Transcript

Good morning, everybody. If we can make a start, we're running just slightly late. Welcome to this meeting of the orders and governance committee on the 10th of July at 10 a.m. in the council chamber. Please note this meeting is a public meeting and is being webcast live. There is no fire drill planned so if the alarm sounds, please use the exit outside of the council chamber and please go to the car park. Can I please ask committee members and anyone presenting to speak clearly and directly into their microphones. Please ensure all mobiles are switched off or turned to silent. I would like to welcome the cabinet member for finance and resources, Mr. David Lewis, in attendance and I believe we also have the external auditors online with us. Okay. So item number one, apologies for absence and substitutions. >> Thanks, chair. No apologies received. Okay. Thank you very much. So item number two, this is the minutes of the previous meeting. That's the 5th of June, 2024. Hopefully you've all had a chance to read those. Does anybody have any comments or queries on any of those minutes? No. I think the only thing I would like to say on those minutes is the -- there's a number of issues that we raised on the complaints performance report. So I would just like to make sure that we did agree a date of September 24th that they would respond and come to the meeting on the 24th, Amelia. So if we could just minute that they will definitely be addressing those issues on 24th. Thank you. Okay. So are we all agreed that minutes of that meeting are agreed? Thank you very much. So item number three, declarations of interest. Does any member here have any declaration of interest related to any item on the agenda today? I can't see anything. Thank you very much. Item number four, questions and petitions. So we've received no members questions. We've received no public questions. Petitions, the deadline was 14 days before the meeting. We haven't received any of those. Okay. That's finished. So item number five, the recommendations tracker and work plan. So that's on pages 15 to 38. Do we have any comments or queries by any members of this committee? Steven. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Just the -- there is an item, I think, AE624, just about the DB&I report coming to cabinet. There's -- that should be coming to cabinet very shortly. So there was, again, a slight delay in that one because of a general election, I believe. But just to update by note, I think it's coming to cabinet 15th of July. It's been published. It's published, is it? So it's just an update on that one, Chair. Okay. That's all. Thank you. Okay. That was AE624. Yeah, thanks, Chair. Yeah, AE624, the DB&I task from finished group for its review alongside later report. So that's just a slight last-minute update -- not last-minute, but just to give an up-to-date update on that one. Okay? I mean, I can -- I know it will be published in the public domain in the cabinet agenda, but I can circulate that to committee members just for reference, yeah. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Steven. Do any other members of the committee have any queries or comments about this? Once again, as already mentioned, the annual complaints performance report, there's a whole load of target dates for completion of all of that. We discussed the PSSA item number 81623. There's no -- any update on sign-off? No? I'm afraid not. I continue to chase. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I've had some communication from them, so they are at least responding to my cases, but I have not yet got confirmation. Okay, fine. Thanks, Nicky. So maybe if you just add that onto the next meeting to see whether there were any updates on that. Steven, sorry. Thank you, Chair. And further down in the report, on A1024, the ethical standards annual review 2324, in the update from July, there's to be confirmed, offices declaration of interest. Do we have a date for that, or is there any other information on that one, please? There's no update, but I'll chase the offices for that, yeah. Okay. And following that, there are several rows underneath which have TBC in the column as well. Again, if we can get an update on that, that would be much appreciated. Thank you. Okay. So if we have no further queries or comments, so committees asked to monitor progress on the implementation of actions recommendations from previous meetings, Annex A, and note the work plan, Annex B, and any changes to it. Are we all agreed? No two? Fine. Thank you very much, everybody. So moving on to item number six, this is the external audit plan. So I'm not, is this you, Nicky, or is this Janet? Oh, both. Good morning, Janet. Good morning. So who's... Would you let me just talk you through, just, okay, fine. So thank you, Chair. At the last meeting, we brought our audit plan, and in the appendix A where we set out the fees, we had left some indication of areas of work which we anticipate will be required this year, but we had put fees in TBC, and you had specifically asked us a committee that we come back with at least a range on our expectation as to the amount of work that would be required and therefore the associated fee. So you'll find that on page 47 of our report, your page 89, and you'll see that we have based our expectations on similar work that we've had to do in respect of, well, in respect of those areas at other audited bodies and similar to what we found that the PSAA typically will determine. So just to try and give you a much more precise indication of what the fees may be associated with, ISA 315 work, which is about risk within your IT systems, your preparedness around IFRS 16, which is to do with additional lease disclosures that will be required, work that we are in the midst of now on the data migration between the SAP system and Unit 4 system that took place in June 2023, and then the additional work on investment property valuations that sit down within your subsidiary accounts where we will undertake the work rather than rely on your component auditors. So hopefully that gives the committee what you were looking for. Other than that, we haven't changed our plan based on the work that we've been doing since we last saw you, and we're continuing to progress that with Nicky and Verity and the team as of now. Okay. Thank you very much indeed, Janet. Nicky, did you want to add anything? Nothing further to add, Chair. We discussed the plan in detail at the previous committee, so it was just that one follow-up. Thank you. Fine. Okay. Thank you very much. Janet, I was just going to ask you, how are we doing on all the walkthrough testing? Are we all up to date on that as per the plan? So we are still working through some of that. We are dividing our time between prep for the execution phase and the walkthrough work. I think you're aware that there's been a few delays from the Council side in terms of the final preparation of the financial statements, access to data for us to be able to complete all of that. So it's in progress. I think it would be fair to say we're a little behind where we all had hoped to be at this point, and we'll be discussing that with Verity and Nicky over the next couple of weeks to determine how we pull that time back at the end of the process. So just bearing that in mind, will that affect substantive testing at all? Will that be pushed back at all? Do you still aim to get that done within the deadline? I'm hoping not. We're right into the technicalities now, Chair, in terms of getting data, which we were going to have last week. There have been some changes made in the last two weeks, I understand, by the finance team. So we're hoping we'll get that by next week. Sampling, we were hoping to have got done by the 22nd when the main bulk of my team arrive on the job. I think we'll probably be a week behind in terms of that sampling work. But the team might hit the ground in force on the 22nd and we'll be at it full on for the rest of the summer. Thanks very much. Thanks. Do any members of the committee have any comments? On the summary pack where it says there's no risk management implications. So what page? This is on page 44 of the main pack, or yeah,

1. There's no direct risk management implications of this report. I was thinking there are though, aren't there? Yeah, I suppose there aren't any that aren't covered in the annex in detail because there's a significant part of that. But you're quite right, we should have referred to that. Yeah, right. So in the annex, I thought there's a few points I wanted to touch on that, if that's okay. So on the risk identified section, I just wanted to understand how we've classified then because we've got fraud risk, fraud risk, significant risk, significant. And then below that at the bottom, we've got the area of audit focus. So I'm just wondering, is this just a sort of a categorization rather than some sort of meaningful assessment of the risk? Shall I take that one, Nicky? So yes, those are our assessment as your external auditors as to the risk that we give an inappropriate opinion on your financial statements. So they're defined within the international standards of auditing. We are required to look at the risk of fraud within the organization that may lead to a material misstatement and that we miss it when we provide an opinion. Significant risk is that we think that there's an issue within the way in which the numbers are derived. It may be because they're highly complex, they're estimated, they're subject to management judgment, or they're just highly prone to error that could give rise to an auditor's significant risk of material misstatement within the financial statements. And then other areas of focus are where we think that that risk is less likely, but that we feel we will need to do some additional work to make sure that we've mitigated that risk before we provide an opinion and we provide an appropriate opinion on your financial statements. Hopefully that sets it out clearly. Yeah, I think that makes sense. I was just a bit confused when I was trying to sort of get them right in my head because I was thinking like, if you've got a fraud risk, that's also an inherent risk. But I can understand like we use it as a bit of an initial risk assessment. But yeah, thank you for that. I did have a few other questions, whether that's okay. On page 79 of the annex document, I think we've got a various number of specialists that we're going to be using. I mean, I probably know the answer to this, but presumably have we factored in an estimated time for the use of those specialists? And then do we have a bit of a feeling of what additional costs there would be? So from our perspective, we identify the specialists that you use, we then look at what specialist knowledge we need to be able to assess their judgments, because clearly the auditors are specialists in auditing, but not necessarily in estates valuation, or in pension actuarial valuation. Those costs are factored in for us to be able to provide our opinion. So yes, those are taken into account in the fees that you see in Appendix A. So on page 115, or 111 of the annex, actually. Yeah, to be fair, I actually think you've answered that question. So I'll just ignore that. Sorry. And on page 111 as well, we talk about an assumption-setting process. Presumably, we'll be looking at the assumption-setting process as part of the external audit work. So 1111 is the pension fund audit. So I would refer you, I think, to-- That's the next item. Yeah, that's the next item. So perhaps-- can we take that one in that? Yeah. Yeah, we'll take that next item, Janet. OK. Super. OK, anything else? Do any other members have any comments? I think it was you, Stephen, who raised about the fees. So I'll keep taking. Yeah, I mean, thanks, Chair. I mean, it's good to see that this has come back with those items added, et cetera, and given the recommendations of the committees being asked to approve this particular plan, it's good to see that's there. And thank you very much for your updates. So thanks so much, Janet. Thank you. So we, as a committee, are asked to note the changes made to the external audit plan as requested by the committee on the 5th of June, '24. Those have been done, and approve the revised '23-'24 external audit plan as attached in Annex 1. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. So item number 7. So this is now the Surrey Pension Fund external audit plan for '23-'24. So this braces to provide the auditing governance committee with an update on the process for undertaking an external audit of the '23-'24 Surrey Pension Fund. So I think we have Kiva and Francis. I think Kiva, there you go. I think Kiva is in the room. Oh, Kiva. Oh, Kiva and Francis. Yeah, so I know a lot more. So I don't know who's presenting this one. Is that, yes, I don't think Francis is presenting yet. Morning, Chair. It's Hassan Rohimann here. So over to Hassan. Yeah, morning, Chair. Just by way of introduction, Hassan Rohimann, a partner with EY, responsible for the external audit of the Pension Fund. So I'll take you through our, briefly take you through the Pension Fund audit planning report, which you have on the agenda today, focusing primarily on Section 1 of the report. So within Section 1 of the report, so taking you to your page 111, we outline there the risks that we've identified during the planning process, categorising what those risks are, and providing a summary of the details. Further information is provided within Section 2 of the report. So I'll take you through, in turn, through the risks that have been identified. So the first one is a misstatement due to fraud and error. That's a presumed risk in line with international standards on auditing
2. So highlighting there the position which management is in, in respect to the risk of perpetrating fraud because of their ability to manipulate the accounts. So that is a risk which we identify on all of our audits which we undertake. The second one, looking at specifically at fraud risks and the risk of fraud in financial misreporting, we've identified that, in our opinion, that risk can predominantly manifest itself in the inappropriate posting of journals. So we've identified that as a risk which we're going to be addressing during the course of our audit. The third risk relates to the valuation of level 3 investments. Level 3 investments are investments where there's no observable market data, which makes them hard to value. So identify that as a significant risk because the market prices are not readily available and it requires additional procedures for us to be undertaken in order to assess the valuation that's reported at the balance sheet date. The fourth risk, which we highlight, is in respect of the data migration. So outlining the potential issues that have been identified by management, which management are working through, may have an impact on the financial statements and the position that's reported within the financial statements. So we've identified that as a risk and within section 2 of the report, outline the procedures that will be undertaken in response to that risk. The following risk that's been identified in the plan relates to IS26 disclosures, and these are disclosures which the pension fund makes in respect of the asset valuation, which is reported based on the actuarial assessed asset or liability of the pension fund. It's for the pension fund, it's a disclosure note within the pension fund accounts for the main scheduled bodies, it forms part of the accounts and that comes under IS19 because it's an area which involves the input of management specialists, that being the actuary, we've identified it as an inherent risk and be undertaking work to assess the assumptions which the actuary uses in coming to their disclosures, which they report within their actuarial report and which is then disclosed within the financial statements of the pension fund. And the last risk there, again identified as inherent risk, is the valuation of level 2 investments such as derivatives which aren't publicly traded. So those are the risks, a summary of the risks that we've identified as part of the planning process. On page 112 we set out the materiality levels that we'll be using to undertake audits and the threshold at which we'll be reporting uncorrected misstatements to the committee. So the overall planning materiality was set at 1% of the net assets and that is at the planning stage at £52.9 million. The performance materiality, we set that at 50% of the planning materiality. The performance materiality figure is the figure which drives our testing strategy. We've set that at 50% of materiality because it's a first year audit for us, following on from the conclusion of this year's audit, we'll reassess our assessment of the overall control environment, any errors which may or may not be identified and whether in subsequent years that level could be increased to 75%, but we'll revisit that at the end of the audit. And the £2.6 million threshold, the audit differences, that's the level at which we'll report any uncorrected errors to the committee. On page 113, we set out the scope of the audit, providing a summary there of our responsibilities and on page 114, it's providing information on the audit team. So I'll pause there because section two of the report as I previously outlined provides more information on the risks that I've discussed and the procedures that we'll be undertaking in response to those risks. And section three provides further details on our materiality, the basis of our materiality. Section four provides further details on the scope of our audit and section five details on the audit team and our potential use of specialists. Happy to take any questions which members may have. I note from the previous discussion that you may want me to come back with further details on the fees where we've quoted a range of potential fees and be happy to do so. Thanks very much indeed Hassan. Yeah, I think that was one of our questions from this committee because that's got TBD on there. Do you have any idea of the fees at all? Oh, I'll come back to your chair after the meeting in terms of the range for those fees. Okay, Stephen. Thanks, just to pick up on that one. I'm flabbergasted, incredibly disappointed and frustrated and annoyed that this has come to the committee in an incomplete form again. Given the pushback from committee in June on a similar report related to the external audit plan and again TBCs and external audit plan, why have Ernst & Young submitted an incomplete audit plan again? This needs to be updated and resubmitted and I don't think we can approve this committee again. So, so disappointing. I agree, Stephen, so we cannot approve this without any fees on here. So, any other member of the committee have any comments? Okay. And just in terms of the testing, how is the walk-through testing? Are we on track to complete the deadlines that you've got in the draft audit plan? So, our testing is currently in progress. We've undertaken a number of our substantive testing this week after receiving the draft accounts. We've also completed work on our, well not completed work, we've progressed work on our walk-through testing. We are slightly behind where we were planning to be. We are waiting for information from management in some areas in order for us to be able to complete our walk-through testing and following on from receiving the draft accounts last week, then we're now taking forward our testing in terms of year-end procedures. Okay. Do you know when you're expected to finish all the walk-through testing at all, Hasan? I'll bring Francis in at this stage to be able to provide a kind of more up-to-date position on where we're at on the testing and our timetables. We are almost complete with a walk-through. There were a couple of outstanding items that we're receiving from the management this week. So, we're hoping to finish that by the end of next week, but everything apart from two items on the walk-through, specifically on the financial statement close process and benefit administration are in progress. The rest we received and we completed all the work that we did on that. Okay. Thanks for the update. Anybody? Stephen? Sorry, Chair. Just a point of clarity. So, this committee is being asked to approve this audit plan. It sounds like there's already work actually in progress. So, what are we actually doing here in as much as this is work actually in progress? So, it's almost like I don't get it in as much as this committee is being asked to approve this audit plan, but work is already progressing on an unapproved plan. So, the horse is bolted on this one. Is Ernst and Young working at risk? What's the actual way forward with this? Are we approving the plan and then Ernst and Young go off and do the work? They're actually doing the work already. I don't get it. I can take an update on that one. So, I think the audit plan should have been presented earlier, but due to the delays with EY's independence checking, that therefore meant that the timetable was compressed and we didn't receive the audit plan, but we agreed for the auditors to be on site and start their walkthrough testing so we could look towards the 26th of July end date for the field work audit. I think for me, picking up what Stephen said earlier, we need the fees ASAP because we cannot progress anything on this audit plan without that. I'm still not sure whether we have a date for that because we don't meet again as audit committee until September. So, when can we have the fees data? We can get the fees data to you by the end of this week and whether the committee wants to consider that under delegated authority. That's a decision for the committee. Chair, can we delegate that to you to agree those fees? Yeah, if the committee are happy with that, but I'd like some discussion though. So, I'd like those fees circulated so people can have a look at them, if that's okay with the committee. And in doing so, again, we'll provide a potential range of what the fees would be for those areas. Chair, I just think you might like to take that decision in discussion with your vice-chair rather than on your own. Yeah, I was going to open up to the whole committee. I was going to send a few comments. And of course, circulate it to the whole committee. That would be a very good idea, but yeah. Anna. Thank you very much, Chair. I completely understand where the committee is coming from and I welcome the challenge on fees, obviously. What is unusual about this year, and I probably should make it really, really clear on both the pension fund and also on the Surrey side, is because of my Surrey. It's the first set of auditors with a new system, which is quite a fundamental change as we all know about my Surrey. So, I understand the auditor's side as well, because they are working through a lot of information. They don't know what they're going to find, so therefore unsure about the fees, hence why the range. We would normally not be in this position. And one of the things in the past we've been very clear about is bringing the audit plan way before the audit starts, because you're absolutely right in terms of the order of things. The plan needs to be agreed with the fees before the work starts. But I do understand what was said previously is correct. The EY have to go through their own processes of risk assessment and they needed to make sure 100% of all of the independent forms were brought back before they could start the work and there was a significant delay in that. So, all of these things together put us in an unusual position that we hope to be, we hope not to be in future years and we haven't been in this position in the past. Thanks so much for that clarification Anna. Thank you. Right, Stephen. Sorry chair, it just doesn't sit right in as much as what's the purpose of this committee, audit and governance. And we have an item here that we're being asked to approve and work's already started. There's not a full picture for this committee to actually approve or to review. There wasn't a full picture of the previous plan either and that's probably work that's already started as well. And so 2024 timetable in the plan, work started in May. We're in the middle of July. What is the purpose of this committee if we're basically being asked to approve this? The horse has passed and it's too late. I think we've agreed we will not be approving this plan today. So, for this one, Stephen. Yes, thank you chair. Just to support what Stephen's just said actually, because I do think we're in an entirely unsatisfactory situation. And what, for example, if the fees that come forward are unsatisfactory to you and to the vice-chairman, what's the process for dealing with it then? I think the very least we can do is to have the fees circulated to all members of the committee and for the, for members to give you their advice on whether or not it's acceptable. But I think we need to note that the whole process has been totally unacceptable. I did mention that earlier, Stephen, that I will be circulating everything to every single member of this committee for your comments and then we'll feed those, those back. So, right. I don't really want to say anything about it. I just want to say a few things. One of the things that we've done is we've done a lot of work. We've done a lot of work, we've done a lot of work, we've done a lot of work and I think we've done a lot of work. I think we've done a lot of work. I think we've done a lot of work. I think we've done a lot of work. would meet the statutory deadline. So it's not an excuse, but it's just where we are at the moment. Yeah. Dorsey. Sorry, Chair. I'm aware of the statutory deadlines and the pressures, but that not just forces members into a corner. And so if there is a statutory deadline, it should come to committee earlier and sooner. And, you know, and again to Stephen's comments that, you know, if the fees do come forward and, you know, guess what, we're not happy with them, is why are they going to stop work? Are they basically going to basically repeal everything? It's not going to happen, is it? So it makes a mockery of what we're being asked to do, I'm afraid, which is deeply, deeply worrying and disappointing. Helen. So to round this up, because what is the impact of us not approving the plan today? One, does it have any impact or not? And secondly, what is the deadline? If it does, what is the deadline by which this committee needs to approve the plan for the plan to proceed, if that is necessary? Or is it a cabinet member decision? Maybe we should ask our cabinet member about that. David, I don't know if you've got any comment on that. Yeah, sorry, Hassan. I was just going to say, in terms of the work which we are required to do, so we outlined the risks as we see them. The plan should usually be noted by the committee. In terms of the fees, then, as members will be aware, Public Sector Audit Appointments Limited appoints the auditors and sets the scale fees. And in areas where there may be disagreement between the auditors and management or a local authority in terms of the fees, then the fees are then put forward to the PSA for determination. Yeah, I think because we're being asked to approve the pension fund audit plan today, but I think it might be better that we note it subject to us reviewing the fees, then we can approve it. But as Hassan is saying, they are determined by the PSSA, so we do have limited scope in what the fees will be. Yeah, Anna. That's true. There is a facility, though, that if the - so what my advice would be is exactly that, note on the basis that you are wanting to see the fee. What I wouldn't like is the work to stop. What we can do, though, is upon receiving notification of what the fee is, if you're not happy, we can go back and talk to the PSAA and look at what we can negotiate as opposed to stopping the work would be my preference. Yeah, I definitely would not want the work to stop because we'll be literally up the river without a paddle, I think, is one way to put it. David. Yeah, thanks, Chair. I mean, I totally agree with your position that you've taken as a committee. I think, if I remember correctly, there was delays right at the very beginning in the transfer to EY in terms of getting all the necessary agreements from members. So the delay is right at the very beginning, and I think that's what's disappointing about this, is that at the last committee for the main order, it was referred back for exactly the same reason. So I think there's a very strong message to EY that, you know, you need to take on board the feedback from this committee and actually respond accordingly, because, you know, for the same reason, the last plan was noted subject to the fees. So there's absolutely no excuse for this one, for the pension fund coming forward in the same way. Okay, thank you for that. So I think just to round this off, unless anybody's got any other burning issues, I think we will note the audit plan this time, and we will only approve it subject to the fees being presented to us as a committee and feedback from all members. So are we – and work will not stop – are we agreed on that one? Agreed. Thank you very much. Okay, so item number eight. So this is the draft annual governance statement. So this report presents the draft annual governance statement, which summarises the Council's governance arrangements for the financial year ending 31st of March 2024. I'm delighted to have Michael Coughlan here, who I think is going to introduce this item. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, just very briefly, members will have had the annual governance statement as an annex to the agenda today. In very simple terms, this sets out in a single place, gathering information from across the authority, and sets out the governance arrangements and the processes and procedures and systems we have in place to ensure that the authority acts within the law, that it discharges its responsibilities in terms of managing and spending public funds, that it makes decisions in accordance with relevant provisions in an open and transparent way, and underpinning that as a culture across the organisation that ensures all of the above. As you will see from the title, it is a draft for your consideration and your approval today. It is retrospective in that it applies to the year 2023/24, although it also then includes a plan for the current year, and based on the previous item and previous conversation, you may want to come back and look at the plan for this year, potentially to have an addition - I'll leave this with you - but potentially have an addition in there about the management of external audit and pension audits. So you've just given that conversation earlier on today. It is, as I say, a coordinated statement. It's drawn from a variety of sources from across the Council. It involves the governance structures, partnership, board meetings, internal controls, decision-making, ethics, the capacity and competency of the organisation, the transparency and reporting of its performance across the whole of the Council. And for the first time this year, we have sought assurance statements from across the corporate leadership team so that we have a deeper dive into the services and the activities that those directorates are responsible for for the first time. Whilst it's retrospective, and therefore already something of an historic document, I think it is important to reassure ourselves but also flag the areas for development, particularly given the year ahead, which is going to be one already of change, both nationally, as you'll see within the statement itself, within the senior leadership of the Authority, and as we go through into a period of local elections in May 2025. So it could be potentially quite a tumultuous year around which we need to have this assurance, but also we need to be focused on the areas where we can develop. It's set out in a number of sections, which starts with the Council's corporate elements, such as our governance around partnership working, which I know this committee have taken interest in in the past, and we've reported into you on that. We look at the senior leadership team changes and the work going on around that. Financial management, which we've touched on already partly today. The extensive transformation work going on, the work we're doing with our workforce. My Surrey and the enterprise system features as well, as do a number of the Surrey County Council-owned companies. It goes on to set out a number of service specific. It's not comprehensive. It focuses on areas of specific interest where we know that we have either extraordinary risks or emerging issues, which will require a particular governance focus in the forthcoming year. The close of the statement then runs into bodies such as yourselves looking at governance systems, often involving members, select committees, scrutiny, and the provisions that relate to a lot of that activity. As you can see, there's a follow-up to the plan that was created last year, so you can see the progress that we're making, and we also set out a plan for the current year, which is already being enacted as we speak. And all of this sits around what you've already mentioned, I think already the external audits, the regulatory inspections, the external inspections that we have, the scrutiny of members, and the scrutiny from members of the public themselves, which I know members are fiercely aware of. And in closing my introductory comments, I'd just like to thank Cath Edwards and the team for pulling together. It may seem a relatively simple and short document compared to some of the things you receive, but Cath's done an amazing piece of work to work with colleagues across the Council to pull this together into, I think, a distilled format. One of its merits is, I think, its brevity, which isn't always easy, so thanks to Cath and the team and ASMAT for pulling it together in this way. Thanks very much indeed, Michael. Thank you. And it's very much the same for those who've been on here before. It's a very similar sort of statement that we've received in previous years. Do any members have any comments or queries on this statement? Ah, Stephen. Everyone's waiting for me to say something, aren't they? It's interesting to note that it's the first year the Council has requested the assurance statements from the corporate leadership team, and I think that's a very, very positive and valid step going forward. Could you or officers comment on the actual benefit on actually having those assurance statements into actually building out the document as well? How has that actually helped improve? Does it give extra visibility and transparency into the Council and their functions, please? Thank you. Chairman, if I can make a start on that, and as Matt and others and Cath may want to come back. I think the awareness raising of the statement itself is an important point that has been generated by the assurance statements we've received. In the same way, if you like, there's a parallel. In the same way that every budget holder in the Authority now is required to sign a budget accountability statement, which makes very clear their personal professional responsibility to manage their budgets with the appropriate caveats to escalate and report. I think the statements or the assurance statements we've sought from the members of CLT has had a similar effect to drive home that personal accountability for ensuring that everything you see in the report is as it should be within their directorates. I think it's fair to say, and my own personal position was of an organisation the size we are, those assurance statements were signed to the best of Executive Director's knowledge. When you're responsible for far-flung services and, for instance, branch libraries with four members of staff out in the farther areas. It's not possible to say categorically, but to the best of our ability, every Executive Director has said yes. Everything that has been asked for in here, the 10 features of the statement that has Matt has circulated around, has been assured by the Executive Directors. So I think there's awareness raising, there's a greater level of detail that has been gone into. It has been discussed with Directorate leadership teams, so the cascade effect has gone further into the organisation. And I think the positive report, but also the areas where we know we need to do better, gives us collectively, as the senior leadership team, greater confidence that the assurance we're giving you is there in practice. It's very, very welcome and I think, as mentioned earlier, I think it's a really positive forward step. And I look forward to see that continuing and hopefully being improved and the benefits being realised. So thank you for that. Just a couple of bits, Michael. Just on the children's services and the SEND, these have constantly been sort of issues that have come up to this Order Committee. And I'm not quite sure that the powers in this AGS actually reflect what the development areas are within these two, based on what we keep hearing about these two areas. We could go into more detail. That detail is held in other places and other reports and the transformation programme going on within the Children's Families Lifelong Learning Directorate and with the lead cabinet member. That activity is happening. I know particularly the link between SEND provision and the capital programme is being explored and developed as we speak. The transformation work operationally is going on. This particular statement, I'll defer to Asmat if she wishes to say something. This particular statement focuses on the governance of that work rather than describing perhaps the service issues that we know exist or indeed the public perception of those issues or indeed the activity going on within the council. It's how is that activity being governed and held. We could look at, Matt, if you wish there to be more information about the issues themselves, but given that they are kind of held elsewhere, this was intended to cover the governance of it rather than anything else. That's fine. Thank you very much for the clarification on that. Any other - Ayesha. Thank you very much, Chair. So just reading through the report, I mean, good governance relies on good kind of benchmarking exercises. And just reading through the whistle-blowing activity and the benchmarking that you've done with other authorities, our figure is a bit higher than others. I mean, Hampshire has the lowest amount. Do you want to say why that might be? Sorry, Ayesha. That's the next item. Am I ahead? Yes, you are. I'll save that for the next one. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments on this? I would just like to say thank you very much, Michael, to you and your team for producing this. Thank you. So we are recommending this committee review the contents of the draft annual governance statement Annex 1, satisfy ourselves that the governance arrangements are represented correctly, which I think we do, and commend the draft annual governance statement for publication of the Council's statement of accounts. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much indeed. Okay, so item number 9, so this is the draft statement of accounts for 23/24, and this is in the capable hands of Nikki. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So, yes, so the next agenda item just presents the draft statement of accounts for 2023/24. It is a lengthy document and a very technical document. It's quite prescriptive, the code of practice and the accounting policies that we follow in order to produce a compliance set of accounts. I do appreciate that it's quite a lengthy and technical document. And as a result of that, we held a kind of informal training session prior to this committee to just go through some of the key messages within that, which I won't repeat now. So the 23/24 accounts were published formally last week, which is five weeks later than the target of the 31st of May. I think 54% of authorities met the target of the 31st of May this year, which is more than the last couple of years, but still I think illustrates the kind of national issues with the kind of technical nature of the accounts and kind of national audit sign-off delays. There's a number of authorities with multiple years of accounts still not signed off. As we alluded to earlier in this committee, it has been a challenging year-end for my team for a number of reasons, not least the new system. So we need to kind of redefine our processes and kind of remap a lot of the new system to the way that the accounts need to be produced. We didn't have sign-off of our 22/23 accounts until January, and that leaves little time to kind of implement improvements and changes noted from that. We've had a number of team changes and is always the case with the production of accounts of an authority this size. We are reliant on third-party information, most notably from our valuers and from our actuaries, but also from borough and district councils, and there has been some delays in getting that information. And in fact, there is immaterial amount kind of missing from the draft accounts at the moment in relation to some data on collection funds that we are still waiting for. So we have published the draft accounts. I will just transparently for committee, we were up against it with the deadline. Some of the validation checks that we would expect have been done. I know there were a number of typos in the document. We will be issuing a new draft to external audit with some minor changes, both to a couple of the numbers, but also to correct those errors as well. And we will flag those to committee. As we've already heard, the external audit has commenced. We are working really closely with EY for that, and the final set of accounts will be brought later in the year to this committee with a full audit report and a value for money assessment as is required. I think that's probably all I was going to say, other than to repeat my offer of earlier that I'm very happy to take questions on the accounts here, but also outside of this committee, because I do appreciate it. It is a big document for Councillors to get through. I'm very happy for me and my team to take questions both now or outside of this. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed, Nicky, for that good summary. Without delving into every single figure, do any members of this committee have any burning questions on the accounts at this stage? I know you probably won't have time to have a look at it. It's not on the accounts themselves, but just on section 4 where we're saying that we were five weeks after the deadline. Have we considered the risk of this then, what the impact of that is? It's obviously not ideal, and we aim to hit the deadline. In terms of implications of that, as I say, about half of authorities in the country haven't hit that deadline. Not that we monitor ourselves against others alone. If we were the only one to hit the deadline, I'd be really happy with that. We understand why we are late. The implications of doing that are essentially on the ability of us to get the audit work done in time to be signed off for the next deadline. But there's no immediate financial implications of that or risks of that. On section 15, it's the same as my previous question, where we're saying there's no risk management implications, we should probably update that to say that there probably is. Agreed. Anybody else got any queries? Helen and Stephen. Helen, you go first. I always actually enjoy the publication of the draft accounts because it summarises quite a lot of the achievements and also the ambition of the council, both in its summary and its opening remarks. And I think it's a very useful document for members to delve into. I understand it's very technical. Well, I don't understand the technical bit, possibly. But the overarching value of this, I think, is to highlight the things that the county council is focusing on, where we are in those issues and where we need to do more. And I think the big message from yesterday's council meeting, the full council meeting, was the huge interest that there is in SEND and special educational needs and the provision of those. And how we are working as a council to address the increasing numbers of children coming forward who are presenting with special needs. And how we address that from an early phase as well. And I think from that point of view, the SEND strategy and the money that's been set aside, it would be interesting to understand a bit more about the agreement that we have with government, the way that we are balancing those investments, the funds that we've put aside, the reserves that we've put aside, particularly in regards to the safety valve agreement. And I think it would be helpful for us as a committee and probably to other members to have an update on where we are with that particular agreement, representing what these accounts are saying, the amounts of money that have been put aside and where we are on balance with that. Particularly in line that we've got a new government and I'm slightly worried about any changes that they might make around policy, et cetera. Overall, though, I welcome the approach of the draft statements. It's a useful tool for anyone to understand what the council is trying to do and what it needs to achieve to serve the residents of Surrey. Thank you. Just to respond on that, and I know we've talked about this previously, obviously the baseline for the statement of accounts is the council's out-term position as reported to cabinet for the 23/24 financial year. Obviously within that position, we're completely transparent about the budgetary pressures in relation to SEND and those then feed through to these accounts, obviously appreciating that there's quite a difference between the out-term report, which is our actual kind of performance against budget. And our set of accounts, which is a kind of UK generally accepted account in practice and international financial reporting standard compliance set of statements. Obviously, within the balance sheet, there's two quite significant figures linked to SEND, one being the accumulated deficit on the high needs block, which is required to be accounted for as an unusable reserve, which is kind of the accounting term for those reserves that are not cash-backed. And the council has an offsetting reserve that we've been setting aside money for for prudence reasons within our available reserves figure for that. Both of those figures form part of the safety valve agreement that you talked to, and actually our offsetting reserve is one of the council's contributions essentially to the safety valve agreement. I think we could absolutely bring a further update on details in relation to SEND to this committee. If that was the ask, I know certainly the Children's Families and Lifelong Learning Select Committee see regular updates in relation to the SEND program as well. Thank you. I was going to say the same thing. If the committee wants some kind of an assurance statement or assurance against the progress of safety valve, particularly on the capital side of meeting our safety valve requirements, I'm sure that the service could bring something in terms of delivering against your assurance requirement as a committee. I thought I think that would be useful. Stephen? Thanks, Chair. To follow on from Helen and from the comments that have been made already, it's a very, very hot topic and a very important topic. I think the understanding around what this council is facing from a budgetary point of view and trying to actually get these services delivered, I believe, needs to be more clearly understood. I'm not saying that it's not, but I think we just need to reiterate and restate that as certain. And looking at Note 9 within the draft accounts, there's a lot of information in all of these notes. We focused on Note 9 around the SEND high needs block reserve and about the safety valve agreement and so forth. So I think it would be very, very helpful if we can get something pulled together, not just for this committee, but a suggestion is that we use a members update session possibly to focus in on this particular item, especially given the attention and concern that was noted by several members at full council yesterday as well. If we could get that done, that would be hugely, hugely welcome. And not just members as well, it's for members of the public and our residents to understand the challenges that we are facing. And also to highlight that maybe central government need to help a bit more. Let's leave it at that. Okay, thank you. Thanks very much, Stephen. And certainly we would welcome that. So we've made a note to go back and ask for a member development session on SEND, stroke, safety valve, all of those things, which all go together from a revenue and capital perspective. And we can also ask that, again, from an assurance perspective, that we can bring something back here, particularly on the SEND capital side, which is linked to the safety valve, which is huge amounts of money, both internally and from the DMV. Okay. Is that okay? Thank you very much, indeed, Anna, Nicky, and everybody else. David, sorry. Thanks, Jeff. I was just wondering whether, you know, in terms of educating the public, as it were, we do consult on the budgetary process with residents. And I think there will be two stages of that, as there were last year, I just wonder whether there's an opportunity there to actually put something in that process that explains a little bit more some of the challenges, something we could talk to Nicola about. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, David. Thank you. Any other comments on this item from any members of this committee? No? Okay. So to recommend this committee consider at this stage draft 2324 accounts. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much. Okay. So item number 10. So this is the annual whistle-blowing report for 2324. So this report presents the annual whistle-blowing report of the council to the audit governance committee to provide transparency and accountability. The report summarizes the whistle-blowing activity over the last year and analyzes the effectiveness of the council's process and system. I think we've got two presenters, Sheila Smith and -- oh, Sheila. Sheila Smith. Oh, there you are. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. So as you said, this is our annual governance report around whistle-blowing to provide assurance that we have arrangements in place that are appropriate and are well understood by our staff, including staff who work for us on an agency basis, bank staff, interim staff, et cetera. There are two main methods with which -- through which whistle-blowing cases can be raised, either directly in writing to a senior officer of the council or through an external independent organization called NavEx Global. All of those whistle-blowing cases that come into the council are triaged within the people and change team, and a decision is made about the most appropriate route for those to be investigated. If any case involves a potential allegation of fraud, it is diverted to the internal audit team to investigate. In the last financial year, we received 20 whistle-blowing cases, all of which were investigated. And it's helpful that people know the route to do that. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Sheila. Thank you. Do any members of the committee have any questions or queries? Ayesha, I know you had a point from them previously. Jumping ahead. Jumping ahead. Thank you. Thank you for the report. I was just interested in actually the benchmarking exercises that you do with other authorities, and our figure seems to be a bit higher in comparison to some of the others in particular, Hampshire, which has quite a low. I figure in terms of whistle-blowing, perhaps you could explain to the committee why that might be. It's really difficult to know whether we're comparing apples and apples or apples and pears. So my suspicion is that probably Hampshire might be recording in a different way. But that's certainly something that we can take away and look into why their numbers are so low, because I'm surprised, I have to say, that their numbers are so low given their head count is actually higher than ours, excluding school staff. So you would expect there to be more cases, but we can certainly take that away and look into it. So can I just -- so there isn't a particular prescriptive way that these -- it's assessed, I mean, every authority that means assesses this in its -- with its own -- There is a legal definition of whistle-blowing, and every organization must have a whistle-blowing policy. But in terms of actually reporting that externally, there's no requirement to do that in a set way. So it may be that it's their reporting that's slightly different from the way that we do it. So we're very transparent in terms of reporting every case that comes in, even if that subsequently isn't upheld. It's possible that some of the other organizations are doing it in a different way. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Ayesha. I just had one query, and I'll come back to everybody else then. In terms of -- I know you're saying on the pending cases, it's either -- sorry, earlier on under scrutiny, it's either referred to the people in change, internal audit, or the monitoring officer, one of those three. But just in terms of, say, the outstanding cases that are still underway, case number 257-5961, it's got -- it's been referred to the HRP consultant, an audit, HRP consultant, an audit, HRP consultant, HRP consultant. I'm just wondering how independent that is to say if somebody's raising a whistle-blowing issue. How safe do they feel that the fact that it's just going to, say, an HR consultant instead of somebody more independent like internal audit, in effect, or an external body? I'm no expert on this, so I'm just literally for clarity, really. Yeah, it's a really good question. I think the people in change consultants will have some expertise in terms of investigating issues like this. So, for example, that is also the team that support managers to deal with grievances that are raised against them, to deal with things like disciplinary cases, sickness absence cases. So they have some expertise in this area. They are not -- they're working within the corporate center, so they're not actually part of, in most cases, the function that is being complained about in terms of a whistle-blowing case. If there are any complaints about the people in change service, those are referred immediately to the monitoring officer. So we always try to maintain that element of, I guess, transparency in terms of any cases that we're looking at. So my suggestion would be that the people in change team are not aligned in any way with the service that are being investigated, and have some skill in terms of helping with issues like this one. Thanks, Charlotte. Stephen was next, then Richard, and then Stephen. Thank you, Chair. A question -- a couple of questions on -- I think it's on the bottom of page 155, talking about the full information, including the policy and the flow chart of the life cycle of the whistle-blowing allegation. It's on the SEC info under whistle-blowing. That further paragraph talks to the whistle-blowing policy is also incorporated into the employee code of conduct, which has been reviewed and updated. So just for clarity and confirmation, are we saying that the employee code of conduct has been reviewed and updated and approved by full counsel in May this year? Because I note the whistle-blowing policy on the website is May 2021. So just for clarity, that was the first question. Yeah, the code of conduct is reviewed every year to make sure it's updated, and it was approved by full counsel in May. So that's what that paragraph refers to is the updated code of conduct, which references, amongst other policies, the whistle-blowing policy. Thank you very much for that clarification. The next question that follows on from that is related to the actual whistle-blowing policy. Actually, the date of that is May 2021. When is that scheduled to be reviewed and updated, please? We review our policies at least every two years. So this one would have been updated within that period, but no changes were made to the policy within that timescale. So I think it's a really good point, though, so we will make sure that, moving forward, that the date that the policy was reviewed is included so that members and staff have assurance that the policy has been reviewed, even if no changes are made. I think that would be really helpful, because if our policy is to update our policies and review them every two years, then we need to be able to evidence that going forward. And so it's just me being picky, I guess. But equally, then that shows that we are doing what we say on the tin, as it were. So if we can make a note of that, possibly to follow up with. Chair, thank you. Stephen was next. Yes, thank you, Chairman. A number of the outcomes are recorded as investigations being completed, but due to confidentiality, findings cannot be shared. And there are a number of those. The question really is, can we just explain the sort of confidentiality areas that are covered in those comments, and who is made aware of the outcome? So we have a group that includes the monitoring officer and the head of insights, governance, intelligence from within the people and change team, and internal audit that review whistleblowing cases on a quarterly basis. And they would be made aware of the outcome of those investigations. The reason why they might be confidential is quite varied, but it could be that specific individuals are identified. It could be that service users possibly are identified, and that's the reason that this phraseology is used in the report. And we don't give more specific details. Yes, thanks. I'm just having an update with our monitoring officer. We could run this in a part two confidential meeting. So we could have this on maybe the September or November meeting if that would be useful. Yes, okay. Thank you. Just following really on what Stephen was saying, Ursula, and the closed cases report, would it be -- I don't think this would divulge anything. But if you just put another column saying whether the whistleblowing case was literally found in favor or against, that wouldn't disclose any detail. So we'd have an idea of how many cases a year actually progressed to the fact that it's upheld or not upheld. Yes, we can certainly do that in future. Not a problem. Matthew? Yes, sort of on that point, on the closed cases, I think there's like five or six in there that either the outcome or the date closed is to be confirmed. So how can we consider them closed if we're missing some information in there? So that's on page 158 as part of the HR governance report on whistleblowing, 158159. In the closed cases, you see there's a number that's to be confirmed, but they're considered closed. Yes, there's outcomes, but then there's also dates. Is that just information that's not been input or something else? Apologies. I don't know the answer to that question, so I will come back to the committee with a written response if that's okay. Okay, that's fine. Any other queries or questions on this? So I think if we do want further details on this, we will have a part two confidential meeting at the next -- potentially at the next audit committee or the November one, if everybody's happy with that. So we can have a deep dive into this. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so if there are no further comments or questions on this, we are asked to review the contents of the annual whistleblowing report to satisfy ourselves. The governance arrangements are operated effectively and make any recommendations for improvement, which we haven't -- I know Amelia has noted those down. So are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Okay, moving on to the last item. So this is the item number 11. This is the officers and employees annual gifts and hospitality report for 2324. So the report applies to officers and employees of the council only. It does not apply to members, counselors. The report presents the annual gifts and hospitality report of the council to the audit and governance committee to provide transparency and accountability. The report summarizes the gifts and hospitality activity over the last year and analyzes the effectiveness of the council's process and system. So is this you again, Charlotte? Thanks very much. Thank you, Chair. Again, this is another report to provide assurance that appropriate arrangements are in place to report and deal with any offers of gifts or hospitality that are made to officers within the organization. Again, this includes people who might be working for us on an agency or interim arrangement. The policy is very clear that any gift beyond a small token of goodwill should be politely declined. And also as a general rule that offers of hospitality should be refused. We have a recording system for officers to declare any offers of a gift or hospitality and whether it was refused, declined or donated to charity in the last year. Twenty three. Twenty four. We had seventy three in total and of those forty five were accepted. Twenty three declined and five donated in that roughly follows a similar pattern over over the last few years or so. Members will also note that a large amount of the hospitality received was in relation to the stars in Surrey awards for staff which are sponsored by various businesses. So that makes up the bulk of the financial situation covered in this report. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think the report's quite self-explanatory. As you say, most of it is for the stars in the Surrey. So I don't know anybody has any comments or. Good grief. Silence. No questions for. Oh, go on that. On page one, seven, four, when we're in the recommendations, when we see clear and concise guidelines around hospitality, are we saying that we already have the guidelines, but they need to be enhanced rather than there aren't any. I think it's the continual communication of them. So I think we do have clear guidelines. And as I said, it's the policy takes a default position that hospitality in particular should be declined. But again, but it's just constantly needing to make sure that those are reinforced for new people and for anybody who within the organisation as well as the communication. Thank you. And just in the background, but we're sort of thought paragraph down when we see the registers maintained reviewed monthly by the HR governance team, declared non-compliant gifts and hospitality are investigated initially by HR governance team and escalated to HR business partners if deemed necessary. Maybe I'm missing it there, but who deems it necessary? So if what we would do is generally if a gift or hospitality offer had been accepted and they didn't seem to be a clear, for example, manager approval trail in process, then the governance team would themselves would refer that to a people business partner to liaise with the relevant senior manager to explore in more detail what happened on that occasion. So do they use some sort of criteria for that based within the policies or is that more of a judgment? It is a judgment, but it's based on the policy. That's their starting point that and the policy is really clear, as I say, that wherever the normal approach is that gifts of hospitality should be declined. Just following on from that, I know we've got a similar thing for members. We discussed this for members a few months ago. Is it the same for members or for members? Is there like if it's over 50 pounds, I can't remember now, or is this a certain value for members? I can't remember. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I can come back to the committee. Certainly we took out any specific reference to an amount from the officer policy and I've just included examples instead because we felt that was probably more relevant. Because I remember when we looked at the members register, we had individual names and, you know, Tim Oliver was, you know, on there all the time, but I'm not insinuating anything. 50 50 pounds is just how to confirm says 50 pounds for members. Why do why do we not do that for the same for officers? 50 pounds? It would be so much strikes me so much easier. Yeah, we as I said, we include an example instead. So, for example, for gifts, we say a small token can be accepted, for example, a small box of chocolates or a bunch of flowers rather than include a specific amount. So it references a token instead, a sort of a token amount. So we just removed that and included examples instead. Helen. Well, just building on that chair, it just seems to me that you're just creating a lot of work when you have when you don't have a minimum amount, because, you know, this this, you know, somebody offered me a bag of sweets on here for two pounds and, you know, for that to be reported many, many times across such a huge organization, for example. It's just added, you know, admin, really, which is is that really necessary that somebody gets offered a bag of sweets and they have to report it? Surely that it'd be much better if we looked at these guidelines again and said, you know, these things are not considered. So, you know, I mean, we all do that all the time. We share our food, we share our goodwill. I mean, you know, these some of these are ridiculous, basically, and I think we need to sort of have a look and say we don't need to have things like a bag of sweets or offer a sweet. That does not mean that you have to go and fill a form and go back to your manager and say I got offered a bag of sweets. I didn't take it, by the way, you know, I mean, that just seems it just seems rubbish amount of work to do for staff and officers. I think we need to be more clear about what is really a gift or hospitality. What we're talking about is where members of the public could look at something and say, has that gift or hospitality skewed that officer's opinion about the way that they're performing their work? That's what it's really about, isn't it? You know, I think we need to be more precise in that and just get rid of some of this added bureaucracy and admin stuff that we're we're talking about in this particular report. Good point. I don't know whether we can consider that at all. We can certainly take that away. I think the approach that Surrey County Council has always taken in the past is that we would encourage everybody to declare everything for the sake of to be open and transparent. I think that's the approach that the organisation has taken in the past. And I think I think a lot of other organisations in the public sector do take a similar approach, but we can certainly take it away and do some benchmarking with other organisations as well. Well, you know, it just seems to me that, you know, we are infantised, we're making our officers and our staff look like children. They can't make a decision for themselves about, you know, I can't imagine what it must be like to be a member of staff that says, I don't know if I can have that packet of sweets or not. I mean, that just might go down in my on my sort of file or something. I mean, it doesn't it feels wrong to be so pedantic. And I understand what you're saying about openness and transparency, but you should I think we ought to think about setting some standards, setting some bars, if you like, about what that actually means. Explaining if we really have to explain that, you know, this is what this is really about, which is you cannot be seen to be taking sides in any case or anything else or whatever it is. Being a bit more specific than actually saying to everyone, just declare everything. I mean, hard to move, wouldn't it really? You know, very hard to be going to a into a coffee shop and somebody says, oh, I'll buy that coffee for you. Well, is that going to be a bribe or not? I mean, hardly likely, really. Yeah, no, I do agree with you, Helen. I think we do need a benchmarking exercise just to because we cannot expect officers. Like you say, you know, we do have it on camera that you didn't accept your bag of sweets. So you've confirmed that. So but I do think it is a bit pedantic, to be honest with you. So if we could have a look at that, please, Shannon, just have a stand. Michael, I don't know the Council McCormick knows he's he's always talking. We're just having slightly private conversations on rudely on this side of the table. I think it definitely needs review to remove some of the bureaucracy, but I also just personal experience as well. The timing of the gift is quite important as well as the quantum of the gift. So if the timing of a gift is just before contacts being awarded, that is very different from two years after the contract's been awarded. There's an established working relationship and a gift might be given de minimis gift. That's different. So I just think there's something about not just the quantum, but the timing of the gift needs to be captured as well. So I think when we looked at the gifts and hospitality for members, you know, even though Tim Oliver didn't have to declare anything below 50 pounds, he literally was declaring everything. And it's just ridiculous because it was just a list upon list of every single five pounds, 10 pounds. I think we just need to stop that. Every time I go to a parish meeting, I often get offered a biscuit. I mean, you know, this is ridiculous. Well, you don't have to declare that hopefully after this meeting. Stephen, do you want to? Thanks, Chair. I mean, I don't know about biscuits and your committee meetings, but I'll come to yours. Biscuits. But I mean, to simplify it, why don't we have one set of, you know, policy for members and officers? And you just basically have one set. What's the problem with that? You know, I mean, the limit, there's an element of common sense in this as well, isn't there? When people know when they maybe ought not to take something and that sort of thing. And there is an element of some form of efficiency in here as well, as in do you categorize everything? If we can, you know, there's a common sense element and if we can align policy, make it simpler, reduce, improve the efficiency of this, I think that would be a welcome step. Don't know how we get that done. I can certainly link in with ASMAT about that because I think we just need to think about any implications and whether there's any different regulations that apply to members as opposed to officers. We can certainly look at that. Thank you very much. Richard? Chair, can I establish my dissent with my learned colleague that officers and members are different people and have different responsibilities. And having been in an industry that entertained people endlessly, we were always more careful to differentiate what we did for officers and what we did for people who weren't directly involved in awarding a contract. So I would go against that. I think they should be separate and not be the same. I don't know what your view on that is, ASMAT. Thank you, Chair. I actually do agree with Councillor's view, members and officers. We have different roles and responsibilities and officers and employees have a contract of employment unlike members who adhere to the code of conduct. Thank you very much for that clarification. Any other points on this quite exciting matter? My first point was I was only offering one suite, not the packet. I was actually going back to page 175 when we've got issues for consideration. When I initially read that, I was thinking, oh, there's some issues here to be dealt with. But on reading that, I'm like, they're not really issues, are they? They're more just like factors to consider. You know, because if you look at the bottom one, it's, you know, all gifts and hospitality acceptancies had manager authorization. I don't know, maybe it's just a point of preference or a point of design of the report. But I just felt like these points didn't really pass the SWOT test for, like, issues. So just something I just wanted to raise. Certainly we can consider that for future reports. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else want a final say on this issue? No. Thank you very much. Okay. So we recommended that we review the contents of the annual gifts and hospitality report to satisfy ourselves that the governance arrangements are operating effectively. And make any recommendations for improvement, which we have done. I know Amelia has captured those. So are we all agreed? Okay. Thank you so much, Shella and Michael, and all your contributions on this item. Thank you very much. So the item number 12, the date of the next meeting. So the next meeting of the audit governance will be on the 11th of September, 2024. So thank you very much. I'd like to close the meeting at 11.20.