step change as we make kind of big plays. So, we take the fleet replacement project members signed off. There will be a step change when those vehicles arrive, and you'll see a step. There's probably, then, well, there is not probably, there is going to be, because that's what was approved in the investment strategy. Then a plateau until broadly 2029, when we would expect to make another step change. The biggest part of the pie chart that's in that emissions reduction plan, sorry, is the property estate. And it's there to say that is where the big, as Rebecca says, you know, that estimation of somewhere around two billion pounds is, to be frank, is not generally funded, and I'm not aware of too many funding pots nowadays that would, would fund that now through things like section 75 for building, you know, school extensions or new schools. Clearly, we're building through policy things like passive house development and renewables. We will, we funded a street lighting replacement principally through SALEX funding and on a spend to save, because it's stacked up. So, I think maybe this is Richard's background mind, but I think there's clearly a funding strategy that we're going to have to work on over the next few years on how we progress towards net zero, because things like active travel funding, for example, benefit our wider emissions plan as a city, but they don't really necessarily affect our SERP as a council's emissions, so that's a spending money to reduce the emissions of our citizens and visitors. The SERP is more inward locking, and that two billion that Rebecca's talking about is literally just on our inward locking emissions as an organisation, not outwardly looking across the city. So, it's a challenge, but it's a challenge we need to lean into and try and find solutions to. I'll just add that, if that's okay, Councillor. Just to round all that up, I think Arabs have two, right? We need a funding strategy around that. But I think, unfortunately, in terms of conversations about external money, national lobbying, cosler, all of these really key stakeholders in terms of everyone is collectively working towards this position. There's not much real, from my point of view, some magic bullet in terms of external funding that is going to solve this issue. If we're going to do anything, it's going to have to be a local funding solution that we will have to do. Now, I think there is a lot of important decisions that we can take through the budget process to re-paratise the money that we are spending. So, we've got this issue, we've got a £1.3 billion budget. In the capital programme at the moment, we have not got any headroom within the revenue budget, as it's currently agreed, to borrow much more. Not certainly not for the amounts that we are taking, but as part of the budget process and the core work that we want to do that, if, collectively, as members, we end as an organisation, as this is one of our business plan priorities, we collectively need to work together to free up that money to work on the priorities, whether it's this or any business plan priority. And the only way we're going to have that funding strategy is by taking some of the important decisions on where we spend money elsewhere and re-paratising that. They're going to be the quickest and most effective solution to make sure that we're getting value for money in all of the areas of the business, an organisation to reinvest in these priorities. But that's ultimately a decision that we'll have to take through the budget process. Question, Karina, if that's OK. I appreciate it. So, just to be kind of aware of time on this, we have spent quite a long time on this report. We've still got quite a few reports to go through. So, I'll allow another question, but if we just could keep questions and answers as short as possible, that would be great. Thank you very much for those answers. And I think it does sound like we're still way off in terms of getting the funding for these net zero capital projects. Can I just ask, under 8.1, that you're using the Stupid Climate Economics to classify capital investment, according to the impact on net zero. So, 54, positive to some extent of 39 neutral and 7% unfavorable. So, that's 46% unfavorable or neutral. I know we've had this conversation before. And some of it is embedded carbon when you knock down a bad input of anyone. But is there any scope within that 46% to make that favorable and not just neutral or unfavorable, given that climate change is really, really bearing down on this? It does seem, given the situation with climate change at the moment, it does seem not great. That 46% of capital standing isn't making a direct contribution to tax and climate change. There's probably some scope within the 39%. The 7% is related to the non-electric vehicles we've got in the current fleet strategy. And where we're building new buildings on green, un-previously developed landscapes that we call that soil ceiling. So, that's ultimate. Those are clusters unfavorable. In the 39%, the neutral and defined, you've got things like, I suppose, improvements to buildings you're doing anyway. So, you could up the spec and make them more retrofitting and more environmentally friendly. I think they're undefined because we don't quite know what we're doing there. There'll probably be elements that are favorable there and elements that are more neutral. But we haven't got the details to bring that out. So, probably that 39% is probably hidden. That also includes the affordable housing grants we issued to both the HRA and housing associations. A lot of that new housing, particularly, that's being developed by the HRA is to a high environmental standard. So, that would probably be more favorable. But until we know the exact who we're paying the answer, we've just lumped it in as that neutral and defined category. Was there another question? No, I misunderstood that completely. OK. All right, if we don't have any further questions, are we happy to read the recommendations? Thank you. OK, so the next item is item 8.10, which is the annual assurance schedule for place 22-23, and we have Gareth Barwell speaking to this item. Thanks, Andrew. Gareth, it's a written thing you want to add. No offense coming in, you just have to take any questions. Councillor Jenkinsham. It's just for clarification, unless I'm just completely confused. But in the recommendations in 1.1.2, it says that the place that HRA annual assurance schedule for 2324 should be submitted for committee scrutiny in 2324. Is that meant to be 24 or 2425? That's just a typing error, so apologies I should have picked up. No. So I was confused, and that's fine. Councillor MACK. Yes, it was another question about dates, given that the date on the annual assurance schedule is April 2022. And it says on the first page, this is the for the year ending 31st of March 2022. And I'm just wondering how relevant it is to be scrutinising this document two years later. Perhaps I think Alison might be there, but I think that might be a more of a data issue than a kind of timeliness issue. I think that's more of the case that that date is in direct council on this is the this is the 2223. So that should read April 23 as opposed to April 22. But I don't know if Alison you want to clarify at all. Councillor apologies. I didn't pick that up previously. This is the statement. The place is annual assurance statement for 2022/23. So for the year that ended 31st of March, 2023. Okay, so it's still quite and this is a conversation we have every time. I think we have the same conversation every time we have an assurance statement, which is the writing's too small. And it's very out of date. But if we had them all in a wonder, would you want to do one of these for every service director at all in one committee meeting? Because I don't think we do, especially with the writing being so small. And then Gavin's just had to leave, although he is going to come back, but he's had to go to another meeting. Then we talked to Gavin about the fact that really we couldn't probably narrow this down to something not quite as lengthy, cumbersome, wordy, and quite. Because again, looking at this, it's one of these things I think we could all sit around and probably have like five questions each on this because there's a lot. I mean, I've got a few questions, but I also think it's probably not the most, it doesn't feel like the best way to get assurance on this. So I think, oh, I feel another workshop coming on or something to review these. But I think Gavin's not here, but I think he is as part of his assurance, governance, and assurance framework work looking at this. I'm pretty sure that is the case. So I think we can maybe take all those things as comments on the record and hopefully we will see those improvements, but Councillor MAYOR, what you wanted to come in. Yeah, when I was reading this, I couldn't quite work out whether it was '22, '23 or '21, '22, but if Allison says it is, I'm not going to dispute that. My other attempt to, I was the other question I was tempted to ask, which really picks up on your point, was just to ask Mr. Barwell, what's changed since 2022? Because actually that's what we're trying to track, is where things have been identified. And there's a whole load of things that are very repetitive in here and in every other place, in every other assurance statement, because it's a list of what the government's documents the Council has and how you're ticking the box because you're aware of it. And I'm sure there is a better way to do that. And I don't know. I think that probably does need to be, maybe it's a subcommittee needs to sit down and pull these together with a Councillor. A very short life working group of one meeting to pull it together with it, to pull it apart with Gavin and say, what do we really need, what don't we need. And can we, I think it feeds into much bigger, bigger sort of technological improvements the Council could make. I think that's probably true. I do wonder if a short one meeting subcommittee is actually the same as a workshop though. I suppose it could be, couldn't it? Well, yeah, I suppose so. We could do one or the other. We'll do something. I think, I do think probably we need to sit down. But I also think, it's a shame that Gavin did have to leave just before this because I think, I do think he is working on this. I remember we've had conversations with him and he is looking at this and these are a bit out of date. So we'll put workshop question marks. Gavin might just circulate a brand new format to us all and we'll go, that's brilliant and that's what we'll do in future. I think in terms of the substance of, it doesn't seem to be any specific questions on it. So I can't see any further questions. Well, you have to zoom in and wear glasses. That's the secret, that's the trick. So, no further questions. We're happy to agree the assurance statement. Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 8.11. Capital theatres, company performance report, 22, 23. This is our referral from the culture and communities committee. And we have Lindsay Robertson, Crawford Hunt and Brian Loudon speaking to this report. Hello, welcome. So is there anything that you wanted to add to the report? Could I add something? Sorry, Lindsay Roberts here. Yeah, so I just quickly, yes. And I'm sure members are well aware, but to highlight a correction in financial impact, it's 6.3 in the report. And it should read that the council has agreed a £7 million capital grant, the King's Theatre Capital Project. The commitment was increased by council as part of budget decisions in February 23. And so apologies for that not being accurately updated in the report. That was my main addition. Thank you, Lindsay. Is there anything else that anyone would like to add? No. I'm going to dive in because we had a discussion earlier on the annual validation order. And one of the issues that come back was allios. Not having regular reporting of financial risks and not sort of detailed financial reporting. And even at the start of this report, it literally tells us what our job is, which is not to do what culture and communities do, which is to look at the kind of strategy and what has been delivered in terms of culture. It tells us don't look at that, look at the financial performance reporting. And there isn't really any. There's like a little bit of information about, you know, around the King's Theatre, about what's been lent. But I don't know what the turnover is. I don't know what the financial risks are. So I suppose my request would be in future. And I'd quite like us to receive a briefing note about the financial health of the organisation and a bit of kind of the accounts light, if you like, just a kind of summary of that, because that's what we're meant to do in this committee. And also if we could, in future, make sure that we do get a more detailed financial appraisal for this. I think that's probably more of a CEC request. So on that, are there any financial risks or any areas within the finances that you think we should be aware of? I guess nothing significant in terms of this year. We've had a good year. We've had a lot of big shows, Hamilton, which some of you know about. So we've had a lot of customers have come back to kind of pre-COVID levels. So the turnover's been good. The trading's been good in the bars. And the costs have remained low, although obviously, utilities like every other business is going up. And we live in wage for accredity. So that kind of salary increases came in. But we're still doing the year-end results in the month, but it's probably going to be a small surplus this year and forecast the same for the next year and go forward. So, yeah, that's the main summary. That's very good to know. Are there any other questions on this report? Nope. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Are we happy to agree the report then? Thank you. Okay. So the next item is item 8.12, which is the Edinburgh Ledger Annual Report, Referral from the Culture and Communities Committee. And we have Graham Crouch, Jen Holland, and Kevin Johnson speaking to this item. Welcome. So nice to meet you. Jen, hello. So nice to meet you. And obviously this is the first time you've been to this committee, but welcome. Is there anything that you would like to add to the report? Nothing. Nothing to add to the report can be known, but we're all happy to take questions. Are there any questions? So I have one. Probably won't surprise you. I would like to understand what's sitting behind the kind of longtime strategy around the rural living wage and how you're hoping to approach that. So obviously we've had our annual funding from CEC this financial year. As part of that funding agreement, it's asked us to do an efficiency review internally. So we have a report going aboard next Monday that talks about sustainability review, which will incorporate the efficiency review, also talks about the fresh in our aims and vision and also setting out that strategic plan, which will do in conjunction with CEC officers and obviously the board at that time, but our plan is to look at that in the next six months, to define all the efficiencies and income strategy for Edinburgh leisure and then to bring that back. Are there any further questions from committee? I have one. It's actually possibly taking a little bit of liberty here, but it's a kind of ward-related issue. So I was scanning the annual report and I noticed that the Edinburgh leisure facilities in Berlin High School weren't mentioned once. There's a bit of concern within the community that Berlin High School is a little bit forgotten about and left behind. And I was just wondering if you would like to either address my concerns or the concerns of the community that is quite difficult to book pitches and the availability of the swimming pool is a concern within the local community. I'm not aware of the specific concerns, but I'm happy to go back and try to understand them. If you could give me more detail about what concerns are, I'm happy to deal with that back in Edinburgh leisure. I'll do that separately. Thank you. Councillor MURPHANN. Thanks, Commissioner. I'm just wondering if you can give us a wee bit more information about the assets that you have that are performing ahead of budget, which is welcome. If those kind of figures further call me for the swim centre, etcetera, and the climbing arena, if you think that's the ceiling in terms of what's achievable for those assets or whether there's actually further gains that we could make over future years. Councillor MURPHANN. Kevin's probably closer to this in terms of delivery of income, but obviously we've completed our 23, 24. Annual counts, Kevin and the team have drafted these. We've seen a significant increase in income across the board in this last financial year in terms of memberships and just usage of different facilities. So Kevin's probably talking more about the detail. As we talked, as I mentioned, we're looking at a sustainability review in terms of actually increasing our income levels and looking at all different kinds of strategies in terms of tourism, in terms of business to business, looking at all different options in terms of that. So I do think there's opportunity for us to increase our income levels across our estate, as well as all the incomes that we've seen come to from membership levels. Councillor MURPHANN. Thank you. If I could just add to that. Thank you for the question. EICA being probably one of the best examples. We used to have a very challenging environment, EICA, sitting a way out in the west there. That venue over the course of the year that we've just finished has made a surplus of £74,000 that compares to pre-COVID of a deficit of half a million pounds. So there's been a massive turnaround there. We've invested a lot. We've done a lot of restructuring, so helped to grow income there. So EICA is one of the assets that we're now really seeing a dramatic improvement compared to where it used to be. But we're seeing that across a lot of other sites as well. So we put a 10% price increase on last year. So anything I'm telling you about income there that in mind, Craig Lockhart's income was up 18%, Ainsley Parks was up 19, Grace Mountain, Leith Victoria, 24% on the year before. So there's been a lot of good growth over the course of the year that we've just finished. And I think it's important to note that we are still behind where we were in usage terms to pre-COVID. There has been a dramatic shift in the number of customers coming into our venues in total because, you know, people are still working at home not coming into town as much as they were. So if we're looking alike for like basis, take out MedoBank from this current year compared to pre-COVID, we're about 9% below on usage overall. So that's helping to feed into the reason why we are still finding ourselves in a financially challenging position before we look at other things like particularly energy costs that are rocking in about £2 million more this year than they were pre-COVID as well. So there's lots of things that are still causing pressure, but there's lots of good stuff happening as well and very good developments and a lot of good strategic intentions to move forward as well. Can't say. If I can like to just follow up a couple of questions to your question coming about the real living wage and related wage issues. So in the report, or in the document you've given as it says, active discussion around paying the real living wage, can you just give us a kind of timeline when all the staff are going to be paid the real living wage? The staff have received the real living wage, so that went in on the first of April 2020. That's what I thought. Yeah. So is there an intention to keep doing that forever more? Is it just, we obviously it was funded and that's been for the budget year, but is there an ambition to now keep that in place? We'll have to go through the financial strategy for it, but a leisure of aim and looking at that sustainability review in terms of what we can afford moving forward today and looking at all the areas that we can increase, so we will endeavour to come back with a plan in terms of what that looks like over the next. My aim is to do a five-year strategy for what we're looking at. Can I just ask about kind of reporting of this as well? So when this came up at committee, whenever it was, it would have been sometime last year, I think one of the issues was, I think, just we were surprised that as far as, from our point of view, living at a leisure under your predecessor had stopped paying the real living wage and we felt like he didn't know about that. So would you commit in future to keeping us really well informed about any decisions around the real living wage? So I think we need to avoid that issue with the hard work. It was kind of, we found a nasty kind of surprise in a report that actually the real living wage wasn't being paid and we didn't know about it. Absolutely happy to keep committee updated on where we get to with the future financial strategy for even a leisure. Can I just ask as well, just in the next paragraph on that report, after talking about the real living wage, it says it refers to recruitment difficulties. And do you accept that? I appreciate the real living wage is being paid now, but previously not paying the real living wage might have had something to do with recruitment difficulties. I think there's been a number of factors that have impacted on our ability to recruit and one of them will be in and around pay, but I think there's a number of factors that have impact on that in terms of young people being available in the city due to COVID's universities not being in and just lots of inflationary factors that have impacted on our ability. But recruitment is increasing in terms of adding a leisure, so hopefully we're in the right track now, but it's probably a contributing factor. Okay, I can't see any further questions. Thank you very much. We're happy to agree with the report. Okay, so the next item is item 8.14, the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board Chief Officer Update, and this is a referral from the Policy and Sustainability Committee and Pat Toga will speak to this report. Is there anything that you want to add to Pat? Just to remind ourselves that this is a report following a commitment that I gave when I come into post, and it's in the spirit of the full-party motion, just to make sure that the committee is as brief as possible. It was a very minor amendment, not amendment to the report, but just to update, given some of this, is slightly dated and it is in relation to page 497 on your papers under items of governance in paragraph 2. It's just to update the revised in-year financial pressure recovered fairly well. We were projecting in December that we were due to over spend by £6 million, and we are just over £4 million, and this is hopefully recognition of the additional grip and control that we put in place in the remaining months of the last financial year. Thank you. That's helpful, thank you for the update. Pat, are there any questions for Pat on this report, Councilor Fagenda? Thank you. I was wondering if there's any way that we can measure in the EIJB, how much of the money that's being saved, which is genuine savings, new way of working, better ways of working, and how much has just cost the service, sort of just reducing what we were given to people, et cetera. Is there any measurement of that? Because I know that you have to make hard decisions, so just wondering if there's any measure of it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. That's something we would probably have to take away and give due consideration to. I suppose one area that we could factor into this is the over-prescribing of packages of care, which is referenced within a number of reports, and we were perhaps seen as a bit of an outlier when compared with, if you like, the national average in relation to care provision in arrows of care that we're providing, and we've done an awful lot of work in that in the last few months, and our current projections are coming much, much more in line with where we sit nationally or where we perhaps should be, and given our focus on maximizing independence and not necessarily over-prescribing packages of care. So that's probably one area that we could look at as a saving, as opposed to a cut, but I don't want to gloss over 60 million pounds while the savings will translate quite specifically into very, very significant cuts. Thank you. Councillor MURPHY. Yeah, I suppose just building on Councillor Fuchenda's question, it would be helpful, and firstly, I think, I think it's the first time anyone from the IJP's come here with good news about them having less of a deficit than we were expecting. So, actually, I would like it put on the record to say, well done, congratulations, and we'd like to see more of the same. But could you give us a... Could you... Is that about cuts and services, or is that about, you know, grit and control, whether it might be lacking? Because I think that's important for us to understand, because we don't underestimate the scale of the challenge, but it is good to see some progress being made. Thank you. Thank you very much for that, Councillor MURPHY. That's really genuinely appreciated. There's probably a few things to say. When we recognised that the in-year financial projection in December was looking more like 6.2 million pounds, opposed to 2.2, that is what resulted in the audit that we had discussed earlier on. So, there was a 4 million pound variance within that that we were looking to, first of all, I suppose, stop the trajectory that we were on and then try and pull this back in. There was some very quick decisions that the IGB were required to take, fairly uncomfortable decisions that I need to emphasize. A large part of that was on efficiencies, but it was also about pulling staff into a centralised review team, which then carried a fair element of risk to it, because they had to stop what they were doing in their own existing case loads, to review, reassess packages of care, and then to resize them accordingly. So, there's an element of risk attached to this, which I suspect will uncover and move forward in the next few months. But a large part of that is also just being about the additional grip and control, the touchstone earlier on the oversight of high cost, review packages of care and low cost ones, and it was also about the efficiencies. But it has been a pretty intense of a few months about getting this here with us, but it's been largely in relation to pulling in what we have as existing resources into this to carry out these reviews. And we've turned over an excessive amount of reviews of resize packages of care appropriately and proportionately. But it has involved a fairly large amount of the workforce having to stop what they were previously doing. Okay, I can't see any further questions, so are we happy to agree the recommendations? Thank you. So, I did actually mean to say this after the last report, do we want to take a break? We don't have very much left on the agenda, but I am conscious we have been going for a little while. Ten minute break. Also, can we just agree? I'm not expecting it to be long, but we've got two motions. Neither of them are mine, so I'm not saying this for myself. But I've been reminded there's a four o'clock rule, but I'm happy to wave it as long as people keep moving and seconding brief. So we will allow people to speak to their motions even if we run. But hopefully we'll get in before four anyway, so fingers crossed. Okay, ten minutes to come back at half past. Okay, so the next item is item 8.15, which is the internal audit annual plan 24/25 annual report. And this is a referral from the IJB Audit and Assurance Committee, and we have Laura Calder speaking to this item. Thanks, Andrew. Is there anything you want to add to Laura? Just for members to be aware why this comes here. So the IJB Audit and Assurance Committee, it's not a public meeting, so the papers are held online. So the referral comes here for members to see it. It works the other way, so we make a referral of the council's plan to the IJB Audit and Assurance Committee, so there are a way of work that's going on that impacts Open Social Care Partnership. So it's really just here for information. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Laura. Are there any questions on this report? No. Okay, so can we agree the recommendations? Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 9.1, which is the motion by Councillor HEAP, PVD and insurance checks. Councillor HEAP, you want to move? Thank you, Kavina. A couple of months ago, we got an audit report that drew attention to some concerns around PVD and insurance checks, just as a reminder, I'll quote the bit that we were concerned about. In relation to healthcare provider, in addition to quoting, compliance activities such as PVD or insurance checks were stopped during the recent pandemic, and as of December 23, have not yet, have yet to resume. So we were very concerned when we read that, because on the face of it, that says that PVD checks were not done. My understanding from following that up with officers that the PVD checks and insurance checks were done, but they're kind of spot checks on them. To check the checks that had been done, those were the things that had not been done. I think that's less concerning than the PVD checks just not being done, but it's still quite concerning, because we don't know they are being done unless we check that they're being done. So I think it would be useful just to kind of just tie this off as a committee, because in a way we made, I think, quite rightly, a first about that, our last committee, the other one before that, and although I've received, I think some generally reassuring assurances from officers, I think it would be useful just to, that's just an email that I got. So I think it would be useful just to get that formally as a report or an update, I think this suggests, so we can kind of formally say that we're happy with this or we're not happy with this and we can do something else, but I think just to make sure that we're progressing this, this is all the motion is for, and it just asks for a briefing, just looking at giving us confirmation about which checks were not done, and if some checks were not done, why not, if any risk, or this is with a risk committee, so if there was any risk to service users or to staff, what work has been done to establish whether this happened elsewhere, because that was to check that audit on a healthcare provider, so we don't know whether it was just that provider or it was more, it was widespread. I believe there was an action planned for improvement in a reference in a press statement, and it would, from the IDB, so it would be useful to know what that is. So it would be useful just to get, it's just a briefing roll for a report, just so we can see that's progressing where it needs to, and we can reassure ourselves, everything's generally okay, or if it's not okay, then we can keep pressing for some further action. And to second, it was slightly good. Do you have a seconder? Yeah, Councillor Malauk? Just four, really, thanks. Contribution to Councillor Uni. Thank you. Apologies, sorry, Councillor Miller. I just wanted to clarify, when it's a briefing, is that intended to be a written briefing? The clarifying briefing to Councillors, is that a written briefing or a verbal one? I don't know what the mover of the motion was intended. That was my intention for it to be writing, yeah. Part of the issue here is just transparency as well, so it would be helpful it was a written briefing that the public can easily access. Okay, so I just wanted to make a contribution myself, so I wholly support this. I think we should get a briefing. Just to say that we had actually at the time, I brought an amendment to us for a report which I checked the cycles, and it is June next month. And that was to cover, because it was in the Supplier in Contract Management Order. And there were concerns around non-contract spend and the Insurance PVD checks, and what we agreed to come back in that report, which will come in June, was that we would set out which Direct Reports or Service Areas have the top 10 highest number of contracts when there's been a failure to carry out PVD insurance and compliance checks. So that report will be coming back to us in June, and I suppose that if we have this briefing formulated to us in this written briefing, and we still have concerns around that, then we could put an amendment to that report to then get further information back if we still have concerns. And we should get more information then, so that's a process available to us. But yeah, we would very much support this motion. I can't see any other contributions, and no one's moving in an alternative position, so I think that's the motion passed. Okay, so the next item is item 9.2, motioned by Councillor Jankinson, IT Service Availability. Let's move to Councillor Jankinson. Yeah, so I mean, I'll briefly try and be brief. I mean, I won't apologise for pushing CGI and digital services harder. I kind of feel it's forming a need to be more semi-permanent role now. I think I'm just trying to... I'm trying to just push in the right direction and change your mindset. And, you know, maybe I appreciate in a slightly different way the difference between a planned and an unplanned outage and what's appropriate and what's not and what mitigation is and how it can and how it can't be done and when it can and when it shouldn't be done. So the purpose of my motion is just to kind of throw down a bit of a marker and make sure that we're thinking about the citizens out there who are actually trying to do, either try to do business or try to communicate with the council and what impact decisions that we have could have on them. So with that, I don't really need to go into much more detail. It's pretty self-explanatory. So formally, I can't even move into opposition. So formally, councilor Jenkins. Formally for me. And is there a seconder? Councilor Fuchenda. Yes, genuinely, formally. Second. That was definitely formal. Are there any contributions on this or can we all agree? I can see Nicholas got a hand up, but Nicholas, this is motion so we wouldn't normally come to directors or officers at this point. But I think that is no other position. So that's agreed. So that motion is passed. Thank you. Okay. So that takes us to 10.1, which is the resolution to consider it in private. The committee is requested under Section 50A4 of the local government Scotland Act 1973 to exclude members of the public from the meeting for the following items business on the ground that they would involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 12 of part 1. Of Schedule 7A of the Act. Are committee happy to hear the next item in private? That's agreed. And so that if anyone who is not here for this item, if they could leave and thank you everyone for your time so far. [ Silence ]

Transcript

Okay, so version two of the meeting papers were published on the 5th of May, 2024. Motion and amendments have been circulated electronically. For members joining online, if you could please use the hands up function to indicate to the convener that you wish to speak. If members are planning to substitute for a particular item or a particular point, please make this clear to the convener by confirming who has left and who has joined the meeting. Please note that under Standing Order 2215, each item is subject to a 40 minute time limit unless agreed by committee under the order of business. The convener has discretion to allow proceedings to continue beyond this time limit.
Thank you, Andrew. Just a slight change to the order of business. We have Councillor Lang's motion at 8.2. We thought it was quite helpful to have Councillor Lang come and speak to us about it. And so he has come, but just in order to facilitate that, is everyone happy if we take that as the first item? Then we'll go to deputations and then we'll pick up the order of business as set out in the papers of everyone's agreeable with that. That's grand. Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 2.1, which is declarations of interest. The Councillor's code of conduct requires members to publicly declare interest in the items being considered at the meeting. These interest can be financial or non-financial.
Are there any declarations? Councillor uni.
Just on item, sorry, 8.13 I'm gonna step up because I was in the Finance and Resources meeting of the 30th April that referred this on to this meeting.
Thank you, Councillor uni. Okay, I don't think there are any other declarations of interest, so I think we're good to move on to 8.2.
Okay, so the next item is item 8.2, motion by Councillor Lang, safety of Council operated heavy vehicles, referral from the City of Edinburgh Council, and Councillor Lang, speaking of his report.
That's my line.
Thank you very much, Counvenor, and thank you to the Committee for rearranging the order of business, so that I was able to come and speak to this. I'm very grateful. So as members of the Committee will be aware, my interest in this whole issue came about because of the death of Thomas Wong, and a living year old boy, who was tragically killed following a collision with a commercial bin lorry on White House Road in Crammond, in Crammond and Barnton, in my ward, back on the 1st of March. A number of measures are being taken forward in response to that tragedy, and have been a matter of some discussion at Transport Committee. But I think it's important, as I said it through Council, when this motion was passed, not to view Thomas' death in isolation, because we have seen other tragedies involving HGVs in other parts of Scotland, most recently, the death of a living year old Elizabeth Bell in the borders, and a 56 year old cyclist in Beers Dayne, both of which, both of whom died after a collision with publicly owned bin lorries. Now as I see, the tragedy that happened in Barnton did not involve a council owned or operated bin lorry, but I think all of these tragedies together, I think should give us cause to think and reflect as to whether we are doing everything we can to improve safety and minimise the risk of collisions, injuries, and fatalities. And I was very grateful when, you know, I got unanimity across Council for the motion that's been referred here to the Committee today. Now I appreciate that this is a bit of a two stage process. The Council's decision should be a discussion here, but this is a very much a precursor to the report that I know is being worked on now, and which will come back to this Committee in due course. But I thought it might be a helpful convener for today to maybe set out the five key questions that I am looking to get a student's own, in which I hope the report that comes forward will be able to answer, and upon which this Committee and policy and sustainability will be able to scrutinise. Question one is, are we making the best use of technology to help maximise the safety of our existing HGV fleets? Because we know there is technology out there that can and should be used. Two, if we're not making best use of technology, what are the barriers to us using that technology and how best can we overcome them? Three, what are the training and fitness to operate requirements, both initial and ongoing for operators of large vehicles, and are these requirements being rigorously enforced? Four, what if any operational changes are available in terms of when and where HGVs are deployed to minimise the risk to others, and particularly to more vulnerable groups? And five, what is the process for review, learning from best practice from others, and ensuring that we are constantly learning about further safety enhancements going forward? I want to finish simply by saying that I know that officers have taken all of these issues extremely seriously. I know there is a real interest and a real desire to use the tragedy that we saw with Thomas Wong, but elsewhere, to ensure that we really are doing everything we possibly can going forward. We cannot remove risk entirely, conveniently, but for this committee in particular, given the issues that you look at every month, I think it's right that you are satisfied that the Council is doing what it can to minimise tragedies like this in the future.
Thank you very much, Councillor Lang for that. So one of the things you've asked is for that report to PNS, but also for an addition to the internal audit plan. And I have put an amendment to that report to ask officers in internal audit to view the webcast of this discussion when they're looking at the scope of that audit. So I think those things will be picked up as well. I wondered, I don't know if any officers, if Gareth or anyone wants to add anything, and then we'll go to questions from the committee.
Thanks, convenient. So I would agree with Councillor Lang, as you'd expect. Councillor Lang have spoken, and now I've spoken on this on notifications. I am confident that operationally, we have good controls in place, but I recognise for nothing else for parents across the city after what happened in Banton, it's good reassurance to have on public record that we are looking into this. So the addition to internal audit subject to lowering the team's agreement on this report, we're more than happy to come back to committee and give a thorough update on that.
Thank you, Gareth. Are there any questions either to Councillor Lang, or Gareth, Councillor Thornely.
Thanks, Covina, and thanks, Councillor Lang. It was reported in the evening news a little while ago after a Freedom of Information request, I think that only about half of Council HDVs at the moment have this advanced braking system you mentioned, in the context of pushing forward on best practice for this, and given we already have that data in hand, what do you see this audit particularly under report PNS ultimately adding to our discussion on that?
Yeah, so I think the information that came out showed that in terms of purchasing new vehicles, I think it is as a matter of course that this AEBS system is applied. Obviously, it was a specific recommendation of the 2015 fatal accident inquiry that local authorities should seek to retrofit that technology on existing fleets. But the data suggests that only around half of the existing fleets are equipped with that. Now, I recognise that is not a cheap process, but I would hope that that would be one area that can be looked at, and I see that because mercifully, we, cases like what happened in Barton, are very, very rare. But we do have data that shows that in terms of number of collisions, actually collisions can happen a lot. The data suggested around 200 a year. So the risk is there, but I think the question is how can we ensure that not just the new equipment that we are purchasing, but the other equipment which we're still using, how that can be made more safe. And I think that's going to be a key area to be looked at going forward.
Councillor Schender.
Thank you, Counvina. Councillor Lange, there's quite extensive research being done not just in the UK, but across Europe, especially by the European Transport Workers' Federation, about the causes of accidents. And one of the consistent factors is the poor working conditions and the driver fatigue that exists in what is seen to be quite a chaotic sector, where working conditions are very poor. So I wonder what thoughts you had about that, because although there are certain things that are within our control, within our workforce as a council about safety aspects, we still are dealing with a private sector that at times, and I'm not going to say is always that way, doesn't look after their workers, and we've got that aspect of the fatigue, which is it's been in reports up to 60% of accidents have been because of driver fatigue.
Councillor Fletcher, I think that's an exceptionally important point, and I'm very clear that there is no single thing that needs to be done. It will need to be a package of things, and in fact, one of the things I think which actually came about, I think I'm right in the same, it's because of a very helpful SNP addendum on what we might be able to do when it comes to the very significant number of commercial HDVs are operated, 'cause I wanna make sure that we've got our house in order, but you're absolutely right. When you're thinking about risk to the public, actually just in terms of volume, actually the biggest risk comes from non-counsel operated vehicles, and I remember the amendment that came forward that looked to the scheme that's been established in London, I think we would need additional powers to implement here in Scotland, but I think to take your wider point around the need for us to look holistically across the piece, including looking at how commercial operators are working, and how they use their fleet, and the conditions which apply for drivers, I think that's an exceptionally important point.
I can't see any further questions from committee, so thank you very much, Councillor Lang, and I'm sure in turn, it will view that discussion when looking at the scope as well, and I'm sure Garret's team will also take on board that discussion when we're going forward that report, so thank you, Councillor Lang. So, are there any further contributions on this, or are we happy to agree, 8.2? Agreed, sorry, Councillor Heatman.
Yeah, it's just a kind of factual question for officers. We will keep on your show records where a CEC vehicle has been involved in an accident, whether it's an injury or worse. I take it, we are collecting that data, and that's under scrutiny, very pretty frequently.
Yeah, thanks, Councillor. So, we absolutely do have the Council Health and Safety Group that's led by senior officers, and their collection and data is presented to the Health and Safety Group on a regular basis, and monitored with through-course analysis to say to the points that have been made by Councillor Pergender, what kind of causational issues that might be driver error, maybe there's lots of, you can imagine the fleet of the size we have, there are lots of vehicle-related incidents, many don't result in an injury, mercifully, a few do, but not serious, so we take that very, very seriously and do scrutinise that, yeah.
Just so, is that available to Councillors and what one form or another?
It certainly can be, it's collated information. I'm mindful of, I think health and safety reports normally go to F&R as the parent committee, I hope it be in us, but certainly in terms of that dashboard, we collect that officer level, so I don't see any issues starting to build that into more kind of regular committee reporting alongside other health and safety data, if that's helpful.
Okay, so I can't see any further questions for officers, so we're happy to agree that report. Thank you, okay, so we'll move to deputations.
Okay, so the next item is deputations, we have one deputation submitted today, our committee, happy to hear the deputation.
So, I wonder if possibly before we move into this deputation, I'm looking slightly at Gavin or I don't know if Kevin's here, I'm just to kind of outline the parameters of this, so, Nick is online, Nick, do you want to give us just a kind of summary?
Yeah, yeah, I can, thank you very much. Just to confirm, by dinner of a quirk of timing, this report's obviously been referred on from a separate committee, and normally we wouldn't hear these during live process. As committee will be aware, we are currently during the live process, we're in the middle of a standstill period, so it's just to say we're happy to committee and obviously to say to hear the deputation and to say to hear the report, but my recommendation would be that a later duration of the report later on the agenda may be appropriate, given you would then have the full process concluded, but should committee wish to hear the deputation then that would be acceptable. And I should also just add to convener that is just to clarify for the deputation as well, that this isn't some sort of appeal committee, and this is a scrutiny committee, so the decision obviously taken last week by Finance Resources Committee still stands.
So my recommendation is convener, and obviously it's up to committee, and if we have a division we can have a vote or whatever, but my recommendation would be that we hear the deputation because they've made clear that they would like to come and communicate with us, but we've got this report during the standstill period, which means that we do have to be, I think quite mindful of the questions we ask, so I think we should hear the deputation, and then I think we should agree to defer the report for another cycle so that we can have a much more in-depth discussion when we're not in the standstill period of the contract, and then we can scrutinise, and obviously I think Nick has just said, we can't overturn a decision made at Finance Resources, we're looking back committee, and I feel like we're looking back, maybe a little too soon at this point in time, and obviously if we do defer the report for one cycle, we won't be in the standstill period, deputations would be welcome to come back, and at that point we could ask questions, so that would be my recommendation, but obviously it is up to committee, so I can see kind of general nods, is everyone happy with that as the process? Councillor Fagenda.
Okay, yeah, I'm just trying to clarify this in my head, so yeah, we are this sort of kind of slightly toothless committee that looks at things and criticises them and gets angry, but can't change the decisions, so at the moment, I just want to clarify, and this is probably for Nick, what happens is that we were going to scrutinise the awarding of that and comment on it, but it wouldn't make any changes, the only thing that can change that contract awarding process at this point would be legal action, is that the only way back from that at the moment, is that because it's been voted through by the Finance and Resource Committee, is that right?
Yeah, in simple terms, yes, that's right, Councillor. We are in that stand still here, this is all open to any party to take appropriate legal action, and obviously committee were given advice last week in advance of the decision that they took, that decision has now been taken, and I guess the simple answer is it's not open to this committee to do anything other, and look at that decision. My view and recommendation, as the community has just said, is that the best time to look at that decision would be when you have the full information, and that would be the conclusion of the contract award.
Did you want to add something, Kevin?
No, sorry, I was just conscious that Nick was breaking up a bit there, so I thought I would come down just in case I had to step in.
Okay, is everyone happy with that as a way forward but, yep, okay, okay, so I think we can invite, is it Jeff?
Jeff Duke, Julie Ogilvy, and Mark Haynes from GC Live in relation to item 8.13, a little bit somewhere. Award of contract for Edinburgh's Winter festivals referral from the Finance and Resources Committee.
So welcome, Jeff, you have five minutes, no, ordinarily we would do questions, but as you've heard, we've agreed not to do questions this time that we will be deferring the report, but you're obviously be welcome to come back at that point, and we have a report back in front of us.
Thank you, it's very helpful, my understanding was that the contract had not quite yet been appointed, but we were waiting for the outcome of the sessions, my understanding was slightly different to what's been presented this morning. If I could appeal this morning to request a slightly elongated disposition, the deputation, the reason I ask for that is because some of the points we're looking to raise this morning are very important, and I feel that if they're not aired appropriately, then the due level of cognizance and consideration will not be granted or given, and all I'm asking for is 12 minutes instead of five, I have drafted two deposition presentations, one is six minutes, and one is 12 minutes. I'd ask for the 12 minutes if possible.
So, it's not up to me, it's up to committee. I feel that we have a very long agenda today, and I have already said this in my email that I think that we should stick to the five minutes, which is the standing orders, and that's what we would normally allow. As we have said, we've taken the decision to defer this report, and you will have another opportunity to come back, but also I think it's important to be clear, we are not able, as a committee, to overturn a decision that has been made in another committee, so we are a scrutiny committee, and that is our role here.
Okay, understood, thank you very much, and thank you very much for affording me the time this morning. I do have a printout of notes and support of deposition that were sent to Councillors yesterday. I allowed to distribute those to Councillors, they were sent out yesterday, so you should already have a copy.
I think you could pass them along, but I mean--
Thank you.
Time is already ticking, and we have already received those, so.
Yep, understood, thank you very much. Okay, so I'll introduce myself, Geoff Crow, Director at GT Live. I am representing the GT Live Consortium team here today. I'm here this morning to raise concerns that we have regarding irregularities, the poverty, transparency, and fairness of the process, leading to the appointment of the preferred bidder for the Winter Festival's contract. I appreciate that some of what I am sharing today may be contentious, but assure Councillors and officers that I am raising these issues and concerns today in the spirit of fairness, good faith, and reputation. Forgive me, I'm gonna have to need to move fast to get through some of these points today. Firstly, I'd like to cover off financial assessment criteria. The financial assessment pass/fail criteria were clearly set out at stage one. Stage one assessments are designed within a tender process to prevent a bidder who would not pass the basic financial criteria pass/fail criteria to process to later stages of a process, to save them wasting time, considerable time, and money in creating a detailed submission. That cannot then be assessed. Now, from our view of publicly available information, I should reiterate that everything I'm sharing today is in the public domain. And using the Council's own assessment criteria listed within tables one, tables two of appendix two of the tender specification documents, we're querying how it is actually possible for the preferred bidder to have managed to pass stage one of the process at the time of the stage one assessment. Now, to assess Councillors with this point, we have drafted up some numbers. We have drawn down basic information that is available within the public domain on the preferred bidder and our own bid. To pick out a couple of points to reiterate my position, credit rating of the preferred bidder at the time of stage one assessment, which is November 2023, the credit rating of the preferred bidder is 14. That is assessed by experience to be maximum risk. Our bid was 88. That is considered to be low risk. The current liabilities of the preferred bidder at that time was 727,000 pounds in debt. GC Live, our bid was 5,800 pounds. The asset and liabilities ratio, a pass field criteria set by the Council was 1.2. That means that assets need to be 1.2 times more than the liabilities of the bidding entity. The preferred bidder at that time was 0.3, which failed to the criteria. Our bid was 59.6. These stats were current at the time of the assessment and would have resulted in the preferred bidder failing the process. So a question that I'd ask Councillors to put to officers is that did Council officers loosen the assessment criteria at any stage of the process to enable any of the bidders to continue in the process that would otherwise have failed that criteria. And the reason I ask this question is important because I believe that one bidder was excluded from the process at that stage for not meeting set criteria, as listed within the F&R Committee report. However, we believe the preferred bidder also did not pass criteria, but seemingly was allowed to continue. The second point I'd like to cover off is bias or perceived bias towards the preferred bidder. We believe bias began with Edmond Council awarding the emergency Christmas contract to the preferred bidder via newly formed SPV. That's a special purpose vehicle on the 2nd of August 2022. This SPV bypassed the tender processes and financial checks that are normally undertaken of a bidding entity. So a question to Councillors to ask the public officers what, under what contractual terms or tender rules with the City of Edmond Council able to bypass tender processes and contract an SPV that was an empty entity at that time and not the winning bidder directly. I understand that may have been covered under other committee, but the reason this is important was because I believe bias continued when Council officers allowed the ownership structure of a SPV which had been set up under the winning bidder to change post-appointment to altogether different entities that were not connected or related. The reason that's important is because the parent company of the business and entity that is now at the parent business or parent entity of the SPV was £248,000 in debt. So when you combine the £248,000 with the £727,000 of liabilities associated with the SPV from last year, that trading entity was almost £1,000,000 in debt between the parent company and the SPV at the time of tender.
And Jeff, if you start to bring it to a close now, you've almost reached five minutes if you bring it to me.
Okay, thank you very much, understand. So in terms of additional bias, we have raised queries and concerns within the report put to you regarding Council officers who involved in the process who at the time of process were under investigation for potential conflicts of interest in connection with the appointment of Edinburgh's Christmas by Vincent Mason. In cases of conflict interest, we would have expected involved officers and parties to recuse themselves from the process. However, that was not the case on this occasion which resulted in, sorry, I should say a question to ask, do Councils consider it appropriate that Council officers who were under investigation of conflict of interest were able to continue their involvement resulting in recommendation on the same bidder being awarded the contract again. I will conclude. - Okay, that is time.
Thank you, I'm able to conclude.
30 seconds, thank you. - Thank you very much. As you will be aware, we have legal Council assessing each of the points that we've raised in the preparation for legal challenge. We understand this position putting Councils in and we want to press for a fair and level playing field to engage in exciting opportunities such as this. What we do not want to do is damage the prospect of Christmas being delivered in Edinburgh this year. In balance therefore, we're proposing to Councillors that we would forgo this year's opportunity and drop the current legal challenge and accept the recommendation of Council officers to appoint the preferred bidder on the premise that it's for one year only and granted to the preferred bidder to enable this year's Christmas to go ahead. Lessons learned, no conflicts of interest and the processes rerun properly but critically independently because this is about good faith and reputation. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for that, Geoff. So we will not, we've agreed that we will not actually do any questions today and we will bring this report back and just to be clear, as the scrutiny committee, we are not able to overturn the decision of any other committee or make any changes to it. But I'm sure you've given us some food for thought and we've all received the written documentation that you've sent through and when this report comes back, I'm sure we will be asking those questions and scrutinising thoroughly to process around this. So thank you very much for your time today.
Thank you, very grateful.
Okay. Okay, so the next item is item, which is... Oh. Okay, so the next item is item 4.1 minutes of GIBV of the 20th of February and these have been submitted for approval as a correct record.
Can I be approved? Thank you.
Okay, so the next item is item 4.2 which are the minutes of the 19th of March 2024 and these have been submitted for approval as a correct record.
Great. Thank you.
So that takes us to item 5.1, which is the outstanding actions. There are six actions recommended for closure. There was being actions 1, actions 2.2, actions 3.1, actions 4.1, action 5, and actions 9.2. Committee are asked to otherwise note the remaining outstanding actions.
Can I be agreed? Thank you.
So this is item 6.1, which is the work programme and committee is asked to note the work programme.
The work programme be noted. Yes?
Okay.
Oh.
I was just going to say that.
Okay.
It's a frequency thing, so we leave the microphones as they are. It's a technical issue that is being addressed. So, sorry. But we can note the work programme.
Okay.
Two main people online. So item is item 7.1, which is the business bulletin. They're asked to note the business bulletin.
So I have some questions on the business bulletin, which was about the loan stock, which is something that we had asked about previously. I think we'd asked for a briefing note, and then we haven't been given a briefing note, but we've been given in the business bulletin as a response to that request a link to the EICC Convention Bureau funding report, specifically Appendix 4, which sets out some information about the loan stock. So I'm just sorry, I'm following links through, because I have a few questions. I think possibly Richard might be the person to answer these. So the thing that I was slightly confused about from that briefing was it said that we spent all of the money that was the remaining balance when the income trust was spent on the additional function space, and so that the income trust was essentially emptied out. However, there have been a series of payments made to EICC since then, which looked like they're coming from C.C. holdings and then C.C. And I just wondered where that funding was coming from if it wasn't from the income trust.
I probably just can be, I have to be perfectly honest, I don't know, so I will make sure we note that and I will provide a written response to you on that.
Okay, so I have a series of questions 'cause it looks to me from the briefing though, as though what had happened is there had been a profit made on the additional function space, and that funding had been put into the income trust. And then it looks like the income trust has been funding EICC. So I do have quite a number of questions. Was there additional funding that went in? What's the current balance on the income trust? And then the process of approval for funding going back to EICC 'cause it looks like last year, 700,000 pounds, roughly, I've not, the report's not loading, hopefully. But it looks like 700,000 pounds were given to EICC for capital works. And I just wondered, so I went through all the previous budgets. There was no approval in council budgets process, I don't think, and I just want to think it would be really helpful as councillors to understand what is the approval process for funding going out of the income trust to EICC? And I think that briefing note, I would like the briefing note that we'd asked to come back covering those areas, which I don't think are covered by the appendix. I can see Alison Henry's come, should we allow Alison to come in?
Morning, Councillor Campbell. Just to answer the question, I think what we just said in the appendix for is that the Lothian Road Income Trust is earmarked for the capital expenditure, so there is still some funds remaining. I think we had put a figure in the appendix apologies, I don't have it to hand. Those monies will continue to be used to fund the capital expenditure under the original agreement. We'd have to go back to the original time when the trust was set up and the purposes behind it. And once that funding runs out, then EICC would be liable to pay for its own capital expenditure. Thanks Alison, but my understanding was that quite a significant amount of profit was made by the Council on the additional function space. And I had understood that that had come back to the Council, but it looks to me like it has gone into the income trust. And I would like to understand how much that was and what the balance was initially when that went in, what the current balance is. And again, from the briefing note, it did not look like that funding was initially set up to be earmarked as this is just a fund for EICC. It looked like it was set up for the whole exchange area and that it was actually Council monies, but it looks again like those Council monies have just been going out to EICC. I don't know what the scrutiny or the approval process is around that and it doesn't look like Council has been involved, but maybe I'm missing something. But those are the questions that I have that I would like a briefing note to kind of explain that to us. I think that is the kind of level of transparency we should be expecting around this if that's acceptable for a committee.
Absolutely, we will commit to doing that convener. But also just to know that we are planning to bring either to June F&R or to a subsequent F&R, a formal policy on our application parameters around loan stock.
Okay, that helps, well, thank you. Okay, I can't see any further questions on the business bulletin, so we're happy to note the business bulletin. Thank you.
Okay, so the next item is item 8.1, internal audit open, and overdue internal audit actions, performance dashboard as at the 29th of April 2024. And we have Laura Colder speaking to this item.
Is there anything you want to add to Laura?
I'm just a short update on the overdue actions at Appendix 2, so it's just to let you know that the transitions actions, which are reference 10, and I think it's 10.11, I've wrote 12 here, which are actions 3.2 and 3.3, they're actually now closed. So we're reviewing the events at the time and this report was written. And the other two actions for the transitions audit are probably about 90% complete. There's just a bit more to do than that, so they're still outstanding, and I'm sure officers can get an update if required to answer on that, thank you.
Thank you, Laura, and there are any questions on this report, Councillor Jenkinson.
Thanks, Convener, just a brief question. If I look at Appendix 1 and the first diagram on the top left-hand corner, I can see that the management actions are significantly increasing. And I suppose my question is, are we comfortable that what we're asking is doable within the kind of tolerance that we've set, and that we're not going to end up increasing the red as things fall off the end. We're not maybe asking too much.
So I think that's a great question. I think probably just a bit of background, we are doing more audits probably now than we did in April 23. So it's probably one of the things that means there more. And I think the real important thing is we're doing more cross-direction audits, so a lot of the audits that we do sometimes end up with four actions for each other action because each director that gets their own action to make sure they do it. So that does increase a fair bit. And I guess it's just a bit of a timing thing. You can see, I think it's something like saving the actions we're closed during the quarter. So it kind of goes up and down and depends on the progress. But I think what's really important is if you look at the age in the graph, actually the age of the actions, they're been dealt with in a fairly, and within the time scales, we're only looking at 8% overdue actions, which is much lower than it has been. So I don't think it's there's any issues. And the annual report that will come in September will give a graph that will kind of give that feeling of how many highs and how many lows, 'cause I think it's a really good question to ask what are the proportions of highs and lows and mediums that are coming out. And I think for the global internal audit standards, which is the new standards that are coming out, there's a requirement for internal audit to prioritize audit actions, which we've already done. So we have the high priority medium prior to low priority. And I think the thing to remember is the high priority for us and for as far as internal audit concerned is about dealing with that as a matter of priority. So it's not sometimes necessary about the risk that's associated is about actually dealing with it within a high, dealing with it within a time scale so that we're not exposed to the risk for longer. So I don't necessarily think having loads of high actions is a bad thing because it's about prioritizing actions. I don't know if that's answered right here, but sort of where we come from on it.
Okay, and there are any other questions on this report? No, I can't see any further questions, so we're happy to agree the recommendations. Thank you.
Okay, so that takes us to item 8.3, internal audit update report, quarter four, 23, 24. We have an SMP group addendum and I'll add them group addendum and also just to remind members that there's also a B agenda appendix to this report and we have Laura Cowell there speaking to this item.
Thanks, Andrew. Is there anything you want to add, Laura?
Just to say there are a number of things contained in this report. So this means how members want to take questions but we've got the outcomes for the most recently complete audits and the ones with high rated findings are included here to be scrutinized today. We also have the annual validation audit which we do every year which we've presented for scrutiny. So that's where we went back and looked at all the actions that have been closed to check that they're still working in the way that they said they would. There's the outcomes of behavioral social care audit that was referred from a policy and sustainability and we also had an audit in our plan at the time. And then there is the two additional audits, the one that counts our land was today speaking about. So that's in there for members, it's ultimately up to members to decide whether it's included that we have looked at the model and we can support that extra work because we have some contingencies so it's up to members. And there was also another additional audit of early years cross-bounding crisis which was requested at both counts as well. So that's there for members. And then just finally, members read a member, there was a query on the charter at the May committee, sort of the March committee. So that's presented back for members to review and approve.
So I was saying earlier this one report feels like an entire committee's worth because there's so many things going on. So what I would propose is maybe if we deal with the main report first and then we go through the audits individually 'cause they kind of feel like some reports and I think they merit quite a bit of consideration, quite a few of them at least. So just in terms of the main report and there are any questions for Laura on this. I will maybe start if anyone wants to come in on anything. And so one of the things that I wasn't sure about. So we've agreed, so you've got in there the two additional audits to go in the plan and I suspect that we will agree to add those. They both feel like they are definitely worthy of being added in the plan. But I did wonder a bit for me around the process because I think one of them at least was not picked up necessarily at full council that if someone writes a motion at full council and says gets an urgent order, we have to be aware as council is probably within our groups to say if we do that we need to take something out of the audit plan because the audit is very tightly managed in terms of days, allocated, et cetera. And it does need to be a recommendation to come to this committee to agree to swap something in and out of the order. So I just think there's maybe a bit on governance if you could say anything about that. So I agree, I think we're okay just now 'cause we're at the start of the year so it's quite easy to move the audits around and slow additional audits in. But obviously if requests are coming in the same but are January then it becomes more difficult to slow to in and ultimately then a decision potentially could have to be made. Whether another audit comes out or whether we bring external help in to support us 'cause obviously it's up to committee to decide if they want an audit done then we meet that happen. It's just how we meet that. So I think it's right that we make sure if there's a request to think counsel that it comes to GRIB to consider.
I think is that something in governance terms, Gavin, that your team can pick up because I think just making sure that if a motion comes in that says, you know, gets an urgent audit that then kind of the challenge goes back of are you allocating funding for external resources or are you asking GRIB to take an audit out of the plan and then it's a decision for this committee not for full council just in terms of the kind of competence around can that be something that's kind of discussed within the governance team?
Yes, Camino, that's grand. That's something that we're happy to pick up and to have conversations with elected members and I suppose point out the situation and all the elements that come into that so that we can have that lined up before they come to committee. Also, we'll also am the A's with Laura about that too.
That's helpful, thank you. Are there any other questions, Councillor Mark?
Yes, it's page 78 and it's paragraph 4.13 which is the key thematic issues raised in completed council orders. Our highest rated one which means it was raised across most of them is roles and responsibilities and I think some of us were doing some personnel appeals training yesterday and this came up as a matter of discussion that sometimes you see it 'cause you see it from both sides that actually some of the issues are about people not being clear about what they're doing. So what I wanted to know is how is that being raised cross-directorate because that seems to me to be an important action and how does that finding translate into improvement across the council? Who gets made aware of it to incorporate it in their forward plan?
I'll come initially and then I don't know of any other of the directors want to come in. We did actually chat about this at CLT so the support goes to CLT before it comes to it and it was raised and I've already did it and the June paper for committee and roles and responsibilities has come up again and I've been a bit clearer in that paper to see actually what needs to happen. It is in here as well that management need to be looking at what is it, about roles and responsibilities that aren't clear. So in the summary that's in appendix two it does tell you quite often it's purposed as my seizures. They're not clear about what people would expect to do. So when we go out and we speak to people sometimes people aren't sure what they're doing or they're doing something because they did it 10 years ago and the process has changed so I think for me and it does really link to policy and procedures. I think people think that it's a belt and braces and all that have been a bit tough about policies, procedures but they are absolutely the foundation of a control framework and if we don't have things clearer then we can't expect officers to know what they're doing. So it has been raised at CLT. It will come back to this committee in June again because it is a key thing and when we do the annual report we'll put some more information on it but I don't know and I'm looking at Gareth because Gareth's about the only one in the three but I don't know if Gareth wants to add anything to about policy and procedures.
Only that I would agree with what Laura says. I think, as you say, Councillor there's a bit of, I see some of those issues myself where there's a need. We probably need to get a bit better at good old version control and updating processes particularly after organisational changes or after levers. I think my view would be in the more technical roles that are underpinned by other codes of practice or guidance and clarity, I think we're better in that but there are some operational teams where over time we've lost a bit of that capacity selling us people at my responsibility to make sure that we take the findings like Laura and the team have put forward and when we may be in some case I have to give some resource back into those teams to get better at because I don't think it's for the, no, it's because colleagues don't take it serious but we need to get better at updating things. That can be anything from health and safety risk assessment through to key processes for, obviously just an important task that we do in the department. So, yeah, I would just agree with what Laura says.
So, can I, 'cause I noticed roles in responsibilities but also policies and procedures which I feel like really strongly comes through in a lot of orders and they're so interlinked. So, I mean, is there something that we as councillors need to be like, we need to put additional results into this or are there kind of problems? 'Cause I do think it's something that's thematic throughout the whole council that we're just not doing great and I think I'm sure the pandemic has impacted on that in some ways but actually for a lot of hours you look back and it's pre-pandemic that actually the issue started. So, is there additional resources that we need or is there something councillors should be doing to support that?
I'll maybe let others come in but my natural response is that operational it should for us as senior officers to address. It's not an additional part of the job that should be seen as a further investment. It's something we need to do. Obviously the audit process is there to highlight concerns to us and I think certainly as Laura said, this was discussed at CLT so I know it's been taken for a very serious, yeah, I would say before we look at whether the additional resources needed, we need to take away senior officers and just assure ourselves through either self-assurance processes or maybe a bit of sampling how big an issue this is 'cause as I say, I don't think it's fully widespread but as you can see from Laura's report, it's come up in enough audits to say that we need to do a bit of a deep dive into it.
Thanks, Gary.
Yeah, I do wonder and it's something that has come up whether the council needs to be based on a system for making sure the policies and procedures are kept up to date. So one of the things that we find is that people are, they're done in lots of different ways so there is a template for policies and procedures that they're done in lots of different ways. There's a lot of reliance on key members of staff such as the operations managers to have registers and it is something that was spoken about and I know that Dave says something and maybe potentially looking at SharePoint because there's a lot of, so at the moment there's a lot of reliance on people remembering to do it rather than actually we had a system that was seen in triggers and reminders 'cause the real important thing in terms of policies is there's a link to IIS and if the process is started early enough then you're making sure the IIE process because that's something that has been a discussion on that that is really helpful or Gavin, you want it to come in as well?
Yeah, thank you. I mean, I think obviously any software solution would be good but in the absence of that. I mean, obviously also policies and procedures are slightly different. So policies are something that we take through to committee and need committee approval and we have a lot more rigor, I think, in terms of how we deal with that. So, for instance, the policy register is there. It is, we have a requirement for reports to be policies to become up to committee on an annual basis or at least checked on an annual basis so that process is in place. And in terms of just the people who weren't here that was quite a big change in terms of councils. Not many local authorities had such a thing as a policy register, NHS came in and copied elements and so over the council. So there has been good practice there but it has slipped in recent years and there was a resource taken out at a point and not put in, and that has been rectified. And as part of the governance and assurance work that we're doing in parts of that framework, we've set up a group with the operations managers to a regular group to discuss policies, to be able to try to make that as a more business as usual element of it, but also have reminders and be able to push about how we can get the message out to service managers as well about the importance of this and how it benefits their service to keep it up to date and to ensure that it works effectively for them. I suppose the element that it is worth mentioning that, that doesn't include procedures though. So that is a policy register but procedures are the documents that sit below committee level. So they are approved normally by service directors, heads of service exec directors and do sit below the committee level. And my team, for instance, we aren't monitoring the procedures element of that, just the policies. So hopefully, obviously, it just gives you a little bit of context of the work that's going on.
So maybe we need to think a bit more about procedures and actually maybe given what Gavin's just said, is it worth, in the thematic bit, splitting out policy and procedure? 'Cause we know that there's work being done on policy and that is being implemented, but actually it feels to me like quite a lot of the issues are actually probably more around procedures in terms of what we're saying, coming back in order to find things.
So I think that's absolutely right. And the key themes and appendix too, it does actually talk about procedures, documented processes, quite a lot. So that is Gavin's absolutely right. There is a good process in the governance team for keeping a hold or posting procedures and making sure they go through the register. But that's when we go to committee and after the paper reminders, I do think there's still a bit of work to keep that working in direct to its direct that's all to it differently. It's not done the same in direct to this, but we can absolutely start to say that out a bit, so we're clear about what's policy related, which is, and we did a previous order of posting procedures, there is definitions about what policy is and what procedure is and what a process is, so we can make that a bit clearer so that members know where the issues are. But it is mainly operational procedures, the pieces of work that direct people to do the job. It's maybe, and I will be back in a month and we've got another report, so maybe it's something we might want to think about asking for a bit of, maybe having a discussion with officers about what would be helpful, but I do feel like as a committee monitoring procedures, we'll have a think, we'll maybe come up with a cross party, amendment or something. Okay, thank you for that. Are there any other questions on the main report? I know we're happy to kind of, at this point, just for tidiness to agree that we'll include the two orders. We're not agreeing the recommendations at this point, but we're not going to have further discussion on that. Is that everyone happy with that? Okay, should we move on to the orders? So the first one is community centres, are there any questions for officers on this? Councillor Thornely.
Thanks, can you hear, I'll give Andrew a second (laughs) to get comfy. (laughing) Obviously it's quite a concerning read, Andrew. Given you're a newer service area, and we've heard a lot of culture and communities about the process of getting out of set up that's been a large amount of your work for the last year, it says in the audit here that the rest register for community centres was due to be completed in April. So if I could ask, was that the case? And how did we get that far without having one?
Sorry, could you just, how did we get to the stage where this audit was being done and a risk register wasn't already in place?
Right, so we were established in June of last year as a new service, and we'd want to reassure the committee that in particular relation to community centres, the actual risks have been captured in the wider place directory. So what this audit is pointing out is that my new service hadn't yet completed a risk register for my overall service. That was a work in progress, but I would like to, and it has been completed now. I've just approved a draft risk register for my overall service, but we'd want to emphasise that the big risks in relation to community centres, the risks around repairs requirements, the risks around investment requirements, et cetera, have been captured in the wider place risk register. What would happen since I was put in post, essentially I'd be meeting to talk about risk on a monthly basis, and the work to progress and develop my own services risk register. So it's just been a work in progress over the last few months, but we haven't now got a draft in place.
Councillor Nourh.
Thank you, Covina, and thank you, Andrew, and Laura. I've got two questions. I think once these are sort of teased out, you're probably going to start addressing the issues that has been flagged, and those, you know, some of us are aware that this has been under review for quite a long time, but there's two outstanding issues of concern that, and it's in finding one about the roles and responsibilities, and so you've said the community strategy, the full review of leases is planned once, the community centre strategy has been finalised, so when will that strategy be finalised? And also in September and 2020-21, ensure it's, well, the previous service, your previous service was advised that insurance clauses and leases were not fit for purpose. So why is this still an outstanding action, and is it a still an outstanding action?
Yes, it is still an outstanding action, and I would like to stress that, and our sense, that's my responsibility, because the overall lease review would be carried out by the estate service. When I came into post, I know the Otter States team are very, very keen to carry out this lease review. They're very aware of what they'd said to previously committee. In a practical sense, it was me who, in a sense, put the stall on that, had a discussion with other estates colleagues, and we reached a view, a consensus view, that essentially it was a bit pointless us trying to review every individual lease of individual community centres across the city until the council had formed a view on its strategic direction. The leases should follow once we have agreed as a council, what out approach to community centres in a strategic sense would be. And I'm due to report the make committee of culture and communities on that strategic update, if you like, on community centres. So in a sense, we're ready to go with the lease review. That is in well-formed part two of my services, year two, what programme with our colleagues in estates? Have a follow-up. So you said you're reporting to culture and communities in May with the strategic review. Is that the finalised strategic review, or is it the first stage in something that will go out for consultation, and what's the estimated time scale for that? 'Cause I think we've got a big issue hanging, so it would be nice to know when we can, when are we going to expect to see these actions closed off 'cause you can't close them off until you've done that.
Yes, well we're confident that the lease review will take place in this financial year. So that's when we'll launch it with estimated down date, we'll put an April of next year. So we'll be carrying that out over this year. I mean, the report I'm taking to me, it's difficult to talk about a report that's not been to committee, you appreciate it. But you know, that is going to be talking about what year two, what programme looks like in leases is one of the first things that we're going to be addressing.
So can I just ask on that? So you've got a strategic review and you don't want to review leases. But I mean, there's problems in terms of those kind of insurance gaps and tell that review of leases is done, which feels quite risky and problematic for some of the accounts at all. And so what is it about the strategic review that means that it, that might impact on the leases? Because for me, I'm kind of not really understanding like surely we're going to meet whatever the strategic review is and whether or not we kind of reset the relationship a bit with community centres. We're still going to need leases in place. So I just wondered why the holder.
Yes, you're right. We're going to need leases in place and the leases as the audit report points out are sort of well out of date and what most of them date from the 1980s, et cetera. I mean, part of the big discussion and it's a discussion we'll be having both with obviously local members and but most very, very importantly, management committees themselves is what does a lease look like for this particular centre? In other words, we're going to have to work over the coming year about whether or not you can take a generic approach to leasing in community centres or whether you need to take a more tailored and individual approach to leasing centres. And that's why we've decided in a sense not to really get into that until if you like the framework around which we're going to be making future decisions is approved by committee.
So if you're doing kind of bespoke leases for each community centre, that feels like that would be quite lengthy process and potentially might take us beyond the next financial year.
Well, we're hoping we can achieve a later review within the coming year and we're not necessarily going to be taken and bespoke approach to leasing arrangements. It's a matter that we will have to sort of if you like internally discuss about what is going to be the best approach for us to take.
Okay, thanks Andrew. I have another question in my account.
Thanks, Commissioner. I was interested in what you said about, so before your team were set up, Andrew, the risks were held by the wider place directorate. So where was the management of those risks? Because reading through this, though those issues that are being identified more proactively now perhaps and have been previously done about key holding, about health and safety, specifically as a massive concern and where the liability exists between the council and the management committees as well who are primarily volunteers. Why haven't we been supporting these community centers? Before we're taking that deep look now, why have these issues been allowed to continue and I appreciate pandemic will have been formed apart of that? But can I just ask kind of prior to Andrew's team being set up how those risks were managed and looked after during that period of time? 'Cause it's a bit concerning that now all of a sudden there's a great movement towards rectifying this, but prior to that we were a significant risk. I would say with the lack of oversight.
Yeah, I wouldn't have said that risks were not managed prior to our service being put into existence. And I think the thing to appreciate about community centers is a number of different council service areas have got a different level of responsibility with community centers. So for example, property condition, repairs issues would all be handled by our facilities management teams, et cetera, and our asset planning teams. And those risks would and were recognized in the wider place I would actually risk registers because I've seen them and been involved in them. Other risks in relation to sort of management committee operation and function at that time prior to our organizational review, that would have been handled by the children and education service. And I presume that risks captured in that type of environment would be reflected in their individual service risk registers. So I think it's not so much that people were unaware of risk and risk wasn't covered in community centers. I just think it was spread more, it was disparate across various council services, I guess. And one of the desirable outcomes of my particular service is that although these risks may still be owned by other service areas, my team will have a more collegiate overview of all of the risks relating to the community center of state.
Sorry, Commander, if I can just start briefly. So to your point, Councillor, this, as Andrew says, this was previously managed in the locality structure that we had in place before they were built into local lifelong learning teams. And just to reassure, and I think this comes across in the audit, we have colleagues in the facilities management service, for example, facilities technicians that do the kind of standard safety checks you'd expect, fire panels, fire doors, Legionella sampling happens, all the core health and safety attacks happen. The issue, and to come back to the lease actually, the lease is a, at least review sounds simple, but obviously it will impact on the operating model of a management committee as much as the council. In changing, if you're trying to change the goal post as it stands right now, what the council says is, we'll provide the people that do the checks and we'll assume the risk in making sure the checks are there and compliant. But clearly we want to empower communities to have as much use of the building as possible. They kind of rub up against each other 'cause one of the causes and the leases that we did discuss in PNS during the recovery from COVID when we had the service resumption work-streamers that the council accepts all liability for any harm caused in the use of that building. That's clearly well out of our risk appetite as a council. That needs to be revised, but we can't simply fix that without having a ripple effect onto the resource, as you say that are predominantly volunteers in management committee. So, Andrew and the team have got the, in my view, difficult task of balancing, bringing that risk appetite back into Odewanis as a council without placing an undue burden on these, as well as the fact that there's also a risk around financial strategy and the capital sums that we see regular reporting, capital reports, which I think is somewhere in between 17 and 20 million pounds last time I saw it of investment in these to happen. So, pulling that together is kind of the strategy's aim, but just to reassure the kind of core health and safety functions that happen right now are taking care of. I think I would, I think I could speak on the offer management committee's, however, they would probably show us lots of photos of things that functionally aren't great in community centers. So, I'm not gonna shy away from that. You know, keeping it wind and water tight and safer people is different to, for example, the aesthetics and the quality of space. I just think it's important before any management committee walks this and thinks we're comfortable with the level of repairs. Certainly not saying that's the case, but from a health and safety point of view, we are comfortable.
Thanks, Sarah, that's helpful and actually probably leads a bit into my next question because there is, it is this tension between the council's risk acceptance and the council's responsibility there, but also they are called community centers and they are meant to be for the community and there's meant to be a flexibility there for community use. And one of the things I was gonna do, Laura, was actually just push back slightly on one of the internal audit recommendations, which for me felt maybe a bit onerous, which was 1.2, and whether the council should consider implementing a central event booking process, inclusive of all communities, to ensure events held in the buildings have been risk assessed in the line in terms of the lease. And for me, when I read that, I kind of was thinking about my community centers and particularly, as you said, when they're trying to respond to one of the issues they had was during COVID, they were closed and lots of other third sector buildings were open because we were too risk averse to open the buildings when things were really needed, like food distribution in the community. And then when they were able to open, having that flexibility to respond to community needs and be kind of very flexible around that, how do we get that balance right? And is it maybe slightly overkill, 1.2, to try and centralise that? Is it more about kind of training and saying, you know, that relationship? This is what we expect of you and these are the criteria. My thought on it.
Absolutely, so it links back to the lease, so the lease terms at the moment state that you know what the purpose of community center should be and they do at the present state that actually they shouldn't be used for any of our purpose without approval from the council. So obviously that's what the lease stages know. So that's where that recommendation has come from. But actually, when we were doing the audit, there was a trial of a central booking system. I don't know, Andrea, if that's continued. So, and it was only for ones where the business support officer. So for us, the reason it's there is if there's a child and it's working and we think that it could help another community centers and it's worth being aware of that. But I guess it's linking back to that we have leases that are potentially at the end of their not going to be in line operations, you know, getting them up to date and then thinking about the no-con effect of the leases. So the leases are being made up to date to see the community centers will have more control about what will be booked than what, how will that become the manager? So that's where that's going.
So it may be a bit of a watching brief for culture communities to kind of think about.
Yeah, and we're glad to that. We must bear in mind that management committees are stand on charities, okay? The council are not going to be in a position and we lease these buildings to them. The council will not be in a comfortable position if I go along to meet with management committees and try and enforce a central booking system for the city. It's very, very important to us that management committees control their own lighting. They're very, very keen on that. They see that as one of their key core purposes and we wouldn't want to upset that but we will certainly have that type of conversation. So as with many of the other recommendations and the support that's going to be one of those that is going to involve us in ongoing conversation with management committees and feeding back the consideration of what they are telling us about that particular recommendation.
That is helpful, thank you Andrew. Are there any other questions? Councillor Follum.
Thank you, just another one. On key holding, which I know we discussed at the APOG, if you could just provide a wee bit of an update because it's obviously quite an urgent recommendation but also a sensitive one too. Because again, as Councillor Campbell was saying, communities own their community centers and so kind of giving out a key is something that should be within their control but also controlled within their liability and risk appetite of their council. So can you just give us a wee bit of an update and assurance on how that work is progressing?
Yes, that work is probably progressing the fastest of all of the recommendations and the support because it's not one that we started from a sort of a zero base on. I was looking at the updates this morning actually before I came into committee. Most of the management committees across the city that have key holding, most of the key holders in those community centers, the majority of them are actually council staff from a whole range of different service areas. The other majority key holder in a community center tends to be a member of a management committee. Now we're confident that all of them have went through key holding training with us and have adhered to the council policy, et cetera. And in our smaller number of cases, we've got key holders who tend to be user groups. So in some community centers, the Cubs, for example, or the local nursery will be and do have a key. So what's going to be really important for us is to consolidate all the information as much as possible. And when we go out to speak with management committees following the committee, I've mentioned earlier where we're taking a report to, that's going to be one of our early conversations with management committees on an individual basis. I look, our data is telling us we have five key holders for this building and they are do, do, do, is that right? In terms of the other recommendation, which is about security locks and changing the locks, et cetera. Again, that's something we will engage with management committees about, of course. We're not going to go in heavy handed and start changing all the locks with all the community centers across the city. We want this as much as possible to be a process that we're engaging with committees on. But I'm confident really by the autumn, we should be in a really good place in terms of knowing everything about who's got keys for our buildings.
Thank you. I can't see any further questions. We're happy to move on from community centers. And I think we'll move on to corporate property help desk. I think that is. So I have a kind of, you wanted to add something.
It's just to make committee a rear that the support is slightly different. So it does look like a traditional audit report got the corporate operating help base moved last year in September from corporate services to place. And we did this audit in December. So it doesn't have an overall audit rating because ultimately the team were taken over post-cases that I've been dealt with somewhere else. And I think it's really important to say that the team responded really well. I mean, this is quite chunky and there's a lot of things in there but they responded really positively to the audit. And I think most things were agreed to. So it was just to kind of give that perspective. But we will track these actions. So they were still given that priority. There's what to be spoke about. So we've seen it's high. So we think it's did the deal with as amount of priorities. So we will still track them but it was just to make members a load of that.
That was literally my questions or it's so, 'cause I did think it's quite, you know, it's in the audit report but it's not an actual audit but that's the reason it was because it's a new team. Okay. And the actions will still be tracked. Are there any other questions? Can't stand that up.
Yeah. Just on page 10 of the audit and one, one, four of our papers, it does say that they would have expanded the KPI information from January 2024. And I just wondered if there's an update about whether that was in place and had been completed on time.
So we've not had an update yet because the actions are slightly different. I don't know Garitha.
Thanks, Garitha. My colleague, Gohar's actually on the call and might be able to give an update on that. Is that possible, Gohar?
Yes, it is. Thanks, Garith. Thanks for the question, Councillor. Yes, we have a suite of KPIs that are currently produced and we are looking to expand those KPIs in relation to discussions with our contractors. So the evidence we have got, those KPIs are reported at the R&M board and the contractor meetings as well. We have completed that action. Evidence has been produced and we are looking now to close that action down.
Thank you. Okay, I can't see any, oh, sorry, Councillor.
Thank you very much. I've got a couple of questions here around the repairs. So two questions really. So firstly, the summary says there's about 20 emergency repairs a day requested. I know the Council obviously has a big estate, but it sounds like a lot, 20 a day. Do we have a sense of if there is a lot and how that's changed every time? Is that getting worse? Is that getting better? And is that ringing the right alarm bells in the right places in the Council to think, okay, if we have this many immense repairs, are we getting our broad maintenance strategy right?
So I'll maybe start and go home. I might want to come in. The definition of emergency in this in property sense is quite broad, Council, because it can be, because of service impact, for example, it can be because of a health and safety risk. So for example, the loss of taps in a toilet aren't necessarily an emergency. The loss of all the taps in a toilet are critical to, for example, a school functioning and children not having to be sent home. So there's a bit of context in what is defined as an emergency. So I would say across this circuit, certainly around 400 or 600 buildings, depending on how you define the individual buildings, or we've got a bigger state, as you say. We don't have benchmarking data, so I think that's a fair call to actually look at what benchmarking data is available and we should take that way off to level, but I don't think it's out of the ordinary to be getting, if you kind of assume emergency isn't in road, for example, emergency would be life and limb. I think in property emergency, as there's a critical service impact raising from health and safety to potentially, this premise will have to close if we don't fix that. So 20, I think, is unfortunately pretty normal, but I think it's a fair shout that we need to be able to have it in the start and show that that is normal against benchmarking.
Thank you, if I can follow up. Just on page 10, there's a table that says for the different priority types of repair, how many are depleted within time scale, and not, and even for the most urgent, it's about 30% or 70% that are not. And obviously, again, it depends on the type, the thing we're talking about, but if you don't do a repair in time, potentially it gets worse and it's a bigger cost. So has that been considered, if we are even for the most urgent ones, 70% of them are not being done in time, is that, again, is that really the right, along bars in terms of, oh, do we need to get better at this, because also it's going to cost us more if we're not doing the repairs quick enough.
Yeah, so, absolutely, your point of the end is correct. We have to get better at this. Certainly, we use this information as go-house as we have a repair and maintenance board, and we have a contract management team that manages the FM contractors. When you look at the way the KPI records, the job being completed is from beginning to end, so the thing actually being fixed often in the middle you'll find a make safe. So it may be the case that a contractor's called into one of our buildings, and the issue is made safe, so it's no longer a risk, but clearly it's not finished because the item needs to be replaced, and there's a lot of issues we've drilled into root cause, for example, standardization of stock. Over many, many years, we've developed lots of different stock items of even simple things like taps in our buildings, and clearly the variables in the different types of caps, taps that can be recalled out to replace, we're working with the contractors to look to standardize that, so, again, there's an increased chance of a right first time repair, because we can get a better of that, why fittings, all those things across the estate, so if you take, the issues that often will prevent a repair happening first time will be things like stock availability, we can improve that, access to buildings, we can improve that, so what we are doing as officers is chipping away, doing the analysis at root cause and fixing the things we can fix, and that's, you know, go hiring colleagues within the team, that's their core day job, and we have regular contract meetings, and if we believe it's a contract issue as well, we will serve early warning notices in the contract system, make sure that we're making them aware of their responsibilities.
Council Member Follum.
Thank you, just to be questioned on the threshold of 500 pounds, and I see the recommendations for how that can be addressed in terms of going through that process, but it's 500 pounds as a threshold, slightly too low for that kind of approvals process with inflation, with everything, price of materials, et cetera, going up. I imagine quite a lot more jobs now are hitting that threshold than we'd be previously, but it's the same job that's needing done.
Yeah, I think you've hit on an important point in the way of discussing those officers' councils. That was set up as a threshold in the contract when it went live. Obviously we've gone through a period of record inflation. Clearly, what go-har colleagues at Mark's Denhouse and I've been discussing is clearly on a risk basis, we need, I think it is, my view is we need to revise that 500 pound figure, but I just need to be assured that the figure we set out represents the kind of optimum balance of increasing the likelihood of repairs happening while still representing value for money. So we are taking that up at officer level and I suspect at a point in time we'll be looking at a contract variation to revise that.
Okay, I can't see any further questions on this. I am conscious, we've definitely overrun our time, but I think we usually agree an extension on the audit reports. We're trying not to do 40 minutes on each though, so much, but so we're moving on now to the Health and Social Care Partnership Financial Sustainability Monitoring. I would suggest after that we maybe take a break if we can aim for this one to be about 10 minutes. We'll see, I'm looking at Councillor Miller, but we'll see. And then come back and finish the rest of the reports after a cup of coffee. So any questions, Councillor Miller?
I can't think about you were looking at me when you said 10 minutes.
I thought we were going to break.
Yeah, after I've spoken. So I had a few questions on this one, but I'll try and meet them brief. So on 1.1, the recommendation 1.1, it says the GSNAs should be used to determine future changes in service demand for each individual service area. Management have commented that they would only partially agree with that recommendation. And I would just, I would quite like to explore that a little bit, 'cause I didn't reach the recommendation as saying that it was the only determinant. And I think it's been interpreted as if that is the audit recommendation. So I'd be interested if Laura can comment on how the recommendation was meant and whether the management reaction to that recommendation is what you would have anticipated.
So interestingly, there was a fear about discussion on this recommendation and management action with Moira. And so you're absolutely right. So we've said that the GSNAs should be used as part of that. It's the piece that we found in the recommendation, but we do speak about the other controls that management use to help them develop the budgets. I think the thing here is it's really important that for audit, we make a recommendation. It's linked to the community centers one. We make recommendations, which for us are usually linked to policies, procedures and controls in place. And we make these recommendations, but sometimes management won't agree. They might have another way that they think to do it or it's not the way that they want to do it. And sometimes there's a compromise in audit where we will change our recommendation slightly depending on the risk. But this is when we're actually audit, kind of state quite firm in what we recommended and management state firm in the fact that they, so I think it's probably one for Moira to come in in. But actually, it's quite important that I say that it's okay for management in audit to some things not agree. We are not managing the service, you know, we can say what we think, but actually it is the officers who are working in the real world. So I thought that it was a good management action in terms of what the management then said they were also doing, but we still stand for them that we think the GIS any should be used. Is that a help? Did you want to come in, Pat?
Thank you, and thank you for the question, Councillor Miller. It's just a add to this, because I think that it was absolutely spot on. We don't ignore the importance of the GIS any, of course we don't. It gives us an opportunity to project demand and growth based on the population changes, but we are operating in a demand-led service. The last five years has been seriously unpredictable, and we suspect that there'll be a number of things that will play into our MTFS as we move forward, which will be under control. There are probably a couple of key things to mention, which we would not be able to consider within the GIS NA. So last year, for example, compared to the previous year, we've seen a 25% increase in adaptation of errors. We have seen a sustained increase in compulsory treatment orders of 40% here in Edinburgh over the last five years. It doesn't look like it's fallen. And in an international context, I don't think anybody really could see that coming. There are also the two inspections that we had last year that were highly critical of the service. And what we often find is that when you come out of inspections like that, or for example, significant case reviews where an adult or a child has died, you tend to have a more risk of worse workforce, which partially explain the requirement for increased activity that we've seen within the service. But all of this is very, very difficult to predict. Another change is, for example, if a care home was to close, it's beyond our control. It doesn't sit within one of our own care homes. Then there's an all-coin effect of the financial consequences of all of that. So it's really important, and of course, their GIS NA will play into their IGB strategy. And we will anticipate demand and grow through that lens, but there are so many other things that play here. So I think I appreciate and agree with everything that you've both said there. And I think it's helpful just to have that conversation here so that people can hear and appreciate that. I think for me, the thing that I would like to carry forward probably is just keep that eye on the difference of opinion, I guess, between internal logic and the strength of the recommendation versus the response to that. And also the fact that you quite rightly said part that it's demand-led service, but it's not a demand-led budget. So we've got an inherent conflict there, which we obviously need to keep an eye on. Had two other questions if that's okay?
Yeah, I mean, I just maybe wanted to come in on that because I picked up on that, and I read the management response as a bit defensive if I'm honest, because it did feel like I completely appreciate that there's a number of different criteria that need to feed in, but actually the recommendation to use the JSNAT seemed quite reasonable, and I kind of felt like it maybe could have been a bit more embraced. Management response is like one of those criteria, because I think looking through this whole report, it is a lot about, or the whole audit report is about forecasting and anticipating, and I think you touched on one of the things like the care inspector reports that asked that you needed more packages of care, and actually there's a good story there because more packages of care were being provided, it was just the estimation, the costs, I think that's right, and so I suppose it is, like there's partially a very good story behind this, but actually there's a bit about how is that then feeding across into the financial data and the expectations, and that's the bit that's kind of, I suppose we're trying to see assurance, and PNS will be trying to see assurance, but of course the IJB will be trying to see assurance that that data is improving, or becoming more assured, and just I suppose taking as many different inputs into that as possible seems that that would be helpful.
Thank you, Conveno, and perhaps it's the language that's used, we fully embrace the JISNA, of course we do, it's what drives our IJB strategy, perhaps the language should have been along the lines of In addition to. So there is the JISNA, which is obviously important, but there's all those factors that are described a couple of minutes ago, so perhaps it's more along the language, it was not intended to be offensive.
Okay, thank you Pat, that's reassuring. Councillor Minnan, you had other questions.
Thank you, this one should hopefully be a little bit more simple, but it's kind of along the same lines, 1.3 is talking about seeing the financial costs of any proposed initiatives to prove performance and service delivery should be assessed prior to approval and commencement, and if approved, an estimated cost should be built into the overall financial forecasts, and the management response comments on that, but doesn't explicitly, I don't think, see that that recommendation will be implemented, so I just wanted to ask Pat if he can confirm that indeed management is accepting and implementing that recommendation as it's written.
Thank you, Councillor Martin, yes, is the short answer. I think we've expanded on that to say that we would agree, but again, the text there is an attempt to illustrate just how complicated the landscape is, that there's a number of additional factors that really need to play it into all of this. We've been very, very clear about this, particularly through our NTFS, so when it was approved in 18th of March, anything that we do, we need to be costed, changes to policy, changes to legislation, for example, we'll have a requirement to be costed, and we will only be able to deliver on the services that are quite specifically delegated to the Health and Social Care Partnership, so there's a particular lens here that this needs to be seen through, but yes, again, it's in addition to, thank you.
I'm glad to hear that, and the third question that I had was on recommendation 3.1, so it's talking about a procedure setting out the end-to-end process for creation and management of council-related elements of the financial strategy, and it's a pretty significant recommendation, I think, from what I'm reading, but it's got a target date of the end of July this year, and I just wondered if you could comment a little bit on whether you feel that that's going to be fully completed and ready to yield benefits by that date?
Thank you, again, Councillor Miller, yes. The process has been put in place, the reason we've suggested July is really because that's the first time that we'll have our first formal council financial projections, and the activities already been put in place, the change board and all the associated oversight governance arrangements that will be chilled with myself, and the finance officer are already in place, they're already in the diary, the templates have been agreed, the senior responsible officers for all 25 work streams associated with the medium-term financial strategy are all explicitly clear on what their role is and how they have to report, and the principles attached to all of these changes have, through the middle of it, are a process which is allowing us to take corrective action, wherever possible, the scale of this is 60 million pound across 25 different work streams, so there's a number of quite considerable assumptions against all of this, so we need to be able to take corrective action very quickly based on each financial period, thank you.
I wanted to ask about 4.1, so it was just, it was about the updating of financial information into SWIFT system, and that this can take between six months and two years, and so that feels like, I mean, that feels like a huge, if you're trying to sort of accurately estimate budgets, but your information in terms of, I'm guessing this is information in terms of packages of care, expected discharges in hospital, if that information is so delighted, then we must be really, really behind the curve in terms of trying to estimate, and it just feels like, of course, that will have a really big impact, so I suppose you could comment on that, and then what steps are you taking in order to make sure that that is much more accurately and speed to me, getting updated?
Thank you, Conveno. This is one of the major risks that we have, within achieving our budget and our savings proposals. There's a number of things that's been happening I have since shared three meetings with everybody concerned, it's one of those meetings that just seems to be increasing everything we convene, given the complexity of it, and there's a red cross here between the Health and Social Care Partnership and the services that are still set within the council, in relation to the inputting, and then ultimately the extrapolating of the information from there. There are targets, for example, for inputting financial details of, for example, to work out services' contributions that are taken far too long. So we have an agreement that we are going to mitigate against this by reducing those targets to come in somewhere, but it's more realistic. So there is a piece of work that will continue in relation to this. For everybody that's involved in it, they are explicitly clear in what their role is, and this piece of work will report directly into myself and to Dave Smart. So it's a matter that is well and truly in hand, but nonetheless, I suspect that we'll do very well if we can mitigate the risk as much as possible, but given the well-known problems with the system, it will be challenging.
And how much of it, because Swift is getting replaced, so is it kind of managing it in the short term? How quickly are we expecting Swift to get rid? You can see Deb smiling, replaced, and will that make a huge kind of difference in terms of...
Thank you, Convena, and I think in all fairness, it's taken us probably about three meetings just to understand the problem, and I think we're much clearer on what the issues are, and we now need to move into solving the issue. Time is against this, so everybody involved in these discussions are well aware that there has to be a very quick time a ton of round noise in this. That's helpful, and I can see Liffa has popped up on screen, you'd want to update on the replacement of Swift.
Nice, thanks, Convena. The programme is kicking off right now, we're expecting to start the programme on the 1st of July, right now we've done some good planning with the Access Group and with CGI, and we're now mobilising a team, so it'll be an 18-month to a two-year rollout rolling out in a big buying approach, so about 18 months to two years from the 1st of July. And that's to a full implementation, and we completely remove Swift first, that's good.
Bill of communication, yep, that's great. Okay, did you have a question, Councillor McFarlane?
Yes, thank you, Convena, it's on 4.1 as well. So I'm just curious to know if every locality follows the same procedures strictly in terms of reporting on size of package or care increasing, demand increasing, et cetera. And given that there's a wider restructure of localities being muted and that this reference 4.1, it's stated that that'll be taken forward by the locality managers, who will be taken forward this work, given that there's a wider restructure happening.
Thank you, Councillor McFarlane. There's probably a number of areas to highlight here. So it goes back to probably about sort of October period last year, we stood up a high cost and a low cost financial oversight group, which is shared by senior managers across the organization and that's to give us that degree of consistency. And those oversight arrangements take place every week, multiple times per week, and we're currently reviewing that, again, to try and determine if we can increase some of the efficiencies around that. But it certainly gives us the consistency around what is the difference in our higher cost package to care and a lower cost package of care. And that's working and it's working well. There is also the review of the current scheme of financial delegation, which will be coming to our own Exact Team shortly. And again, that will give consistency by way of financial governance across the whole of the system, depending on the grade that you are within the organization, it will determine how much you are in a position to approve. For example, so again, given as the consistency. And a lot of point you'd mentioned there, just around the reorganization of the structure, that is now formally commenced. We are now in the formal consultation process, with the workforce, the trade unions, and that kicked off about a week and a half ago. And again, the restructure will hopefully give us that consistency, given that we are looking at a more stratified response to all of the service delivery, as opposed to four different interpretations. Thank you.
Okay, I can't see any further questions on this order. So shall we take a pause, mid-report, and go and get a cup of coffee, and come back at quarter two? Is that enough time for everyone? Grant, thank you. The next audit report is scaffolding for housing repairs. I think we've got Derek, can you come in, come in down for questions? So are there any questions on this report? Councillor Heaton.
Thank you, I've got a few questions, I think. Firstly, obviously the report lays out the kind of process around scaffolding, and the overall costs. Has there been consideration, obviously most scaffolding, as I understand it, is done by external contractors who have got in. Has it been any consideration of whether it would be cheaper to have our own scaffolders and scaffolding?
Do you want to?
Too many things, sorry. Through yourself, can be enough, thanks, Councillor Heaton. Yes, this is an ongoing discussion we have around for paper services, to have in-house in what we contract. I think at the moment it's seen as being more cost-effective, taking into account the findings of the audit in order to have contractors do that work for us in terms of capacity, in terms of availability and materials, et cetera. So it's something, there's a general trend towards looking to in-house as much of the work as we can. We understand that, I think reality is at the moment we need to continue with some contractor in order to do that.
Thank you, Councillor, for that. Is that under kind of active consideration? Having some, I'm not saying we've been in a position to take over every scaffolding job, but is it under consideration to have some element of in-house scaffolding capacity?
Through yourself again, Councillor. Yes, I think way more than that is all aspects of contracting work that we do at under active consideration.
Councillor, a separate question, it's quite a specific one. So the report notes that 20 something thousand was spent on scaffolding a three-story building to clean the gutters. And I don't know the going rate of scaffolding, but that seems expensive. And I think that is in there to draw attention to the broader kind of issues around tracking and governance. But could you speak to that example? I mean, how is it that we spent that much on scaffolding to clean some gutters?
Through yourself, convenient, I would probably need to come back to on that if that's okay, that specific job. I can imagine there is a reason for it. In terms of quite often we get, once the scaffolding's up, and you're at that height, you find other things that you've done, but we'll be happy to circulate if that's okay, through yourself, can be in a full commitment.
Yep, we'll get that circulated. So I had a couple of questions on this. So this was, maybe it's a language thing. At 2.1, there was a request that a process to monitor and provide an overview of scaffold should be created in stored centrally. And then management response was, however, the storage space is limited to enable this to be stored centrally. Now, for me, I thought it was like a digital storage, is what I imagined? So you saying that housing property doesn't have enough digital storage space to manage a register of scaffolding? Because that's extremely concerning, if that's the case.
I understand conveying that this is space or in the server that's available to hold down. Digital space, that's what I was told. Yes.
I'm astonished. I mean, that would be like some kind of Excel file or something, surely. Like it's a digital register. And housing property does not have access to enough storage space.
Yes, please.
There's probably something about the types of files that support it, so they're pictured and they could be quite big size. So I think that's probably important. But I don't think that the server and the G-Jive is the only way that that information could be held. There could be other ways that that information could be held. And I think the thing that we picked up was, and it's a theme through the report, it was really difficult for us to pick through the records. And there's a lot of reliance on corporate knowledge and people know things and that puts us in another within your just possession.
So that was gonna kind of lead into my next questions 'cause the whole from like 2.1 to 2.4, I did feel like it feels like management are not accepting the findings and the recommendations. And it's very kind of caveatated. And actually, these are things about best value for the HRA, which is tenants' money. And I don't have confidence. So quite simple things like a documented procedure. We've talked about procedures already today and their need for them. For high level, scaffold orders should be created and this talk about a flow chart, but it's not really sort of confirming that that will be done. And there's a thing about looking at if scaffolding is required over the seven days, making sure that it is actually needed, that it's not just being left up. And in terms of the invoice checking that it would only be done if the invoice, like the initial amount, I think, and the invoice match. So like the quote and the invoice match, but other than that won't be, it would just be automatically done and not checked. And for me, that felt pretty concerned and given, you know, it's been left up for a very long period of time, maybe because the work hasn't been planned and it's a very high level. We're not automatically, we are automatically approving that and we're not going through a checking process depending on the level. So for me, it feels, the management responses did feel a bit like, oh, it's fine nothing to see here. And I feel like there are a few things that do need to be seen.
If I could clarify, but we accept the findings of the audit, no question about that. I think that I'm looking at the report here. So the automation aspect, my understanding is that's what happens currently and we're seeing we're going to review that to be more robust about it. I think that's where the audit's picked up. Not that that's what we're going to move to and we're going to have picked you up incorrectly. So I think fair to say there were good discussions about the outcomes here and what we're going to do, but service director, I accept that there are areas we need to improve on here and there's no question we will.
And we are, I mean, I've cut down an amendment, which I hope people will agree with other commitments. I agree with to refer this report to housing homelessness and fair work because I think as the GRBV member, I would like to know that that committee is kind of asking for some reassurance around that process. Is that something you'd be kind of happy to report back to housing with and say how you're improving those policies and procedures that's helpful? I have Councillor McVay, then Councillor Heap, then Councillor my work.
Thanks, King Vitter. And I think really helpful if housing homelessness and fair work can look into this in a bit more detail because certainly from how it's presented even from a kind of audit perspective, I slightly worry that corporately, the council is in a bit of a tick box space. And this whereas I think we need some really, really quite tight gripping control over this area. I think some really helpful questions here from Councillor Heap and yourself around the model of this. And I think the model is, leads to council in quite a difficult space. And I can't wait to ask about that specifically. And it's not a million miles away from Councillor Heap's question, but in terms of the nature of some of these requirements, they are of an emergency situation sometimes who have to get things incredibly quickly done with buildings at potentially at risk. There's an example of which people will be aware of in Ankerfield right now where the council stepped in and procured scaffolding, but scaffolders have told those residents that the rates the council is quoting for what they're paying are, I think the word criminal was used by one of the scaffolding companies that were asked about the rates that were being quoted. So can I just ask before we get to a point of acquiring or using people in a framework, there's obviously a process which has quite ticked box in terms of the council testing the market and making sure that the council is getting the best price for it through the council process, but can I ask what independent market analysis there is or these costs as part of that process? Because last thing we want to do is get to position where the council is uniquely, and it could be in this situation where the council's facing costs are dramatically higher and residents would be able to secure in the normal kind of private market. And I suppose I'd want a bit more assurance on premiums paid for quick delivery where that is essential in quite a lot of cases that we're doing that.
Thanks for yourself, Camino.
Thanks, Councillor McVay. There's probably some points there only to combat you, and I think in terms of the analysis done to get onto the framework that's done, that's robust, that's done with procurement colleagues, later after I couldn't answer the point a Councillor knows McVay. So if you're happy, I'll come back through convening it and circulate that to committee just to give you clarity.
I think that's fine. I mean, we're not the executive committee on this, and I would be quite happy. If I can almost fair work, we're into these matters in a lot more detail than we'll be able to today. But it might be helpful to convener if that kind of comes full circle in that discussion and outcome, once it's looked into a lot more detail from your own suggestion that that comes back to this committee just so that we can sort of take a look at what any outcomes potentially are, 'cause I'm not sure as things stand now have ringing endorsement of the procurement process and the cost of the Council is paying for these services.
Thanks, Councillor Knows McVay. I suppose I'm thinking through the comes full circle, 'cause we're really referring this audit report to them with a couple of suggestions, but in terms of coming full circle, I mean, I'm hoping that that executive committee will ask for a report based on this to kind of say where is, what's the future of scaffold management for the Council? And I suppose if any report, I mean, we could specify, we can't tell them, but we could say we'd quite like it if you'd request a report on this and then send it back to us for review and see if they do want to do that in that committee, if people are happy to make a little amendment to the amendment, so I'll maybe have a think about that and bring in other questions. So there's Councillor Heep and they're not going to Council them out.
So let's just come back on the storage issue of the pictures. I think it'd just be useful to get some clarity on this because we pay CGI millions of pounds and if it's the case that we can't give us some enough storage to have some pictures of scaffolding, that's pretty ridiculous. I suspect that's not the case, but it does, I don't want to get who hung up on these particular pictures, but raise a broad issue that if that is the case, then that doesn't seem like we're getting the service we need from that IT service.
So do you want to come back on that, Derek?
I can maybe, I suspect you're right, Councillor Eber. I think because my service has a similar system where I would imagine Derek's colleagues are looking to store this on the actual asset system, Northgate in this case. So colleagues that are working on properties can see the scaffolding photos alongside the case. What is usually the case is that the back-to-back contract with that IT provider has a certain amount of memory space built into it because it's either on or off site. So I think we can take that away. I think it's probably likely that it's actually in that system where colleagues would want to be hyperlinking at that provider is saying we need to procure more space, but given the discussion we've had today around process and procedures, if we can make that process better by having these pictures in that place and that's a business cost we just need to take on.
Can I just think that it's important to be clear? My understanding is that it's not kept within Northgate at the moment, and I think it does link back to the lack of an overall process to be clear where the information's held. There is a reliance on things being held in people's emails, which at just from a record's point of view is not good. So I think there just, you know, it links to making sure the process is reviewed properly, and as part of that, the records requirements are considered, and I will be honest, I don't think the management action is robust enough to really consider what all that had recommended, but back to the conversation that we have with Councillor Miller-Aerler, you know, in general that has to respect that it is up to management to manage the risks, but that is why we present it to committee so that committee has the opportunity to scrutinise that.
Thanks, Laura, Councillor Mayard.
Thank you, Kavina. I have to say that anyone who has had to sit through the statutory notices scandal from the Council, the words scaffolding do bring a certain amount of concern, and there's nothing to allay that my lizard brain memory of, you know, residents being charged, it's extortionate amounts of money, often related to scaffolding. And having been through that, lessons should have been learned. It is highly disappointing to hear that we do not have sufficient processes in place so that someone knows why scaffolds there, who's put it up, and that we're invoicing twice. This is, I just, I cannot believe that we are back here, having been through that. So it's hugely disappointing to have this in front of us. And I have to say it's very unsatisfactory to hear that management decisions, management are not wanting to implement fully, what audit is recommending, because audit is responding to how we keep the organisation safe. This looks as if the organisation is at risk, not only from double invoicing, but also we sometimes pass these costs on to residents, so we're putting residents' monies at risk as well, by not having a sufficient system. I'm not, I think most of the questions have been answered, but I suppose the overlying question is how are we in a position when we're just not tracking that? And anyone who lived through the statutory notice of scandal will know that scaffolding was an area where it was very, very difficult to get clarity on things because of the nature of the scaffolding industry. And that's one of my concerns. So I think we will have difficulties enforcing this, getting the scaffolding firms to sort of necessarily enforce it, but we can do our bit at our end saying, we know why it's being procured, how long it's going to be there, are the permissions in place, we can be sound, even if the industry is difficult to deal with. And I think that's what we're looking at of this. So any, this has to go to housing home as some fair work, and if it needs to come back, it probably does need to come back at some point to check that they have recognised the concerns.
That is helpful, Councillor Milne. Councillor Jenkinson.
I did not see you, Councillor Fegender, but I'll bring you in and then Councillor Jenkinson, and then back to Councillor Heaton.
Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I mean, in one way, something as bad as this is a great advertised, I think why we should have more in-house capacity. What I've not really heard is what kind of process we have, so going into the CGI stuff or just the general take chaos that exists within the council, that when we recognise, when we identify that not having a system in place is actually impeding the work being done properly, what is in place, can anyone answer this, what is in place so that that department can then access or even build something or have something built for them, which will allow them to do their work properly and in a way that we think is accessible and transparent and keeping all the right records as well. So that's question number one. Question number two is more of a general sort of framework one. How do we, in an area that is quite specialised, like scaffolding, stop the people that are in our framework working like a cartel and inflating the prices and keeping the prices high for the work that they're doing? Because the idea, for those of the people that are in favour of private delivery of services, I thought was supposed to be competition, so you got to think it's for cheaper, but this certainly doesn't seem to be working in this area and in other areas as well. So how do we do that? It's what Councillor McVay said about some kind of independent market analysis or something to actually look at those prices as well. So that was the other one. And then just the last question, when we invoice people twice, do we get the money back?
A few things there. Deb, do you want to come in on the question about procurement?
I wondered whether Nicola wanted to come in 'cause she did come up on the screen around IT procurement.
Thanks, Deb. I'll come in around IT just to answer the first question that was asked around process. So there is a pretty robust process in place where a service area needs additional kit whether it's storage or whether it's an additional system that the service area will pull together a business case that goes forward into approval within their own direct to it, gets approved by finance, and then it works its way into digital services where it will work through that change process. That's if the service area once supported IT but the service area also have the additional, I guess, choice to be able to go and procure outside of the CGI contract. It's part of that procurement process and maybe some procurement colleagues will want to come on and maybe Richard will want to come in. But now it's part of that procurement process that is a category on the procurement form that indicates whether the service area wants additional IT and whether they're going outside of the contract to procure that just so we can make sure that we can keep tabs on all non-supported IT that's procured. Hopefully that goes some way to answer a bit of your question.
Okay, thanks, Nicola. In terms of the other parts, do you want to come in, Derek?
Yeah, thanks. Can we not? Excuse me. The system's in place. So in terms of a system that isn't working, whether it's an IT system, a people's system, a policy, whatever, ultimately that's doing to me to reach out to the internal colleagues to take the steps to fix it. That's what we're doing here. And if I could just say to Councillor Mowitt, this isn't a position where the management don't accept the audit recommendations here. We understand why they're there. We understand what we need to do. So it's certainly not the position that we don't accept them. We'll be doing that. The management actions are identified there. We'll be taken, as I'm named there, I'll be taking responsibility for making sure they happen. In terms of the equations about the framework, I need to take that away. I wasn't involved in the framework negotiations around this. It says here that there are two key scaffolding contractors. I don't know what's available in the city. I don't know how many are. So that's a question I need to take away and speak to procurement colleagues about. And in terms of, do we give the money back? If we know we have issued an invoice twice and received payment twice, then yes, of course. We'd be giving the money back. We'll identify that.
Thank you, Derek. Councillor Jenkinson.
So when it comes in regards to storage, which I think has been one of the reasons that's been quoted in the paper, whether that's internal or external storage, storage has never been cheaper. So I actually don't accept that position at all. It can be procured for next to nothing these days. I think there's a theme that comes out and it comes to this committee quite regularly around whether we're in control. And I think we've got more of our records. Management question, to be answered, rather than a storage issue to be solved. And I think it is right in proper that this goes to the relevant executive committee and that is therefore walked through and scrutinized by that committee. And then comes back so that we can see that there has been an improvement because I've got a general concern about records management in the council. And I think the storage issue, for me seems to be the one in a number of, and I don't like to use the phrase excuses as to why things haven't been done. But I think as excuses go, storage is a pretty poor one.
I think we do probably wholeheartedly agree with that, Councillor Jenkinson, Councillor Heath.
My question was already, I don't ask.
That's helpful. So we have, I've got an amendment. And then I'm really thinking, just from actually this discussion, which has been really helpful. And I'm sure Derek, 'cause in no uncertain terms, very clear that we feel that this needs further scrutiny. I'm trying to think about the best way to process this or I am slightly looking at Gavin because we've talked about this, so we had our, I can't remember what it was called, we had a workshop last week. And it was about sort of how we, our processes. And one of the things we talked about is when we refer reports, sometimes we're referring them. But I think we've had a very detailed discussion, we've raised some very key and specific areas that we feel need addressed as a entity. And I feel like to refer this to housing homelessness and fair work, it would be really fantastic to see someone, an officer in some department could summarize that because we can't be webcast. But we don't know, it can be quite challenging for other people at a lot of time. And I think that actually to refer this with a summary of the discussion that we've had, is that something, I mean, who could, who could do that Gavin? Is that something internal audit might be able to do or would that be better done in the service area or governance?
I mean, I think we could, if you, if you refer this and ask that we include the, the main points of the committee, we can provide that and we'll liaise with Laura and team just to make sure that we all agree and we've managed to fully see what the committee are doing. And we can send around the committee as well, just to make sure.
Okay, that would be great. I've also just from the discussion that we've had and Councillor McVay's point, knows McVay's point about something to come back to us. And actually, I think we sort of asking them and we can only request, we'll politely request, but I think the strength of feeling on this in the kind of level of concern. So I would propose to add, verbally, and I've written it down for you, would be, that we add at the end, requests that a report is asked for by Housing Homelessness and Fair Work to cover the approach housing property will take to address these issues raised in the order and the, in the audit findings and that report is referred back to G.O.B.V. for scrutiny of improvements to processes and procedures and also covers, 'cause I've been adding as we've been talking, and also covers a review of the procurement and framework arrangements because that's something that's definitely come up as well. Do you want me to read it again or people are happy with that? I mean, we could send it round. Should we send it round? I'll type it up. Should we take just five minutes and I'll type it up. (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) So I've sent that to Andrew who will send that around and actually in writing it. I think I tied it up slightly from what I said to you. But so I think that we can kind of put that to one side 'cause we still have a couple more audits to go through. So if we go through them and then we can summarize everything at the end. So the next one is the agenda. Do we want to, just in terms of, I mean, I suppose it doesn't really matter. We're not going back anyway. So should we just do the be a gender and then we'll come back and do the last couple of audits. Okay, so we turned the webcast on to turn it back off again if everyone's happy to go into a be a gender session. Thank you. (silence) Are we back, Clive? Perfect, okay. Okay, so next one is annual validation audit. Are there any questions on the annual validation audit? So I had one on the allios. It was about the financial reporting and I just wondered, so obviously there is no financial reporting in some instances. And I wondered if there'd been any assessment of the potential financial impact on the council of us not monitoring that or if that would be something that we might be looking into. I don't know if Gabby maybe wants to pick that up. Doesn't that look like he does? Yes, I will happily repeat the question. So it was about, so in the annual validation audit, one of the red findings was around the allio financial sustainability. And it was just that there had been no, it said that there had been no financial reporting of some allios in some instances at all. And I just wondered if there had been any kind of financial impact in terms of the fact that we're not monitoring the finances of allios, if we've done any kind of assessment of what financially the impact of the risk for us could be of not doing that. If we end up obviously being as happened in the pandemic, where we had to bail out a number of allios and support them in various ways, if there's been any kind of assessment of the financial risk that sits around us not having that reporting coming in. Thanks, Kavina. So I think one element that is useful is that the financial impact of allios is included in annual assurance for each directorate. So it's a question on the annual assurance schedules. For each directorate, is there anything in those allios accounts that would impact on the financial accounts of the council? And we also send annual assurance schedules to each of our main allios to ask them the exact questions. So there are elements, for instance, which are picked up to ensure that any issues that come around about allios would be picked up through our processes. Obviously, there's also a close relationship with directors and the allios to ensure that if there was any issues that came up, that was reported to finance and through Richard's team. So there are processes which are in place, despite that lack of financial reporting. But I think there is a question about how we can improve that and how we can ensure that that is taken into account more. One of the things that I think is clear in terms of looking at the allios in terms of the governance framework is that actually the importance of allios and their impact on the budget is quite significant. The council's obviously got a huge budget. But actually a large part of that is not discretionary. A large part of that goes to statutory services and staff. So actually £10 million to this allio £10 million to the allio is actually a huge part of that discretionary budget. And the importance of that, I think, needs to be looked at more. So how we look upon that and how that goes through the system needs to be worked on more. And we need to be ensuring that we're doing that in a more comprehensive manner. Part of that is due to the work that we're doing on the governance framework. That is going to be talked about how we do things better in terms of officer internally and about how we ensure that those reports and those issues are going up to CLT and going up to the executive directors in a better and more structured way. So that's part of the work that we're trying to do and every director and the chief executive that's spoken to is very keen for that to be pushed forward and for us to come up with a more structured way of doing that. Also, in terms of that framework, we're looking at reporting to committee and making sure that we get that right and making sure that we are providing the information that should be provided to committee that it is proportionate, that it is appropriate, that it is not trying to do the job of the board of the company, but it is given the council the information that it is necessary. So that will be another stream of the framework that we're looking at and reporting. And we have been looking at that and discussing that with the different organizations as well. So for me, there's a couple of elements that we need to work on, which will look to improve that. I suppose finally the next element I think is useful for us to look at. I suppose that impact on the council is the LAO itself. And one of the recommendations we'll be putting in the LAO framework is that following the framework being agreed, hopefully, that a review of that organization, its future, how it is, working is it doing what the council wants to be doing, should be done in a different way. Does that organization want to do something different? The whole shebang, so to speak, needs to be looked at and reviewed and filtered through the committee system. So I think for me it's those three elements, how we can improve our governance internally to make sure that we're looking at that financial elements more, to have better, greater clarity on the reporting and to ensure that that is doing what we need it to be, but that is appropriate and proportionate. And that we're considering the future of LAOs with those organizations and working out what is the best way forward. Hopefully that's answered what you're looking for. Thank you, Gavin. Councillor MART. Yes, sorry, I took a bit of time to navigate where we were in the papers, but I found myself wrong now. I had a question about the operational processes for admissions and appeals, and we talk about checks on addresses, and we talk about birth certificates. Now, a birth certificate is not going to give you a proof of address. So without getting into the details particularly, I think they're talking about something different possibly. Can we just confirm that those checks are in place, that that's all happening, and that that action has been dealt with in order, are sort of happy with that, because given the pressure on schools and at that time of year again, this is quite an important one. That is in place. There's a new online portal that makes all those checks, so that bit of the process is working. Can I ask you an order of seeing that and I'm happy? I need to confirm. I think the thing for us was actually about QA on that, so it's about the checks that have been done to check that that's working right, and that's where we were coming from at Fort, and I think when we went out to validate this, management felt that wasn't required because of the new process that was in place. Does that make sense? Because when we originally did this, the gateway portal was not in place, it was a really manual process that people were taking things into schools. So all I want to know from both the director and from the head of internal audit, we're both happy this is happening and that action is all signed off, even if it's in a slightly different way than any other. Okay, I can't see any further questions on this order. So should we move to the change program, an older people's pathway plus where this is a good audit with significant assurance? So there may be no questions on it. I can't see any questions on it. We might actually finish off with it by lunchtime at this rate. And then that was the audit since the internal charter, and we'd had that discussion on that, but I think that would have been picked up in the first discussion on the report. So I think possibly we might be at the end of the internal audit report. So I was going to move the report with my addendum, which I have also circulated a variable amendment to around the committee, which I hope everyone's seen and is okay with. And just given what we've just been talking about in the B agenda that we would have also a business bulletin update on that monitoring as well, which may have to be quite strangely a B agenda business bulletin, but that will be very exciting if that happens. So with that, I'm happy to move the report and my amendment with those verbal adjustments. Can I get a second up? Formally seconded, you know. Thank you, Councillor McPherland. Oh, and I should say be very happy to accept as an addendum to that, Councillor Thorne, these amendments as well. So if you want to move. Thanks, Governor. I've got a small verbal adjustment as well, just to add at the end, I've sent Andrew the wording just to add at the end, and requests to consider monitoring progress on implementing the recommendations, just to keep it in line with the discussions we've had as a committee about making clear why we're referring something. I think there's not much more to say. I move. Thank you, Councillor Thorne Lee. And to second? Yeah, formally. Thank you, Councillor Unite. So I think we can, I think we're all in agreement on that. We are happy to agree with the recommendations as amended. Thank you. Shall we take a break for an answer? Come back in 45 minutes, 42. Thank you. Okay, welcome back, everyone. I hope everyone is suitably refreshed, so we're going to 8.4, Andrew. Okay, so the next item is item 8.4, the public performance scorecard quarter three. We have an SMP group addendum to this item, and we have Catherine Stewart and Julie Severn speaking to the report. Welcome, Catherine, is there anything you want to add to the report? Yeah, I was just going to say, so this is performance. It's the second version of the quarterly performance scorecard that you've seen. It gives you data up to the end of December. I know elected members are very keen to be talking to us about additional measures. We have arranged a workshop for the 30th of May, so we'll pick them up there. Other than that, happy to take any questions. So can I just ask, in terms of the workshop, we're going to have a quite detailed look at the measures, but also kind of the way things are laid out, the information we're being given, and we'll be able to, because I think that was one of the things that we'd had. This is new performance reporting, which is really good that it's coming here, but I think we'd had a few kind of discussions around the first one, and that's why we put in a workshop, but we've had the second iteration come out, the second quarter, before we've managed to get the workshop in, but there is still quite a lot of scope for change, and is that right? Absolutely, I should just mention that on your initial feedback, we've already changed the charts, so we've taken away the average, and we've put in that kind of longer-term trend for you. That's the only change we've made this time round, but you're right, the workshop. We'll get into the due sale discussion of format and measures. That's great. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Councilor Mina? The answer to this might be bringing it to the workshop, so if that's the answer, that's fine, but I have a couple of questions about communication of the scorecard. First of all, on the broader piece, putting a PDF or any kind of document on the Council's website is one way of reporting a scorecard. I wonder whether there's also something about taking the measures for specific services and putting them into the sections on the website that relates to that service, so that if you're an end-user looking at saying, Oh, my waste bin hasn't been collected, or something like that, you can actually see how many bins the Council collects, and what performance looks like while you're logging in to do that, so that you've got a sense of where you are in the bigger picture, because I think that having a scorecard sitting to one side or reported in a specific area is useful, because you can see all the measures in one place, but if I'm a resident, I'm probably not interested in all of those things, but I'm particularly having a problem with one thing, and having that sitting at the front of that section might be interesting, so that was one thing, it was more of a comment and a question, I hate to be that person. And the other thing was on the promotion, so in the report, you said that there's going to be promotion via Facebook and LinkedIn, and I guess my question was, is it anticipated that that would be from the point of view of sharing factual information with our public, or is that from the point of view of some of these statistics are a great, good news story, and we are promoting how well the Council is doing, because my hope is that it be the former, but I'm a bit concerned it might be the latter, so I just wanted to ask about that. So, thanks for your comment on format, we kind of continually look at how we can be more transparent, so I'll take that way and take that into consideration. Yeah, from the data performance point of view, we would always try and give that more kind of factual, here's how we're performing, we always try and give that balance, rather than it's a shiny, shiny. Councillor McPherland. Thank you, so just firstly, a comment, I think that the layout, for me, as a visitor's committee also is amazingly clear and understandable, so a good job to your team for producing it in that way. My question, again, as a bit of a visitor's committee, is that there's no theme or indicator for access to culture or physical activity in sports, which we've got two massive strategies, and a new citywide culture strategy also, which is quite important, it seems like we're kind of missing out on, especially in a city like Edinburgh, so I just wonder if you can touch on that if there's an opportunity for expansion. Thanks, so we are set, we've got a workshop in the 30s of me, specifically because this is kind of the first version, we want that kind of feedback about other areas, all other comments that have come in on various different areas, including culture, that kind of in a long list for us to cover that workshop, just to see that kind of opportunity. Oh, Councillor HEAP. Thank you very much. Can I just ask about the climate section of the report, the climate change section. So this has a single indicator, which is CO2 emissions. It's obviously a major indicator, but it's not the only one. We can look at other things that are in a control like tree planting. It would be useful to have some indicators around the nature. So what scope is there for perhaps broadening out the indicators here? So we have a better overview of our struggle against climate change, other than just emissions. So thanks for your question. So we're aware that climate change, we've got one. I guess there's a couple of challenges in that area that's around this report is around, because it's coming here quarterly, we want to kind of give you the indicators that are updated on a regular basis, quite a lot in the climate changes around annual figures. It doesn't mean we wouldn't include them, but it's just a consideration. And I think the other thing is about those longer term indicators. So quite a lot of the work in the climate change is something that we're trying to do and say a two year thing, and then it's done and dusted and we move on to the next thing. So we're not trying to put projects in here. I do know that you've been having conversations with elected members about, sorry, council officers have been having conversations with elected members about additional indicators that might be pulled in here around sustainability, climate change, and all of that. We'll bring that, I hate to keep on seeing it, but we'll bring it to the workshop types that consider how we can include the next one. So we would expect climate change to get bigger. Thank you. So I wanted to ask, I've got, and I know I did really think about right in this, or maybe I shouldn't because we've got the workshop and I know we've got the workshop, but it just feels like a really important indicator to me and it sort of jumped out that there was no data. There is data for looked after children achieving literacy, but there's no data for numeracy, and I just wondered why that was, and then why when we get to levers, and I've realised I hadn't been that specific in the amendment, but it was specifically around looked after digit, so there's data around deprived areas but not looked after children, and that in terms of like a key monitor, the thing we should be monitoring is around the attainment gap. That felt important, and I just wondered why that wasn't available. So the more we're trying to do here is find that balance between enough indicators that give you all of the perspectives you need. Without kind of adding in extra indicators that give you the same perspective. So for looked after children, we do monitor both literacy and numeracy. They're both telling the same story that there's a gap and we're working hard on that. So at the time, just because of the numbers that were already in the education space, we decided just to put one in. So we put literacy and we could have put numeracy in. We've got it, so we can definitely add it, but it's going to tell you the same story. So I appreciate it might tell the same story today, but if we don't add it in and maybe in the next quarter, it might tell a different story and we've not got that indicator. So for me, the data on looked after children feels important. I don't want to do a free-for-all look like, well, I did everything. I think the workshops are really important in space, but I feel like we have a kind of duty of care. We are corporate parents. I feel like we should be monitoring looked after children in terms of these indicators. And that's fine. I mean, internally, I guess I was trying to reassure you that internally we are tracking both of them because you're both key, so there's no reason why it can't go in. That is helpful. I can't see any other questions on this. I'm sure everyone's really looking forward to the workshop at the end of the month. So I'll move the amendment. If I can just maybe add in for all, I'll read it out. I'm going to add in another looked after to be really clear that that's what I'm talking about. So notes that in the education section, no score is given for primary looked after children achieving numeracy and there is no attainment gap data at all for -- and I want to add in looked after secondary school pupils or levers, because there is data for secondary school pupils or levers, but it's not looked after one. So if everyone's happy with me adding that in, I will just move that. And I think I've just said quite clearly why I think we should be monitoring that data as well. So I will move the report as amended if I can get a second up. >> Thank you. Is there any other positions or committee happy to accept that? That's grand. Okay. So thank you, Catherine. I think that's the report approved. >> Okay. So the next item is item 8.5. The corporate leadership team risk report as of 25th of March, 2024. And we have Chris Lawson and Michelle McMillan speaking to this item. >> Welcome, Chris. Michelle, is there anything that you want to add to the report? >> Nothing to add to the report can be done. >> Okay. Are there any questions? Councillor Menner. >> Thank you very much for the report. And just one question about how we might achieve this. So I'm interested in the report potentially in the future showing us more about the path towards target risk appetite. And I just wondered if you had any thoughts about how best to show that potentially in the report if we chose to do that. Because I think that's possibly with some of the risks being out with appetite, something that we need to be thinking about. >> Can we answer you? So, yeah, that's something that we're actively looking at in terms of how we include that that can feature under the post in the future. I suppose one of the things we touched on here previously is that it can be challenging because while we can create dialogue with the directors and looking at the risk responses, we can create what would be that path to within risk appetite as it stands at the moment. But there can often be additional factors that take place during that path to becoming within risk appetite. But then, again, push you back out towards being out with risk appetite or require additional action and can create competing demands in terms of achieving that overall time scale. So I think for all we can look to articulate that in a way that will set a clearer time scale for being back within risk appetite. I think we just need to bear in mind that there can be other factors that can encroach that and can have an overall impact on whether we can achieve that definitely or not. [inaudible] >> Inclusion of heat apps and future reporting will certainly help in terms of risk tolerance because you'll be able to see the risks coming out of the day. You'll see the movement more easily than what you see currently in the current reporting format, so that will support. >> Yeah, I think if there's any movement in where we are with a risk that's helpful to see that. And it's then trying to work out without giving ourselves too much work or unnecessary sort of reporting just a bit of a sense of what are the key things that need to be done that will bring us back in appetite. What are the barriers to that happening, whether it's financial, organizational, whatever the thing is that's preventing us from getting there. It's just that very high level and I think it's fine if something happens that means that we're stymied, you know, it's not fine, but it's understandable. But it's just about being honest with the committee and making sure that we are well-cited on that so that we understand what's happening in the world. That means that we're being prevented from getting ourselves back within appetite. >> Yeah, just excuse me, just briefly. I'm pleased to hear that heat maps are going to be included in further iterations of their support, because I've kind of always felt that it would ease explaining kind of narrative in the general direction of travel. And I've kind of always felt that whilst having a rag state, it tells a story without a kind of heat map behind it. It's just colors, sometimes just colors on a screen. So I'm pleased to hear that and I would encourage you to do that. So that's good. Thank you. >> Do you want to respond on that, Michelle? I wondered if it might be helpful, because we did have a workshop, but not all members could attend, because members are obviously working as well. And I do wonder if it would be helpful to kind of go over a bit of the longer term plan, because at the moment, this is kind of reporting. It's kind of changing every time it comes back, and I think we can all see that we're getting more information and it's responding to members' questions. But there is a bit of a larger overhaul that you're planning and you're thinking about tolerance and appetite and how we monitor that. And I wonder if you maybe want to outline that, Michelle? >> Yeah, thank you, Commissioner. So what we want to look at in future is really the difference between appetite and tolerance. So tolerance is really about how you control the risk and then we're looking at the heat map. But appetite is really more about the amount of risk that the organisation is willing to take, and it's really based on the different behaviours. So we think that would be the best emphasis. So looking at appetite linked to risk category, so for example, health and safety type risks, we would be aware. So we would want to make sure that that was all clear, that the risk categories were properly defined and aligned, and through the risk workshops that myself and Craig Patterson and the risk team undertake. We would really be spreading the word on that, and I think that would really support in terms of the reporting as well as the decision making. So that's the direction of travel that we're looking at. >> Thanks, Michelle, and I think we were talking in that about, so obviously we as a committee don't set the risk appetite, PNS set the risk appetite, but then we monitor the risk appetite. But we did have a discussion on that committee, which also had PNS members there, so everyone was present or was able to attend anyway, that you would in setting out the next risk appetite that that's something that would be circulated to members of our committee. And we could come back together and have another workshop where we can all kind of, because last time there were, you know, we had different views and people wanted to change it, so we can have that quite robust discussion and quite detailed discussion about where we think the risk appetite will be. And then even though we may come to that committee, PNS, which obviously is different from ours, trying to set different risk appetites, at least we'll have had that kind of discussion and debate and understand where that's coming from. So I think that would be helpful. I don't know if there's anything you wanted to add, Chris or Michelle? >> Yeah, just I think that would be fantastic, just to look at what the proposals are and to look at what the examples and almost scenarios to make sense for that would be great. Okay, so I do have like one slightly more detailed question, it's just something that jumped out at me, and it was around the finance and budgets of one for Richard. I wasn't quite sure, so under the current controls, at the end of the first paragraph, it says the IGB pressure. The net pressure is, however, being contained within the overall council would balance position with an assumption that the majority of the overspend being met by the council in 2324 will then be repaid over a period of three years. And I just wondered, is that repayment coming from, that we're repaying ourselves effectively, because we think we'll save it from with our own budgets? Are we expecting a saving from the IGB over three years, because I think I'm looking at that phase? That feels unlikely to me, so I just wondered what was going to sit in behind that? I think it's very fair question can be now, and currently, as it's worded, and the recommendation that would go into the outside report would be that what we would anticipate would be proposing is, out of the anticipated IGB overspend position, two million of that relates to transitions that the council has passed over, as in transition packages that have passed over the council, that remain there is other source of overspend within the IGB. We would be putting forward that we would address our overspend as part of the wider corporate picture for the council, but as I say, we're a repayment period now. As I said, we obviously know that the IGB is under a huge amount of pressure financially, whether we would want to enforce that repayment would be something we would want to consistently monitor in debate, whether we would want to do that, given the position and the evolving financial risks. But that was the current thinking at that time at the moment. Okay, so it's the current thinking, but I mean to me it feels very unlikely given in the conversation, but it feels quite difficult. And I suppose I would like in part of this, looking at the controls around this, I suppose I'd want to know that we are a scenario planning within the council that we would have to, but how we would cope if we have to absorb that and that's kind of built into our financial planning as well. Yeah, I can absolutely show you a convener that's built into the current plans. So over the last few months since the last monitoring report, we have put in individual service plans to mitigate down the overspends that were reported at the period 10 report. So we have seen improvement, we're still confirming the final figures, provisional out turn that would still be subject to the audit. We were planning to provide that report of the F&R on 27 June, which will include that. Okay, thank you. Council agenda. It's a short question, but it kind of fits into some of my favourite themes. One of my big concerns about even the existence of this committee and the concept of good value and risk is that quite often it's really just an artifice to kind of pretend that somehow we're in control of local government delivering services when we've almost lost control because we don't have enough money to actually deliver the services that we know we should be. I was a bit curious about what the meaning of this is that there's a couple of the reports where at the end it says that the risk appetite is being reviewed on a constant basis and that's it. But then we do which is the finance one and the health and social care one, but then we have health and safety who have actually given a date that's not, well, just actually said it will remain out with appetite through 2024. So what's the difference between admitting that it's going to remain out with and saying that we're constantly going to review it, because as someone who's not an expert on that, they were going to constantly review it. It doesn't actually seem very meaningful to me as the sort of timeline when risk should be back with an appetite. And are we allowed to just say, under current circumstances, there is absolutely no way that this can be brought under control? I mean, I'm not an expert on these things, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Absolutely, so I'll try and break it down into the different aspects of your question. But I think in terms of the continuous basis, I think that's just very much an abbreviation of a continuous financial process of reviewing expenditure, reviewing budgets, income streams, having insurance framework in place and financial controls in place. All the normal things that you would expect any organisation to do, and also all of the statutory responsibilities that we do have, such as producing the statement of accounts, reviewing the balance sheet, all of the financial returns that we provide. So I think it's very much an umbrella term for us assessing financial risk to the council in probably a very short sentence. However, I'm always happy to expand on the ways that we do that, and we mitigate risk and try and get ourselves back. I think just in the second part of your question, and I think I would be happy to provide further detail on this, I think in terms of reaching back out towards the amber risk appetite in the finance section. I think this is all completely dependent on the budget process for the 25/26 financial year. So I think this is a really important point that you bring out, Councillor, that we should absolutely have a plan and a report that would bring this back to having an amber risk at an amber level of risk within the finances. So at the moment, we have got a quite wide range of risk and scenarios that were within the budget. So, as it says in a report here, 160 million over the period of the MTFP, we really need to make sure that we have got really robust plans in place, especially for the impending year, but making sure that we make decisions that are going to affect the medium term and getting us on to a sustainable footing. We have got the first F&R report that is bringing the next revenue framework update, and I think one of the things that we want to look at as part of this work that we're doing with the risk appetite and risk tolerance level is make sure that we absolutely position that report in terms of the options that we'll put in front of members that these are important decisions that will move us more towards an amber target in terms of risk. Chris, you want to come in? Thank you, Kimbina. So this was one of the points that we touched on during the member workshop around an exercise that we'll undertake in the risk team to try and map back the risk appetite as it stands just now, again, to what are the underpinnings that currently drive us towards having the risk appetites that we have at the moment. Is it statutory based? Is it policy based within the organisation? And through that, we can have a more informed position when we come to engage members further on the next setting of the risk appetite and risk tolerance within the organisation. What we need to see is that this is a decision-making tool for the organisation, while it may have underpinnings that link to regulated requirements and obligations, the risk management approach itself is not a regulated approach. At an organisational tool to help in decision-making, prioritising where spend or activity should perhaps take place over somewhere else. And I think given a particular challenge is that public sector faces with the pressure-run resources, actually risk management tools potentially can program a far more powerful tool in helping make those decisions and help explain why decisions are taking in particular points in time based on a range of pressures, both internally and externally. Thanks, Chris. I can't see any further questions on this report. So with that, are we happy to agree the recommendations? Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 8.6, the Strategic Program Board, and we have Stuart Connell and Julie Severn speaking to this item. Hi Stuart, is there anything that you want to add to the report? Hi, nothing further to add, happy to take comment. I've got a question if no one else has anything straight off the bat. I've got a couple of questions actually. So one of the things that I was trying to understand about this report is there's a number of projects in here and I'm wondering what we're doing with them. I'm wondering what the role of this report coming to this committee is because I have the feeling that some of these projects should be going to Executive Committee. So if I look at the projects, I'm looking at one, for example, the first one, the Inclusion Service Project. So I think, although I'm not totally sure that that's ESB/ESP, that has been on our program board for a while and I didn't really understand what it was because this is a very, very small paragraph of information that we have. And then found out all about what it was when parents of disabled children were coming to me really terrified about what was happening in terms of the next school year. And I had, and collectively as Councillors, we've had a lot of concerns about that process and that had come to light and it hadn't come to Councillors at all. And so it really worries me that this has come to this committee and I'm not having a degree because I realise that you are the overseer of this, the board as such, but not of the individual projects. But I have real concerns that there's projects in here that should be going to committees, that should be getting that detailed policy because I think if that first one had gone to Education Committee, there would have been quite a lot of issues raised, that probably would have been headed off earlier, discussions with parents, that kind of engagement that didn't happen. And so I suppose my first question is, is there a process within the board where you're looking through the project? And one of the first things is, is there oversight of this project other than at the strategic program board? Is it going to committee? Is it politically sensitive? Is it something that should be getting oversight from Councillors, and is it getting the right level of oversight and approval as we're moving through the process? So that may be a question for you, it may not be a question for you, it may be for someone else, but I would appreciate if someone could answer that. Do you want to start? I was going to say I can come in, but it looks like Deb's. Yeah, I'm just going to say each of the projects, thank you for the question first of all, each of the projects reports to the strategic program board, and we understand that they should, or we'll go to different executive committees. The role of the strategic program board is just to make sure that all the governance is placed, to make sure that the projects are progressing as they should. But I think in terms of the actual tracking, when we look at them monthly, I think the question that we don't probably ask is, or we could ask is, is it going to certain committees? And we can take that forward, but I'll pass to Deb's. So I think when you've asked questions convener about why does this report come to this committee, and I guess that's always a bit of a difficult one in the sense of, we're not really asking you to scrutinise the individual projects. But to have scrutiny over the governance of the program, and are we kind of monitoring the right things? And I think therefore, are they going to the relevant committees and when have they been, is something we could look to add into the report? Because I know we've sort of struggled on a couple of days to think about what is the most useful information we can bring to this committee. And again, we're happy to have a workshop with committee, if that's helpful, I know another workshop, but maybe that is helpful. I don't know, maybe it's not, but we can just take it up offline, because as we bring more and more projects into the strategic program board to monitor at the officer level, that they are delivering the outcomes required, which will have clearly a more and more key focus on the financial sustainability of the organisation. I think that's very key that we get the relevant work going to the exact committees to oversee those, and then providing this committee with the relevant information to scrutinise the governance and that process. So happy to continue to work on that with you all. I'll come to the minute, Councillor MURPHY, and just want to follow up on that. So I appreciate that. So I think one of the governance things that I would like to see is this getting the proper scrutiny? No, I don't want to go through every individual project, because that's not our job, but I think it's our job to make sure that we're required the executive committees are doing that. And then the other thing is, so my first question, what is this for? I was looking at this going. So if this is about financial long-term sustainability of the organisation, then I'm not getting that financial information in here either. And so maybe we're quite workshop-heavy, but maybe we don't need a bit of a workshop to say, if this is something that's going to report to us, what is it we need to understand? Because for me, it feels like it's that financial monitoring part of our role, and I think we need to have a bit more detail. So actually having a kind of offline discussion I think would be helpful, so let's do that at some point. Okay, I can see none. Councilor McFarland? Thanks, Commissioner. Again, as a kind of naive person visiting this committee, I just interesting in the kind of, when you distill down some of these projects into a tiny paragraph, it's very different to how you receive them at executive committees. So I'm looking at future libraries, for example, and the work streams, and it's quite clear in terms of what that review is expecting to do, such as deliver services in fewer buildings, reduce opening hours, and other reviews that were kind of very much in the scope. And just so wondering then, just comment on how when you come to GRBV, it's quite distilled in terms of the intention of that review, but it's kind of packaged quite differently if you're an executive committee, including some democratic decisions that have taken since then, including amendments that have been passed contrary to some of the comments that are the expected outcome of that review, yet they're marked green. So I wonder if why amendments that have been passed since then are not kind of flagging up as an amber, surely, as because actually there is a problem because there isn't democratic agreement to pursue some of those intended outcomes. I hope that makes sense. Yeah, I can come in there. The level of detail that we provide on some of these reports, I think, as Deb says, just indicated that it's just quite is quite high level and they will report to different executive committees, things like libraries, for example. I don't want to comment on individual ones that I'm not the project manager or the SRO for. So within this strategic program board, we monitor them. This is just as of March. So we've not got the April update there. So if the status of that has changed, it would be based on the SRO and the project manager updating us at the strategic program board, which is at the end of May. Sorry, Commander, can I just briefly add something on that? I think possible links to the point before as well. So I think Councilor Mullins created there was a motion or a amendment that was approved that sets out selling the intention to not to seek to close buildings, but I think the key thing for here. And put into your point as well, Commander, if we were, for example, illustrating a table here that said, what is the scope of this project financially and timeline wise? Members would at that point say, okay, well, in terms of why are you doing this and how long is it going to take? You'd say, yeah, as with all projects, we should set out a scope that says, what are we trying to achieve, what the benefits we're seeking to achieve? We do that, but it's clearly doesn't come through in this because actually this is carrying on what used to be called the major projects. Members have been around for a long time, at least the major projects portfolio, that's kind of moved on into the strategic program board. But actually the difference between major projects and this is actually, major projects were generally kind of big capital projects, whereas this is moving into more transformation and capital projects. So there's maybe, I mean, I'm telling, do you want to suck eggs? He knows this better than I do. But if we were to maybe update this, that said to members, okay, actually, broadly, is this for the benefit of the MTFP or is it just service improvement? And if it's for the MTFP, what's the expected saving? I think it's a fair challenge that maybe we should take away between colleagues and say, actually, who sponsors this scope? Because standing orders would say, if you're taking a contentious decision, members take that, and actually, I think what I'm hearing from some councils is, wait a minute. And again, Monday's area on the inclusion. But if there is a view of members, wait a minute, we want to sponsor that scope before you as officers start working on it. Then I think I'm fair in saying that I'm sure colleagues with agree, we can weave that into governance to make sure that members get to sign off that scope. Yeah, I think there's a bit about governance. It feels that there's a missing bit of governance in terms of exactly as Council McFarland has said, have there been amendments that might impact the strategic program? Board is working to one set of outcomes, but members might have taken different decisions, but also has there been that back and forward between members in terms of governance around it. So that's something to think about maybe for a workshop. Councillor Mallet. Thanks. I've got two questions, now I have to get my glasses on. First about the community transport, new demand responsive travel management system. And whilst I know we're not nitpicking over individual projects, I just wanted to confirmation from Gareth. Is this the one that's been in the scope for like about the last five years under various different titles? That's the one, Councillor. If that is the one, and I've got a question about why we're now aiming, the new aim of this seems to be a world-class travel service for the Council. Given it's taken us five years to deliver anything, could we just lose the world-class on that and just have a service that does what we need it to do? Because I don't think we need it to be, given the difficulties of getting there, I think that's over-ambitious. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. If I could have just a second, which is a very quick one, and it's just on where we've got an SRO named who's leaving the Council, when will that be updated, and when will the responsibilities. We have this 20 minute neighbourhood. In terms of that particular project, we are, there's interim arrangements being put in place of Daisy. He's obviously moving on, so you will see in the next update there'll be a new SRO that would feed him through Stuart and the team and that would come through into this portfolio pack. Okay, but also I think we've agreed to workshop on that to think about reformatting it slightly. So that would be another fun thing for our GRBV diaries. Okay, I can't see any further questions. Oh, sorry, Councillor Heep. Thank you, Kavina. If I can ask about the waste and cleansing best value review, appreciate this question, might be on the board line between GRBV and the relevant executive community. So that's going to be an investor, or is an investigation into service efficiency and best value. Would those mean different things, different people? So can you tell us a bit about what specifically it's looking at and whether there's any, whether jobs are in scope, whether there could be any impact on the number of jobs available in that service? Yeah, if that, Councillor, so I can't link to the earlier point, actually, so transport and environment as a parent committee have signed off the outline of that review. It has a number of strungs. There is one service review going on right now in the waste disposal area, so that's the recycling centres. I know there is some staffing involved, but there's certainly no job losses. So the intention for us, and I think it has been put in writing, is that this is focusing on an efficient in-house service. So I know with, with trade union colleagues who have had maybe concerns in the past, this isn't looking at anything other than being in line with a Councillor's business plan. This is about having an efficient in-house service. I think as a report sets out and certainly credits to staff and trade unions, it's been a lot of good work on this. We are, you know, 2.5 million that members approved as part of the budget has been phased at £500,000. Last year have further £500,000 this year, and then £1.5 million in 2526, and Transport and Environment Committee members are fully aware that they're kind of big saving at the end. We think comes through the redesign of our curbside collection service, but again, that's within in-house service. So this, if you take this year, the way the savings been met this year was the approval of the increased garden waste charge. We've assumed, we've consumed demographic funding, but we're able to contain that within the existing collection round. So again, that's three more efficient working from our in-house teams. And we made a saving from bringing common all-glass collections back in-house from an external contractor. So they are the three way so far that that million pounds has been accounted for. Follow that up. I still hear you a little bit when you're talking about job loss, but you were saying that there's going to be no job losses. And also, can I just ask the thing, as you mentioned, about the garden waste service? No, apologies. The first question is fine, actually. Yeah, so obviously the Council has no compulsory redundancy policy, and certainly that we are working with colleagues that I'm confident with the turnover we have in the waste and cleansing service that we are redesigning jobs, but certainly no one will be losing a job unless they voluntarily wish to, which is part of our managing change policy, but certainly nobody leaving on anything on the voluntary basis. Okay, I can't see any further questions, so are we happy to agree the recommendations? Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 8.7, which is the whistle-blowing annual report, and we have Sarah Sterling, Kevin McKee, and Nick Smith speaking to this item. Okay, Councillors, not too much to add to the report. It's a slight misnomer in terms of annual report, given that it comes to this committee on a six-month basis, and that's an overlay on the quarterly report to the whistle-blowing subcommittee, which delve into the details. So this is an update on various improvements in whistle-blowing practice and some statistics in relation to the investigations that have been conducted over the previous year, so happy to take any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions? Councillor MURPHY. Yes, thank you. We list this as the whistle-blowing report, but it's actually the safe call report, because there's other ways of -- this is about safe calls statistics and how well they've done, but are we capturing other forms of whistle-blowing? Because -- or other forms of instances, how does that get fed into whistle-blowing, or do we only capture anything that's going via safe call? And I ask this because I know there's other people who are whistle-blowing in different ways coming in, but we're only presenting safe call stats here, so we're just filtering it all through that, or -- Yeah, thanks for the question, Councillor. The reality is, there shouldn't be any whistle-blowing that is not covered by safe call, so if people are whistle-blowing that it's not -- and they feel it's not covered by safe call, that shouldn't be happening. So either people are phoning safe call direct, and then that comes through our system, or people should be making a management referral, which should get referred through the whistle-blowing team, which should then get passed on to safe call. So the whole point in having safe call there is to ensure that any whistle-blowing that happens in this authority has external oversight by an independent body, which is a safe call, and then comes on to this committee. Anything that falls out with that HR type aspect wouldn't be part of this report, so you're correct in that this report should reflect -- or does reflect safe calls, but the two should be identical. So there shouldn't be any whistle-blowing that safe call is not across, and I'll be of concern if there weren't. I've got two follow-ups to that. There are instances where people come forward with information that is whistle-blowing. Now, when they come to me, and I just say you need to go through safe call, because I'm a member of GRB and I've been doing this since we started doing whistle-blowing in the council. I know there are other councils that will do that as well. There are some people that will not go to safe call. So how are we doing with that? And also, since we've sent up the in-house team under Tana, where are they in that picture if everything is going through safe call? Right, so taking the last part first, you've got the governance team, which sits within Gavin's area, who managed the whistle-blowing, and that was Laura Callender, who's now sadly left the council out of to happily retire. And they deal on a day-to-day basis, working with Craig Russell and his team, along with safe call on triage. So when any issue comes in, I think, as we discussed quite some time ago now, one of the things we were struggling with when we were looking at implementing Tana was working at all the front door, how everything comes in, and what we want to make sure is everything's coming in and getting appropriately triaged. So once something with the agreement of safe call is determined to be whistle-blowing, it sits in that whistle-blowing bucket for one to a bit of word. And it is then overseen by safe call throughout that process, working through Laura Callender's or the governance team. The investigations themselves, if it's going to be investigated internally rather than externally, will be done through Craig Russell's team, who cover both whistle-blowing and HR matters. For the whistle-blowing aspects, once that investigation is concluded, if it's been approved by safe call to be being done internally, it then gets passed back to safe call to check the work that's been done and make sure that they are happy. In addition to myself and my team, through the governance team, being happy, all the aspects have been looked at, and it is now appropriate once signed up for safe call to come back to the committee. And apologies. I've forgotten your first question. Can you remind me, please? Or it may have been the same question. Oh, people who don't want to go to safe call. So this was something that was identified through TANR, where people felt that they had whistle-blowing, but it hadn't been noted. We weren't aware of it through the whistle-blowing team. The answer is, we can try and make the system as safe as we can. And I really appreciate all the efforts that Council has made to say, please go to safe call or the police or any other body that is appropriate. We want people to bring forward their concerns. If they are unhappy about doing so through safe call, for hopefully no good reason, then I'm happy to speak to them. They are more than welcome to speak to people in the governance team. We also have, as noted here, the Speak Up supporters who are staff from across the Council, who are, in some cases, a more junior level. That people might feel appropriate. We've set that up so that individuals can also speak across direct to it. So someone from Children's Services may not want to speak to someone in their own service. They can go to one of the Speak Up supporters in a different department. The short answer is, we want people to be able to feel they can raise issues and have those independently looked at within the Council, but that's partly our cultural thing. So I had a question, so I know we talked about how the numbers, like previously, had been going up and up and there was some work done around. Well, a lot to do with Craig Russell's team, but about triaging and the numbers have come down slightly by 10. Does that feel like it's a trend? Is it because things are getting picked up and the teams working effectively? Also, I know there's none still to be determined, so everything had been determined more quickly. Do we feel it's a better oiled machine than it was a year ago? So it's definitely a better oiled machine. You can see from the statistics, we're getting through more work. I think there are a combination of things happening, and I have my own view. So some of you who have been here a long time will remember me saying quite some time ago, what is good? Does it mean that if we get fewer whistle-blowing, is that a good thing? Because actually stuff's getting dealt with in the line. People can have conversations with their bosses and their colleagues and say that's not acceptable. So rather than picking up the hotline, they're actually dealing with things at birth for one of a better way of putting it. Or should we be seeing now we've got this better system, more whistle-blowing? I don't know the answer to that, and I can't give you an answer to that. I'd be very concerned if we weren't getting that much. What I will say is we've gone, if you look, I can't certainly remember this, if you look a few years ago, we were getting probably on average between 20 and 25 whistle-blows, so from 2013 onwards. When Tanner came along, we suddenly shot up, it's a great thing, and we went up to about 70. But some of those were, I think it was nine in relation to the same issue. So you've got to, there's an element, a double count there. The statistics for this year are probably slightly lower. Now that can be a combination of factors. That could be because, as you know, we're now triaging out a lot of the HR matters. So where people previously felt that they didn't trust the HR system or the HR investigation system, whether rightly or not, because it was getting investigated by their own department, that's now not happening. It gets investigated through the independent investigations team. So I think there's more trust in the system from that perspective. So a lot of that, forgive the phrase, but sort of noise that was coming through from an HR perspective, through whistle-blowing, is no longer there. However, my personal view, and we'll see how this bears out, we kind of as many policies, procedures, this is all down to culture. It's about people being able to speak to each other, it's about people feeling able to raise issues. As Council March just said, she is speaking to people who don't want to raise issues. That is a significant concern to me. It is not something that we as a whistle-blowing team can solve. That is a whole system managerial issue, as Gareth said. Everyone needs state responsibility and encourage it and make sure people are feeling safe to come forward. So I don't know the answer to your question in terms of whether good, you know, higher numbers are better or not. All I care about is that people are able to raise issues and that they will get investigated and then any issues can be dealt with. Thanks, Nick. I mean, I suppose I did also notice that the number of major disclosures were almost the same. And in a way that maybe feels quite healthy, that if it is significant, then people are coming forward. And that we definitely want major disclosures to come forward, so we certainly wouldn't want to discourage that. I can't see any further questions on this, are we happy to agree the recommendations? Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 8.8, which is the Annual Treasury Management Strategy 24/25. This is a referral from the City of Edinburgh Council, and we have Innes Edwards and Richard Lloyd-Bittle speaking to this report. Thanks, Andrew. Anything you wanted to add? Nothing to add, Kamina? No. Any questions on this report? No. I'll cancel it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kamina. If I can just refer, please, to Section 8.1, so it's talking about environmental social governance and the Treasury, and it's quoting the Treasury Code that says it's not implied that the organisations, the Council's, ESG policy, will currently include ESG scoring or other real-time criteria at individual investment level. Can you just explain why, why not, and what impact that might have on our knowledge of where the investments are going from a climate perspective? Yeah, I can talk about that in general terms, so I think, and also just wanted to point towards a response to the motion and the commitment that we'll get back to the report within three cycles on the ESG. But I'll cover off again what some of the barriers that we have got at the moment, which we'll need to overcome for this report. Essentially, it is availability of data to make those investment decisions, to establish criteria of policies, which we would conduct the Treasury Management Strategy a lot, which would execute the Treasury Management under the strategy. And we would need access to better data in terms of the investment and the ESG worthiness. So there's a number of frameworks out there, and assessments and institutions that can assess the ESG worthiness or green credentials of a counterparty that we may invest in. But we're going to have to assess options for what that data source would be and what the most appropriate partner to provide that data would be, and what I would be aiming to do as part of this report is to look at how we would incorporate that into the strategy, and therefore the policies and schedules in which we'd execute the day-to-day Treasury Management under those. Thank you, that's a very helpful and key to our answer. Can I just ask a question about the same part of the report on that ESG issue? So it's April 1, Environmental Social Governance is at an early stage of development in the Treasury Management Environment, an early stage of development. But we do have a 2030 strategy, and it's 2024. Do you accept that we really should be further on now in 2024, rather than being at an early stage given the broader climate change picture? It's hard for me to say, because this sounds like a bit of a deflection, but I think since I've come in, I think looking forward, I would like us to accelerate our considerations on this. I think nationally it's fair to say that the councils and the Treasury Management Functions aren't as well developed as other areas, such as if we look at pension funds where they've got really quite clear care and strategies on responsible investment, I would be very keen and we've committed to making sure that we bring back some options on that and accelerate and bring us up to speed on that. So, yeah. Right, I can't see any further questions. Are we happy to agree the report? Thank you. So, the next item is item 8.9, Capital Strategy 2434 Annual Report, and this is a referral from the Finance Resources Committee, and we have Richard Lloyd-Bittle and Rebecca Andrew speaking to this item. Anything you want to add, Richard or Rebecca? Nothing for me. Are there any questions on this report? Councillor HEAP. Thank you. Sorry, I'm going to ask probably the same question that I've just asked, but in a capital context. So, at 9.5, it says the full capital costs associated with achieving the Council's 2030 net zero carbon target, and mitigating climate change is likely to be significant, but is still to be funded. Could you just explain that a bit more, so how much more is there to be funded? Again, bearing in mind that we're only six years away from it. I may have to defer to my learner colleague. It's significant, certainly, the cost, for example, of retrofitting all the Council buildings could be in excess of about £2 billion. So, given that is the full capital program we have for the whole HRA plus general fund over that period, and that's just the general fund side on top of that, you'd have the HRA side, and there is some work and some budget achieving those targets in that budget, but that's dependent on the Council tax rise of 7% going forward for 10 years, and has also kind of had problems with the reduction in grants. So, it's a significant challenge, and it's unlikely that the Council can fund it all within its own resources. We'll need a significant external funding. Can I just follow up on that answer, which was very helpful. If I can just follow the last bit, were you talking about external funding to supplement the Council's funding? Can you tell us a little bit more about where that funding is and the work under way to access that? I'm not sure it is there yet. It'd be something we'd be making representations, and it's supposed to be a UK government Scottish government. It's that kind of level where we can leverage in private sector funding, but the problem with private sector funding is that they need a way of repaying that funding, so it's developing business cases, and there will be some business cases where it makes sense that you can do a kind of invest-to-save issue and that will deliver it, but it's a lot that we just can't afford. Just one more follow-up on my convene, and again, thank you for your helpful answers. If I can go back to the first point about progress towards finding funding for the capital approach to giving net zero, can I invite you to part not a figure, because I don't know if that exists, but a qualitative description of where we are in terms of the capital approach to achieving net zero, and how far we are on in terms of getting funding. I think just housing, as you said, was too brilliant, sorry. I mean, I'm, as it's most of the I'll bring Richard in, in terms of work through Cosler. Within the city, there's a kind of group that brings together the university, and other groups of government that's a net zero leadership board, which is looking about how the city can address it as a whole, but there'd be a wider government approach, which you can maybe elaborate on a bit. Yeah, I'll maybe come in just on the property point, Cosler, because, clearly, this is at the forefront of all our minds as officers. We have the emissions reduction plan as the council, which does report through PNS, and I think it's, you know, members see and screw to nice performance on that. Our emissions, whilst our emissions reduction is projected in a linear fashion, i.e., like that, in actual fact, you're probably expecting more of a step change as we make kind of big plays. So, we take the fleet replacement project members signed off. There will be a step change when those vehicles arrive, and you'll see a step. There's probably, then, well, there is not probably, there is going to be, because that's what was approved in the investment strategy. Then a plateau until broadly 2029, when we would expect to make another step change. The biggest part of the pie chart that's in that emissions reduction plan, sorry, is the property estate. And it's there to say that is where the big, as Rebecca says, you know, that estimation of somewhere around two billion pounds is, to be frank, is not generally funded, and I'm not aware of too many funding pots nowadays that would, would fund that now through things like section 75 for building, you know, school extensions or new schools. Clearly, we're building through policy things like passive house development and renewables. We will, we funded a street lighting replacement principally through SALEX funding and on a spend to save, because it's stacked up. So, I think maybe this is Richard's background mind, but I think there's clearly a funding strategy that we're going to have to work on over the next few years on how we progress towards net zero, because things like active travel funding, for example, benefit our wider emissions plan as a city, but they don't really necessarily affect our SERP as a council's emissions, so that's a spending money to reduce the emissions of our citizens and visitors. The SERP is more inward locking, and that two billion that Rebecca's talking about is literally just on our inward locking emissions as an organisation, not outwardly looking across the city. So, it's a challenge, but it's a challenge we need to lean into and try and find solutions to. I'll just add that, if that's okay, Councillor. Just to round all that up, I think Arabs have two, right? We need a funding strategy around that. But I think, unfortunately, in terms of conversations about external money, national lobbying, cosler, all of these really key stakeholders in terms of everyone is collectively working towards this position. There's not much real, from my point of view, some magic bullet in terms of external funding that is going to solve this issue. If we're going to do anything, it's going to have to be a local funding solution that we will have to do. Now, I think there is a lot of important decisions that we can take through the budget process to re-paratise the money that we are spending. So, we've got this issue, we've got a £1.3 billion budget. In the capital programme at the moment, we have not got any headroom within the revenue budget, as it's currently agreed, to borrow much more. Not certainly not for the amounts that we are taking, but as part of the budget process and the core work that we want to do that, if, collectively, as members, we end as an organisation, as this is one of our business plan priorities, we collectively need to work together to free up that money to work on the priorities, whether it's this or any business plan priority. And the only way we're going to have that funding strategy is by taking some of the important decisions on where we spend money elsewhere and re-paratising that. They're going to be the quickest and most effective solution to make sure that we're getting value for money in all of the areas of the business, an organisation to reinvest in these priorities. But that's ultimately a decision that we'll have to take through the budget process. Question, Karina, if that's OK. I appreciate it. So, just to be kind of aware of time on this, we have spent quite a long time on this report. We've still got quite a few reports to go through. So, I'll allow another question, but if we just could keep questions and answers as short as possible, that would be great. Thank you very much for those answers. And I think it does sound like we're still way off in terms of getting the funding for these net zero capital projects. Can I just ask, under 8.1, that you're using the Stupid Climate Economics to classify capital investment, according to the impact on net zero. So, 54, positive to some extent of 39 neutral and 7% unfavorable. So, that's 46% unfavorable or neutral. I know we've had this conversation before. And some of it is embedded carbon when you knock down a bad input of anyone. But is there any scope within that 46% to make that favorable and not just neutral or unfavorable, given that climate change is really, really bearing down on this? It does seem, given the situation with climate change at the moment, it does seem not great. That 46% of capital standing isn't making a direct contribution to tax and climate change. There's probably some scope within the 39%. The 7% is related to the non-electric vehicles we've got in the current fleet strategy. And where we're building new buildings on green, un-previously developed landscapes that we call that soil ceiling. So, that's ultimate. Those are clusters unfavorable. In the 39%, the neutral and defined, you've got things like, I suppose, improvements to buildings you're doing anyway. So, you could up the spec and make them more retrofitting and more environmentally friendly. I think they're undefined because we don't quite know what we're doing there. There'll probably be elements that are favorable there and elements that are more neutral. But we haven't got the details to bring that out. So, probably that 39% is probably hidden. That also includes the affordable housing grants we issued to both the HRA and housing associations. A lot of that new housing, particularly, that's being developed by the HRA is to a high environmental standard. So, that would probably be more favorable. But until we know the exact who we're paying the answer, we've just lumped it in as that neutral and defined category. Was there another question? No, I misunderstood that completely. OK. All right, if we don't have any further questions, are we happy to read the recommendations? Thank you. OK, so the next item is item 8.10, which is the annual assurance schedule for place 22-23, and we have Gareth Barwell speaking to this item. Thanks, Andrew. Gareth, it's a written thing you want to add. No offense coming in, you just have to take any questions. Councillor Jenkinsham. It's just for clarification, unless I'm just completely confused. But in the recommendations in 1.1.2, it says that the place that HRA annual assurance schedule for 2324 should be submitted for committee scrutiny in 2324. Is that meant to be 24 or 2425? That's just a typing error, so apologies I should have picked up. No. So I was confused, and that's fine. Councillor MACK. Yes, it was another question about dates, given that the date on the annual assurance schedule is April 2022. And it says on the first page, this is the for the year ending 31st of March 2022. And I'm just wondering how relevant it is to be scrutinising this document two years later. Perhaps I think Alison might be there, but I think that might be a more of a data issue than a kind of timeliness issue. I think that's more of the case that that date is in direct council on this is the this is the 2223. So that should read April 23 as opposed to April 22. But I don't know if Alison you want to clarify at all. Councillor apologies. I didn't pick that up previously. This is the statement. The place is annual assurance statement for 2022/23. So for the year that ended 31st of March, 2023. Okay, so it's still quite and this is a conversation we have every time. I think we have the same conversation every time we have an assurance statement, which is the writing's too small. And it's very out of date. But if we had them all in a wonder, would you want to do one of these for every service director at all in one committee meeting? Because I don't think we do, especially with the writing being so small. And then Gavin's just had to leave, although he is going to come back, but he's had to go to another meeting. Then we talked to Gavin about the fact that really we couldn't probably narrow this down to something not quite as lengthy, cumbersome, wordy, and quite. Because again, looking at this, it's one of these things I think we could all sit around and probably have like five questions each on this because there's a lot. I mean, I've got a few questions, but I also think it's probably not the most, it doesn't feel like the best way to get assurance on this. So I think, oh, I feel another workshop coming on or something to review these. But I think Gavin's not here, but I think he is as part of his assurance, governance, and assurance framework work looking at this. I'm pretty sure that is the case. So I think we can maybe take all those things as comments on the record and hopefully we will see those improvements, but Councillor MAYOR, what you wanted to come in. Yeah, when I was reading this, I couldn't quite work out whether it was '22, '23 or '21, '22, but if Allison says it is, I'm not going to dispute that. My other attempt to, I was the other question I was tempted to ask, which really picks up on your point, was just to ask Mr. Barwell, what's changed since 2022? Because actually that's what we're trying to track, is where things have been identified. And there's a whole load of things that are very repetitive in here and in every other place, in every other assurance statement, because it's a list of what the government's documents the Council has and how you're ticking the box because you're aware of it. And I'm sure there is a better way to do that. And I don't know. I think that probably does need to be, maybe it's a subcommittee needs to sit down and pull these together with a Councillor. A very short life working group of one meeting to pull it together with it, to pull it apart with Gavin and say, what do we really need, what don't we need. And can we, I think it feeds into much bigger, bigger sort of technological improvements the Council could make. I think that's probably true. I do wonder if a short one meeting subcommittee is actually the same as a workshop though. I suppose it could be, couldn't it? Well, yeah, I suppose so. We could do one or the other. We'll do something. I think, I do think probably we need to sit down. But I also think, it's a shame that Gavin did have to leave just before this because I think, I do think he is working on this. I remember we've had conversations with him and he is looking at this and these are a bit out of date. So we'll put workshop question marks. Gavin might just circulate a brand new format to us all and we'll go, that's brilliant and that's what we'll do in future. I think in terms of the substance of, it doesn't seem to be any specific questions on it. So I can't see any further questions. Well, you have to zoom in and wear glasses. That's the secret, that's the trick. So, no further questions. We're happy to agree the assurance statement. Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 8.11. Capital theatres, company performance report, 22, 23. This is our referral from the culture and communities committee. And we have Lindsay Robertson, Crawford Hunt and Brian Loudon speaking to this report. Hello, welcome. So is there anything that you wanted to add to the report? Could I add something? Sorry, Lindsay Roberts here. Yeah, so I just quickly, yes. And I'm sure members are well aware, but to highlight a correction in financial impact, it's 6.3 in the report. And it should read that the council has agreed a £7 million capital grant, the King's Theatre Capital Project. The commitment was increased by council as part of budget decisions in February 23. And so apologies for that not being accurately updated in the report. That was my main addition. Thank you, Lindsay. Is there anything else that anyone would like to add? No. I'm going to dive in because we had a discussion earlier on the annual validation order. And one of the issues that come back was allios. Not having regular reporting of financial risks and not sort of detailed financial reporting. And even at the start of this report, it literally tells us what our job is, which is not to do what culture and communities do, which is to look at the kind of strategy and what has been delivered in terms of culture. It tells us don't look at that, look at the financial performance reporting. And there isn't really any. There's like a little bit of information about, you know, around the King's Theatre, about what's been lent. But I don't know what the turnover is. I don't know what the financial risks are. So I suppose my request would be in future. And I'd quite like us to receive a briefing note about the financial health of the organisation and a bit of kind of the accounts light, if you like, just a kind of summary of that, because that's what we're meant to do in this committee. And also if we could, in future, make sure that we do get a more detailed financial appraisal for this. I think that's probably more of a CEC request. So on that, are there any financial risks or any areas within the finances that you think we should be aware of? I guess nothing significant in terms of this year. We've had a good year. We've had a lot of big shows, Hamilton, which some of you know about. So we've had a lot of customers have come back to kind of pre-COVID levels. So the turnover's been good. The trading's been good in the bars. And the costs have remained low, although obviously, utilities like every other business is going up. And we live in wage for accredity. So that kind of salary increases came in. But we're still doing the year-end results in the month, but it's probably going to be a small surplus this year and forecast the same for the next year and go forward. So, yeah, that's the main summary. That's very good to know. Are there any other questions on this report? Nope. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Are we happy to agree the report then? Thank you. Okay. So the next item is item 8.12, which is the Edinburgh Ledger Annual Report, Referral from the Culture and Communities Committee. And we have Graham Crouch, Jen Holland, and Kevin Johnson speaking to this item. Welcome. So nice to meet you. Jen, hello. So nice to meet you. And obviously this is the first time you've been to this committee, but welcome. Is there anything that you would like to add to the report? Nothing. Nothing to add to the report can be known, but we're all happy to take questions. Are there any questions? So I have one. Probably won't surprise you. I would like to understand what's sitting behind the kind of longtime strategy around the rural living wage and how you're hoping to approach that. So obviously we've had our annual funding from CEC this financial year. As part of that funding agreement, it's asked us to do an efficiency review internally. So we have a report going aboard next Monday that talks about sustainability review, which will incorporate the efficiency review, also talks about the fresh in our aims and vision and also setting out that strategic plan, which will do in conjunction with CEC officers and obviously the board at that time, but our plan is to look at that in the next six months, to define all the efficiencies and income strategy for Edinburgh leisure and then to bring that back. Are there any further questions from committee? I have one. It's actually possibly taking a little bit of liberty here, but it's a kind of ward-related issue. So I was scanning the annual report and I noticed that the Edinburgh leisure facilities in Berlin High School weren't mentioned once. There's a bit of concern within the community that Berlin High School is a little bit forgotten about and left behind. And I was just wondering if you would like to either address my concerns or the concerns of the community that is quite difficult to book pitches and the availability of the swimming pool is a concern within the local community. I'm not aware of the specific concerns, but I'm happy to go back and try to understand them. If you could give me more detail about what concerns are, I'm happy to deal with that back in Edinburgh leisure. I'll do that separately. Thank you. Councillor MURPHANN. Thanks, Commissioner. I'm just wondering if you can give us a wee bit more information about the assets that you have that are performing ahead of budget, which is welcome. If those kind of figures further call me for the swim centre, etcetera, and the climbing arena, if you think that's the ceiling in terms of what's achievable for those assets or whether there's actually further gains that we could make over future years. Councillor MURPHANN. Kevin's probably closer to this in terms of delivery of income, but obviously we've completed our 23, 24. Annual counts, Kevin and the team have drafted these. We've seen a significant increase in income across the board in this last financial year in terms of memberships and just usage of different facilities. So Kevin's probably talking more about the detail. As we talked, as I mentioned, we're looking at a sustainability review in terms of actually increasing our income levels and looking at all different kinds of strategies in terms of tourism, in terms of business to business, looking at all different options in terms of that. So I do think there's opportunity for us to increase our income levels across our estate, as well as all the incomes that we've seen come to from membership levels. Councillor MURPHANN. Thank you. If I could just add to that. Thank you for the question. EICA being probably one of the best examples. We used to have a very challenging environment, EICA, sitting a way out in the west there. That venue over the course of the year that we've just finished has made a surplus of £74,000 that compares to pre-COVID of a deficit of half a million pounds. So there's been a massive turnaround there. We've invested a lot. We've done a lot of restructuring, so helped to grow income there. So EICA is one of the assets that we're now really seeing a dramatic improvement compared to where it used to be. But we're seeing that across a lot of other sites as well. So we put a 10% price increase on last year. So anything I'm telling you about income there that in mind, Craig Lockhart's income was up 18%, Ainsley Parks was up 19, Grace Mountain, Leith Victoria, 24% on the year before. So there's been a lot of good growth over the course of the year that we've just finished. And I think it's important to note that we are still behind where we were in usage terms to pre-COVID. There has been a dramatic shift in the number of customers coming into our venues in total because, you know, people are still working at home not coming into town as much as they were. So if we're looking alike for like basis, take out MedoBank from this current year compared to pre-COVID, we're about 9% below on usage overall. So that's helping to feed into the reason why we are still finding ourselves in a financially challenging position before we look at other things like particularly energy costs that are rocking in about £2 million more this year than they were pre-COVID as well. So there's lots of things that are still causing pressure, but there's lots of good stuff happening as well and very good developments and a lot of good strategic intentions to move forward as well. Can't say. If I can like to just follow up a couple of questions to your question coming about the real living wage and related wage issues. So in the report, or in the document you've given as it says, active discussion around paying the real living wage, can you just give us a kind of timeline when all the staff are going to be paid the real living wage? The staff have received the real living wage, so that went in on the first of April 2020. That's what I thought. Yeah. So is there an intention to keep doing that forever more? Is it just, we obviously it was funded and that's been for the budget year, but is there an ambition to now keep that in place? We'll have to go through the financial strategy for it, but a leisure of aim and looking at that sustainability review in terms of what we can afford moving forward today and looking at all the areas that we can increase, so we will endeavour to come back with a plan in terms of what that looks like over the next. My aim is to do a five-year strategy for what we're looking at. Can I just ask about kind of reporting of this as well? So when this came up at committee, whenever it was, it would have been sometime last year, I think one of the issues was, I think, just we were surprised that as far as, from our point of view, living at a leisure under your predecessor had stopped paying the real living wage and we felt like he didn't know about that. So would you commit in future to keeping us really well informed about any decisions around the real living wage? So I think we need to avoid that issue with the hard work. It was kind of, we found a nasty kind of surprise in a report that actually the real living wage wasn't being paid and we didn't know about it. Absolutely happy to keep committee updated on where we get to with the future financial strategy for even a leisure. Can I just ask as well, just in the next paragraph on that report, after talking about the real living wage, it says it refers to recruitment difficulties. And do you accept that? I appreciate the real living wage is being paid now, but previously not paying the real living wage might have had something to do with recruitment difficulties. I think there's been a number of factors that have impacted on our ability to recruit and one of them will be in and around pay, but I think there's a number of factors that have impact on that in terms of young people being available in the city due to COVID's universities not being in and just lots of inflationary factors that have impacted on our ability. But recruitment is increasing in terms of adding a leisure, so hopefully we're in the right track now, but it's probably a contributing factor. Okay, I can't see any further questions. Thank you very much. We're happy to agree with the report. Okay, so the next item is item 8.14, the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board Chief Officer Update, and this is a referral from the Policy and Sustainability Committee and Pat Toga will speak to this report. Is there anything that you want to add to Pat? Just to remind ourselves that this is a report following a commitment that I gave when I come into post, and it's in the spirit of the full-party motion, just to make sure that the committee is as brief as possible. It was a very minor amendment, not amendment to the report, but just to update, given some of this, is slightly dated and it is in relation to page 497 on your papers under items of governance in paragraph 2. It's just to update the revised in-year financial pressure recovered fairly well. We were projecting in December that we were due to over spend by £6 million, and we are just over £4 million, and this is hopefully recognition of the additional grip and control that we put in place in the remaining months of the last financial year. Thank you. That's helpful, thank you for the update. Pat, are there any questions for Pat on this report, Councilor Fagenda? Thank you. I was wondering if there's any way that we can measure in the EIJB, how much of the money that's being saved, which is genuine savings, new way of working, better ways of working, and how much has just cost the service, sort of just reducing what we were given to people, et cetera. Is there any measurement of that? Because I know that you have to make hard decisions, so just wondering if there's any measure of it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. That's something we would probably have to take away and give due consideration to. I suppose one area that we could factor into this is the over-prescribing of packages of care, which is referenced within a number of reports, and we were perhaps seen as a bit of an outlier when compared with, if you like, the national average in relation to care provision in arrows of care that we're providing, and we've done an awful lot of work in that in the last few months, and our current projections are coming much, much more in line with where we sit nationally or where we perhaps should be, and given our focus on maximizing independence and not necessarily over-prescribing packages of care. So that's probably one area that we could look at as a saving, as opposed to a cut, but I don't want to gloss over 60 million pounds while the savings will translate quite specifically into very, very significant cuts. Thank you. Councillor MURPHY. Yeah, I suppose just building on Councillor Fuchenda's question, it would be helpful, and firstly, I think, I think it's the first time anyone from the IJP's come here with good news about them having less of a deficit than we were expecting. So, actually, I would like it put on the record to say, well done, congratulations, and we'd like to see more of the same. But could you give us a... Could you... Is that about cuts and services, or is that about, you know, grit and control, whether it might be lacking? Because I think that's important for us to understand, because we don't underestimate the scale of the challenge, but it is good to see some progress being made. Thank you. Thank you very much for that, Councillor MURPHY. That's really genuinely appreciated. There's probably a few things to say. When we recognised that the in-year financial projection in December was looking more like 6.2 million pounds, opposed to 2.2, that is what resulted in the audit that we had discussed earlier on. So, there was a 4 million pound variance within that that we were looking to, first of all, I suppose, stop the trajectory that we were on and then try and pull this back in. There was some very quick decisions that the IGB were required to take, fairly uncomfortable decisions that I need to emphasize. A large part of that was on efficiencies, but it was also about pulling staff into a centralised review team, which then carried a fair element of risk to it, because they had to stop what they were doing in their own existing case loads, to review, reassess packages of care, and then to resize them accordingly. So, there's an element of risk attached to this, which I suspect will uncover and move forward in the next few months. But a large part of that is also just being about the additional grip and control, the touchstone earlier on the oversight of high cost, review packages of care and low cost ones, and it was also about the efficiencies. But it has been a pretty intense of a few months about getting this here with us, but it's been largely in relation to pulling in what we have as existing resources into this to carry out these reviews. And we've turned over an excessive amount of reviews of resize packages of care appropriately and proportionately. But it has involved a fairly large amount of the workforce having to stop what they were previously doing. Okay, I can't see any further questions, so are we happy to agree the recommendations? Thank you. So, I did actually mean to say this after the last report, do we want to take a break? We don't have very much left on the agenda, but I am conscious we have been going for a little while. Ten minute break. Also, can we just agree? I'm not expecting it to be long, but we've got two motions. Neither of them are mine, so I'm not saying this for myself. But I've been reminded there's a four o'clock rule, but I'm happy to wave it as long as people keep moving and seconding brief. So we will allow people to speak to their motions even if we run. But hopefully we'll get in before four anyway, so fingers crossed. Okay, ten minutes to come back at half past. Okay, so the next item is item 8.15, which is the internal audit annual plan 24/25 annual report. And this is a referral from the IJB Audit and Assurance Committee, and we have Laura Calder speaking to this item. Thanks, Andrew. Is there anything you want to add to Laura? Just for members to be aware why this comes here. So the IJB Audit and Assurance Committee, it's not a public meeting, so the papers are held online. So the referral comes here for members to see it. It works the other way, so we make a referral of the council's plan to the IJB Audit and Assurance Committee, so there are a way of work that's going on that impacts Open Social Care Partnership. So it's really just here for information. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Laura. Are there any questions on this report? No. Okay, so can we agree the recommendations? Thank you. Okay, so the next item is item 9.1, which is the motion by Councillor HEAP, PVD and insurance checks. Councillor HEAP, you want to move? Thank you, Kavina. A couple of months ago, we got an audit report that drew attention to some concerns around PVD and insurance checks, just as a reminder, I'll quote the bit that we were concerned about. In relation to healthcare provider, in addition to quoting, compliance activities such as PVD or insurance checks were stopped during the recent pandemic, and as of December 23, have not yet, have yet to resume. So we were very concerned when we read that, because on the face of it, that says that PVD checks were not done. My understanding from following that up with officers that the PVD checks and insurance checks were done, but they're kind of spot checks on them. To check the checks that had been done, those were the things that had not been done. I think that's less concerning than the PVD checks just not being done, but it's still quite concerning, because we don't know they are being done unless we check that they're being done. So I think it would be useful just to kind of just tie this off as a committee, because in a way we made, I think, quite rightly, a first about that, our last committee, the other one before that, and although I've received, I think some generally reassuring assurances from officers, I think it would be useful just to, that's just an email that I got. So I think it would be useful just to get that formally as a report or an update, I think this suggests, so we can kind of formally say that we're happy with this or we're not happy with this and we can do something else, but I think just to make sure that we're progressing this, this is all the motion is for, and it just asks for a briefing, just looking at giving us confirmation about which checks were not done, and if some checks were not done, why not, if any risk, or this is with a risk committee, so if there was any risk to service users or to staff, what work has been done to establish whether this happened elsewhere, because that was to check that audit on a healthcare provider, so we don't know whether it was just that provider or it was more, it was widespread. I believe there was an action planned for improvement in a reference in a press statement, and it would, from the IDB, so it would be useful to know what that is. So it would be useful just to get, it's just a briefing roll for a report, just so we can see that's progressing where it needs to, and we can reassure ourselves, everything's generally okay, or if it's not okay, then we can keep pressing for some further action. And to second, it was slightly good. Do you have a seconder? Yeah, Councillor Malauk? Just four, really, thanks. Contribution to Councillor Uni. Thank you. Apologies, sorry, Councillor Miller. I just wanted to clarify, when it's a briefing, is that intended to be a written briefing? The clarifying briefing to Councillors, is that a written briefing or a verbal one? I don't know what the mover of the motion was intended. That was my intention for it to be writing, yeah. Part of the issue here is just transparency as well, so it would be helpful it was a written briefing that the public can easily access. Okay, so I just wanted to make a contribution myself, so I wholly support this. I think we should get a briefing. Just to say that we had actually at the time, I brought an amendment to us for a report which I checked the cycles, and it is June next month. And that was to cover, because it was in the Supplier in Contract Management Order. And there were concerns around non-contract spend and the Insurance PVD checks, and what we agreed to come back in that report, which will come in June, was that we would set out which Direct Reports or Service Areas have the top 10 highest number of contracts when there's been a failure to carry out PVD insurance and compliance checks. So that report will be coming back to us in June, and I suppose that if we have this briefing formulated to us in this written briefing, and we still have concerns around that, then we could put an amendment to that report to then get further information back if we still have concerns. And we should get more information then, so that's a process available to us. But yeah, we would very much support this motion. I can't see any other contributions, and no one's moving in an alternative position, so I think that's the motion passed. Okay, so the next item is item 9.2, motioned by Councillor Jankinson, IT Service Availability. Let's move to Councillor Jankinson. Yeah, so I mean, I'll briefly try and be brief. I mean, I won't apologise for pushing CGI and digital services harder. I kind of feel it's forming a need to be more semi-permanent role now. I think I'm just trying to... I'm trying to just push in the right direction and change your mindset. And, you know, maybe I appreciate in a slightly different way the difference between a planned and an unplanned outage and what's appropriate and what's not and what mitigation is and how it can and how it can't be done and when it can and when it shouldn't be done. So the purpose of my motion is just to kind of throw down a bit of a marker and make sure that we're thinking about the citizens out there who are actually trying to do, either try to do business or try to communicate with the council and what impact decisions that we have could have on them. So with that, I don't really need to go into much more detail. It's pretty self-explanatory. So formally, I can't even move into opposition. So formally, councilor Jenkins. Formally for me. And is there a seconder? Councilor Fuchenda. Yes, genuinely, formally. Second. That was definitely formal. Are there any contributions on this or can we all agree? I can see Nicholas got a hand up, but Nicholas, this is motion so we wouldn't normally come to directors or officers at this point. But I think that is no other position. So that's agreed. So that motion is passed. Thank you. Okay. So that takes us to 10.1, which is the resolution to consider it in private. The committee is requested under Section 50A4 of the local government Scotland Act 1973 to exclude members of the public from the meeting for the following items business on the ground that they would involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 12 of part 1. Of Schedule 7A of the Act. Are committee happy to hear the next item in private? That's agreed. And so that if anyone who is not here for this item, if they could leave and thank you everyone for your time so far. [ Silence ]

AI Generated

Summary

The council meeting focused on various governance and operational issues, including financial strategies, service delivery, and compliance with regulatory standards. Key decisions were made regarding the Edinburgh Integration Joint Board, Capital Theatres, and Edinburgh Leisure, reflecting the council's commitment to cultural and community services.

Edinburgh Integration Joint Board (EIJB) Chief Officer Update:
- Decision: Acknowledged improvements in financial management.
- Arguments: Discussions centered on the reduction of the projected deficit, with emphasis on enhanced control measures and efficient resource allocation.
- Implications: The decision underscored the council's focus on financial sustainability and accountability in health and social care services.
Capital Theatres Company Performance Report:
- Decision: Approved the report, noting the financial health and operational success of the theatres.
- Arguments: The report highlighted successful shows and financial stability, with some concerns about future funding for renovations.
- Implications: Ensures continued support and funding for cultural landmarks, promoting arts and community engagement.
Edinburgh Leisure Annual Report:
- Decision: Accepted the annual report, which showed positive performance and recovery post-COVID.
- Arguments: Discussion on the need for sustainable funding and the real living wage for staff.
- Implications: The decision impacts staff welfare and the quality of community services, emphasizing the importance of financial and operational health in public leisure services.

Interesting Event:

A notable moment in the meeting was the clarification and emphasis on the real living wage commitment by Edinburgh Leisure, highlighting the council's focus on fair employment practices within its funded entities. The council meeting focused on various governance and operational issues, including financial strategies, service delivery, and compliance with regulatory standards. Key discussions revolved around financial management, service efficiency, and risk assessments.

Whistleblowing Procedures: The council reviewed the whistleblowing annual report, discussing the effectiveness of current procedures. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of checks and balances, leading to a decision to request a detailed briefing on the implementation and outcomes of whistleblowing actions. This decision aims to enhance transparency and accountability within council operations.
Treasury Management Strategy: The council approved the Treasury Management Strategy for the upcoming year, emphasizing the need for robust financial oversight and risk management. Discussions highlighted the challenges of aligning investments with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. The strategy's approval is crucial for ensuring the council's financial health and compliance with sustainability goals.
Capital Theatres Performance Report: The council discussed the annual performance of Capital Theatres, focusing on financial health and operational challenges. The report prompted discussions on funding and strategic management, leading to a decision to continue support with a focus on improving efficiency and audience engagement.
IT Service Availability Motion: A motion was passed to improve IT service availability, addressing concerns about the impact of service outages on public access to council services. The decision underscores the council's commitment to enhancing IT infrastructure to prevent future disruptions.

Surprisingly, the meeting revealed significant concerns about the real-time monitoring and management of IT services, highlighting the need for immediate action to prevent service interruptions that affect both council operations and public service delivery.

Governance, Risk and Best Value Committee - Tuesday, 7th May, 2024 10.00 am

Summary

Attendees

Documents