Conwy Council - Governance and Audit Committee

Subscribe to updates

You'll receive weekly summaries about Conwy Council every week.

If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.

Please note, emails for this council have been paused whilst we secure funding for it. We hope to begin delivering them again in the next couple of weeks. If you subscribe, you'll be notified when they resume. If you represent a council or business, or would be willing to donate a small amount to support this service, please get in touch at community@opencouncil.network.

Governance and Audit Committee - Wednesday, 12 June 2024 9.30 am

June 12, 2024 View on council website

Transcript

(speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language) (speaking in foreign language)

In the chamber we have independent member, Mr. David Shewert, Councillor Carol Holliday and independent member, Mr. Paul Whippen. And on video we have Councillor Ellie Chard, Councillor Errol Roberts, Councillor James Elson, Councillor Mark Young and independent member Nigel Rudd. Also in the chamber, we have Councillor Quinellis, who is the lead member to do with finance and officers assisting the meeting here today. We ask those attending remotely to switch off their mics. Also, we're asking them to leave their videos on unless I ask you specifically to switch off your video to improve the audio link when you're speaking. You will be expected to restart your video once you have finished speaking. Also, we ask you please to refrain from using the chat facility as messages sent will be visible to all on the web to pass. Those present in the chamber are asked to make sure that they speak directly into the microphones in order to improve the quality of the sound for those attending remotely. To aid transparency, all the meeting's business must be conducted through the chair.
As this is the first meeting of the committee in the new municipal year, the first item of business is for the committee to elect a chair. So could I ask if there are any nominations for the position of chair, please? Mr. Nigel Rudd.
Thank you, Gary. I'd like to nominate David Stewart again for another term of office. As we failed to put him off during the last year, we're giving him another year to see how we get on with it.
Thank you. Is there a seconder to that nomination? Council, Councillor Carol Holliday. Are there any other nominations? If there are no other nominations, then there's technically no need for a vote since you've been nominated and seconded, but would members like to show a show of hands for affirmation? That's unanimous. Thank you very much. I can now hand over to you, chair.
Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Gary. Thank you for being appointed as chair again. I think the first duty is now the next item on the agenda, item three, the appointment of vice chair. Are there any nominations for the position of vice chair? Any proposals? Councillor Ellie Chard.
I'd like to propose that Councillor Mark Young, if he's willing to take on the role again. Okay.
Mark, are you willing?
Yes, sir. Yes, if that's okay.
Can I have a seconder, please, for that?
I'll second that, aye.
Councillor Arwell. So there's no other nominations for the point of vice chair. So by the same token, there's no need for a vote, but can I have a show of hands all in favour of Mark Young being appointed vice chair for? Okay. Thank you very much. Just to say thank you for voting. Thank you for re-appointing me. Just to say that as a sort of intro to the meeting, I think as the Governing Order Committee ends its third year with the lay members, with a third of its membership being lay, I believe that we're working well together. I think we're making progress. I really value the culture atmosphere that we have in this meeting, in this group. I think we treat each other with trust and respect. That's something I don't take for granted. We are making progress. We need to make progress, but at the same time, we're keeping that trust and respect, and that includes not just within the committee, but relationships with other councillors and with the officers who regularly support us as well. So thank you all. Look forward to working with you for one more year. So as far as the meeting is concerned, welcome to it. I want to particularly welcome Councillor James Elson, who's online, who's new to the committee. I also want to welcome Alex Jenkins, who's here from Caradigian. She's attending in respect to item 10 on our agenda today. So welcome, Alex. It's good to see you. Also, I don't know if he's online yet, but I think later on, one of the officers here will be Yolo McGregor. I believe he's taken us on some training courses, and he's supported in a number of meetings. I believe it's his last day in service with the council today. So we wish him all the best as he goes to ventures new. I think it's Conway, I think he's going to. So we wish him all the best. As far as the agenda there is concerned, I've given indicative times, they're only as a guide. So we don't have to be too dictated to buy them. Also, we've had to amend the order of the agenda today. So item 10, which is the internal audit, external audit assessment, that is going to proceed item seven straight after the minute so to be between item six and item seven. Just to say, I do plan a comfort break as well for about five or 10 minutes, probably after item seven. So you all know where we're going there. So we'll proceed now on with the rest of the agenda. The next item is item four, declaration of... Oh, sorry, I missed that item one. It's because of the...
Technical chair, that's my fault, I missed it. I should have done it before the election of chair.
Apologies for the meeting. The only apologies I know of from Councillor Bobby Feeley because everybody else is in the chamber or online. So, okay. Apologies for Councillor Feeley. Okay. Okay, sorry, that was item one, two, three. Item four, declaration of interest. Are there any declaration of interests? Councillor Chard.
Good morning. Good morning, chair. And thank you for taking on the role again. I'd just like to say on agenda item number seven, I'm an LDA governor at Auscultia Morpher in Rill. Okay.
Thank you very much, Councillor Chard. Sorry, I meant, Gary needs to read something out first.
Ah, right.
It's all right. (speaking in foreign language)
Members simply aware of the requirements under the council's code of conduct to declare any personal or personal interest in respect of any business to be considered at today's meeting. Such interest should be declared now or as soon as the councillor or member affected becomes aware that they have a personal or prejudicial interest in today's business. All members declaring an interest are required to state clearly what the interest is and to advise whether it is a personal interest or a personal and prejudicial interest as defined in the code of conduct. Any member declaring a prejudicial interest is required to leave the meeting for the duration of the business and can take no part in the proceedings. Members with a personal interest only may take part in the debate and any votes. If a personal or personal and prejudicial interest is declared today that has not previously been disclosed and recorded, the councillor or member concerned will be required to complete and sign a declaration of interest form which is either available from the committee support staff in attendance here today or online.
Thank you. Nigel Rudd, got a hand up. This is to-- - Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and congratulations to you and to Mark for your respective reappointments. Just declaration in respect to being a member of the GAC for Conway, as this may come up during the course of the meeting, Chair.
Thank you. Councillor Arwell-Jones.
Councillor Roberts, Arwell-Roberts. I wish you both well, who have been re-elected Chair and Vice-Chair. I state that I am a governor, as a scholar, a castor, to the land, thank you.
Thank you. Any other declarations of interest? Councillor Holliday, Holliday.
Yes. If schools generally are referred to, I think it's probably in the performance self-assessment report, then technically you have an interest, but because it's about schools generally, then it's a personal interest only. And so I'll just confirm that for all others who've declared an interest as governors, it's a personal interest and not prejudicial interest.
Also, for myself, it's a personal interest. I'm in receipt of a pension from fluid pensions. It's referred to in the statement of accounts which could be referred to today and either in the minutes or in the forward work programme. So I just want to make that clear as well.
Chair, I am on the same page as yourself, colloquially speaking.
I'm in IHVID.
Yes, Arwell.
And me too, yes.
I'm also under fluid pensions.
Okay. Elie John.
And myself, okay. Sorry, I forgot.
Okay. Okay, moving on, if that's all right. That was any urgent matters. Item five, any urgent matters, which I don't believe there are. And then we go on to item six, which is the minutes of the previous meeting. We're here to receive the minutes of the Government Order Committee meeting of the 24th of April, 2024. I know it's 1924. 2024, I was thinking about the local government in 1972. That's why I'm getting mixed up. 24th of April. What we'll do as usual, we'll go through the minutes page by page for accuracy, and then we'll go back page by page for any matters arising from the minutes. So I'm starting on pack page seven. Can I just raise something, just a small thing, but when it says present at the last meeting, could I have my name spelt correctly, please? Also at the last meeting, there was only two elected members recorded being present, Councillor Justine Evans, who was then on the committee, and Mark Young. Were there only two members present? Well, there's not some more. I can't remember now.
Sorry. - I was present, definitely. There were some, quite a few apologies as well at the last meeting. Arwell, sorry, were you saying you were here?
I don't...
Yes, I was here.
Councillor Roberts was here as well. I thought so. Thank you. Okay, and so that's page seven. Page eight. Just on the matters arising from the previous meeting, on the second paragraph on the page, where it says page eight, good idea to have a local governance. It should be governance code. Governance code. And also the next item, it says page nine, re-arling close. And I know we've got some questions on this and answers for Miss Thomas, as far as the accuracy is concerned. The head of finance stated that confirmation in writing would be sent immediately. I think it should read the head of finance stated that the request for confirmation of writing would be sent for immediately, just for the record. That's page eight. Page nine. Just for accuracy, page 10. Page 11. Just want to read some of it myself. The first complete paragraph on that page, the first bullet point, it reads, it says here, regarding local authorities who had issued section 114 reports, there had been criticism of the failure of the governance and audit committee to adequately review and monitor. Sorry, but I'm a bit sensitive about this. I think it needs to read, there had been criticism of the failure of their governance and audit committees. Just in case anybody wants to throw anything out to us. (laughs) I don't think it's lying, but it was the failure of their governance and audit committee, in other words, of those authorities. That's page 11. Yes, Paul?
Accuracy. The third bullet point on that page headed membership of the committee. In the middle it says the wording did not reflect that. Then there's a space, and it then goes on to say there was an opportunity politically the lead member of finance. It doesn't read very well, but both at the beginning and where I start.
That paragraph, I'm not quite sure what it's meant to say there.
I think it's meant to say that the wording, that the wording reflected the legislative position, and it was suggested that there was an opportunity politically for the lead member of finance who regularly attends the committee to be a member and the administrative may at some point wish to allocate that. And then there was an explanation that council had decided. Yes, yeah.
Okay, so thanks Paul. Page 11, page 12, page 13, page 14. Just the third paragraph up, the one that's headed member allowances. Could members not agree to take the increase? I think it should be, I think it's the wrong way round there. I think the sentiment was could members agree to not take the increase? Page 15, 16, 17, 18. Okay, so we're happy with the minutes as regards accuracy subject to those amendments that we've just highlighted. So we just go through now for any matters arising from the minutes. So I think, again, we'll take them page by page, please. So anything on page seven, if you want to raise anything, please raise your hand. Page eight, (silence) There's something I wanted to raise on page eight. Under the matters arising, the matter arise from the previous meeting, when it says a good idea to have a local governance code, the monitoring officer would have a report before the annual governance statement is produced. That is on the work programme for July. So presumably that's not going, that's not to give us a governance code. It's how we, whether we need one and how we could bring one about basically. Is that right, Gary?
Yes, it would, well, I think, I think the report actually will sort of draft out a code of corporate governance so that you've got that in front of you and then we can get comments from the committee as to whether or not they're happy with it. (silence)
Thank you.
Also on page eight, the next item read Arlin Close, the head of finance state that confirmation, the request for confirmation in writing will be sent immediately. This refers to the training we got last year, the excellent training for Arlin Close on treasury management. But also the BBC TV programme on Thorek council. And the question was raised that if Arlin Close as our treasury management advisors were unhappy with some transaction and didn't think it was being properly handled by the section 151 officer as happened at Thorek. I'm not suggesting that would hit for a moment to happen at Dambisher, but would they contact someone other than the section 151 officer such as the chief internal auditor, the chief executive or myself. And just to say, Liz Thomas has responded to me on that. She she'll be joining the meeting later on this morning, but she has responded in writing to say that she has actually sent a reminder to Arlin Close confirming that they're having to, I think it's to confirm that in writing. Is that right, Gary, do you know that?
Yes, and she's also written to them, giving them names of alternative contact points in the council should they have any concerns about whoever is the 151 for the time being. So that's yourself as chair, myself as monitoring officer and Bob as chief internal auditor.
Yeah, chief executive. Do we need to get something back from Arlin Close confirming that they would do that?
It's not long gone. So I'm assuming there will be a response. So I'll ask Liz to chase just to get one, yeah.
Okay, that was on page eight. Matters rising, page nine. Page 10. Just to say, this is the terms of reference. We agreed them at the last meeting, the terms of reference for this committee, the renewed terms of reference. They went to council on the 14th of May. I watched the debate about the discussion. I think the monitoring officer spelt out our role in it admirably. And I thought there was a warm welcome for the work of the committee from the leader of the council and the terms of reference were accepted. So I thought that as members, you'd be aware of that. Nigel Rudd.
Yeah, thank you, chair. I'm trying to pick up on terms of reference.
Yes.
There is an issue, it seems to me, about advocacy for GAC, that the chair of the GAC is not a member of council and not a member of cabinet. And therefore championing the issues and debates at the electoral political level is something the committee might wish to consider further. And I'm mindful that Gary did a sterling job in the council meeting itself, but it might be that there needs to be a further discussion potentially about the role of the vice chair of this committee in relation to how advocacy is pursued on behalf of matters discussed in the committee. The particular point that I would raise, Gary, through you, chair, was the last time I did a new, and it is part of the muddled minute on page 11, to talk about the ability of the cabinet member to serve on GAC, as long as they were not the leader effectively in relation to that matter. Now, that reference that I challenged last time remained in the paper to the council meeting and wasn't amended. It should have been amended, in my view, either to say the council has decided, historically, a decision not to have cabinet members on the GAC or some other wording, Gary, that anticipated that. And it wasn't changed. And I think that needs still to be addressed, because council can always go back and alter its opinion, as opposed to a statutory measure, where it can't go back and alter the statutory measure. But I just draw that to your attention, Gary, I think, for further consideration outside of the meeting. The other point I've caught, and I thought Councillor Phealy spoke to this item well, was the reference to section 114. I'm trying to, in my suggestion debate the last time, to get to the ability to use the expectation that GAC, part of the role of GAC is to be mindful that it's there to act as a shield for protection around the decision-making of the council and have one eye on the section 114 implications in order to avoid us ever ending up in a situation where we need to serve a section 114 notice. I don't see that as a negative. And I did feel back from the county council debate, or your comments into it, that there was still an angst about referencing section 114. I mean, I consider in the same way as we referenced sort of section 151 officer, we ought to be potentially more open and transparent about the implications. I agree entirely that the wording talks about the appropriate financial management and measures to be in place, but I don't think we should be averse about referencing section 114, where we feel it is helpful to do so. And at the end of the day, it is up to this committee to determine how it fulfils its functions as set out in the measure. So I'll leave that to Gary to consider outside of the meeting convention.
Do you want to respond at all now, or do you want to respond outside the meeting?
I'll respond outside the meeting. So Liz and I have discussed it and then came to a conclusion, but I'm happy to discuss it again. And maybe myself and Liz can get back to Nigel in respect to that specific.
And it can't be the vice chair myself.
Yes, it will, yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, that was on page 11. Just going back to page 10, the paragraph that's carried over at the top, it has a bearing on the performance self-assessment that we're considering under item seven today. But it says, and this is in respect of, this is still under the terms of reference. It says there's a sentence partway through that paragraph. It says the final self-assessment would not be presented at the governance and audit committee if council had not adopted any recommendations made for an explanation as to why that decision had been made. If the final self-assessment report and the governance and audit committee recommendations were approved by council, the final report would be presented to governance and audit committee for information. I'm not quite sure.
I think that's wrong.
Yes.
So the issue is that if the council did not accept recommendations, then I think we would bring a report back to you. But if it had just accepted all those recommendations or there were no recommendations to accept, then the final version would just be provided to you for information 'cause you already would have seen it.
But just to clarify, I was gonna raise this when we come to item seven, but it seems the right time to raise it now. That when it comes to the actual self-performance assessment, which will be carried out this autumn, I think there's a specific requirement in law then that if we make a recommendation, the council, if they don't agree with that recommendation, they must give a written explanation as to why.
The panel assessment in the autumn. Yes, there is some statutory choreography about where it goes and when it has to come back, yeah.
Yeah.
Okay. I'll probably raise that again under item seven. I just want to clarify something else with it there. All right, we're going through the matters arising with the minutes, page 10. Yes, Paul?
Page 10, Chair, if I may.
Yeah.
The penultimate bullet point at the bottom, there's the question was about whether new terms of reference would cover the agenda items, and it goes on to talk about to see if there were any gaps. For completeness, I'd like to suggest it should be also to see if there's any apparent misdirection, as it were, with other committees, i.e. is there anything that this committee's done over the past three years that actually it shouldn't?
There's ongoing work done by officers. I don't know if Bob wants to come in on that. There's something that they're going to raise under the forward work programme under item 11, but we've talked about how the work of this committee needs better to fit in with the cycle of meetings in the council, and I think work is ongoing on that, is it not, Bob?
Yeah, a piece of work has already been done, so we've gone through the last four and a half years of the Gunmson Audit Committee, and we've got a spreadsheet together now of all the meetings that have taken place in this committee, and once I know the council's arrangements for the new forward work programme, we will slot everything in and share it with the chair and vice-chair initially.
That was page 10, page 11, matters arising, page 12. Nigel Rudd, you've got a hand up, thank you.
Yeah, thank you, chair. I had anticipated raising some matters on page 11 and 12 in regard to the medium-term financial strategy and similar. I have received a very helpful update from Liz, respectively, as matters, and I think she may be attending later in the meeting. My view would be if Liz is in attendance later in the meeting, there may be an opportunity to just reflect on one or two of those comments. If she isn't, then I think it would be helpful to say to Liz or to ask Liz to circulate the information to all members of the committee that she's personally sent to me overnight, so I'd just rest that, chair, for you to perhaps pick up later in the meeting, depending on the appearance of Liz.
I understand that Liz will be joining us later in the meeting, because I think the monitoring officer has to leave.
Yeah, sorry, I should have said at the beginning, under apologies, I've got to leave the electoral commissioner doing a round of meetings with local authorities, and ours is at midday today, so I have to go to that. Liz didn't have any reports on this agenda, so was not going to attend, but is going to come down in time for me to go to the election meeting so that one of us is always here.
If we want to come back to some of these questions arising from, the message arising from the minutes, how do we go about that, Guy, because we want to go onto other agenda items now?
I think there's probably not an appropriate way to do it under the agenda. Perhaps if Liz were to circulate the information that she's provided to Nigel, that might be the best way of doing it, otherwise we're going off-gender. You're the chair, so if you wanted to pack something and bring it back later on the agenda, you could.
Okay.
I'd prefer to keep to the agenda myself, but we'll just see, when we get to item 11, which is the work programme, we'll see what position and what the time is there. Liz has actually provided a written answer to Nigel. I think she's copied myself in it. I just got it just before the meeting opened this morning. So I don't see any reason why that can't be copied to other members, but we'll see what the state of play is at the end of item 11 and raise it then. I think that's the best thing, okay. Item 11, page 11, page 12, page 13, 14, 15, well, something I was going to raise, Gary, on page 15 was the third paragraph down, the role of scrutiny in the budget setting process for both revenue and capital was to be assessed and the section 151 officer confirmed she would be attending the scrutiny chairs and the vice chairs group in May. Since Liz is going to come to the meeting, this is also raised on the performance assessment as well. So if Liz is here for that, I was going to raise that under that. I think it'd be useful, when we're discussing the terms of reference of this committee, what's come up several times as being what's our role in terms of the process for financial planning, as opposed to the detailed scrutiny of decision-making and that's going to go to, there's a meeting of the scrutiny chairs and vice chairs group and they've decided to take, there's going to be a shift in emphasis there.
Yes, you may want to ask Liz this, but the position is we went to scrutiny chairs and vice chairs group and in respect to the budget, they agreed to Liz's recommendation. So the report that came to you at the last meeting on the medium-term financial plan and strategy and the sort of financial resilience test, that all went to performance scrutiny at their last meeting. I go to that, I think it was last week. It was last Thursday and they've agreed that that will be the cycle. So it will go to performance scrutiny on the same cycle that it comes to you. In terms of the transformation programme, scrutiny have also agreed that there are three themes or three work streams within that programme and they've agreed to allocate items as they come up under those work streams across the three scrutiny committees. So we have a way forward in respect to that.
Any comments from members on that? Okay, we're just trying to keep it informed what's going on there. Okay, so that's page 15, page 16, page 17 and page 18. Okay, so I think the recommendation is that we receive the minutes of the Government of the Nordic Committee meeting held on the 24th of April, 2024. So we've looked at the accuracy of that. We looked at considering any matters arising. So taking account of what's been said there. Can I have a proposer to accept the minutes of the Government of the Nordic Committee? All with them? Can I have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Holiday, Holiday. They got my name wrong, so I'll get your name wrong as well. Oh, all in favour? Thank you. Thank you, I see our colleagues, our Office of Colleagues from strategic planning and performance here. We've actually rejigged the agenda. I think you're aware of it. So we're gonna have, say, item 10 now, which is the internal audit, external audit assessment from the 15th of April, 2024. So I think Bob Choudry, senior internal auditor is gonna give a brief summary of this. And we've got Alex Jenkins here, who we've worked with long before. It's online there. Baradar, good morning, Alex, from Kerry Diggin Council. And so I think she's gonna be able to answer any questions as well that we might have. Bob, thank you.
Baradar, good morning, everybody. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. Right then, obviously, this is the first of three reports I'm bringing to this committee. The internal audit, external audit assessment was carried out by Alex Jenkins from Kerry Diggin Council. It was agreed by the Welsh Chief Auditor Group many years ago that these inspections would be done on a peer basis. And obviously, every five years, the assessment takes place. We change the assessors each time. So five years ago, Leonard from Gwynedd was our assessor. This year, Alex has done the assessment. It was due to take place in '23. It took place the back end of '23 due to work commitments for myself, firstly. We had a few special investigations. And then when we could meet with Alex, she then took the baton off me and she had a couple of investigations within Kerry Diggin. So we managed to do it over Christmas and in the new year. The report was presented to us in February and March. Alex interviewed or spent time with myself and Samantha Davies, my principal auditor. She also met with our chair, Dave Stewart, and our Vice-Mark Young to ask their opinions. It's a fair report. I have to say, you know, some of the issues that Alex has raised, we hold our hands up, we take an eye off the ball, myself and Samantha, and we accept the outcomes happily. As you can see, 45, we complied with the public section to the loaded standards. Six, we partially conformed, and there were five non-conformants. Part of the review at the end was to go through an action plan with Alex. We've completed the action plan with Alex and I noticed when I've looked at this report, you don't get the full action plan. You've only had parts of the action plan, so you can't see where we're up to on each of the timescales. So I won't go through the 11, but if you wish, I will circulate the actual report with the completed action plan on so your members are aware of where we're up to on each of them. That's all I'd like to say. I'd like to bring in Alex now if she wants to add anything else. (speaks in foreign language)
Thank you very much for the invitation to attend the meeting this morning. Bob has gone through background there.
Quick highlight, so like Bob mentioned, the assessment is based on the public sector internal audit standards, which were effective in 2013. So the assessment that we carried out was essentially a desktop review, and that was of the self-assessment of your internal audit function. Bob and Samantha completed the self-assessment, and we completed independent validation of that assessment whilst also looking at supporting documentation and supporting evidence. Bob also mentioned that we met with the chair and the deputy chair of the Governance and Audit Committee, and that was to cover off additional areas in the assessment to cover off the standards. Again, we've got the purpose of the external assessment. It's essentially to improve the delivery of the audit service in the organisation, so the efficiencies and effectiveness of processes in place. It's a supportive process where we can identify opportunities of improvement. And as Bob mentioned, we've had conversations since then on suggested areas that could be improved on and how to go about those. And that adds value to the function of the internal audit service. As Bob mentioned, so we have given a generally conforms to the public sector internal audit standards. That's the level of assurance that was provided. 45 areas were conformed with the standards, six partial conformance, and there were five areas non-conformance. So I'll go through those in a little bit of more detail, a bit of a highlighted version, but I welcome any questions thereafter. So a few of the areas that we picked up, particularly the non-conformance, they are fairly easy to rectify to give you some assurance over those. So the main areas were regarding the quality assurance and improvement programme. There was no official quality assurance and improvement programme or up to date. So the quality assurance or QAIP that's reported to you was based on the external quality assessment five years ago. So fairly historic and not up to date with any changes in conformance to the standards. Again, once this report is reported to you, that the outcomes can go into a QAIP, be reported to the governance and audit committee, essentially that has been actioned. So other areas that we picked up with the does not conform then were to do with instances of non-conformance being reported to the board. So senior management and the governance and audit committee. Again, as I mentioned, that is being reported to you now. Bob can give you any further assurance on where it has been reported and in a sense that then demonstrates conformance to the standards, the fact that it's been reported. The partial areas. So there were minor amendments required in a few documents. So the internal audit charter, it doesn't currently outline the specific responsibilities of the governance and audit committee in relation to the internal audit function. Again, this is something it can be updated at the next internal audit charter review. It also states that the chief internal auditor reports functionally to the head of finance and audit. The standards recommend that it was set out that the chief internal auditor should report administratively to an officer within the organisation and would report functionally to the governance and audit committee. Having discussions with Bob and with the chair and deputy chair, it was confirmed that that is the actual relationship, hence why it's a partial rather than it does not conform. It would just be an amendment to the charter to set that out clearly. Another area was proficiency in due professional care. Bob was very upfront in the fact that there's a few new members of the team and the competency and training requirements. It's not, it doesn't meet standards, but they are all new members are on training programmes. Again, which is why it was a partial rather than it does not conform. Further areas then, so the internal audit plan. Although the plan from conversations with Bob is a risk-based plan, there was no documented evidence or documented risk assessment in place to evidence how the areas were prioritised and in the plan on a risk basis. So for us to be able to evidence that, again, hence why it was a partial rather than it does not conform, that the strategy and the plan did state that it was on a risk basis and there was evidence of corporate risks within the internal audit plan as well. There were two audits, as I mentioned, in the internal audit plan that aligned to critical corporate risks. So that again supported the fact that it was a risk-based plan. The next section then is on risk management. So this is with regards to the internal audit function. As it's a risk-based plan, we would expect there would have been an assessment on the council's risk management framework and risk management process in place to be able to place assurance on that in order to base the plan on the corporate risks. There hasn't been a review or an up-to-date review on the council's risk management framework and function to be able to place assurance in those areas on the internal audit plan. Again, this is a partial because a lot of the work is risk-based. So you can do that, but there wasn't any documented evidence or an internal audit review of the effectiveness and robustness of the risk management function. The last section that I'm gonna cover off with you is regarding the internal audit manual. So this was a minor amendment required, really. In all honesty, when we'd had our external quality assessment, we had the same thing. So this was where there are errors or omissions in audit reports from discussion with Bob. Any errors or amendments would be updated and reports would be reissued with all the correct information to all parties who received the original documentation. However, the internal audit manual didn't set this out as a necessity for all members within the function. So again, a fairly minor amendment to the audit manual. However, in conformance with the standards, it would be a partial, although that is the process that they work on through verbal confirmation. There wasn't anything in the manual to evidence that. So that's it with the recommendations. Like I said, there was 11 of those. I've covered the partials and the does not conform. I welcome any questions if there are any. Joel.
Yeah, thank you. Thanks, Alex. Thanks for the presentation there. And thanks also for the actual work itself. And it's been done most thoroughly. And it's, I often say, I've said that this committee several times that I regard together with our external audit colleagues where internal audits are very much this committee's ears and eyes as to what's really going on there. And I just find it reassuring that internal audit conforms to the standard set out. Yes, I know Bob and Alex has set, Bob has thrown his hands up to a few things there and Alex has set them out. But I think we need to see those in the context of what's stated in the report there. It says there that the internal audit service generally conforms with the requirements and generally conforms reflects the highest level of conformance following an external assessment. So I think we need to see the recommendations in that context. I think, just to remind everybody that this is, I think I'm right, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an assessment against the internal audit standard set, they're the public sector internal audit standards for all authorities in the United Kingdom. And they derive from international internal auditing standards, I think ultimately set by the global internal institute of internal auditing. Is that right, Bob?
That is correct, yeah, very mouthful.
Yeah, there's a lot more big words there which I can't get out now. But just to say that this is a global thing here. So I think we need to see what's been said against that context really. I think it's easy to say internal audit for granted. So I think, as well as, thank you Alex, I think also the fact that there's general conformance there. I think the committee should acknowledge that and give its thanks to Bob and the internal audit team as well. I think that should be minuted myself. They're not perfect unlike the rest of us, but they really make, they basically, from what this said, they're doing a good job, so.
So any questions or comments from members on this? I've got a few myself, but Ellie Chard?
Yes, thank you, Chair. And thank you, Alex and Bob. Page 213 in agenda number 10. Basically, I was pleased to read about the partnership working with other auditors and also the effective partnership working arrangements with other local authorities. And I just thought I'd raise that because I was very pleased to know. Okay, it's just a comment, Chair, but I just thought it was well worth mentioning. Thank you.
Thank you. Nigel Rudd?
Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Alex. Some questions on this I have, which maybe Alex and Bob can respond to. I thought it was a good read. I thought the referencing to implementing the Quality Assurance Improvement Programme implementation was good and positive and comes through clearly in the report. Underneath much of what is being said here, I think there remains sort of capacity issues across audit, and generally not only within this council, but potentially across other areas. I'd value a view from you, Alex and Bob, as necessary in relation to where this authority sits when benchmarking its performance against others in Wales. And secondly, where there are consistent challenges that face those authorities across the world regarding the ability to recruit and retain staff in key roles in this area, because part of this reflects those challenges that I know this authority is facing. Bob has done well for this team to address them, but I anticipate there may be common issues to other areas. So I value some feedback on that as my first comment.
Thank you for that question. Nigel, yes, you're quite right. When we benchmark, I think an exercise was done about 18 months ago, where we looked at the 22 authorities and the makeup of the teams, and you were correct, across Wales, it's very difficult at the moment to recruit internal audit staff. There's a shortage of staff available within the makeup of Wales. Denbyshire sits probably middle in most areas. We have a team of six members, and that, again, is probably sitting middle of Cardiff down to some of the smaller places like Anglesey that only has three members in the team. So we sit in the middle there. Pay-wise, we pay middle of the road again, so we sat nice and firm in the middle. Qualification-wise, we are lower than a lot of Wales, because I've taken on three new career pathway auditors in the last 18 months, and my principal auditor, Samantha, she's on a career pathway. So yes, professional-wise, we are slightly lower down the rankings, but I think other than that, we hold our own in most areas. I don't know if Alex wants to mention anything else. No, I would just support Bob's comments, to be honest. In all honesty, I would say Keradigon is very similar to Denbyshire. There are two networking groups that I'm part of, and Bob is as well. He may be involved in more as well. So we've got the All Wales Chief Auditors Group, and then we have the North and Mid Wales Audit Partnership. And just to, if it gives you any assurance, it's a very common question around staffing. Although in Keradigon, we are staffed to full complement, it's the qualification. So I have two people currently studying for the Certified Internal Audit qualification. That being said, again, I support Bob's comments with the benchmarking. I assume Bob reports the benchmarking stats to you as well. I normally include that into my annual report to give some weight to what we're producing as well, given the challenges. But yes, it's very much the recruitment, the retaining staff as well is an issue. But I would support Bob's comments around the benchmarking where we lie. It is quite useful to see against services with possibly a greater budget, with a larger number of staff what they're producing. But those that are similar, similar sized authorities, similar number of staff seem to be on a par with what we produce as well. >> I'm grateful for that, Chair. Can I just ask a supplementary to Alex and Bob, that when looking at capacity issues across councils, one of the measures or the opportunities there is to work in collaboration or in partnership or in shared service delivery, for sharing internal audit services across several councils, for example. But fundamentally, the issue is one of, if you haven't got the right numbers to begin with, actually sharing them doesn't necessarily address the cause of the issue. So, and I'm mindful that, you know, that Wales sit in on these discussions as well. Is there actually a problem here about getting the right numbers in at the right level into audit work at a much lower level so that you bring them through, and so that you're not all fishing for the same fish in a very small pool, which is what seems to me to be underlying some of the ability to recruit to audit work? Am I sort of reasonably accurate in that? Or are you going to tell me, oh no, Nigel, there's something totally different that you've forgotten about? >> I think one of the issues, Nigel, is the fact that obviously when we went through the pandemic, people started working from home. And now as we've come out of the pandemic, people start that option to work from home. So people now could actually live in North Wales and work for one of the London councils because you'd only ask to go in one or two days in a London council. So that has put an effect on our recruitment abilities. But I think the way forward for Demershire has been to recruit at the lower level. As you quite rightly said, we've got people in our career pathway so that they can come in and over four to five years, they can become fully qualified internal auditors in their own right. And that's the way I see Demershire grow in their own is ideal, if Alex got anything else to say. >> No, again, agree, Bob. With your comments, there has been a conversation in the North and Mid Wales, and I think we're encroached onto the Welsh Chief Auditors Group about the consideration for sharing services, but Nigel, you're correct in your points. If we don't have enough people on the ground anyway, expecting them to then go up and cover another authority, however, you're possibly exacerbating the problem then because then you've got to consider traveling time expenses, whether you can do effective audits online with those in different services, but also the knowledge of how different authorities work as well. So it could exacerbate the problem. It's that whether it's going to provide any benefit or not, when you don't have, you know, it would probably work if there was one standout authority that couldn't recruit, but seeing as though it is a common thing, it could be exacerbating the problem or not achieving anything. >> Thank you both very much. >> Could I just come back in? One point I think is worth mentioning, Nigel, is within the North Wales Audit Group and the Old Wales Group, we do talk about common themes, common audits, and we do share working papers, which is really useful. So the scoping documentation, the working papers, so we're not reinventing the wheel and that does speed up some of the work we do in North Wales. >> Thank you. >> I see Councillor Arrowell, Robert's hand up, but since then I see Charles Rigby from Audit Wales has put his hand up. Charles, do you mind me asking, did you want to comment on the same point or? >> Yeah, just to respond to Nigel's point there, I think it is a sector-wide issue. Audit Wales runs an apprenticeship and a trainee scheme to essentially respond to that risk 'cause it is quite challenging, particularly as Bob's outlined, to compete with the ability to work from home and obviously potentially work for the big four, et cetera, while still living in more pleasant areas in the countryside, et cetera. So that is a real risk. We mitigate that risk or attempt to by providing a graduate training scheme and an apprenticeship scheme. We have around 50 people in those two schemes at one time, and that's going to increase in the short term. And as part of that scheme, there is an opportunity for secondees to go and work in other public sector bodies. I'm sure as you'll appreciate, it's unusual for that to be councils because of the Order General's independence, but that does sometimes involve working for central government bodies, such as the DVLA and others like that. So as we train up our recruits, we also try to support the wider public sector as best we can within the limitations of the Order General's independence. But I think as Alex and Bob have already articulated, there is a real challenge in terms of recruitment into the audit sector. Thanks, Jack.
Thank you. Councillor Alwell-Roberts.
Thank you very much. It's lovely to see Cara de Guillen Council being shown on the counts on the screen. Thank you very much, Alex. As I completed my high school education, my further education in Cara de Guillen. Question for me, how many of you work in your departments and how does the education or the training, how does it, is it completed for, how is it for your staff to catch up with the work that needs to be done?
Probably Bob, sir.
For my department, we have myself and five other internal auditors. So I have myself, principal auditor, three career pathways and an auditor. And I'm not sure if Alex wants to share her team with you.
We're a similar size team. So it's myself, we've got an audit manager, senior auditor and two auditors. I think Councillor Roberts, was it to do with how up to date the training plans were with each of your members of the team, Bob, I think.
Training plan, thank you, Alex. My team training plans, obviously, I've got my principal auditor who's finishing off ILM4, which is a management qualification, which should be completed by the end of this year. And she's going back to doing her I Institute internal auditors certified qualifications. She's part qualified in that. I have one senior auditor who will have been with me by the end of this year, two years, she's going to start her internal Institute internal auditors exams. And then I've got two of the career pathways who had just completed their first level of the association of accounting technicians exams.
Okay. - Hello.
Thank you very much, thank you.
Can I just ask a question, Bob, on the training, one of the points that has come out of this as on the standard 1210 proficiency in due professional care says the council should significantly support the internal audit function and achieving its required qualifications for proficiency as soon as possible. I don't take this the wrong way, but how are we not doing that?
The council are supporting us. I mean, obviously in January 23, when we put an advert out to recruit, they also said put two adverts out, career pathway and senior auditor and see how many applications you get. So obviously our HR department was superbly supported me throughout that process. Obviously we didn't get anyone from a senior auditor application form, but we had several career pathways and they've supported us through. They've helped me put training plans in place. So the training plans are there and obviously budget is in place that when we have to pay for the different levels of training, the money's there to be used at the right time. So personally I feel the council has supported us.
So since we've only got partial confirmation on that, partial conformance on that, what do we have to, I'm not quite sure, just on this one, what we have to do to get full conformance?
Well, we've got partial because obviously I'm a fully qualified SIPA accountant. Then after that, my team haven't really got the qualification. So you've got Samantha who's part qualified in IAA certified, and then you've got Sonia who's equivalent of AAT qualified. And then obviously the other two have never worked in finance before. So they are doing the association of accounting technicians first. So what is the reason for part qualification?
So the council is, it's really saying the council needs to continue to do what we're doing and supporting.
Yes. - Okay, that's fine.
Any other questions from members on this?
Just a few points from myself if I may please. You're going to, Bob, as far as progress on these points, you're going to come back to us when and how?
Probably after six months, I will put in my quarterly report. So it'll be the September, November, when the quarterly update is due. I'll put an extra couple of paragraphs in to let you know where we're up to and probably share with you the action plan again. But I will share the action plan at the end of this meeting via email so you can all see where we're up to. 'Cause I appreciate, 'cause I put it landscape, it's been cut out.
Okay. On the point about risk management, it says not clear how the prioritisation or the remainder of the audit work included in the internal audit plan aligns to the organisation's goals and corporate risks. I think it'd be good to come back to us, how are you going to go about this in the future? It might come up in the other report we've got today under item nine. I don't think we can go into this now for time-wise, but I'd like to know personally how you're going to go about that. No, as that sounds out of interest, I think it'd be useful for this committee to know how the plan internal audit work, how the reason for including things in the plan there. I think it'd be good, and maybe the basis of a future workshop. And following on from that, there was the point there about the specific point about risk management. I see that, and I think from the other report, there's an audit of risk management about to begin. Could that not include some of the points about risk management raised from this report? Yeah, when we started the risk management review in March, we've taken on board some of the comments that Alex has made and we've looked at the risk process this time round. So it covers a lot of Alex's issues that we had. We'd fallen behind on the risk management. Obviously in January 23, there was myself a senior and an auditor of a team of six. So we didn't quite complete the plan that year and risk management dropped behind. When Alex came, risk management was on the plan, but again, it was done at the very end. So Alex didn't see what work we were doing. I actually appreciate that we were about to start it. So yeah, the work's completed now. And I think the actual report will be finalised in the next week, I believe. So hopefully this time next week, you'll be getting a copy of the report so you can see what we've done. Excellent. The last point from me was the point was raised about the council's effectiveness at managing the risk of fraud. I've said this before, and it's a concern I have in that I think there's a tendency, probably not unique to Denbyshire, to interpret what appears to be a low incidence of known fraud, and that equates to a low risk of fraud. I don't think the two things are the same. And I'm pleased that that's in the assessment here. I just wondered how we're gonna go about that. Again, perhaps it's something to come back to us on rather than give an answer now. But just generally, I see that the, 'cause this is talking about how internal audit work is based on, takes account of corporate risks. Corporate risk 31 is fraud and corruption, which has got an inherent score, it's got an AMBA, an inherent score of major. AMBA, which is C2 major. And it's got a residual score of E2, which is moderate, which means the risk rare, but high impact, and so the risk has been reviewed and updated. So perhaps in one of the next reports, you could actually come back and say how the work you're gonna do in response to fraud risk, and how that equates and links into the mitigation of the corporate risk.
I can start to answer that now if you want, yeah.
Yes, please.
North Wales, we've been looking for 12 months at an online learning platform for corruption, fraud, bribery. We've looked at two or three options, and we've now, last week I met with, I think all of North Wales, and we had a presentation from the company. Presentation was good, it covers all the areas of fraud, risk, corruption we need to look at. So I've agreed that I need to go on with whoever else, I mean myself and this morning and a couple of authorities have shown an interest or expressed an interest, so we are now gonna look at bringing that platform to Demershire. There is a cost beyond learning package, but it will be worth it, and that's my first approach because obviously all staff members, lay members, need to be able to go on to the e-learning, do the e-learning, then they'll understand a bit more about fraud, corruption, and then our next step would be then to look at our policy procedures and update them in line with the training that we're providing. So over the next 12, 18 months, all staff should go on an e-learning training session, and that will be the first stage of improving Demershire's awareness.
Thank you, and you mentioned lay members, so is there any training for members? I think particularly, well, not just lay members, but I think members of this committee would like to be specifically involved in this, maybe something specifically on counter-fraud.
Well, it would be rolled out to all members, and then lay members as well, 'cause I wouldn't want the three lay members on this committee and the other lay members in the council to miss the opportunity.
I think we'll come back in the future, during the course of the year. So it's just, as I say, I'm not suggesting for a moment that there's a huge problem with fraud in Demershire, but just because we don't know about it, doesn't know it's not there. I'm talking about internal fraud and external fraud as well. Okay, the recommendation on this report is that we consider the actions contained within the internal audit, external quality assessments, and monitor progress to complete the actions and fully conform. So can I have a proposer for that, please?
I propose.
Councillor Orwell-Roberts, can I have a seconder, please? Ellie Chard, all in favour? Okay. Again, thank you very much, Alex, and thank you very much, Bob and the team. So, thank you. Right, everyone will go, and now on back to item seven, which is the council's performance self-assessment, 2023 to 2024. I'm not sure who's gonna present this, but I can see, yes, sorry. Councillor Ellis is gonna give the presentation, but just welcome also Helen Bourne-Evans, Yolo McGregor, and Emma Horan. So, welcome to the meeting. I should say, we said before you came in, it's Yolo's last day with Demershire today, so we wish him all the best. Thank you for all the support he's given us. We did say it earlier on, but we're saying it again now. So, I don't, okay, Councillor Ellis, are you going to? Thank you. (speaking in foreign language)
Thank you very much, Chair. So, this is a 2023, 2024 self-assessment performance assessment in front of you. This gives us a picture of the progress that we've made and the challenges that we face with our performance aims, key performance aims, i.e. themes in the corporate plan. This document is essential to help us to reflect on our performance as a council and how to plan for the future. So, thank you very much to Yolo and to Emma and Helen and the rest of the team who've been working on this report. This is a very important report for us as a council. It's a live document, so it can change, and we're working on this document. Before we go to the council in July to be approval, it's already been discussed by the senior management team and the cabinet, and it has been in front of the Performance and Scrutiny Committee as well. And there are some changes that have already been outlined, and the officers will be able to explain those to you later on. We are a mature council, and these documents reflect that, but the performance has to be seen in the context of the restricted budget that we have currently. There are some items that do actually flag up as red in the report, but that doesn't mean that we're not working on them. Maybe there are things that are working more slowly because of finance available, but we don't want to be less ambitious because of that. We will be reviewing the corporate plan regularly in light of this, and maybe Helen would want to expand on that as well. We will see that the report gives detail of assessments by a peer panel assessment, and this will add to the self-assessment that we do. We'll invite a panel to give a view on our performance and our governance, and this will be the first such panel for us, and one of the first in the world since this new duty to do this has been introduced. And again, officers will be able to give you more detail. So thank you very much, Chair. I'd like to now ask Helen to take over. Thank you.
(speaks in foreign language) So we want to give plenty of time for questions. So we're gonna assume that people have read the report. Appreciate it. It is a way to report, but it is an important one, and it covers everything it needs to as part of the Local Government Elections Act. Just wanted to draw the committee attention to the recommendations. So my recommendation 3.1 is asking you to consider the report and agree any further actions required to respond to performance-related issues. Just wanna draw your attention to 4.4 in the cover report, which kind of gives you the areas that have been picked up by the strategic planning team and also which have been added to through the process, which Gwyneth is just taking you through where this paper has gone. And I'll just bring in Emma just at the end of when I'm doing the additional intro to take you through the fact that there's now six improvement activities that is proposed, and she'll narrate those for you. As I say, as Gwyneth says, this is a live document, and the paper deadlines for this committee came after the tweak of it being six improvement activities, not the five now. They're predominantly the same. There's just one addition to reassure committee. The other recommendation is around the panel peer assessment. So it was just to remind committee that you don't have a statutory role in reviewing and agreeing the scope of that panel peer assessment. Your statutory role comes after reviewing the report after the events happened, but we just wanted to give you the opportunity to have a look. So again, just to confirm roles and responsibilities. Just to say a massive thank you to officers. It's a massive piece of work that's done each year, and it is high quality. And Chair just echoing my thanks to Yola, who this is his last day and this is his last committee. So it's great that it's GAC. And absolutely just picking up on Gwyneth's point, we are a learning organisation. We've got quite a mature attitude with regard to that. So all of our documents, including our corporate plan, is reviewed iteratively, changes delivered iteratively, and actually the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act asks us to review our wellbeing objectives annually anyway, and we'll continue to do that. And that's actually one of the final, the sixth improvement action that's been identified. So if I just hand over to Emma to take you through those six, and then we'll open it up to the floor, Dia.
Yep, Dia, so as Helen mentioned, these are live documents up until we present them to full council in July for approval. So following discussions that have taken place to date, four of the ones that were listed in 4.4 remain the same. Following discussion about the Sustainable Transport Plan, our original recommendation or not recommendation, sorry, improvement activity in the self-assessment was to consider the barriers and consider whether to pause or stop. Following discussions, that's now been updated to say that follow an agreement and to allow the council to focus on the development of the Regional Transport Plan, close the Sustainable Transport Plan project and amend the commitment with our corporate plan. So basically the improvement activity is going to say to stop the local Sustainable Transport Plan to allow us to focus on that regional one and update the corporate plan accordingly. So that's a tweak to what was the third bullet point. We've added an additional improvement activity now following discussions and engagement around these reports to keep corporate plan commitments and performance expectations under continual review in the context of the present financial environment. So in summary, there are six, thank you.
Okay, thank you. Just to say that before I throw it open to members questions, there's a tremendous amount of work here, but it strikes me, as I said before, when we saw the assessment last year, it's very candid. I think it doesn't gloss over anything. I think it gives an honest assessment, both positive and negative in places. It strikes me it's been done in such a way, I think this is really important to note, we have to do this, but this hasn't been done because we have to do it. It's abstracted as being done because we believe in it. It's central to the way the council runs. Overall, as I say, I find the report to be candid and impartial in highlighting success, but also in setting up problems in a frank way. Naturally, exercises of this scope and size means that members of this committee, I'd be surprised if they don't have some questions. I certainly have some questions, but I think they need to be seen within the context of what I've just said there.
Just, Helen, just to reconfirm, I'm just setting this up. This is being reported to us now because we think it's good practice, and it enables us to put any recommended changes to the council meeting in July. But when the panel self-assessment is done in September, a report would be coming back then, and then that's where the Local Government Elections Act kicks in there, where we can make, as we were saying before, that's where we can make recommendations. And if we do make a recommendation and the council chooses not to accept that recommendation, then they have to include that explanation in there, an explanation for not doing so in their final report. Is that right? Have I got that the right way round?
We don't think so. We think it's the other way around. So our understanding of the legislation is that it's in the self-assessment, which is the report you're seeing this morning, that this committee can make recommendations to the report. The organisation will then incorporate those recommendations. If they don't incorporate any of the recommendations from GAC, then we'd need to include that in the final version of the self-assessment report on reasons why. So that's the self-assessment report that you're seeing today. Then the panel peer assessment, which happens once every political term, that's our understanding of this legislation is that that is the report that you'll receive. You can read the report, you can read the response from cabinet. So it's cabinet who responds to that panel peer assessment and you can make recommendations, but it's in terms of your particular, it needing to be in the narrative if the organisation don't incorporate a recommendation, that's a part of the self-assessment which you're seeing today.
I asked my question 'cause I was foolish enough to delve into the act itself. And I know for me as a lay person, reading an act of parliament is dangerous. That's why we have lawyers. But section 93 of the, this is from quote, part six, section one, sorry, part six, chapter one, section 93 of the local government elections act. It says duty of principal council to respond to the report of panel performance assessment, which is why I said what I did. But that's, and so the panel performance assessment, I was assuming that's the thing that's gonna take place in September as outlined in it, appendix four. But then it goes on to say, the government and audit committee must review the draft response and make any recommendation for changes to the statement made in the draft under subsection two. The council, if the council does not make the change recommended by the GAC, the council must set out in response the reasons why it didn't make the change. That's why I said what I've said, so you think I've got that the wrong way around. I'm not arguing, I just want to be clear.
No, we can look at it. I'll bring in Jola, but we're expecting to also include whether it's in the legislation or not, also the same kind of guise for our self-assessment document which you're seeing today, but I'll bring in Jola, who's.
Yes, I'm the resident legislation nerd here for this, but the, as Helen has outlined correctly, your role in the self-assessment is to review the report and to make recommendations upon it when necessary. You have the same powers with the panels report that will come in September. And just to assure you, that's all been programmed in your forward work program already. So I think you will be seeing that response in November or December at the end of the year.
Thank you. Okay, that makes it pretty clear, thank you. So we've often said members, you know, we've said how we've been reviewing our work program to make sure we can feed into things. This is where a specific opportunity for us to feed into things so our views can be heard and recommendations can be made. I think, members, what we'll do, 'cause it's quite a length report, if we were to throw it open now, I think we're gonna jump all over the place here. So what I'm gonna do, we'll take it section by section. So there's five stages of this. We'll look at any questions that you have regarding anything in the overall cover report and any overall points. And then we'll look at the different appendices on the report there. The appendix one, the executive summary, any questions on that, that's the self-assessment performance 2023 to 2024. And then appendix two, which is the corporate plan performance update, October to March, 2024. And then the service performance challenges, 2023 to 2024, which is in appendix three. And then anything on the panel performance assessment, 2024, which is appendix four. Just a minor niggle. This is a very, very bulky report. And I understand that's the nature of the beast, but could we try to have it into just a little more navigable, the appendices, although I could find them, that when you get there, it doesn't say appendix one or appendix two, it does for appendix four. And maybe think about trying to include internal hyperlinks in the document so you can toggle back and forth without going back and do it on your screen. That's just a minor niggle, but it's a big report. A lot of work has gone into it, but I should say that. So taking the first stage first, please. The overall cover report, any overall points. Are there any questions from members on this? You can indicate by raising your hand, please. Anything up the size of the report? Nigel Rudd. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. My first reaction, a bit like yours, this is a 140-page bulk of reports. If you aren't drowned by words and paper by the end, then you've done remarkably well. And it's difficult to follow. And I felt somewhat cold reading it. And it's actually quite an important report and issue. So there's a bit of me, the first set of questions from me to yourselves, Ellen and Yolo in particular, are about is the methodology of reporting like this a requirement of the legislation? Or is it a practice approach that's being adopted by performance staff across various authorities? I'm just interested in terms of how much scope there is to alter how we report on these type of matters during the course of the year. That's the first question. I've got two or three others that follow on. Thanks, Nigel. I would say that the report that we've presented has been a bit of an evolving one. We've been developing these sorts of reports over many, many years now as a team, and we have adapted as we go. And we always take the feedback that they're very lengthy and there's a lot in it. And how can we make it more digestible? And as a team, all I can say is we promise that we try to do that. And I think actually this report, we did make a special effort again to sort of reduce a lot of the narrative around news stories that we present. But at the same time, we do have to present a balanced picture. So we're also responding to an awful lot of expectations on us from our regulators, internal and external. The Wellbeing and Future Generations Office looks at this. The Equality and Human Rights Commission looks at this. You know, it's a very heavy hitting report in terms of the legislation that it needs to satisfy, satisfies at least three acts. So there's not much room for us to hide really in terms of what we put forward. Now, we could cut out all the narrative and just give you the data, but I suspect that wouldn't go down very well. You know, we're trying to make it as accessible as we can in many different ways. I think what I say to members is you don't have to read it all, read the bits you're interested in. You know, that's the sort of style of report that it is. And unsurprisingly as well, we are a big organization. There is a lot to say, you know, and actually we don't say it all either. You know, we've got to be a bit judicial in terms of what we put in. So we tend to stick to the work that has been discussed at committee. The projects have progressed and, you know, we have press releases and news stories on those. So we try to focus on what is readily available in terms of evidence. And that's ultimately the key thing. We've got to have evidence behind all of our assertions. Does that answer the question?
It doesn't. There isn't necessarily an easy answer through you chair, if I may, on this. I mean, I looked at this and said, actually, if we take this report and say, do we ordinarily need appendix four on the scope of the panel? We might've been able to drop that. Do we actually need appendix two potentially? And you end up with sort of this focusing maybe on appendix three. I just raised on the basis of trying to work out, Yolo, whether there is flexibility. We're very driven because I've watched the performance committee consideration of this. And the chair even admitted to struggling to get his head around the item. I mean, we're trying as a public body to have information presented in a way that members of the authority get their heads around what's in it. But also the public, any member of the public viewing will understand basically what is being said and where and how. And I think on this particular case, it is a challenge for us to get to that position. But I still think it needs more work around the way that the information is being presented. There is significant element of repetition about the same issue coming up several times during the course of the report in different spots, for example, and I like that in terms of tabulation of information and data, and our decisions need to be driven by data, those points that comes from later on. Some of the report is fine. I just, I still think it needs work and I don't have an answer for it. So I'm not saying there's a magic wand. I just think we should consider it a work in progress, but it needs to continue to be worked at in order to be progressed, I think, to a better document. And that maybe needs to be fed back to those on high who require us to produce documentation like this on a regular basis. So that's my overall concern about the report chair.
Thank you, Nigel. Can I suggest, I mean, as I said, this is not taking away from the work that's been done, anything like that, but just as far as the presentation is concerned, can that be taken back as a comment to, for the council to consider? 'Cause I'm sure we're not alone in that. Emma, sorry.
Yeah, thanks. No, we do understand, Nigel, and we feel it as a team. I just wanted to highlight the additional improvement action activity that we've added, which is to keep corporate plan commitments and performance expectations under continual review. It's because of what you're saying. We, in February, revised the corporate plan to try and address some of this, which it has to a certain extent. The nature of the organisation, what it does, what the corporate plan attempts to do is huge in scope. So it is challenging. And we do have a lot that we need to report on in terms of the seven governance areas, which are outlined in the Local Government Elections Wales Act. I think maybe what we need to do is go back as a team, reflect on it. I think appendix one is designed as the thing that we hope everybody reads. Appendix two is what we hope people dip into. But appendix two actually is really, really useful for us as a team. It's helpful for us to be able to take a more precise look at what's happening in areas like homelessness or housing, for example, and where we might need to focus a little bit more. But we accept and would agree, I think, with what you're saying, which is why I wanted to just highlight that additional sixth improvement activity that's been added.
I'm glad you said about appendices one and two, though, 'cause I spent most on appendix one, but I didn't look at that much on appendix two. I thought broadly, I mean, I did glance through it, but broadly I thought this is more scrutiny stuff. You know, we get particular services and a particular bit of specific performance there. But it certainly does enable us to drill down if required. Your Honour, sorry.
Just to follow on from Emma, actually, the appendix two as well, I should say, we divvy it up and we take the relevant chapters to corporate plan boards. So it's a useful tool for them to see in their entirety, oh, this is how theme two is progressing or how theme three is progressing. And with appendix four, and perhaps I should apologise, this is a one-off. You know, you'll only see this this time, but it made sense that you saw it in conjunction with the self-assessment because the messages from one should inform the other, we would hope. But it was just a matter of courtesy that we've brought appendix four to you, because I suspect that if we hadn't, you would have asked for it.
Highly likely, yes. That's a, okay. Ellie Chard.
Thank you, Chair. And I'm appreciating all the comments being made 'cause of course I'm also on performance scrutiny. I'm referring to appendices two. It's page 71 or 31 'cause I've just been checking my Denbyshire phone. I just want to know, I don't know whether or not I brought this up at scrutiny, but it's about the percentage of schools in the county using the public health, Wales full school approach to mental health and wellbeing tool. And I got a funny feeling, I didn't raise it as scrutiny last week. Excuse me, it's benchmark locally. And can I say, I want to know the reason why not all schools are using this tool. Okay, so I just wondered, especially with all the, well, the health problems since COVID, it must be absolutely awful in the schools now. So I just thought I'd bring it up.
Sorry, was that on page 71?
Yeah, but on my phone, on my Denbyshire phone, it's either 71 or 31, but in appendix number two.
Can we just park that question for the moment?
Yeah, fine, that's all right.
No, it's all right.
I've got a question, is it going through it stage by stage?
Yeah.
I just wanted to focus on the-
And I wasn't sure where to raise it, so I thought I'd just raise it now, okay.
We'll come back to that. I've made a note and someone's shouting me if I forget, please, to bring Ellie back in on that. But I just wanted to focus on anything covered by the cover report, any overall comments. Is there anything else, following up what Nigel said?
I just really wanted to sort of place on record the fact that there's a huge amount of work that goes into this and officers do work very hard on this. And I know, 'cause I've been part of some conversations about how do we make it as accessible as possible? How do we make it, not a fun read, but how do we make it something that, not just for members, but as Nigel rightly points out, interested members of the public who want to do that. I think Emma's right to suggest that your starting point is that appendix one, because it gives you a flavor. It's not that long, appendix one. And then it signposts you effectively, or it will pique your interest in the more detailed information that's available. I suppose the other thing to bear in mind is that this has a variety of audiences. So it goes to scrutiny, it comes here, it goes to cabinet, it goes to council. And if you like tailoring it for each of those different audiences, it even more works. So that's why it comes in the format it does. But we always take the feedback on board. The team's fantastic at trying to find new ways of doing stuff, so I'm sure that we'll continue to work on refining the presentation of it. But I just wanted to place some record my thanks for the work that goes into it.
Just one thing for myself, please, on the report itself, the cover report, when it gives the reasons for the reporting to us, bearing in mind what we've said before, what Kiyola was clarifying, when we go into the specific role of the GAC, firstly, I think it'd be good to include that as a separate paragraph there in future, just to remind us of what our specific role is, quoting from the ACT, I think it'd be useful for members.
In the cover report, Chair, or within the-
In the cover report, yeah, yeah.
That's fine, absolutely.
The reasons for the recommendations, I think it'd be- I mean, I take it this cover report is a variation on what goes to other, so it might be useful for them to be made aware of what the role of the GAC is there. Yeah, I mean, I realise you probably use a similar format for different reports.
Yeah, but that's easy to do and the reason for a report would have had a paragraph, that's fine, thank you, we've made a note of that.
Thank you. Going on to the next stage now, which is from pages 25 to 40, which is the Executive Summary, the Self-Assessment of Performance, 2023 to 2024. This is the Appendix 1, which Emma and Gary have just suggested this, this is probably the, I wouldn't say the most important part, but probably the kernel of the assessment in some way. So have we got any questions on this? Elliot, I've made a note of yours, yours is for the next one and the next stage, but members, have you got any questions? I've got a few myself here, but this is on specific items of performance on governance as well. Well, I'll kick off in the interest of time for myself there and then the members, if you want to come in on anything, but continuing to page 29 in the pack, please, equality and diversity. And it was regarding at the bottom there, it says one such recommendation was to County Council to look at including equality as a mandatory e-learning module for members. It's already mandatory for officers. It's therefore, the group is therefore working with the WLGA to provide equality and diversity training for members in April, 2024. I'm just surprised this training wasn't mandatory. Anyhow, what I'd like to know, was the recommendation accepted as a training taking place and does this need to be noted in the annual governance statements, which we'll be getting at the next meeting? So my awareness of this is that the Democratic Services Committee reflected on a survey from members on Democratic Services. Yeah, that they surveyed members to see their views on mandatory, non-mandatory. The results of that went to Democratic Services Committee. As part of that, there was a recommendation to make equalities and other training mandatory. That committee accepted all of those recommendations in the paper that's now being taken to council. I believe it's being tabled in July, Gary, but seeking sort of confirmation from you. So a paper's going to council with those recommendations on mandatory, non-mandatory qualities in there is mandatory, and we'll get a result at the beginning of July, and then it's a case of implementing that action. Thanks, Chair.
Okay, thank you. Councillor Elson.
Yeah, I'm a member of the SEDG, and it's a very interesting committee. But I say, sometimes feel that we aren't well qualified to sort of comment on it without the necessary training. So I would encourage, I think, if you're on a specific committee, which has a specific purpose, you should have the specific training to go with it. That's my comment on that. Yeah.
Yeah, and it's just to say that actually, people that are members of SEDG, the Duty, Equality, and Diversity group have all received that training from the WLGA. That was done in April. But actually, this paragraph is alluding to all members having the mandatory ELAN. But for SEDG members, they are trained on equality and diversity inclusion.
The paragraph's alluding to all council members. Does that include lay members?
Why not?
I don't think we've been approached on that.
I think everyone needs to discharge their duties with that in mind, and you are discharging duties on behalf of the organisation of lay members. So I'd say yes.
We haven't been approached. I don't think lay members have been approached.
You could get the questionnaire. Yeah, 'cause it was explicitly mentioned in the cover email, members and lay members.
We will.
You have been.
Have we? - Yeah.
I'm sure you will have, I'm sure you will have filled it in.
If it helps, it was some time ago.
All right, thank you.
Just the history of this is the report went to council about what should be mandatory or non-mandatory 'cause the previous council agreed what those should be, felt that the new court or members should agree their own. Wasn't possible on the basis of the conversation at council, so it was referred to Democratic Services Committee for them to take a bit more of a look. They made recommendations and a report with their recommendations, which includes mandatory training for equalities is going to council in July, certainly in the forward work programme.
Thank you. I'm gonna go now to page 31, the top bullet point. This is in the context of overall, how well are we doing? And it says through the corporate plan and the work of the well-run board. And this is mentioned later on under a specific theme, but could you tell me what is the well-run board, please? I know it was established in October last year to provide governance for the well-run high-performing council theme, but what status does it have in the council's governance structure? Who's on it? Who does it report to and when? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll take that question. So the well-run high-performing council board was established when we were looking at the governance arrangements in place for the corporate plan. And a couple of boards were either already in place or being established to ensure we could deliver the corporate plan. The corporate plan theme around being a well-run high-performing council is basically trying to embed our values and principles as an organisation. And it was recognised that we didn't really have any kind of body looking at that. So the board was established in October, chaired by Councillor Gwyneth. Graeme Bowes is the officer lead. Really, it's about, like I said, embedding our values and principles. It's one of our key programme boards for the delivery of the corporate plan. So it's got proper governance arrangements in place. It meets every three months. In terms of how it fits in across the rest of the landscape, it's on an equal footing with the other boards that we've got, such as the greener board, the housing board, all that kind of stuff. Ultimately reports to CET and cabinet, and it follows the other processes in place around tranche review just to make sure it's on track. It's worth knowing that the board has taken a slightly different approach to other boards and that we offered up the opportunity to all staff who might be interested in sitting on that board. So whilst we've got Councillor Gwyneth, Graeme, we've got heads of service, we've got people with no managerial responsibility or people with middle management responsibility who are on that board on an equal footing. And that's there to give more of a voice to staff. I think it also gives a development opportunity for staff. What's challenging with the board is that a lot of what it's trying to do is embed good culture. So we're doing a lot of engagement where we can, but taking a kind of it's a marathon, not a race kind of approach because there's many demands on people. But what we're trying to do is to raise awareness and understanding of our culture, our values, our principles, the fact that we are one big Denbyshire family. The board is still fair, is still maturing, I'd say. So the board needs to take and has started to take a kind of similar role to this committee, really, looking at self-assessment, panel peer assessment. And in July, the board will be looking at the transformation agenda and what kind of culture we need to enable that to happen most effectively. I'd be happy to share reports that have been developed for CTSLT for information if this committee would find that valuable.
Might do. I mean, you've explained, you've answered me. I want to actually because I'm seeing this report. I got this report on Thursday and I've been looking at it over the weekend because I'm that sort of fellow. (mumbles) And you see a reference to a board or anything. Where does this board fit in? Now you've explained, this is one of several boards that is for each of the themes, yeah. So I wasn't, now you say that I am aware of that, but I wasn't aware of that when I read this report. I just stood at this well-run board. But who is this? I see now, it fits in with basically the programme structure. That's the assurance that I wanted, really, so thank you. Nigel Rudd, you've got your hand up. Thank you.
So you can cast on page 36, where I just sense that the section I'm looking at is financial planning and performance management. It's financial planning in particular. My sense is that the political level with the work that Gwyneth has been doing with the leadership and the SLT and Liz in particular, that there's been a step change of improvement in the way that we financially present information, that we've engaged around the budget process and staff engagement opportunities and stuff this year, and that we're potentially underselling ourselves in terms of this part of the report and improvement. And I know it's ongoing and it's only a step towards, but I sense that the council has made quite a significant shift in how it seeks to address the financial challenges going ahead in terms of its processes and its governance arrangements. And I think I'd be quite happy if there was some strengthening, Gary, Helen, Yolo, of the comments and the positive comments in this area, because I think it's worth celebrating. It's a hugely difficult area to do. Gwyneth and colleagues have had to make extremely tough decisions at the end of the day, but I sense the governance around this and the planning processes around this are significantly better this year than they may have been as done.
Thanks for those comments, Nigel. And I think I would agree with your assessment. It's difficult to comment though, without having the evidence. It is anecdotal, there's no assumption as yet, I suppose. And the report is covering up until March. So the previous financial year. However, there's shortly going to be a report from Audit Wales on the council's financial sustainability. So that would be the opportunity for the next iteration of this report to ballyhoo about some of the good work that we're doing around finance.
Risk of experience below this committee's own trumpet there, the paragraph that Nigel was referring to on page 36 there, I've got no problem with it. I agree with what Nigel says on this, but you could also add that as well as what said that, I mean, maybe it's not relevant, but the Govens and Audit Committee also received reports on a regular basis concerning the budget process, to look at the process there. And also we encourage, as we have encouraged officers to consider the financial resilience of the council as well. What was being referred earlier on by Nigel to putting a shield around the council and basically section 114 proofers. I'm not suggesting section 114 should be noted in here for a moment, but I think perhaps just to say, I think broadly, I think this is, I think a little more could be said here, but I agree you might want to wait until the Audit Wales report is out on that.
We can look at that and anything that is added though, will be very concise, mindful of your previous comments of this committee about the length of the document, Chair.
It's one sentence, but that's different.
For you, Chair, for you.
Yeah, that's different. Can I just go back please to page 31. This is something that this is, it's a matter that has been of concern to this committee in the past. This is the second, sorry, the third bullet point of page 31. It's about recruitment and retention. And you rightly said recruitment was still able to take place in critical areas, such as adult social care and so on, but vacancies in those services persist. I'm not talking now about the critical areas, but what our concern has been about in the past has been any possible impacts of recruitment and retention difficulties on the governance functions. We're particularly as a committee concerned about the governance of the council. We get lots of reports and some of our comments here are about the governance elements rather than performance of services. And particularly in the past, we've expressed specific concerns, or let's say question, not concerns, about the impact of recruitment and retention problems on such services as legal, HR, finance. In the minutes, we're talking about how the finance team are under great, they've got a number of risks there at the moment. Internal audit, we've talked about that in the previous item, procurement, your own services and planning and performance, ICT, asset management are the ones that spring to mind there. I just wonder, has consideration been given to recruitment and retention impacts on those services?
So just reiterating Yola's point earlier that this is looking at the financial year '23/'24 up until the end of March. So whilst decisions might've been made on voluntary exits or whatever before that, the impact of it, the actual people won't have left until this financial year. So it will be something that would be looked at more readily in the first quarter, the first six months reporting. So that's one to say, but...
I do get that, but we raised this as a concern about two years ago.
Yeah, that's why, so we're really mindful of it as every head of service when looking at roles which come up. I think there's good governance in place around vacancy control forms and business case and thinking about impact. There was the same across budget savings suggestions last financial year as well. And there was a wellbeing impact assessment and that's been looked at from the perspective of staff currently now within my team in HR. It's something that we'll need to continue to look at. I think it will be, I think it's right for you to flag it as a risk. It's a risk in my service plan. It's a risk in the corporate risk assessment as well around recruitment and retention.
Thanks, I was just trying to get the message out that usually when recruitment and retention, usually attention is rightly given therefore to public facing services, particularly social services. And I understand that and that's right, but I think there's a risk that so-called back office services or can be forgotten about in that respect. And from this committee's point of view, if we're struggling to recruit the legal, internal audit, et cetera, then I think that's something that is a particular concern to us. You'll know, sorry.
Just to add as well that Emma here is for her sins working with HR on impact assessing sort of the impacts of the whole budget proposals, the whole savings proposals that have been put forward, which includes obviously the voluntary exit scheme. So there are conversations ongoing with HR around that. And I know CET as well have been very mindful of impacts on the particular areas above others. Just to add my reflections, I'm leaving now so I can say these sorts of things, but the three of the governance areas actually sit with me in my team. So you'd think I'd be concerned, but I'm not. I'm assured that I'm leaving things in very capable hands and reflecting on the other areas, finance procurement, I think, again, very stable hands there. Historically, I would have said the assets, asset management has probably been a weakness in the council for various reasons, managers leaving, lack of an asset strategy. But I think those are things that Helen is addressing. So, yeah.
For a moment, just for anyone listening, there's weaknesses with the particular services. It's just that it's the risk for something happening, something that I'm concerned about there. And I think what I'm suggesting is that when the conversation is held about recruitment and retention, as well as what's been rightly talked about frontline services, that focus is also given to corporate governance services as well. Gary, sorry.
No, I was just gonna say, just to give you some assurance, you know, places like legal procurement, we're not carrying vacancies now, we are fully staffed. Again, services are taking more innovative approaches, same as Bob. In some services, it will be about career pathways and developing our own people rather than just sort of going out and getting the finished article. The big issue around recruitment and retention when it was first raised was around some of those front facing areas. But in the governance areas, we have had in the past difficulties recruiting. We are currently able to recruit, doesn't mean it happens on the first go, but we are able to recruit.
Thank you. Moving on, please, page 34. This is a greener dambisher. It says this has been given as a measure is acceptable. When I read this, I'm just slightly surprised by this. Is it acceptable in light of what's said about meeting the net zero goal by 2030 and the impact of financial pressures on this? Is, are we sure that this is acceptable rather than needing priority?
In the previous report, it was actually reported as a good yellow. So actually, the new status of acceptable is taking into account some of the challenges there with those measures. But I would say that theme is not just focused on achieving net zero. It is a wider theme. So that overall status takes account of many other projects and factors that are taking place.
Okay, it'd be interesting at the public view on that one, wouldn't it? Net zero is a minor theme. The carbon trading I went on, it seemed to be the council page but seemed to be one of the big things there.
Just as a bit of context for you, the climate and ecological change strategy has been through a review. It's first triennial review, if you like. It was always planned to be reviewed on a yearly basis. And that's been to scrutiny and it's going to cabinet and it's going to council, isn't it, for approval. And we had good public engagement. We did a big consultation and engagement exercise and people were supportive of the direction of travel and Yolo's right. Net carbon zero by 2030 is a big challenge but some of the nature recovery and ecological change measures that we have, we're performing really well on those and we're not alone on the net zero challenge. It was always a very ambitious challenge.
Okay, pop take. And it's one to watch though. You seem to get hearing on the national news all the time. Targets keep getting put back and compromised and everybody says we need to do something but people don't like doing what's necessary for it. Point taken. On page 35, corporate planning. I just wondered why. There's no mention in this section of project and programme management, should there be, or of counter fraud. So I mentioned counter fraud in the previous items of this meeting. It's just that I see counter fraud, I think was mentioned in last year's corporate assessment. And again, just my concern is, you might have heard me say it before, but I think the incidence of fraud is probably low here and that's probably the case but that doesn't mean that the risk of it is low. And you only need one or two bad ones to happen to cause major issues there. Any thoughts about project and programme management counter fraud?
Yeah, so project management and programme management. I'll take project management first. We would usually comment on that within the sort of performance management section in the report. So historically when we've had an internal audit report, for example, that might've highlighted efficiencies in project management approaches, we would comment on it there. So the lack of perhaps comment this time actually is because there has been nothing to say. You know, all our usual programme and project management processes continue. I think we have actually commented quite extensively in this report around programme changes, particularly around the governance of the corporate plan. So there's a lot of references to how the boards have changed and also the work of the boards more broadly. So I think that is peppered throughout the report. Also on project management, there is a specific measure under the wellbeing, so the well-run council theme that does monitor sort of quality of information that we're getting from overall project management in the council. So I think there's a measure there looking at the regularity of updates that we're receiving from project managers. So it is in there, it's just peppered around. And on counter fraud, I will rely on perhaps Gary or maybe the lead member.
Well, I think the first thing to say is that the organisation is very aware of the risk of fraud. That's why it's on the corporate risk register. The first line of defence is recruiting the right people and having the right controls in place. And if you put several thousand people in the proximity of a net budget of 260 million pounds, there will always be a risk of fraud. That's why we have a counter fraud strategy. That's why we're particularly keen on proper recruitment and making sure we do all our checks correctly. I think the line I would give on that is we feel relatively assured that we've got the right controls in place, but never complacent. And a lot of what Bob's audit work will do, we'll always be looking out for where controls can be improved in any specific area. But yeah, I remember having the conversation not long after I got here, too many years ago, that just because we thought we didn't have a lot of fraud didn't mean it shouldn't be on the corporate risk register. That's why it's on the corporate risk register. It will always be a risk.
You probably think it's a bit of a BMI bonnet. It was mentioned in the previous item with the recommendation that we look at the effectiveness of assessing the risk of fraud. I also attended the All Wales GAC Chairs' Group last September, and again, there was a national risk register, I forget where it came from now, presented to us that showed the risk of fraud is quite low. And that the consensus was that this was actually commenting on the incidence of fraud as an issue, not the risk of fraud. Because any time I look at reports from outside local governments, they say the risk of fraud is increasing all the time. And the sophistication of it and the scope of it. And it just makes me a bit sort of uneasy when I don't see much reference to it there. Sometimes I think it's a bit of hear no evil, see no evil.
I think the first thing to say, it should be a B in all our bonnets. We should always be vigilant about it. We're in a time of reducing resources. The last thing we want is for resources to be lost to places that they shouldn't be going to. But I think the message is that whilst we understand the risk, we're also vigilant and that we are regularly reviewing our counter-fraud measures. I know Bob does a lot of work on that.
Sure, okay. I'm not criticizing the work that's done anyway. I think when you say you don't want financial loss, I mean the other thing that happens with fraud, it was not just the financial loss, which is as welcome as a hole in the head. What's also is the effect that can have on culture and so on and people's wellbeing and some of those affected by it. It can be really, it's a really negative thing to happen. So, yeah, point taken.
Okay, members, I'm gonna move on now to the next section. I'll just set this stage by stage. The next section concerns the Appendix 2 pages starting with page 41 of the pack, which is the Corporate Plan Performance Update, October to March 2024. Councillor Ellie Chard raised a question regarding something on page 71. I didn't catch all the detail on it. I'm just turning to it. Ellie, do you want to repeat that question, please?
Yes, I don't mind at all, Chair. Let's see. Can I ask, I want to know the reason why not all the schools are using the Public Health Wales full school approach to mental health and wellbeing tool. So I just want to know why. 'Cause I think since COVID, lots of us are troubled. Lots of us are troubled. I know people in the family and neighbours. So I think this app, if it's an app or a tool, this should be used in all the schools. So I'll just, that's my question. Okay, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Chard. I think what you're seeing is actually the sort of the beginning of an improving trend. This is a relatively new thing, I think, for schools. And I know you asked a question of scrutiny about the trauma-informed status of schools as well. And I think it might well be tied in with that. But if you do need any further clarity on it, we can obviously ask Education Services to provide that.
Yeah, thank you, Yolo, and best wishes as well. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Any more questions of this section? Points? It's one from me on page 109, the statement of accounts. I know this report is as at a particular point in time. It's also a live document, isn't it? That might understand. It says, The last sentence that after consulting with Audit Wales, it is currently planned that the audited accounts will be presented to the Governor and Audit Committee in the spring of 2024 for a formal approval. That has not happened yet. I think it's gonna be September. That's what I was informed the other day. So I don't know if you need to amend that.
We'll amend the date.
Yeah, just in case it went through without being altered there. Okay, members, we'll go onto the next section now, which is the Service Performance Challenge 2023-24, Summary of Actions in Appendix 3, which begins at page 121. Are there any questions, members, on that section? Nigel Rudd?
Sure, you jumped ahead of me. I had a question in relation to page 29, which is a reference to the stakeholder survey. I was, sorry, seek clarification as to who was on the stakeholder survey group.
Yes.
Thanks, Nigel. There's no group. The stakeholder survey is an open survey that we carry out every year. So this year it ran, I think, from beginning of September up until February. It's open to the public, shared with businesses, trade unions, partners, town and community councils. We're governed there by the list of approved stakeholders, well, the list of required stakeholders under the Local Government Elections Wales Act. So that determines who we share and promote the survey with.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Nigel. Anything else on that section? Nope, Nigel, your hand's still up. Is that meant to be, or? Councillor Arwell?
Thank you very much. Could I wish you all success as well, Yola. Looking at in English now.
Regeneration of town plans. Really, where are we on this really? I think it's been very slowly been done. And it's a worry to us that our towns are looking really shabby at the moment. I'm not referring to any town in particular. I shouldn't, because I love Ryl, I love Denby, I love Sangothan and I love Ryl. So where are we with the working with town council? You mentioned town council earlier, Yola. Is this a theme that's going to be developed and is it a risk?
Sorry, Arwell, just for the benefit of the rest of the members, what page are you referring to here, sorry.
If I am on Appendix C3, aren't you? You're on Appendix 3. I found it there on Appendix 3, that the regeneration of towns, I can't recall where now, sorry. It's definitely there.
Yeah, back page one, two, three. Thank you, sorry. Just want to respond to Councillor's question. (speaking in foreign language) We're just knocking our heads together here. It's not one that we can give a specific answer to. We probably have to come back to you there. It's really a sort of a specific question within the planning team. Although I am aware that there are some consultations taking place now in some of our towns around this. So I think it's going to be an emerging piece of work that you're going to hear more about imminently.
You're right Yolo, my (speaking in foreign language)
This is happening.
It's slow and I hope that this could be developed because our towns are our tourist attractions and they should be really helped in the future. And it's a worry. Okay, go.
Okay, thank you. Yolo.
Sorry, I think we've just got a little bit more information that we're actually governed by grants that are available for that. So I think it's SPF funded. So the delay, sorry. Lough. Oh, Welsh government funding, sorry. It's a Welsh government funded thing anyway. So we've been kind of dictated by their timescales on this. That's probably some of the delay.
Nigel Rudd.
So page 122/123, which is the planning, public protection and suicide services collaboration section and partnership work. I raised during the course of the budget process the necessity to review planning fees across Wales given the increase in planning fees that occurred in England. And I would emphasise that this is an opportunity here in the collaboration and partnership work, but I would hope there is sort of collaborative efforts being made across Wales in order to tackle that particular issue in order to generate revenue. It's not appearing as typical examples under one and two, but I would hope that that type of exercise is an approach that we would recommend or adopt or that we follow as a matter of course when looking at collaboration. I just raise that for, it's quite a service specific area. I don't know if the officers have a comment on that, but I would flag it as one that they need to be pursuing if they can.
It was just to say that that particular action from the service challenge will be born out of a particular conversation specifically about that specialist ecology work. So it isn't to say that Emlyn and the wider planning, public protection and countryside service aren't looking at other collaborative efforts. It's just that that particular action related to a particular conversation and challenge that came out of that performance challenge. And then in regard to your suggestion, we can take that to Emlyn and we can feed that into Emlyn. I suspect he's looking at it across the board in terms of fees and charges, but going all together as a six or a 22 around fees, around planning, I think, is a really sound idea.
Yeah, I was looking for reassurance, Helen, on that probably was the best way. Maybe a note outside of the meeting that would avoid me making the same representations at the next meeting of GAC.
We can ask Emlyn to come back to you on that, Nigel. Thanks.
Okay, that's no more members question in that section. And then we come to the scope for the panel performance assessment 2024, which is appendix four from pages 127 to 157. Are there any questions or points on this? There's a major piece of work going to be done in September. There's frequent references, not frequent, there's several references to the Govinton Audit Committee as well. Nigel?
Yeah, no, I thought this was useful. I think we had a useful session with Yolo and Helen a few months back on the composition and the approach. And I noticed that working closely with the LGA on this has taken a step forward. I think there were a couple of points in here that I felt were helpful, but I wasn't clear in my own mind how we got to them. The first was, how is the actual appointment of the panel members undertaken and confirmed? And the second was, I do think that there is a comment about the necessity for as part of the job specification or occupation requirement that there is an understanding of the context within Wales and the issues facing the Mclare in the appointment to the panel. So those would be my two initial questions on it. I think the focus around leadership, budget proposals and part of your work, I think is absolutely essential. I think it was right. And the clarification of the role of JAC in considering the report panel. I'm still not convinced having heard your exchange with officers earlier today that we necessarily have a definitive role on that. And I would welcome a formal view on that from the monitoring officer or legal head outside of the meeting so that we do understand the role of the JAC clearly in connection with who and when they receive this report within the council and how and when the JAC is involved or not still somewhat. I think it was my understanding that that was following that strategy.
Thank you, Nigel. So the appointment of the panel, actually the coordinator in the WRGA contacted me while I was sitting here and has asked me for a meeting this morning. So I will be meeting with him imminently. I hope to look at the initial panel makeup, but that will then be put forward to cabinet as they have the responsibility under the constitution now to appoint the panel. We have also, it was a piece of feedback actually from the working group, we have fed into the WRGA our preference that the panelists do have a firm grasp and understanding of local government in Wales. So we have fed that back to them. And in terms of your last point around what the role of governance and audit with the report, I'm just seeing as well on page 133 of your pack there, and the report and management response will be tabled with governance and audit for their inputs on November 20th. So referring to the chair's earlier quoting of the legislation, that'll be this committee's opportunity to review the report made by the panel, the response made by cabinet, and to make then recommendations upon it, which will go forward to county council in January. Just on the panel, so it's just looking at it, an independent panel chair. Oh, sorry, perhaps I shouldn't, perhaps it's in here somewhere, but I've missed it. All members of the panel will be external to the Dembshire County Council. Independent. But they could be from anywhere within Wales or the kingdom.
I mean, there's potential that some of them will come from England as well because we are, the WRGA is sort of chimed in with the LGA's panel assessment process that they have. So they have a pool of people as well. But as I've said, we've emphasised that we would like people who have a good understanding, a good grasp of local government in Wales. But yes, there have been volunteers put forward from local authorities across Wales. But yes, they have to be independent and external to the council.
Okay, not necessarily with a local authority background though, but with knowledge of local government. So presumably.
Not necessarily, no, but I think it would be unusual if they didn't.
Yeah, okay, all right, thank you. Any other questions on this section? Just what you said there on page 131. No, 131, that's my question. The middle paragraph, it says further input to the above areas of focus and appendix one will be, so further input to the above areas of focus and appendix one will be sought between May and July from the senior leadership team, cabinet performance committee and the government and audit committee. Is that what's happening today as far as we're concerned? That's this report, yeah, okay. There wasn't something else gonna happen between now and July. I just wanted to be clear on that. On page 133, the table there, yeah, sorry, that's been said. So I was talking about our specific role there. I think we said before, it'd be good in the cover report. And lastly, from my point of view was on page 145. Yeah, one of the questions there about risk and assurance. Is risk management embedded in the council? This is halfway down. Does risk awareness and management inform decision-making? As I've said before, I think risk management seems to have evolved quite, I think it's quite mature. I think it does inform decision-making. I think it's in the real world. It's not just something that someone does in a corner because ticker boxes say we do risk management. I'd like, there's something I would like assurance of, and I've said this as far as this committee's role is concerned, is that that takes place at all levels. I think it does at corporate level. I think it's quite obvious it does. I'd like to assure us that it takes place at, let's say, operational levels in departments and projects and so on across the board. And maybe consideration could be to extending that brief a wee bit there.
So the actual question in that brief there is lifted from the WLGA's methodology. So that is their wording, not ours. But I know governance and audit are going to be having a session on risk anyway with my team and internal audit. So that will be a good opportunity for you to be assured that risk management does flow throughout the council.
I know we're asking now, but I thought it might be something that the panel might want to ask as well.
That would be for the panel to determine.
How can we make a recommendation that the panel thinks about as well?
You could. The focus areas are what we've been asked to provide. I mean, this list of questions in the appendices, these are things that the panel will have to look at. So they may well look at that.
A tour for members. Any other comments? Nigel?
Final question for me on the last bit of Appendix 2, I think it was page 153. I ought to know the answer, but it escapes me at the moment. It says any section 54 reports prepared by the chief executive. Can somebody remind me what S54 reports are, please? It's under the list of documents likely to be reviewed by the panel.
Third bullet point from the bottom.
Yeah.
That's a very good question, Nigel. I'm not sure. I think we might have to go away and check that, Nigel. A quick Google is referring to the modern slavery. I'm not sure if that's...
Not certain we're in that area.
It's for UK government and not in Wales.
I understand we work our staff very hard, but I didn't think we necessarily qualified under that.
Again, this list is provided by the WLGA methodology, so we can ask the question of the WLGA to clarity and we'll be needing to support them getting all these documents in the coming months anyway, so that'll be useful for us to know. Thank you.
And best wishes to Yolo and his new employer and hope he understands what S54 is before he gets there. Thank you, Shane.
Thank you very much. I understand there are some very questionable characters.
Listen, I think that concludes our time on this item. I think there's been a lot of ground to cover there. As I said at the beginning, there's an awful lot of work here which we're really appreciative of. I think the major thing we've probably said is about the presentation of it, if you can take away that and think about it. And there's other specific things we've raised as well, which you'll take account of, no doubt, on specific items. The recommendations before the committee, there's two recommendations. The Governor's and Order Committee considers the reports and agrees any further actions required to respond to any performance-related issues highlighted within the reports. You've got a note of the things that we've highlighted there. And secondly, that the committee reflect on key messages arising from the self-assessment and provide feedback on the draft scope for the final performance assessment contained in Appendix 4, which is what we've just been doing now. Just ask that consideration and thought is given to some of these things. So we'll take both of those recommendations together. Can we have a proposal, please, for them? Paul with them. Seconder, Eddie Chard. All in favour of those recommendations? Okay, carried. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for your patience with us and taking everything in there. And thank you for the work that's gone into this as well. Again, Iona, wishing you all the best.
Thank you very much, and all the best to this committee as well.
You want to watch out for some of the members of the GAC at Conway Council, though.
That's what I was alluding to. (laughing)
Okay, thank you very much. Okay, it's five to 12. We've got three more items. We've got the two internal audit items, and then we've got the Government Audit Committee work programme. So bearing in mind, it's five to 12. We've been going for nearly two and a half hours. Can we have a 10-minute comfort break, please? Thank you. Back here at five past 12, with the views of an inch and a half past 12. The order, please. Thank you very much. We'll now proceed with the meeting. Onto item eight, which is the internal audit annual report. The purpose of which is to provide the committee with a report for 23/24, provides the chief internal auditor's overall opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the council's framework of governance, risk, and control during the year. That informs the annual governance statement. I think Councillor Ellis is here, but I think Bob's going to go straight into it. So thank you, Bob.
Yeah, thank you very much, and good afternoon now, ladies and gentlemen. Right then, it's an annual report that I produce and bring to this committee. I think this is the third year I've done it now. So it looks back on the last 12 months of internal audit, what work we've done, and gives you some assurance of the work we've completed, the work we haven't completed, and obviously the governance arrangements in place. It complies with the public sector internal audit standards requirements, and obviously the accounts for Wales regulation 2014. The main parts of the report are around the fact... Sorry, apologies. It's around the fact that I need to give you assurance that I've covered enough work during the year. So part of this report is about outlining my team and how they've done over the year. So you'll be aware that over the last 12 to 18 months, I've been on quite a big recruitment process because I've had to recruit the principal auditor, who was my senior auditor at the time, Samantha Davies, into the principal auditor's post. And then I've had to recruit into three career pathway posts. That's been an exercise that's been well received in the team, obviously. I now have a team with some knowledge and experience in not necessarily local government, but external areas within the working world, which has brought some good skills back to the team. Team being trained, so obviously part of my audit plan has to go down on an annual basis to train the team. So the principal auditor is currently doing ILM level four, and then she'll be doing her IIA exams. She's passed one, she's got two remaining. One of the career pathways, December, January, will be starting her Institute Internal Auditors exams. And that's a two to three year training commitments I'm giving to that particular career pathway. And then two of the career pathways, they have just completed their first year at AAT. And hopefully by the end of the summer, they will both obtain the qualification of AAT level two status. We've gone through some difficult times in the last 12 months with special investigations. The team, obviously there's a new team, so it's difficult when you have special investigations with an existing team, because obviously it draws upon new skills and experiences for those members, but with a team who were still learning how to do a regular audit, it was a bit more of a challenge. So it meant these investigations took a little longer to begin with, but I'm glad to say it's been a very good learning curve for the team, because obviously they realise very quickly that when there are issues around processes procedures, we as an internal audit team are there for the council to look in and support where necessary. My overall opinion is based on the completion of the risk based internal plan, which is in appendix two and the audit results and insurance rating definitions. You will notice that we have had no low or no assurance reviews in the year, and the remainder of all the reviews we've covered have either been high or medium assurance. During my last three months of this financial year, I always do a round robin with the heads of service, and we go through what we covered during the year, and obviously what they would like to see us cover in the next financial year. One or two heads of services have flagged this year the advisory work that we carried out over the last couple of years has been very useful to them, and this is an area this year that we've developed into the plan, and we have one of the five areas around the advisory work. I think that's me done for now. I'll take any questions off the floor, please.
Okay, thank you, Bob. Any questions for Bob on this report, please? Thank you. I've got some, but for the members first. Paul with them.
Thank you, Chair. It was really the agreed audit actions, page 177, the census that have been implemented by schools. It's still a bit disappointing that it's only 59%. Is there any more that can be done, or is it that they're starting from a lower base?
Part of the reason is obviously schools aren't on Virto, so all services on Virto are a performance management system so that we can track them on a quarterly basis. We can meet with the performance and strategy team and ask them to give prompts to certain services who've got recommendations outstanding. We've done two approaches this year. First time we were up to all schools and we got the responses where they were up to. Second approach has been we've actually emailed them. These are the actions you've completed. These are actions you're still outstanding on. Can you let us know? Hopefully the next month before school closes, I wanna send out an email to all schools who still have actions outstanding and give 'em 'til the middle of September to come back and say where they're up to because obviously if I ask 'em at the end of school term when the sports stays, year sixes are leaving or year 11's are leaving, I'm not gonna get the response. I want the heads and the management team to actually have the summer to look and hopefully when they come back late August, they can give us the attention it needs.
Chair, can I comment on that? I mean it might be that to give this a little bit of emphasis, were it the wish of this committee to try and improve and support Bob on this, we could join in with him on the email or say that in his email he can say that it's been discussed at this committee and that he could draw their attention to it.
I think that'd be good.
Just a thought.
Yeah, I'm happy to do that. I might take on your point, David, that I'll copy yourself on Council Youngin.
Yeah, okay, thank you. No, I think it needs emphasizing, this is not just your concern. It's a corporate concern here. We're expressing that.
I mean I would say I'm not overly concerned because some of the actions when we wrote to them weren't due, so even though it's 57% realistically, 10% or 15% of those actions might not have been due, so it's not as bad as it looks. But obviously without trying to produce reams of support and evidence, I've just gone on the wrong figure.
Okay, thank you. Councillor Arwell-Roberts.
Thank you very much, Chair. I'm looking at page 20. Many of the schools are visited by audit. There's only one town council of them. It's a town council, everything's good there, thankfully. Is there a reason why there's only one town council or do they go to somebody else to be audited? Why is it just the one town council that's there listed?
The question, Councillor Arwell. Right, then town councils can be audited by a number of people, private auditors, private accountancy firms, or they can come to local governments. Rudland Town Council is the only council that has asked us at the moment to do their accounts. So on an annual basis, that's the reason why we do Rudland Town Council. Hope that answers your question.
Arwell, is that all right? Sorry, I missed your thumbs up, sorry. Okay, any other questions from members of this report? Nigel Rudd.
Quick question for Bob as to why schools aren't on Virto?
I'm assuming it's to do with the licensing and the servers. Obviously it's on a council server. Schools have their own individual servers and members don't always, officers and members don't like Virto to a degree and schools are a different breed altogether. So we tend not to enforce systems on that they don't really need to use. Virto is obviously for the council run and obviously education will have school areas on, but individual schools probably would find it overwhelming and useful for them really.
It's part of the council's management systems and the schools are really sort of detached from that.
Yeah, they've all budgeted. So yeah, they are part of the local authority. But licensing would be the first things. It's a cost of Virto and if you had to roll it out open early 60 schools and have two or three licenses talking 120 to 200 license extra, they may not use it.
Okay, all right, thanks Bob.
Oh, sorry Nigel, Ellie Chard.
Afternoon, just a comment chair. On page 171, the National Fraud Initiative, I'm now going to look forward to seeing the completed 2022/2023 figures in our September meeting. I just thought, I just commented on that. So I'm looking forward to receiving them and reading them. Thank you.
Anything to comment on that?
No, I mean, obviously if we're currently just finishing off the last area, which is blue badges, once the blue badges have been done, then we can write the report and bring it to the September meeting. I'm hoping you'll still be looking forward to it when it comes.
Yeah, don't worry. I will be. I'll be making sure that I read it, okay. Thank you, Bob.
Thank you.
I'd be particularly interested in myself on that, just to know what's going to happen to the ones that are, you know, where there's positive matches where they're being investigated and a fraud is proven. I'm not asking for that now, but I just, you know, I'm not suggesting from everything has to be prosecuted or something like that.
I can explain that now. Obviously when we match with another authority or another national service, we then have a relay of emails back and to, if we've identified it, then obviously we'll take it to the National Fraud Initiative team. They then do the prosecutions and then we will find out later in the stats.
Big ones, obviously, but a lot of them are gonna be quite minor ones. I mean, they're still relevant, but they're quite minor things, but presumably you just stopped the payment or something and that's the end of it. And perhaps they get a warning or something. Is that right?
Yeah, that's quite often the case. I mean, if I use something like the blue badge as an example, obviously blue badges can expire. People will hand them back, but what they do is they turn the badge upside down and leaving the vehicle and quite often they'll get away with that badge. Obviously, if that's been identified, then the council will make every effort to retain that badge often.
From a softball in this report, you talk about not being able to achieve the planned amount of planned audits. And obviously there's good and justifiable reasons for that. One of which is the amount of special investigations. But I think it's probably worth saying that, you know, although special investigation can be seen as a sort of negative thing, and I suppose they are in a way, but they can still be beneficial, you know, in the sense that if it's a fraud, for instance, or a financial irregularity, or even if it's something else, it's a sort of lack of awareness of some rules or regulations or something, that there's still some value in that and that management can learn from that. Actually, they can learn the importance of these things, of having the correct controls in place and so on. So presumably, I was gonna say, as far as these investigations are concerned, there's gonna be, management will presumably be asked to, not just put the situation right, but to try to make sure it doesn't recur.
Yeah, you're correct. There's a twofold to the special investigations. Firstly, from my point of view, it's been a good learning curve for my team. They've started to understand a lot of the reasons why they're working in audit. So that's the first one. But the second one is around, obviously, once all seven have been concluded, I will bring them to this committee as a item number two, so that you can see all the investigations that we've done over the 23, 24 year. But I am also taking some of the investigations to SLT and Cabinet, so that they can understand the learning curve in place. Obviously, lessons learned in CT will be, these are the control issues that are broken. Heads of service then can look at those and think, well, that could happen in my service. I need to go back and check that. So yeah.
Like exactly what I'm alluding to there. When you say you'll bring them to this, you have the items, you're meaning part two, obviously. But will that be all of them together? I think it was seven, or are they being patches, as it were?
At the moment, we've got three agreed. And probably I might try and bring them all together, because obviously then I can show you the similarity. So two or three of them are very similar. So I can talk you through why we've had to carry out the reviews and obviously lessons learned and what SLT need to take on board as a consequence of those two or three. And then three or four are unique to services. And I can show those to you. And then obviously questions can be taken on those. It would depend on the significance and the type. They would, if need be, inform the annual governance statement as well, if something needs to be put right.
Some of them will this year, yeah. But obviously there's still four are being agreed as we speak.
The notion that just because it's a special investigation, that's not always a negative thing for internal audit to be doing, it's part of your legitimate work, depending on how it's done. And linked to that, bearing in mind the pressure that you're under for the advisory reviews that you talked about there. Is there assurance that all of these need internal audit to do them, bearing in mind the limited resources that there are available for planned audits?
The advisory, yeah. These are the reviews that we've agreed with CT and Cabinet will support the council going forward with decisions that need to be made. So a lot of these reviews are around budget pressures over the next 12 months. So we have certain skills where we can outline a service to a head of service and his or her management team, and then they can go away with our support and look at the ideas, how they might be to improve their service.
Going on from myself there, on page 168, paragraph 2.8, bearing in mind this report is about your opinion that will inform the annual governance statement. Is the actual, is 2.8, is that the actual expressed your, is that the actual paragraph is expressing your opinion there?
Yes.
That's to be carried forward into the AGS.
Yes.
Just in that case, I just wondered, whilst I agree for this report, it has to stay there. Where, bearing in mind the AGS is very much a public facing document. When it says about due to staff issues, whether that bit needs to be in there.
It's, it adds to my opinion because obviously I couldn't fulfil the whole 100% of the plan due to a number of things. I can just rephrase and just say due to certain constraints the team has not been to. Yep.
Staff issues, it's a public document. You know, you're thinking, well, what are the staff issues? Aren't they good? Or something like that. It's not that. It's just that it is the constraints on the service really. Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. That's all from my point of view, I think. Yeah, sorry, on page 276 and 15.1. Your internal audio performance, annual assurance mapping exercise. I think that might be a useful exercise to do and perhaps in a training workshop with this committee sometimes, you know, to understand what goes into the plan and why it goes into the plan. And it does link in with the things that came out in the quality assessment report before Alex Jenkins bought. You know, how it's linked to the risk register and other things. But perhaps when you've done some more work on that, it might be useful for us to have a workshop on that as it was to get a better understanding.
Yeah, I think maybe the workshop should be what internal audit is about and what internal audit does and delivers during the 12 months. So that you're quite right. I can take you through January to March when we do the mapping, assurance mapping and I meet with heads of service, SLT, CET, to go through what needs to go in the plan. And then we can go through, obviously, the year we work on and some of the issues we come up against. So I think it'd be good to take you through a 12-month journey of the team.
A training session arranged. I don't think we've got a date for it yet on internal audit where you're going to look at assurance ratings as well. And so we could include that in that maybe, together with looking at the status in internal audit.
Yeah, I think that would all work into one good training day, or training afternoon rather than...
We'll come back to that under the work programme, if we may. Members, any other questions on this report? No? OK. The recommendation is that the committee considers and comments on the chief internal audit's annual report and overall opinion. So we've done that. Can I have a proposal for that, please? Arwell Roberts, can I have a seconder, please? Ellie Chard, all in favour? OK, thank you. Carried. The next item, item 9, which starts with page 189 in the pack, is the Internal Audit Charter Strategy and Quality Assurance Improvement Programme. The Quality Assurance Improvement Programme has been already partly commented on, but again, do you want to give a brief summary, Bob, a brief outline?
Yeah, again, for members, this is a report I've done the last two years, and it was always the charter and strategy reports that came into this particular document. But taken on board, Alex's comments that the Quality Assurance Improvement Programme should really be a document in itself and not attached to my annual report, I've now produced a third document for you so that you've got the three documents. These all are required under the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards. So obviously, the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards apply the Institute of Internal Auditors international standards to the UK public sector. So a professional, independent and objective internal audit service is one of the key elements of good governance as recognised throughout the UK public sector. So that document I have to comply with as a consequence. I have to give you the three documents now in one report. I could have separately done another two reports, but I've rolled the three into one. So the charter tells you, obviously, about myself and my team. The strategy then goes on about the work we're carrying out, and the Quality Assurance Improvement Programme is around the work carried out by the peer assessment that was done in 23/24. That's all I want to say at the moment, because obviously you've heard this spiel over the last two years, so I'm happy to take questions. >> Questions from members on this report on the Internal Audit Charter Strategy and Quality Assurance Improvement Programme. Nigel Rudd. >> Yes, can I repeat what I made the last time, Bob? You brought the annual charter. In my opinion, it's an absolute waste of your time and this committee's time to review on an annual basis a document that hardly changes. Why is an annual charter as required by PSIAS? I have no idea. And can you make representations in the future about the necessity for this? If we do have a charter, it's going to run, in my view, for several years. It just needs to report back on the tweaks that might have to be made to it as it's updated during the course of the year. But it just makes no sense to have a charter that you go to them, you know. We visit the mountain of the annual charter every year at GAC. And I just find, you know, it just seems to me an absolute inheritance of a burden. There's nothing about sort of enabling. And if you looked at an assessment about what is the worth of this document to the future and the contribution of internal audit to this council, I think you're in the zeros and the minuses. I can't see anything positive on it at all. But you know the strength of my view on this. Looking beyond that comment, Bob, I can see the issues coming through on here. I just have more of a concern about making sure that you've got the right resource to do what you say you want to do. And whether that's reflected in the internal audit charter sufficiently or not is certainly a point that I would make in relation to the next appendix on here in relation to the annual plan, which is that I don't want us to set up our internal audit section to fail to deliver on a plan where it's ambitious about wanting to do audit work but doesn't necessarily have the resource or the capacity so to do. So that would be my challenge back. To say that are your expectations realistic and are they then reflected in terms of what the charter says and what your annual plan says?
I'll take your point on board about the charter, but obviously I have to adhere to global standards and public sector internal audits standards are part of the global standards set by the Institute of Internal Auditors. So it's a requirement I have to on an annual basis. I accept you would like a seven-year one, but to comply with my peer review every five years, it's gotta be done annually. So that's why it's done. Apologies, but it will come for the next so many years until the global standards change and decide it can be a seven-year plan. The actual strategy, the actual plan that's in place, that is a plan that takes me a couple of weeks to produce. I, as I say, meet with heads of service. I meet with SLT, CET, and Cabinet to get on board all ideas. We look at all the reviews that have been put forward. We then have to put down how long each review's gonna take. So I have a pot of days for my team that's worked out from, obviously it's about 2.20. Then I have to take off annually, bank holidays, a proportion for sickness. So I get to an overall figure, which this year was around 1,100 days for the whole team. And then I've costed all the different reports I'm doing, reviews I've been asked to do into the days, and then I have a contingency. So technically, if I had no special investigations, I would do 100%. I have a contingency, and I've put 50 days in for investigations. I would hope I could get closer. This year, we had 56 on the 31st of March, but we're about 65% coverage now that we have completed the mop-up exercise in April/May. So this year we're aiming to do 75%. And I think it is realistic, but obviously I haven't got a crystal ball to find out what's gonna happen in the next eight to nine months.
So Ellis wants to come in here.
Yeah, thank you, Jay. I just wanted to reassure that we also discussed this, didn't we, Bob? So when we discussed this document, it was, I think, one of my first questions as well, wasn't it, because it does look ambitious, but I was reassured by Bob's answer.
Thank you. Nigel, your hand's still up. Do you want to come back back on anything on that?
No, I feel I banged my head against a brick wall on it. So it's not a stock value hedge.
I think, I mean, presumably Bob would argue that if he didn't do that, if he didn't present this report on you, then the report we had earlier on from Cara Diggin would have been more of a major finding there. I take the point, I think it does take up a lot of space every year. Having said that, I find it quite refreshing to look at it and just be reminded we're having a training session on the status of internal order, and that really sets out the status. So I think particularly for any newer members of the committee or members of the committee who are not so conversed with internal order, I think it's quite a useful document myself. But whether it has to be every year in the real term, I don't know, but I mean, it certainly does at the moment if we're gonna comply with PSIS. I don't know if Bob's able to make representation there, but as I said before, I mean, I don't think Bob will mind me saying, but he's a very, very small cog and a very, very big wheel here, 'cause we're talking about the Global Institute of Internal Auditors, where these derive from. But I mean, perhaps if there's something on, I don't know if, I mean, CIPFA apply this to the public sector presumably. So maybe some representations could be made there.
The standards-
Also the Welsh Treasurer's Group or something, sorry.
Yeah, the standards are actually changing because obviously there are new global standards as we speak, but CIPFA's got till January next year to make their decision on whether we're accepting all the new recommendations or whether we're gonna have a diluted form. So you never know, this time next year, it might be a different outlook again. But yeah, we did make, as North Wales and a Welsh, Chief Internal Auditors' Groups, we fed into the new global standards. We gave our opinion. So obviously they've been agreed and we'll wait for now for the UK government, UK CIPFA to decide on what the public section to understand this will be for UK.
When you said the new standards, you're talking in January, sorry, that's by CIPFA. That'll be the new public sector standards based on the new global standards.
Yeah, new global came out on the 9th of January, but obviously within the UK, if it's private sector, they've taken on board ASAP. From the public sector, we've got another 12 months. So we've got till middle of January next year to make decisions on what CIPFA agrees and disagrees with.
I think it'd be quite useful for this committee to have those standards in some form of an information report. I know you probably mentioned this time next year, but they're coming out before then, but actually we got them as an information report in the spring. So at least we can have a think about them before we have this meeting next year.
Probably November time would be a good time to give you the standards so that when CIPFA brings out in January, you'd have an idea of the standards, the new global standards. And then obviously that will give you a feel as to, yeah, they've adopted it a hundred percent or they've only adopted 45, 50%. So yeah, I'll put it on the workforce programme for November to just give you a quick update on it. It's a big document. I'll tell you that now.
Well, yes, I appreciate that. But it'd really be as an information report for reference purposes really, or even we do have a library as well as a committee as well. We've got a section on the members library for us that can even go onto there as a work of reference. So if members want to look at it and drill down into it, they can do. I wouldn't want it as a substantive item on the November agenda. Okay, any other questions on this from members? All with them?
Thank you, chair. Just looking at the strategy, one comment, one question. Page 220 of the pack, halfway down, sorry, 220. You're looking at corporate services, performance, digital, and assets. Contracts where 90% of the work completed and waiting for retention work to be completed. There are some former members of this committee who'll be very interested in that one, and me too.
Page 222, the work there for assurance for the AGS. You've got a lot on finance and audit, and specifically I'm looking at general ledger and bank reconciliation, but 24, 25. Will that take into account the impact of the change of the new financial system?
Yes, it will be. We have actually got a review for T1 as well, so we'll be looking at T1 implementation as part of one separate review, and then obviously T1 filters into the general ledger, it filters into counterpayable sundry debtors, so we'll be looking in detail at those.
Just whilst we're on page 222, Bob, the top one there, the work on partnerships. That presumably is continuing the work on partnerships that reported to this committee earlier, sorry, last year. And so my question is, will this link into the work that's been done on the performance panel assessment on partnerships as well? That was mentioned in the previous item.
The report we're doing, we'll be bringing you a definitive list at the time we write the report on partnership arrangements. We're not just looking at pure partnerships, we're gonna look at different agreements we've got in place, so ADM's additional, loss of thread and ADM's additional, alternative delivery models. So we'll be looking at alternative delivery models, we'll be looking at full-blown partnerships, arrangements that we might have in place, so we'll give you an array of all the different types of agreements we've got in place, and then obviously we will be looking at doing a little bit of work afterwards, drilling down into one or two of those.
But we, sorry.
I was gonna say, we're gonna share the information across the council then, and then obviously be, sorry, what was your second part?
Well, I was gonna say, is it going to feed into the performance panel work that I've been doing on assessment on partnerships in the September?
It will do, yes, and at the moment, one of the ladies from the performance team has met with my auditor who's doing the work, and they are working on together to get a definitive list, so yeah, they will have all the information we have, and vice versa, so it should filter in.
Question was, I think this piece of work, which I think we suggested as a committee, I might be wrong on that, but it wasn't to look at the effectiveness of individual partnerships, it was to make sure that there's a mapping out of the governance arrangements for partnerships, so that the key governance arrangements of each partnership are known, such as who does the internal audit, who does the external audit, et cetera, et cetera, who does the accounts and so on, who is the monitoring officer, and I think the idea was that that then, once internal audit have done that, that's a piece of ongoing iterative work that needs to be kept up to date, and someone needs to pick that up and run with this, and that, any ongoing work on the, that comes out of the panel performance assessment on the effectiveness and efficiency of partnerships should be able to take that as data, if you like, to use for any review work that is done on groups of partnerships, or individual partnerships.
Yeah, you're correct. This committee asked for it just over 12 months ago, and that is our intention, that we will bring it to yourselves, we will map out the governance arrangements, the achievements of expected outcomes, data protection arrangements, sort of do an array of different areas for the committee, and then obviously, I'll be sitting down with my head of service, Liz, to discuss who then takes this document on, because obviously it's the document, we in internal audit don't want to own an update on a regular basis, so it'll be discussion as to which service is best suited to take it on afterwards.
Once that's done, as well as the service, I mean, to me, it's striking, obviously, it should also go to the partnership scrutiny committee, as well. It should be, you know, it should be informing a lot of their review work. I know partnerships in their sense are very, it's a small thing, it's a very wide meaning, but I think it's specifically relevant to some of the work that they do, so I would suggest that once the work is done, as well as what you suggest, which service runs with it, it is scrutinized, well, considered as scrutiny by the partnerships.
Take that on board, and I'll put that on, say, for the workforce program.
Yeah. Okay, just on this, when we had the early report, the external assessments, was something made, forgive me if I missed it, but in the report you got here on page 203, when you give who you report to, on paragraph 9-2, that you attend the government audit committee, you have pre-meeting with the chair and vice-chair, the chief internal has right of access to all government audit committee members. Don't you also have right of access to the chief executive as well?
Yes, apologies, I should have put that in. I have a quarterly meeting with the chief executive, and I also have a direct groups.
You should have right of access to him, so you can bypass everybody else and go straight to him. I think that's really important that this committee knows that. No, no, I don't know, but there's a slightly wider question there. If I were to take the financial regulations of the council, which I haven't, but if I were to, and I have to look at this charter, are the two consistent as regards internal audit?
They should be, because obviously the charter and the financial regs have been running side by side for several years now, but I do appreciate the financial regs are due at some point to be reviewed, and at that point the charter would be reviewed with it.
Okay. The last point I was going to raise is paragraph eight five on page 200. When you say, the chief internal auditor will ensure that internal audit remains free from all conditions that threaten the ability of internal auditors to perform their work in an unbiased manner. Internal auditors have no direct operation responsibilities or authority over the activities audited. I know myself, in other places it counts as a North Wales, that's not necessarily the case, I mean it hasn't, I don't know about in Denbyshire, and I'm just wondering, I must, I fully agree with it, I hope, you know, I fully endorse what you say there. Is there not a risk of as, built to get tightened as the savings proposals come in, that things are, that people do try to force operational matters onto the internal audit service, and how are you going to guard against that?
My stance would be strong, I need to be independent, and I can't afford to be ahead of, you know, heading up another service, because then I haven't got independence within that team, so if you said to me I needed to take on AP or sundry debtors I'd be saying no, it's impossible, because my independence is no longer there, so as a team, I would be raising it with whoever's raised it first, so if my head of service said, you are taking on insurance and AP, I'd be saying no, I can't do that, because that's going to affect my independence, I'd be raising it with the monitoring officer, I'd be raising it with chief exec, I'd be raising it with the chair and vice chair of this committee saying that, in my opinion, this is not suitable, and it will compromise my position. So that's my stance.
I mean, there are other examples, and I know in North Wales, or certainly in Wales, where people in your position also do have responsibilities for other services as well, such as procurement, or performance, and so on, and it just, you know, I think I'm not going to say in the public sector internal audit standards do have something to say about that, or there's ways in which it can be managed and so on, but it's not a desirable situation to be in.
For that to happen, then I'd have to have an audit manager, so I would be one step away from the internal audit team, then. So that is the only way that could happen, but as I say, currently with such a small team, my stance would be to bite my corner, and I'd be coming here to the chief exec monitoring officer, my section 151 officer, so I need to take on additional services in the team.
Okay, thank you. Members, any more questions or comments for Bob on this report? Nope. In that case, then, the recommendation is the committee approves the internal audit charter, the internal audit strategy for 2324, and the QAIP, the Quality Assurance Improvement Programme. So can I have a proposal for that, please? Councillor Holliday, seconder? All with them? All in favour? Thank you. And last item on the agenda is the work programme for the future of this year. Just to say, there's some questions that I had, which I sent to Gary in writing before this committee, and I know other members have as well, and Gary's had to go now, but one of the things that concerns the work programme is trying the work ongoing to try to level it out, and also making sure that it better fits into the work cycles, the council's other cycles, cycles of meetings and so on. Bob, I think you've got some work going on on that. Do you want to comment on that at all now, since it's relevant to the programme? Yeah, so with the forward work programme for guns and audits, we've done a piece of work where we've gone back to, I think, January 2020, and we've mapped all reports that have come to this committee, so we now have a frequency of how often reports are coming. So that's the first piece of work we've done. Second piece of work we'll do is, once the council has agreed the work cycles for all committees, we will look at mapping in certain areas so that when the budget's been approved that it comes to them as an audit prior to it going to full council. So that's the second area, and then the third area, we'll be looking at terms of reference for this committee to make sure that we're complying with our terms of reference. I believe it's the end of this month, early next month, when we'll know all the cycles for all the committees. So once that's been approved, we're gonna get a copy of that. We're gonna work on it then over a two-week period, and then hopefully, during the beginning of the summer holidays, Chair and Vice Chair will get a copy, and then obviously, if Chair and Vice Chair are happy and want to share it, I will then forward the forward work programme on to all members, and I'll put it on the September programme.
Thank you. As far as the other things on the programme are concerned, for the July meeting, item four, as the annual governance and audit report, just to say that was originally meant to be at this meeting, but I use my prerogative as Chair to agree with Bob to delay it, because we didn't want to rush at it. We're doing it slightly different to previous years. I think in previous years, it's been largely a catalogue of things that the committee has looked at, whereas we wanted to convey a bit more about the purpose and the role of the committee, and we're basing it on the sit for recommended practice, and also taking account of other authorities, and well, I think Cardiff in particular, Cardiff City Council. So, Bob and I are actually looking at the moment with a view to it being coming as a draft to the July meeting. It's not significantly delaying its presentation to Council, but also, going back to, I think, something that Nigel mentioned before, it's also, it's an opportunity for me, because I present that report to Council, and again, it's another opportunity for the committee to do a bit of advocacy work with the Council, which I will be intending to do, because we'll be putting down any key messages that this committee does have. Liz, do you want to say something?
Yeah, of course, the Annual Governance Statement forms part of the accounts, doesn't it? And they're not due until September.
AGS.
Oh, sorry.
No, this is not the AGS.
Oh, sorry, my mistake. We're talking about the AGS.
I'm coming to the AGS in a minute.
End of year.
So, yeah. Okay, so that's where we're at on that, just for your information. The next item is the AGS. I was gonna say, it's just to say, that's down for the next committee meeting. That's quite a way to report. Sorry, Liz, you were saying, 'cause that needs to be, we probably don't need to do that until September, when we hopefully get the statement of accounts, but it's best to do it before then. It's done and dusted then, yeah.
Just coming there, it is handy to do it in the July one, because then I can get it signed off over the summer by the chief exec and the leader of the Council, so that it's ready to go in September, signed off. But can I just make the point that also, on the July, sorry, on the July meeting, item nine, which follows it, is the corporate risk register. Now, the corporate risk register, all we're expecting for then, is it just to come as a summary report. But we need it, so as members, we can see that there is some consistency between that and the annual governance statement. So I think we could do with the corporate risk register, I don't know if someone can make a note of this, although it's coming as an information report, I think we could do with it in advance. So when we're looking through the agenda, and looking at the report on the annual governance statement, we can look at the corporate risk register, make sure there's consistency there. I mean, basically what I'm saying is, if there's a major, some big red corporate risks there, I'm using this, I don't think this will be the case, I'm using this to demonstrate the example of what I'm talking about. There's some big red corporate risks there, and there's no reference to those in the AGS, we'd be asking why. So if we could have that in advance, that would be useful.
When you say advance, how early do you want it?
Well, presumably, I'm not quite sure when it'll be ready. I think it goes to, I don't know the timetable, but it goes to scrutiny, it goes to council sometimes. So at the last stage, the last of those hoops, before it comes to AGS, if we can have it then, as soon as possible, I think it'd be useful.
I'll have a word with Elmore and Evans.
Yeah, we should have asked it before, actually, when we were here, but I think it'd be useful for us.
I'll drop an email once I know when we're there.
To me, the corporate risk rate, it's like a reference document that the members of this committee need, as well, and not just something that we look at in November. On the July meeting, I don't know who can, someone can run with this, it's got items 10, 11, and 12, which is Conway and Derbyshire Youth Justice Service, Little Acorns at Christ the Word, and the Care Inspect at Wales Inspection Report on Darwin. I take it they're all either Estyn or, they're all sort of the inspect reports. They're not shown as information reports, but do they need to come to this committee as substantive reports, or can we have them as information reports? I don't know, Gary is probably the best person to ask on that, but if we could ask her that, because we have tried to get specific inspection reports as information items, but not if they're, it depends on their significance.
Not aware of what their significance are, David, we can certainly go and have a chat with Nicola, who's Corporate Director, and understand how we could put them on the Forward Work Programme.
For the September one, thanks Liz. For the September one, we've got the partnership working arrangements, which Bob is referring to previously. It's got the audit of statement of accounts. There's actually gonna be two reports there, aren't there? I understand, I'm speaking to Mike Whiteley, I'm not sure if he's in this meeting, no, Charles is here today. But I understand there's gonna be two reports as normal. There's gonna be the auditor's report on the statement of accounts and the statement of accounts.
Yeah, so to clarify, they're two different financial years, aren't they? So the audit of the statement of accounts will be the 22, 23 financial year. And then you'll be presented with the draft statement of accounts for 23, 24 financial year for your consideration. So we probably need them as two agenda items.
Have you had the final accounts for 23, 22, 23 years?
Yes. September.
Last year. - Last year.
Yes, of course we did.
I think so. It is very difficult when you're working across multiple years, and you're also looking at budgets and medium-term financial plans that run you to 27, 28. Yes. (audience laughs) You weren't even here then last September. Okay. Looking through, sorry, going on the work program, November, there's a glaring, there's something glaringly obvious missing here, because for November, we should be getting the corporate risk register review, which is shown in item eight, but it suggests it's an information report. That should be a substantive report which we, which we should be getting is when we actually go to town on the corporate risk register, but that should be a substantive item.
Okay, on that, in fact, with respect for November, items six, eight, and nine, including budget process and so on, are sort of in the middle of information reports.
They're not information reports, absolutely, yeah. And the other thing that's missing there is the performance panel assessment report from the previous, that's gonna be quite a substantive item as well, so we're gonna have a long meeting in September.
I think it's fair to say that, obviously, board work program isn't quite accurate, and we've acknowledged that, and I think you need to let my team now do their piece of work, and then in the summer, hopefully, we'll have addressed all these issues, but you'll have your opportunity at that point to feed back and say, oh, we still need to amend X, Y, or Z.
Yeah. - That makes sense.
Yeah, no, sure, I mean, it's not criticising it. I think it's just trying to get it right now. The other thing I meant to say briefly, on the July meeting, item 13 of the July meeting, it says code of governance and audit. I think that's what I was speaking to Gary when I was here before, that's talking about the proposals and the draft of a local governance code. I don't think an audit should be in it. It's a code of, it's a local code of corporate governance for Denbighshire County Council. On the training, could we possibly get some dates and some time, Bob, for the training? The training item is there, it's the last page there. We've got one internal audit, which is government assurance ratings, the scoping of audits, status of internal audits, and, as we said before, also how the audit plan is compiled. So, we've got that. We should be getting something on the new procurement rules and regulations, and something on risk management as well, which Jolo referred to before. So, we could do with getting some dates in for those. Certainly, the risk management one needs to be, excuse me, needs to be, certainly before November. I think we've agreed a date in October for risk management with Heidi. So, I'll double-check after this meeting with Heidi, and then have a word with democratic services and get three dates in for the three training sessions. What about the internal audit one? I'll have a word with democratic services and we'll get three dates in. Did you just say that? I was writing something down. I can't multitask, sorry. The audit one will probably come first. The risk is definitely going to be October, and the third one, I'll have a word with democratic services after this meeting, and we'll put three dates, and I'll circulate an email by the end of this week. Later. Conversation we had before, earlier in today's meeting. Perhaps we need to think about something on counter-fraud as well. Councillor Holliday. Chair, I got down in my diary Monday, the 21st of October, the GAC Risk Management Forum. Two, three, 13. Thank you, I knew it was in October. Thank you very much. It's all right. So, I've got that out of misty doubt, I apologise, okay. Right, I think that's everything. Just to say that when we were going through the minutes before, there were some questions that we had of Liz, which, I mean, bearing in mind, it's now one o'clock. I think we need to finish. But Liz has given written replies to Nigel Rudd for his questions and to myself for the question that I raised. So, can I suggest, unless anybody objects, can I suggest that they be circulated to all members of the committee? Is that all right with you, Nigel? Yeah, fine, thank you, that's all right with me, if that's okay, Liz. So, I think that concludes our business today. Oh, sorry, for the programme, we need to propose a seconder. Yeah. As a subject to the changes, can I have a proposal? Please. Ellie? Yeah. Seconder, please, Carol. All in favour of the work programme, subject to those changes, thank you. Right, that concludes our meeting today. Thank you for your fortitude, thank you for your strength and a safe journey home. Jock and wow.

Transcript

of interest? Councillor Holyday. Yes, if schools generally are referred to, I think it's probably in the performance self-assessment report, then technically you have an interest, but because it's about schools generally, then it's a personal interest only. And so I'll just confirm that for all others who've declared an interest as governors, that's a personal interest and not prejudicial interest. Also for myself, it's a personal interest. I'm in receipt of a pension from fluid pensions. It's referred to in the statement of accounts, which could be referred to today and either in the minutes or in the forward work programme. So I just want to make that clear as well. Chair, I am on the same page as yourself, the legal speaking. Yes, me too. Yes. I'm myself. Okay. Sorry. I forgot. Okay. Okay. Moving on. If that's all right. That was any urgent matters, item five, any urgent matters, which I don't believe that are, and then we're going to onto item six, which is the minutes of, of the previous meeting. We're here to receive the minutes of the government's order committee meeting of the 24th of April, 2024. I know it's 1924, 2024. I was thinking about the local government in 1972. That's why I'm getting mixed up. 24th of April. What we'll do as usual, we'll go through the minutes page by page for accuracy, and then we'll go back page by page for any matters arising from the minutes. So I'm on, starting on pack page seven. Can I just raise something, just a small thing, but when it says present the last meeting, could I have my name spot correctly, please? Also at the last meeting, there was only two elected members recorded being present. Councillor Justine Evans, who was then on the committee and Mark Young, were there only two members present? Were there not some more? I can't remember now. Sorry. I was present. Definitely. There were some, quite a few apologies as well. Okay. At the last meeting. Arwell, sorry. Were you saying you were here? Yes, I was here. Roberts was here as well. I thought so. Okay. Okay. And so that's page seven. Page eight. Just on the matters arising from the previous meeting on the paragraph, the second paragraph on the page where it says page eight. Good idea to have a local governance. It should be governance code, governance code. And also the next item, it says page nine, re-arling close. And I know we've got some questions on this and answers, Thomas, as far as the accuracy is concerned, is that the head of finance stated that confirmation in writing would be sent immediately. I think it's, I think it should read the head of finance stated that the request for confirmation of writing would be sent for immediately just for the record. That's page eight. Page nine. Just on the accuracy page ten. Page eleven. Just want to read some of it myself there. The first complete paragraph on that page, the first bullet point, it reads, it says here regarding local authorities who had issued section 114 reports, there had been criticism of the failure of the Governance and Audit Committee to adequately review and monitor. Sorry, but I'm a bit sensitive about this. I think it needs to read, there had been criticism of the failure of their governance and audit committees. Just in case anybody wants to throw anything at us, I don't think it's like it, but it was the failure of their governance and audit committees, in other words, of those authorities. That's page eleven. Yes? Accuracy. The third bullet point on that page, headed membership of the committee, in the middle it says the wording did not reflect that, then there's a space, and it then goes on to say there was an opportunity politically for the lead member of finance. It doesn't read very well, but both at the beginning and where I start. That paragraph, I'm not quite sure what it's meant to say, though. I think it's meant to say that the wording, that word, the wording reflected the legislative position, and it was suggested that there was an opportunity politically for the lead member of finance who regularly attends the committee to be a member, and the administrator may at some point wish to allocate that, and then there was an explanation that council had decided. Yes? Okay. So, thanks Paul. Page eleven. Page twelve. Page thirteen. Page fourteen. The third paragraph up, the one that's headed member allowances. Could members not agree to take the increase? I think it's the wrong way round there. I think the sentiment was could members agree to not take the increase? Page fifteen. Sixteen. Seventeen. Eighteen. Okay? So, we're happy with the minutes as regards accuracy subject to those amendments that we've just highlighted. So, we just go through now for any matters arising from the minutes. So, I think we'll, again, we'll take them page by page, please. So, anything on page seven, if you want to raise anything, please raise your hand. Page eight. There's something I wanted to raise on page eight under the matters arising. The matters arise from the previous meeting when it says a good idea to have a local governance code, the monitoring officer would have a report before the annual governance statement is produced. That is on the work program for July. So, presumably, that's not going to give us a governance code. It's, it's, how we, whether we need one and how we could bring one about basically. Is that right, Gary? Yes, it would, well, I think, I think the report actually will sort of draft out a code of corporate governance so that you've got that in front of you and then we can get comments from the committee as to whether or not they're happy with it. Also, on page eight, the next item read Arlin Close, the head of finance stated that confirmation, the request for confirmation in writing will be sent immediately. This refers to the training we got last year, the excellent training for Arlin Close on treasury management but also the, the, the T, the BBC program, TV program on Thorek Council and the question was raised that if Arlin Close as our treasury management advisors were unhappy with some transaction and didn't think it was being properly handled by the section 151 officer as happened at Thorek, I'm not suggesting that would hit for a moment happen at Dambisher but would they contact someone other than the section 151 officer such as the chief internal auditor, the chief executive or myself? Just to say Liz Thomas has responded to me on that. She, she'll be joining the meeting later on this morning but she has responded in writing to say that and she has actually sent a reminder to Arlin Close confirming that they're having to, I think it's to confirm that in writing. Is that right, Gary, do you know that's right? Yes and she's also written to them, giving them names of alternative contact points in the council should they have any concerns about whoever is the 151 for the time being. So that's yourself as chair, myself as monitoring officer and Bob as chief internal auditor. Yeah. Chief executive. Do we need to get something back from Arlin Close confirming that they would do that? It's not long gone so I'm assuming there will be a response so I'll ask Liz to chase just to get one, yeah. Okay. That was on page 8. Matters rising, page 9. Page 10. Just to say this is the terms of reference. We agreed them at the last meeting, the terms of reference for this committee, the renewed terms of reference. They went to council on the 14th of May. I watched the debate or the discussion. I think the monitoring officer spelt out our role in it admirably and I thought there was a warm welcome for the work of the committee from the leader of the council and the terms of reference were accepted so I thought that as members you should be aware of that. Nigel Rudd. Yeah, thank you chair. I was going to pick up on terms of reference. Yes. There is an issue it seems to me about advocacy for GAC that the chair of the GAC is not a member of council and not a member of cabinet and therefore championing the issues and debates at the electoral political level is something the committee might wish to consider further and I'm mindful that Gary did a sterling job in the council meeting itself but it might be that there needs to be a further discussion potentially about the role of the vice chair of this committee in relation to how advocacy is pursued on behalf of matters discussed in the committee. The particular point that I would raise, Gary, through you chair, was the last time I did and it is part of the muddled minute on page 11 talk about the ability of the cabinet member to serve on GAC as long as they were not the leader effectively in relation to that matter. Now that reference that I challenged last time remained in the paper to the council meeting and wasn't amended. It should have been amended in my view either to say the council has decided historically a decision not to have cabinet members on the GAC or some other wording, Gary, that anticipated that and it wasn't changed and I think that needs still to be addressed because council can always go back and alter its opinion as opposed to a statutory measure where it can't go back and alter a statutory measure. So I just draw that to your attention, Gary, I think, for further consideration outside of the meeting. The other point I thought Councillor Feeley spoke to this item well was the reference to section 114 and that I'm trying to, in my suggestion debate last time, to get to the ability to use the expectation that GAC, part of the role of GAC is to be mindful that it's there to act as a shield of protection around the decision making of the council and have one eye on the section 114 implications in order to avoid us ever ending up in the situation where we need to serve a section 114 notice. I don't see that as a negative and I did feel back from the county council debate or your comments into it that there was still an angst about referencing section 114. I mean I considered in the same way as we referenced sort of section 151 officer. We ought to be potentially more open and transparent about the implications. I agree entirely that the wording talks about the appropriate financial management and measures to be in place but I don't think we should be averse about referencing section 114 where we feel it is helpful to do so and at the end of the day it is up to this committee to determine how it fulfils its functions as set out in the measure. So I'll leave that to Gary to consider outside of the meeting convention. Do you want to respond at all now or do you want to respond outside the meeting? I'll respond outside the meeting so Liz and I have discussed it and came to a conclusion but I'm happy to discuss it again and maybe myself and Liz can get back to Nigel in respect to that specifically. And it can't be the vice chair myself. Yes it will. Thank you. OK. That was on page 11. Just going back to page 10, the paragraph that's carried over at the top, it has a reference, sorry, it has a bearing on the performance self-assessment that we're considering under item 7 today. But it says, and this is in respect to, this is still under the terms of reference, it says there's a sentence partway through that paragraph, it says the final self-assessment would not be presented at the governance and audit committee if council had not adopted any recommendations made for an explanation as to why that decision had been made. If the final self-assessment report and the governance and audit committee recommendations were approved by council, the final report would be presented to governance and audit committee for information. I'm not quite sure. I think that's wrong. Yes. So the issue is that if the council did not accept recommendations, then I think we would bring a report back to you. But if it had just accepted all those recommendations or there were no recommendations to accept, then the final version would just be provided to you for information because you already would have seen it. But just to clarify, I was going to raise this when we come to item 7, but it seems happened at the right time to raise it now, that when it comes to the actual self-performance assessment which will be carried out this autumn, I think there's a specific requirement in law then that if we make a recommendation, the council, if they don't agree with that recommendation, they must give a written explanation as to why. The panel assessment in the autumn, yes, there is some statutory choreography about where it goes and when it has to come back, yes. Okay. I'll probably raise that again under item 7. I just want to clarify something else with it there. All right. We're going through the matters arising with the minutes, page 10. Yes, Paul. Page 10, Chair, if I may. Yes. The penultimate bullet point at the bottom, the question was about whether new terms of reference would cover the agenda items, and it goes on to talk about to see if there were any gaps. For completeness, I'd like to suggest it should be also to see if there's any apparent misdirection as it were with other committees, i.e. is there anything that this committee's done over the past three years that actually it shouldn't. Thanks. There's ongoing work done by officers. I don't know if Bob wants to come in on that but it's something that they're going to raise under the forward work programme under item 11, but we've talked about how the work of this committee needs better to fit in with the cycle of meetings in the council, and I think work is ongoing on that, is it not, Bob? Yes. A piece of work has already been done, so we've gone through the last four and a half years of the Gunms and Audit Committee, and we've got a spreadsheet together now of all the meetings that have taken place in this committee, and once I know the council's arrangements for the new forward work programme, we will slot everything in and share it with the chair and vice-chair initially. That was page 10, page 11, that is arising, page 12. Nigel Rudd, you've got a hand up? Yeah, thank you, chair. I had anticipated raising some matters on page 11 and 12 in regard to the medium-term financial strategy and similar. I have received a very helpful update from Liz, respectively, and I think she may be attending later in the meeting. My view would be if Liz is in attendance later in the meeting, there may be an opportunity to just reflect one or two of those comments. If she isn't, then I think it would be helpful to say to Liz or to ask Liz to circulate the information to all members of the committee that she's personally sent to me overnight, so I'd just rest that, chair, for you to perhaps pick up later in the meeting, depending on the appearance of Liz. I understand that Liz will be joining us later in the meeting, because I think the monitoring officer has to leave. Yeah, sorry, I should have said at the beginning under apologies, I've got to leave the electoral commissioner doing a round of meetings with local authorities, and ours is at midday today, so I have to go to that. Liz didn't have any reports on this agenda, so was not going to attend, but is going to come down in time for me to go to the election meeting, so that one of us is always here. If we want to come back to some of these questions arising from the minutes, how do we go that

how do we go about that, Gary, because we want to go on to other agenda items now? I think there's probably not an appropriate way to do it under the agenda. Perhaps if Liz were to circulate the information that she's provided to Nigel, that might be the best way of doing it, otherwise we're going off-gender. You're the chair, so if you wanted to pack something and bring it back later on the agenda, you could. I prefer to keep to the agenda myself, but we'll just see. When we get to item 11, which is the work programme, we'll see what position and what the time is there. Liz has actually provided a written answer to Nigel, and I think she's copied myself. I just got it just before the meeting opened this morning, so I don't see any reason why that can't be copied to other members, but we'll see what the state of play is at the end of item 11 and raise it then, I think. That's the best thing. Item 11, page 11, page 12, page 13, 14, 15. Something I was going to raise, Gary, on page 15 was the third paragraph down, the role of scrutiny in the budget-setting process for both revenue and capital to be assessed, and the section 151 officer confirmed she would be attending the scrutiny chairs and vice-chairs group in May. Since Liz is going to come to the meeting, this is also raised on the performance assessment as well, so if Liz is here for that, I was going to raise that under that. I think it would be useful when we're discussing the terms of reference of this committee, what's come up several times as being what's our role in terms of the process for financial planning as opposed to the detailed scrutiny of decision-making, and that's going to go to -- there's a meeting of the scrutiny chairs and vice-chairs group, and they've decided to take -- there's going to be a shift in emphasis there. Yes, you may want to ask Liz this, but the position is we went to scrutiny chairs and vice-chairs group, and in respect to the budget, they agreed to Liz's recommendation, so the report that came to you at the last meeting on the medium-term financial plan and strategy and the sort of financial resilience test, that all went to performance scrutiny at their last meeting. I go to that, I think it was last week. It was last Thursday, and they've agreed that that will be the cycle, so it will go to performance scrutiny on the same cycle that it comes to you. In terms of the transformation programme, scrutiny have also agreed that there are three themes or three work streams within that programme, and they've agreed to allocate items as they come up under those work streams across the three scrutiny committees, so we have a way forward in respect to that. Any comments from members on that? Okay, we're just trying to keep it informed what's going on there, so -- okay, so that's page 15, page 16, page 17, and page 18. Okay, so we've -- I think the recommendation is that we receive the minutes of the Governor's Order Committee meeting held on the 24th of April, 2024, so we've looked at the accuracy of that, we've looked at any matters arising, so taking account of what's been said there. Can I have a proposer to accept the minutes of the Governor's Order Committee? All with him? Can I have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Holliday, they got my name wrong, so I'll get your name wrong as well, so -- oh, all in favour? Thank you. Thank you. I see our colleagues, our officer colleagues from strategic planning and performance here, we've actually reached the agenda, I think you're aware of it, so we're going to have, say, item 10 now, which is the Internal Audit -- External Audit Assessment from the 15th of April, 2024, so I think Bob Chowdhury, assuming he's going to audit it, is going to give a brief summary of this, and we've got Alex Jenkins here, who we've worked with more than before, who's online there, Baradar, good morning, Alex, from the Keradigian Council, and so I think she's going to be able to answer any questions as well that we might have. Bob, thank you. Well, Dara, good morning, everybody, thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. Right then, obviously, this is the first of three reports I'm bringing to this committee. The Internal Audit -- External Audit Assessment was carried out by Alex Jenkins from Keradigian Council. It was agreed by the Welsh Chief Auditor Group many years ago that these inspections would be done on a peer basis, and obviously, every five years, the assessment takes place. We change the assessors each time, so five years ago, Leonard from Gwynedd was our assessor. This year, Alex has done the assessment. It was due to take place in '23. It took place back in '23 due to work commitments for myself, firstly. We had a few special investigations, and then when we could meet with Alex, she then took the baton off me and she had a couple investigations with the Keradigian. So we managed to do it over Christmas and in the New Year. The report was presented to us in February and March. Alex interviewed or spent time with myself and Samantha Davies, my Principal Auditor. She also met with our Chair Dave Stewart and our Vice-Mark Young to ask their opinions. It's a fair report. I have to say, you know, some of the issues that Alex has raised, we hold our hands up, we've taken our eye off the ball, myself and Samantha, and we accept the outcomes happily. As you can see, 45, we complied with the public section to the audit standards. Six, we partially conformed and there were five non-conformants. Part of the review at the end was to go through an action plan with Alex. We've completed the action plan with Alex and I noticed when I looked at this report, you don't get the full action plan. You've only had parts of the action plan, so you can't see where we're up to on each of the timescales. So I won't go through the 11, but if you wish, I will circulate the actual report with the completed action plan on so your members are aware of where we're up to on each of them. That's all I'd like to say. I'd like to bring in Alex now if she wants to add anything else. Thank you very much for the invitation to attend the meeting this morning. A quick highlight. So like Bob mentioned, the assessment is based on the public sector internal audit standards, which were effective in 2013. So the assessment that we carried out was essentially a desktop review and that was of the self-assessment of your internal audit function. Bob and Samantha completed the self-assessment and we completed an independent validation of that assessment whilst also looking at supporting documentation and supporting evidence. Bob also mentioned that we met with the chair and the deputy chair of the Governance and Audit Committee and that was to cover off additional areas in the assessment to cover off the standards. Again, we've got the purpose of the external assessment. It's essentially to improve the delivery of the audit service in the organisation so the efficiencies and effectiveness of processes in place. It's a supportive process where we can identify opportunities of improvement and as Bob mentioned, we've had conversations since then on suggested areas that could be improved on how to go about those and that adds value to the function of the internal audit service. As Bob mentioned, we have generally conformed to the public sector internal audit standards. That's the level of assurance that was provided. 45 areas were conformed with the standards, 6 partial conformants and there were 5 areas non-conformants. So I'll go through those in a little bit of more detail, a bit of a highlighted version, but I welcome any questions thereafter. So a few of the areas that we picked up, particularly the non-conformants, they are fairly easy to rectify to give you some assurance over those. So the main areas were regarding the quality assurance and improvement programme. There was no official quality assurance and improvement programme or up-to-date so the quality assurance or QAIP that's reported to you was based on the external quality assessment five years ago. So fairly historic and not up-to-date with any changes in conformance to the standards. Again, once this report is reported to you that the outcomes can go into a QAIP, be reported to the Governance and Audit Committee, essentially that has been actioned. So other areas that we picked up with the does not conform then were to do with instances of non-conformance being reported to the Board, so Senior Management and the Governance and Audit Committee. Again, as I mentioned, that is being reported to you now. Bob can give you any further assurance on where it has been reported and in a sense that then demonstrates conformance to the standards, the fact that it's been reported. The partial areas, so there were minor amendments required in a few documents. So the Internal Audit Charter, it doesn't currently outline the specific responsibilities of the Governance and Audit Committee in relation to the internal audit function. Again, this is something it can be updated at the next Internal Audit Charter review. It also states that the Chief Internal Auditor reports functionally to the Head of Finance and Audit. The standards recommend that or set out that the Chief Internal Auditor should report administratively to an officer within the organisation and would report functionally to the Governance and Audit Committee. Having discussions with Bob and with the Chair and Deputy Chair, it was confirmed that that is the actual relationship, hence why it's a partial rather than the does not conform. It would just be an amendment to the Charter to set that out clearly. Another area was proficiency in due professional care. Bob was very upfront in the fact that there's a few new members of the team and the competency and training requirements. You know, it's not – it doesn't meet standards, but they are all new members that are on training programmes again, which is why it was a partial rather than a does not conform. Further areas then, so the Internal Audit Plan. Although the plan from conversations with Bob is a risk-based plan, there was no documented evidence or documented risk assessment in place to evidence how the areas were prioritised and in the plan on a risk basis. So for us to be able to evidence that, again, hence why it was a partial rather than a does not conform, the strategy and the plan did state that it was on a risk basis and there was evidence of corporate risks within the Internal Audit Plan as well. There were two audits, as I mentioned, in the Internal Audit Plan that aligned to critical corporate risks. So that again supported the fact that it was a risk-based plan. The next section then is on risk management. So this is with regards to the internal audit function. As it's a risk-based plan, we would expect there would have been an assessment on the council's risk management framework and risk management process in place to be able to place assurance on that in order to base the plan on the corporate risks. There hasn't been a review or an up-to-date review on the council's risk management framework and function to be able to place assurance in those areas on the Internal Audit Plan. Again, this is a partial because a lot of the work is risk-based. So you can do that, but there wasn't any documented evidence or an internal audit review of the effectiveness and robustness of the risk management function. The last section that I'm going to cover off with you is regarding the internal audit manual. So this was a minor amendment required really. In all honesty, when we'd had our external quality assessment, we had the same thing. So this was where there are errors or omissions in audit reports. From discussion with Bob, any errors or amendments would be updated and reports would be reissued with all the correct information to all parties who received the original documentation. However, the internal audit manual didn't set this out as a necessity for all members within the function. So again, fairly minor amendment to the audit manual. However, in conformance with the standards, it would be a partial, although that is the process that they work on through verbal confirmation. There wasn't anything in the manual to evidence that. So that's it with the recommendations. Like I said, there was 11 of those. I've covered the partials and the does not conform. I welcome any questions if there are any. Thank you. Thanks, Alex. Thanks for the presentation there. And thanks also for the actual work itself and it's been done most thoroughly. And I often say, I've said that this committee several times that I regard together with our external audit colleagues, but internal audit of very much this committee's ears and eyes as to what's really going on there. And I just find it reassuring that internal audit conforms to the standards set out. Yes, I know Bob and Alex has set -- Bob has thrown his hands up to a few things there and Alex has set them out. But I think we need to see those in the context of what's stated in the report there. It says there that the internal audit service generally conforms with the requirements and generally conforms reflects the highest level of conformance following an external assessment. So I think we need to see the recommendations in that context. I think just to remind everybody, this is -- I think I'm right, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an assessment against the internal audit standards set -- the public sector internal audit standards for all authorities in the United Kingdom. And they derive from international or internal auditing standards. I think ultimately set by the global Institute of Internal Auditing. Is that right, Bob? That is correct, yeah. Bit of a mouthful. Yeah. There's a lot more big words there which I can't get out now, but just to say that this is a global thing here. So I think we need to see the -- what's been said against that context really. I think it's easy to take internal audit for granted. So I think as well as thank you, Alex, I think also the fact that there's general conformance there, I think the committee should acknowledge that and give its thanks to Bob and the internal audit team as well. I think that should be minitied myself. They're not perfect unlike the rest of us, but they really make -- they basically, from what this says, they're doing a good job. So any questions or comments from members on this? I've got a few myself, but Ellie Chard? Yes. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Alex and Bob. Page 213 in Agenda Number 10. Basically, I was pleased to read about the partnership working with other auditors and also the effective partnership working arrangements with other local authorities. And I just thought I'd raise that because I was very pleased to know. Okay, it's just a comment, Chair, but I just thought it was well worth mentioning. Thank you. Thank you. Nigel Rudd? Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Alex. Some questions on this I have which maybe Alex and Bob can respond to. I thought it was a good read. I thought the referencing to implementing the Quality Assurance Improvement Program implementation was good and positive and comes through clearly in the report. Underneath much of what is being said here, I think there remains sort of capacity issues across audit, and generally not only within this council but potentially across other areas. I'd value a view from you, Alex and Bob, as necessary in relation to where this authority sits when benchmarking its performance against others in Wales, and secondly, whether there are consistent challenges that face those authorities across Wales regarding the ability to recruit and retain staff in key roles in this area. As part of this reflects those challenges that I know this authority is facing, Bob has done well for this team to address them, but I anticipate there may be common issues to other areas. So I value some feedback on that as my first comment. Thank you for that question. Nigel, yes, you're quite right. When we benchmark, I think an exercise was done about 18 months ago where we looked at the 22 authorities and the makeup of the teams, and you are correct. Across Wales, it's very difficult at the moment to recruit internal audit staff. There's a shortage of staff available. Within the makeup of Wales, Denbyshire sits probably middle in most areas. We have a team of six members, and that again is probably sitting middle of Cardiff down to some of the smaller places like Anglesey that only has three members in the team. So we sit in the middle there. Pay-wise, we pay middle of the road again, so we sat nice and firm in the middle. Qualification-wise, we are lower than a lot of Wales because I've taken on three new career pathway auditors in the last 18 months, and my principal auditor, Samantha, she's on a career pathway. So yes, professional-wise, we are slightly lower down the rankings, but I think other than that, we hold our own in most areas. I don't know if Alex wants to mention anything else? No, I would just support Bob's comments, to be honest. In all honesty, I would say Caradigon is very similar to Denbyshire. There are two networking groups that I'm part of, and Bob is as well. He may be involved in more as well. So we've got the All Wales Chief Auditors Group, and then we have the North and Mid Wales Audit Partnership. And just to, if it gives you any assurance, it's a very common question around staffing. Although in Caradigon we are staffed to full complement, it's the qualification, so I have two people currently studying for the Certified Internal Audit qualification. That being said, again, I support Bob's comments with the benchmarking. I assume Bob reports the benchmarking stats to you as well. I normally include that into my annual report to give some weight to what we're producing as well, given the challenges. But yes, it's very much the recruitment, the retaining staff as well is an issue. But I would support Bob's comments around the benchmarking where we lie. It is quite useful to see against services with possibly a greater budget, with a larger number of staff, what they're producing. But those that are similar, similar sized authorities, similar number of staff seem to be on a par with what we produce as well. I'm grateful for that, Chair. Can I just ask a supplementary to Alex and Bob? When looking at capacity issues across councils, one of the measures or the opportunities there is to work in collaboration or in partnership or in shared service delivery, sharing internal audit services across several councils, for example. But fundamentally, the issue is one of, if you haven't got the right numbers to begin with, actually sharing them doesn't necessarily address the cause of the issue. I'm mindful that Wales sit in on these discussions as well. Is there actually a problem here about getting the right numbers in at the right level into audit work at a much lower level so that you bring them through, so that you're not all fishing for the same fish in a very small pool, which is what seems to me to be underlying some of the ability to recruit to audit work? Am I reasonably accurate in that? Or are you going to say, Oh, no, Nigel, there's something totally different that you've forgotten about? I think one of the issues, Nigel, is the fact that obviously when we went through the pandemic, people started working from home. And now, as we've come out of the pandemic, people still have that option to work from home. So people now could actually live in North Wales and work for one of the London councils because you're only asked to go in one or two days in a London council. So that has put an effect on our recruitment abilities. But I think the way forward for Demershire has been to recruit at the lower level. As you quite rightly said, we've got people in now on a career pathway so that they can come in and over four to five years, they can become fully qualified internal auditors in their own right. And that's the way I see Demershire growing their own is ideal. If Alex has got anything else to say? No, again, agree, Bob. With your comments, there has been a conversation in the North and Mid Wales, and I think we encroached onto the Welsh Chief Auditors Group about the consideration for sharing services. But Nigel, you're correct in your points, you know, if we don't have enough people on the ground anyway, expecting them to then go up and cover another authority, however, you know, you're possibly exacerbating the problem then because then you've got to consider travelling time, expenses, whether you can do effective audits online with those, you know, in different services, but also the knowledge of how different authorities work as well. So it could exacerbate the problem. It's that whether it's going to provide any benefit or not, when you don't have, you know, it would probably work if there was one standout authority that couldn't recruit. But seeing as though it is a common thing, it could be exacerbating the problem or not achieving anything. Thank you both very much. Could I just come back in? One point I think is worth mentioning, Nigel, is within the North Wales Audit Group and the All Wales Group, we do talk about common themes, common audits, and we do share working papers, which is really useful. So the scoping documentation, the working papers, so we're not reinventing the wheel, and that does speed up some of the work we do in North Wales. Thank you. I see Councillor Arrowell, Robert said he's handed, but since then I see Charles Rigby from Audit Wales has put his hand up. So, Charles, do you mind me asking, did you want to come up on the same point or…? Yeah, just to respond to Nigel's point there, I think it is a sector-wide issue. Audit Wales runs an apprenticeship and a trainee scheme to essentially respond to that risk, because it is quite challenging, particularly as, you know, as Bob's outlined, you know, to compete with the ability to work from home and obviously potentially work for the Big Four, etc., while still living in more pleasant areas, you know, in the countryside, etc. So that is a real risk. We mitigate that risk or attempt to by providing a graduate training scheme and an apprenticeship scheme. We have around 50 people win those two schemes at one time, and that's going to increase in the short term. And as part of that scheme, there is an opportunity for Secundis to go and work in other public sector bodies. I'm sure you, as you'll appreciate, it's unusual for that to be councils because of the Order General's independence, but that does sometimes involve working for central government bodies such as the DVLA and others like that. So we're, as we train up our recruits, we also try to support the wider public sector as best we can within the limitations of the Order General's independence. But I think, as Alex and Bob have already articulated, there is a real challenge in terms of recruitment into the audit sector. Thanks, Jack. Thank you. Councillor Alwell-Roberts. Thank you very much. It's lovely to see Cara de Guillen Council being shown on the screen. Thank you very much, Alex. As I completed my high school education, my further education in Cara de Guillen, a question from you. How many of you work in your department and how does the education or the training, how does it, is it completed for, how is it completed for your staff to catch up with the work that needs to be done? Probably four per cent. From my department, we have myself and five other internal auditors. So I have myself, principal auditor, three career pathways and an auditor. And I'm not sure if Alex wants to share her team with you. We're a similar size team. So it's myself, we've got an audit manager, senior auditor and two auditors. I think, Councillor Roberts, was it to do with how up to date the training plans were with each of your members of the team, Bob, I think? Training plan. Thank you, Alex. My team training plans, obviously I've got my principal auditor who's finishing off ILM4, which is a management qualification, which should be completed by the end of this year. And she's going back to doing her Institute of Internal Auditors certified qualifications. She's part qualified in that. I have one senior auditor who will have been with me by the end of this year, two years, she is going to start her internal and Institute of Internal Auditors exams. And then I've got two of the career pathways who had just completed their first level of the Association of Accounting Technicians exams. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Can I just ask a question, Bob, on the training, one of the points that has come out of this as on the standard 1210, proficiency in due professional care, says the council should significantly support the internal audit function in achieving its required qualifications for proficiency as soon as possible. Don't take this the wrong way, but how are we not doing that? The council are supporting us. I mean, obviously in January 23 when we put an advert out to recruit, they also said put two adverts out, career pathway and senior auditor, and see how many applications you get. So obviously our HR department was superb. They supported me throughout that process. Obviously we didn't get anyone from a senior auditor application form, but we had several career pathways and they've supported us through. They've helped me put training plans in place. So the training plans are there. And obviously budget is in place so that when we have to pay for the different levels of training, the money's there to be used at the right time. So personally I feel the council has supported us. So since we've only got partial confirmation on that, partial conformance on that, what do we have to, I'm not quite sure, just on this one, what we have to do to get full conformance? Well, we've got partial because obviously I'm a fully qualified SIPA accountant. Then after that, my team haven't really got the qualification. So you've got Samantha who's part qualified in IAA certified, and then you've got Sonia who's equivalent of AAT qualified. And then obviously the other two have never worked in finance before, so they are doing the association of account technicians first. So what is the reason for part qualification? So the council, it's really saying the council needs to continue to do what we're doing and supporting. Yes. Okay. Any other questions from members on this? Just a few points from myself if I may, please. You're going to, Bob, as far as progress on these points, you're going to come back to us when and how? Probably after six months I will put in my quarterly report. So it will be the September and November when the quarterly update is due. I'll put an extra couple of paragraphs in to let you know where we're up to and probably share with you the action plan again. But I will share the action plan at the end of this meeting via email so you can all see where we're up to because I appreciate, because I put it in landscape, it's been cut out. Okay. On the point about risk management, it says it's not clear how the prioritisation or the remainder of the audit work included in the internal audit plan aligns to the organisation's goals and corporate risks. I think it would be good to come back to us, how are you going to go about this in the future? You know, it might come up in the other report we've got today under item 9. I don't think we can go into this now for time wise, but I'd like to know personally how you're going to go about that. I just, out of interest, I think it would be useful for this committee to know how the planned internal audit work, the reasons for including things in the plan there, I think it would be good and maybe the basis of a future workshop. And following on from that, the point there about the actual, the specific point about risk management, I see that and I think from the other report there's an audit of risk management about to begin. Could that not include some of the points about risk management raised from this report? Yeah, when we started the risk management review in March, we've taken on board some of the comments that Alex has made and we've looked at the risk process this time round, so it covers a lot of Alex's issues that we had. We'd fallen behind on the risk management, obviously in January 23 there was myself a senior and an auditor of a team of six, so we didn't quite complete the plan that year and risk management dropped behind. When Alex came, risk management was on the plan, but again it was done at the very end, so Alex didn't see what work we were doing. I actually appreciate that we were about to start it. So yeah, the work's completed now and I think the actual report will be finalised in the next week I believe, so hopefully this time next week you'll be getting a copy of the report so you can see what we've done. Excellent. And the last point from me was the point was raised about the council's effectiveness at managing the risk of fraud. I've said this before, it's a concern that I have in that I think there's a tendency, probably not unique to Denbyshire, to interpret what appears to be a low incidence of known fraud that equates to a low risk of fraud. I don't think the two things are the same and I'm pleased that that's in the assessment here. I just wondered how we're going to go about that. Again, perhaps it's something to come back to us on rather than give an answer now, but it's just generally I see that the, because this is talking about how internal audit work is based on, takes account of corporate risks. Corporate risk 31 is fraud and corruption, which has got an inherent score, it's got an AMBER inherent score of major, AMBER which is C2 major, and it's got a residual score of E2 which is moderate, which means the risk rare but high impact, and so the risk has been reviewed and updated. So perhaps in one of the next reports, you could actually come back and say how the work you're going to do in response to fraud risk and how that equates and links into the mitigation of the corporate risk. I can start to answer that now if you want to, sure. Yes, please. So North Wales, we've been looking for 12 months at an online learning platform for corruption, fraud, bribery. We've looked at two or three options and we've now, last week I met with I think all of North Wales and we had a presentation from the company. Presentation was good. It covers all the areas of fraud, risk, corruption we need to look at. So I've agreed that I need to go on with whoever else, I mean myself and this morning a couple of authorities have shown an interest or expressed an interest, so we are now going to look at bringing that platform to Demershire. There is a cost to the online learning package but it will be worth it and that's my first approach because obviously all staff members, lay members need to be able to go on to the e-learning, do the e-learning, then they'll understand a bit more about fraud corruption and then our next step would be then to look at our policy procedures and update them in line with the training that we're providing. So over the next 12, 18 months all staff should go on an e-learning training session and that will be the first stage of improving Demershire's awareness. Thank you. You mentioned lay members, so is there any training for members, I think particularly well not just lay members but I think members of this committee would like to be specifically involved in that, maybe something specifically on counter-fraud. Well it will be rolled out to all members and lay members as well because I wouldn't want the three lay members on this committee and the other lay members in the council to miss the opportunity. I think we'll come back in the future during the course of the year, so it's just as I say I'm not suggesting for a moment that there's a huge problem with fraud in Demershire but just because we don't know about it, it doesn't know it's not there and internal fraud and external fraud as well. Okay the recommendation on this report is that we consider the actions contained within the internal audit, external quality assessment and monitor progress to complete the actions and fully conform. So can I have a proposer for that please? I propose. How's that R. W. Roberts? Can I have a seconder please? Ellie Chard. All in favour? Okay. Again thank you very much Alex and thank you very much Bob and the team, so thank you. Right everyone will go and now on back to item seven which is the council's performance self-assessment 2023 to 2024. I'm not sure who's going to present this but I can see yes, sorry, Councillor Ellis is going to give the presentation but just welcome also Helen Vaughan Evans, Eola McGregor and Hermit Horan. So welcome to the meeting. I should say we said before you came in it's Eola's last day with Demershire today so we wish him all the best, thank you for all the support he's given us. We did say it earlier on but we're saying it again now. So I don't know, okay Councillor Ellis are you going to? Thank you. Thank you very much Chair. So this is 2023-24 self-assessment performance assessments in front of you. This gives us a picture of the progress that we've made and the challenges that we face with our performance aims, i.e. themes in the corporate plan. This document is essential to help us to reflect on our performance as a council and how to plan for the future. So thank you very much to Eola and to Emma and Helen and the rest of the team who've been working on this report. This is a very important report for us as a council. It's a live document so it can change and we're working on this document before we go to the council in July to be approved for approval. It's already been discussed by the senior management team and the cabinet and it has been in front of the performance scrutiny committee as well. And there are some changes that have already been outlined and the officers will be able to explain those to you later on. We are a mature council and these documents reflect that, but the performance has to be seen in the context of the restricted budget that we have currently. There are some items that do actually flag up as red in the report but that doesn't mean that we're not working on them. Maybe there are things that are working more slowly because of finance available but we don't want to be less ambitious because of that. We will be reviewing the corporate plan regularly in light of this and maybe Helen would want to expand on that as well. We will see that the report gives detail of the assessments by a peer panel assessment and this will add to the self-assessment that we do. We will invite a panel to give a view on our performance and our governance. This will be the first such panel for us and one of the first in Wales since this new duty to do this has been introduced and again officers will be able to give you more detail. So thank you very much chair, I'd like to now ask Helen to take over. Thank you. We want to give plenty of time for questions, so we're going to assume that people have read the report. It is a way to report but it is an important one and it covers everything it needs to as part of the Local Government Elections Act. I just wanted to draw the committee attention to the recommendations, so my recommendation 3.1 is asking you to consider the report and agree any further actions required to respond to performance related issues. I just want to draw your attention to 4.4 in the cover report which kind of gives you the areas that have been picked up by the strategic planning team and also which have been added to through the process which Gwyneth is just taking you through where this paper has gone and I'll just bring in Emma just at the end of when I'm doing the additional intro to take you through the fact that there's now six improvement activities that is proposed and she'll narrate those for you. As I say, as Gwyneth says, this is a live document and the paper deadlines for this committee came after the tweak of it being six improvement activities, not the five now. They're predominantly the same, there's just one addition to reassure committee. The other recommendation is around the panel peer assessment, so it was just to remind committee that you don't have a statutory role in reviewing and agreeing the scope of that panel peer assessment. Your statutory role comes after reviewing the report after the events happened, but we just wanted to give you the opportunity to have a look. Again, just to confirm roles and responsibilities. Just to say a massive thank you to officers, a massive piece of work that's done each year and it is high quality and chair just echoing my thanks to Jolla who this is his last day and this is his last committee, so it's great that it's GAC. Absolutely just picking up on Gwyneth's point, we are a learning organisation, we've got quite a mature attitude with regard to that, so all of our documents including our corporate plan is reviewed iteratively, change is delivered iteratively and actually the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act asks us to review our wellbeing objectives annually anyway and we'll continue to do that and that's actually one of the final, the sixth improvement action that's been identified. So if I just hand over to Emma to take you through those six and then we'll open it up to the floor. Yep, so as Helen mentioned this is live documents up until we present them to full council in July for approval. So following discussions that have taken place to date, four of the ones that were listed in 4.4 remain the same. Following discussion about the Sustainable Transport Plan, our original recommendation or, not recommendation sorry, improvement activity in the self-assessment was to consider the barriers and consider whether to pause or stop. Following discussions, that's now been updated to say that follow an agreement and to allow the council to focus on the development of the Regional Transport Plan, close the Sustainable Transport Plan project and amend the commitment with our corporate plan. So basically the improvement activity is going to say to stop the local Sustainable Transport Plan to allow us to focus on that regional one and update the corporate plan accordingly. So that's a tweak to what was the third bullet point. We've added an additional improvement activity now following discussions and engagement around these reports to keep corporate plan commitments and performance expectations under continual review in the context of the present financial environment. So in summary there are six. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Just to say before I throw it open to members' questions, there's a tremendous amount of work here but it strikes me, as I said before when we saw the assessment last year, it's very candid. I think it doesn't gloss over anything. I think it gives an honest assessment both positive and negative in places. It strikes me it's been done in such a way and I think this is really important to note. We have to do this but this hasn't been done because we have to do it. It's been done because we believe in it. It's central to the way the Council runs. Overall, as I say, I find the report to be candid and impartial in highlighting success but also in setting up problems in a frank way. Naturally, exercises of this scope and size means that members of this committee, I'd be surprised if they don't have some questions. I certainly have some questions. But I think they need to be seen within the context of what I've just said there. Just, Helen, just to reconfirm, I'm just setting this up. This is being reported to us now because we think it's good practice and it enables us to put any recommended changes to the Council meeting in July. But when the panel self-assessment is done in September, a report will be coming back then and then that's where the Local Government Elections Act kicks in there where we can make, as I was saying before, that's where we can make recommendations. And if we do make a recommendation and the Council chooses not to accept that recommendation, then they have to include that explanation in their, an explanation for not doing so in their final report. Is that right? Have I got that the right way round? We don't think so. We think it's the other way around. So we, so our understanding of the legislation is that it's in the self-assessment, which is the report you're seeing this morning, that the committee, this committee can make recommendations to the report. The organisation will then incorporate those recommendations. If they don't incorporate any of the recommendations from GAC, then we'd need to include that in the final version of the self-assessment report on reasons why. So that's the self-assessment report that you're seeing today. Then the panel peer assessment, which happens once every political term, that's our understanding of this legislation is that that is the report that you will receive. You can read the report, you can read the response from cabinet. So it's cabinet who responds to that panel peer assessment, and you can make recommendations, but it's in terms of your particular, you know, it needing to be in the narrative if we, if the organisation don't incorporate a recommendation, that's a part of the self-assessment, which you're seeing today. I asked the question, I was foolish enough to delve into the act itself. And I know for me as a lay person, reading an act of parliament is dangerous. That's why we have lawyers. But section 93 of the, this is from, quote, part six, section one, sorry, part six, chapter one, section 93 of the local government elections act. It says duty of principal council to respond to the report of panel performance assessment, which is why I said what I did. But that's, is that, when it says the panel performance assessment, I was assuming that's the thing that's going to take place in September as outlined in it, appendix four. Then it goes on to say the government and audit committee must review the draft response and make any recommendation for changes to the statement made in the draft under subsection two. The council, if the council does not make the change recommended by the GAC, the council must set out in response to the reasons why it didn't make the change. That's why I said what I said. So you think I've got that the wrong way around. I'm not arguing. I just want to be clear. We can look at it. I'll bring in Jolla, but we're, we're expecting to also include whether it's in the legislation or not. Also the same kind of guys for our self assessment document, which you're seeing today, but I'll bring in Jolla who's Yes, I'm the resident legislation nerd here for this, but the, as Helen has outlined correctly, your role in the self assessment is to review the report and to make recommendations upon it where necessary. You have the same hours with the panels report that will come in September. And just to assure you that's all been programmed in your forward work program already. So I think you will be seeing that response in November or December at the end of the year. Thank you. Okay. That, that, that, that makes it perfectly clear. Thank you. So we've often said members, uh, you know, we've said how we've been reviewing our work program to make sure we can feed into things. This is where a specific opportunity for us to feed into things. So our, our views can be heard and recommendations can be made. Um, I think members, what we'll do, cause it's quite a length report. If we were to throw it open now, I think we're going to jump all over the place here. So what I'm going to do, uh, we'll take it section by section. So, uh, there's five stages of this. Uh, we'll look at any questions that you have regarding the O anything in the overall cover report and any overall points. And then, uh, we'll look at the, uh, the different appendices on the report there. The, um, appendix one, the, uh, executive summary, uh, any questions on that, that's the self-assessment performance 2023 to 2024. And then, uh, appendix two, which is the, uh, corporate plan performance update, uh, October to March, 2024, and then the service performance challenges 2023 to 20, 20, 20, 2024, which is an appendix three. And then anything on the panel performance assessment of 2024, which is an appendix four, uh, just a minor niggle. This is a very, very bulky report. And I understand this, the nature of the beast, but could we try to have it in future? Just a little more navigable, uh, the, the appendices, although I could find them that when you get there, it doesn't say appendix one or appendix two, it does for appendix four and maybe think about trying to include internal hyperlinks in the document. So you can toggle back and forth without going back into on, on, on your screen. It's just a minor niggle, but it's a big report. A lot of work has gone into it, but so just, uh, um, just that I should say that. Uh, so, uh, taking the first stage first, please, uh, the overall cover report at any overall points, are there any questions from members on this you'd indicate by raising a hand, please? Anything up the size of the port night? Nigel Rudd. Thank you. Thank you chair. My first reaction, a bit like yours, this is 140 page bulk of reports, maybe aren't drowned by words and paper by the end. You've done remarkably well and it's difficult to follow. And I felt somewhat cold reading it and it's actually quite an important report and issue. So, so there's a bit of me, the first set of questions from me to yourselves, um, Ellen and Yolo in particular are about is, is, is the methodology of reporting like this, a requirement of the legislation, uh, or is it a, a practice approach that's being adopted by, uh, performance staff across various authorities? I'm just interested in terms of how much scope there is to all, to how we report, uh, on these types of matters, uh, during the course of the year. That's the first question. I've got two or three others that follow on. Thanks, Nigel. Um, I would say that the report that we've presented has been a bit of an evolving one. Um, you know, we've been developing these sorts of reports over many, many years now as a team and, um, we have adapted as we go and we always take the feedback that they're very lengthy and there's a lot in it and you know, how can we make it more digestible? And, and as a team, all I can say is that we promised that we tried to do that. And I think actually this report, um, we did make a special effort again to sort of reduce a lot of the narrative around new stories that we present. Um, but at the same time, we do have to present a balanced picture. So we're also responding to an awful lot of, um, expectations on us from our regulators, internal and external. Um, the wellbeing future generations office looks at this, the equality and human rights commission looks at this, you know, it's a very, um, heavy hitting report in terms of the legislation that it needs to satisfy satisfies at least three acts. Um, so it, it, it, there's not much room for us to hide really in terms of what we put forward. Now we could cut out all the narrative and just give you the data, but I suspect that wouldn't go very well down very well. You know, um, we're trying to make it as accessible as we can in many different ways. Um, I think what I say to members is you don't have to read it all, read the bits you're interested in. Um, you know, that that's the sort of style of report that it is. And unsurprisingly as well, we are a big organization. There is a lot to say, you know, and actually we don't say it all either, you know, we've got to be a bit judicial in terms of what we put in. So we tend to stick to the work that has been discussed at committee. Um, the projects have progressed and, you know, we have, um, press releases and news stories on those. So we try to focus on what is readily available in terms of evidence. And that that's ultimately the key thing. We've got to have evidence behind all of our assertions. Does that answer the question? It doesn't that there isn't necessarily an easy answer through you chair, if I may on this, that, that, um, I mean, I, I looked at this and said, actually, if we take this report today, do we ordinarily need appendix four on the scope of the panel? We might've been able to drop that. Do we actually need appendix two potentially? Um, and you end up with sort of this focusing maybe on appendix three. I just raised on the basis of trying to work out whether there's, there is flexibility where we're very driven because I've watched the performance, uh, committee consideration of this. Um, and the chair even admitted to struggling to get his head around the item. I mean, we're trying as a public body to have information presented in a way that members of the authority and get their heads around what's in it, but also the public, any member of the public viewing will understand basically what is being said and where and how. And I think on, on this particular case, it is a challenge for us, um, to, to get to that position, but it, but I still think it needs more work, uh, around the way that the information is being presented. Um, there is, there is significant element of repetition, uh, about the same issue coming up several times during the course of the report in, in different spots, for example. And I like that, you know, in terms of tabulation of information and data, and our decisions need to be driven by data, which are those points that comes from later on. Um, some of the, some of the report is fine. I just, it, it, I still think it needs work and I don't have an answer for it. So I'm not saying there's a magic wand. I just think it, we should consider it a work in progress, but it needs to continue to be worked at in order to, to be progressed, I think, to a, to a better document. And that maybe needs to be fed back to those on high who require us to produce documentation like this on a regular basis. So that's my, my overall concern about the report, yeah. Thank you, Nigel. Can I suggest, I mean, as I say, this is not taking away from the, the, the, the work that's been done, anything like that, just as far as the presentation is concerned, can that be taken back as a comment to, for the council to consider that? I'm sure we're not alone in that. Emma, sorry. Yeah, thanks. No, we, we do understand Nigel and we feel it as a team. I just wanted to highlight the additional improvement action activity that we've added, which is to keep corporate plan commitments and performance expectations under continual review. It's because of what you're saying. We in February revise the corporate plan to try and address some of this, which it has to a certain extent. The nature of the organisation, what it does, what the corporate plan attempts to do is huge in scope. So it is challenging. And we do have a lot that we need to report on in terms of the seven governance areas, which are outlined in the Local Government Elections Wales Act. I think maybe what we need to do is go back as a team, reflect on it. I think appendix one is designed as the thing that we hope everybody reads. Appendix two is what we hope people dip into. But appendix two actually is really, really useful for us as a team. It's helpful for us to be able to take a more precise look at what's happening in areas like homelessness or housing, for example, and where we might need to focus a little bit more. But we accept and would agree, I think, with what you're saying, which is why I wanted to just highlight that additional sixth improvement activity that's been added. I'm glad you said about appendices one and two though, because I spent most on appendix one, but I didn't look at that much on appendix two. I thought broadly, I mean, I did glance through it, but broadly I thought this is more scrutiny stuff, you know, particular services and particular specific performance there. But it certainly does enable us to drill down if required. Yolam, sorry. Just to follow on from Emma, actually, the appendix two as well, I should say, we divvy it up and we take the relevant chapters to corporate plan boards. So it's a useful tool for them to see in their entirety how theme two is progressing or how theme three is progressing. And with appendix four, and perhaps I should apologise, this is a one-off, you know, you'll only see this this time, but it made sense that you saw it in conjunction with the self-assessment because the messages from one should inform the other, we would hope. But it was just a matter of courtesy that we've brought appendix four to you because I suspect that if we hadn't, you would have asked for it. Highly likely, yes. That's a, OK. Ellie Chard. Thank you, Chair, and I'm appreciating all the comments being made because of course I'm already also on performance scrutiny. I'm referring to appendices two. It's page 71 or 31 because I've just been checking my Denbyshire phone. I just want to know, I don't know whether or not I brought this up at scrutiny, but it's about the percentage of schools in the county using the public health, Wales, full school approach to mental health and wellbeing tool and I got a funny feeling I didn't raise it as scrutiny last week. Excuse me, it's benchmarked locally and can I say I want to know the reason why not all schools are using this tool. OK, so I just wondered, especially with all the, well, the health problems since Covid, it must be absolutely awful in the schools now. So I just thought I'd bring it up. Sorry, was that on page 71? Yeah, but on my phone, on my Denbyshire phone, it's either 71 or 31, but in appendix number two. Can we just park that question for the moment? Yeah, fine. That's all right. The question is if we're going through it stage by stage. I just wanted to focus on the And I wasn't sure where to raise it, so I thought I'd just raise it now. OK. We'll come back to that. I've made a note and someone's shouting me, if I forget, please, to bring Ellie back in on that. But I just wanted to focus on the, on the, anything covered by the cover report, any overall comments. Is there anything else, following up what Nigel said? I just really wanted to sort of place on record the fact that there's a huge amount of work that goes into this and, you know, officers do work very hard on this. And I, I know, because I've been part of some of the conversations about how do we make it as accessible as possible? How do we make it, not a fun read, but how, how do we make it something that not just for members, but as Nigel rightly points out, interested members of the public who want to do that. I think Emma's right to suggest that your starting point is that appendix one, because it gives you a flavour, it's not that long, appendix one. And then it signposts you effectively or it will pique your interest in the more detailed information that's available. I suppose the other thing to bear in mind is that this has a variety of audiences. So it goes to scrutiny, it comes here, it goes to cabinet, it goes to council. And if you like tailoring it for each of those different audiences is even more work. So that's why it comes in the format. It does, but we always take the feedback on board. The team's fantastic at trying to find new ways of doing stuff. So I'm sure that we'll continue to work on refining the presentation of it, but I just wanted to play some record. My thanks for the work that goes into it. Just one thing from a self please on the, on the report itself, the cover report, when it gives the reasons for the reporting to us, bearing in mind what we've said before, what Yolo was clarified, and we go into the specific role of the GAC. Personally, I think it'd be good to include that as a separate paragraph there in future, just to remind us what our specific role is, quoting from the act. I think it'd be useful for the members. In the cover report chair or within the... In the cover report, yeah. That's fine. The reasons for the recommendations. I think it'd be useful. I mean, I take it this cover report is a variation on what goes to other... So it might be useful for them to be made aware of what the role of the GAC is there. I mean, I realise you'd probably use a similar format for different reports. Yeah, but that's easy to do. In the reason for a report, we'd have had a paragraph. That's fine. Thank you. We've made a note of that. Thank you. Going on to the next stage now, which is from pages 25 to 40, which is the executive summary, the self-assessment of performance, 2023 to 2024. This is the appendix one, which Emma and Gary have just suggested. This is probably, I wouldn't say the most important part, but probably the kernel of the assessment in some way. So have we got any questions on this? Elia, I've made a note of yours. Yours is for the next one and the next stage. Members, have you got any questions? I've got a few myself here. But this is on specific items of performance and governance as well. Well, I'll kick off in the interest of time for myself there. And then the members, if you want to come in on anything, but continue to page 29 in the pack, please, equality and diversity. And it was regarding at the bottom there, it says one such recommendation was to county council to look at including equality as a mandatory e-learning module for members. It's already mandatory for officers. The group is therefore working with the WLGA to provide equality and diversity training for members in April, 2024. I'm just surprised this training wasn't mandatory anyhow. I'd like to know, was the recommendation accepted? Has the training taken place? And does this need to be noted in the annual governance statement which we'll be getting at the next meeting? So my awareness of this is that the Democratic Services Committee reflected on a survey from members on Democratic Services, yeah, that they surveyed members to see their views on mandatory, non-mandatory. The result of that went to Democratic Services Committee. As part of that, there was a recommendation to make equalities and other training mandatory. That committee accepted all of those recommendations in the paper. That's now being taken to council. I believe it's being tabled in July, Gary, but seeking sort of confirmation from you. So a paper's going to council with those recommendations on mandatory, non-mandatory qualities in there as mandatory. And we'll get a result at the beginning of July, and then it's a case of implementing that action. Thanks, Chair. Okay, thank you. Councillor Elson. Yeah, yeah, I'm a member of the SEDG, and it's a very interesting committee. But I sometimes feel that we aren't well qualified to sort of comment on it without the necessary training. So I would encourage, I think, if you're on a specific committee which has a specific purpose, you should have the specific training to go with it. That's my comment on that. Yeah. Yeah, and it's just to say that actually people that are members of SEDG, the strategic qualities and diversity group, have all received that training from the WLGA. That was done in April. But actually, this paragraph is alluding to all members having the mandatory e-learn. But for SEDG members, they are trained on equality, diversity and inclusion. The paragraphs alluding to all council members. Does that include lay members? Why not? I don't think we've been approached on that. I think everyone needs to discharge their duties with that in mind, and you are discharging duties on behalf of the organisation of lay members, so I'd say yes. We haven't been approached. I don't think lay members have been approached. You could get the questionnaire, yeah, because it was explicitly mentioned in the cover email, members and lay members. We will. You have been. Have we? I'm sure you will have filled it in. If it helps, it was some time ago. Thank you. Just the history of this is the report went to council about what should be mandatory or non-mandatory, because the previous council agreed what those should be, felt that the new court or members should agree their own. Wasn't possible on the basis of the conversation at council, so it was referred to Democratic Services Committee for them to take a bit more of a look. They made recommendations and a report with their recommendations, which includes mandatory training for equalities is going to council in July, certainly in the forward work programme. Thank you. I'm going to go now to page 31, the top bullet point. This is in the context of overall how well are we doing, and it says through the corporate plan and the work of the well-run board, and this is mentioned later on under a specific theme, but could you tell me what is the well-run board, please? I know it was established in October last year to provide governance for the well-run high-performing council theme, but what status does it have in the council's governance structure, who is on it, who does it report to, and when? Thank you. Thank you. I'll take that question. So the well-run high-performing council board was established when we were looking at the governance arrangements in place for the corporate plan, and a couple of boards were either already in place or being established to ensure we could deliver the corporate plan. The corporate plan theme around being a well-run high-performing council is basically trying to embed our values and principles as an organisation, and it was recognised that we didn't really have any kind of body looking at that, so the board was established in October, chaired by Councillor Grunner. Graeme Bose is the officer lead. Really it's about, like I said, embedding our values and principles. It's one of our key programme boards for the delivery of the corporate plan, so it's got proper governance arrangements in place. It meets every three months. In terms of how it fits in across the rest of the landscape, it's on an equal footing with the other boards that we've got, such as the greener board, the housing board, all that kind of stuff, ultimately reports to CET and cabinet, and it follows the other processes in place around tranche review just to make sure it's on track. It's worth knowing that the board has taken a slightly different approach to other boards, and that we offered up the opportunity to all staff who might be interested in sitting on that board, so whilst we've got Councillor Grunner, Graeme, we've got heads of service, we've got people with no managerial responsibility or people with middle management responsibility who are on that board on an equal footing, and that's there to give more of a voice to staff, I think. It also gives a development opportunity for staff. What's challenging with the board is that a lot of what it's trying to do is embed good culture, so we're doing a lot of engagement where we can, but taking a kind of it's a marathon, not a race kind of approach, because there's many demands on people, but what we're trying to do is to raise awareness and understanding of our culture, our values, our principles, the fact that we are one big Denbyshire family. The board is still fair, it's still maturing, I'd say, so the board needs to take and has started to take a kind of similar role to this committee, really, looking at self-assessment, panel peer assessment, and in July the board will be looking at the transformation agenda and what kind of culture we need to enable that to happen most effectively. I'd be happy to share reports that have been developed for CTSLT for information, if this committee would find that valuable. It might do. I mean, you've answered me, I'm seeing this report, I got this report on Thursday and I've been looking at it over the weekend because I'm that sort of fellow, I've been 43 pages, and you see a reference to a board, where does this board fit in? Now you've explained, this is one of several boards that is for each of the themes. Now you say that, I am aware of that, but I wasn't aware of that when I read this report, and I just stood at this well-run board, but who is this? I've seen now, it fits in with basically the programme structure. That's the assurance that I wanted, really, so thank you. Nigel Rudd, you've got a hand up. Thank you. So you passed on page 36, where I just sense that the section I'm looking at is financial planning and performance management, financial planning in particular. My sense is that the political level with the work that Gwyneth has been doing with the leadership and the SLT and Liz in particular, that there's been a step change of improvement in the way that we financially present information, that we've engaged around the budget process and staff engagement opportunities and stuff this year, and that we're potentially underselling ourselves in terms of this part of the report and improvement. And I know it's ongoing and it's only a step towards, but I sense that the council has made quite a significant shift in how it seeks to address the financial challenges going ahead in terms of its processes and its governance arrangements. And I think I'd be quite happy if there was some strengthening, Gary, Helen, Yolo, of the comments and the positive comments in this area, because I think it's worth celebrating. It's a hugely difficult area to do. Gwyneth and colleagues have had to make extremely tough decisions at the end of the day, but I sense the governance around this and the planning processes around this are significantly better this year than they may have been as done. Thanks for those comments Nigel, and I think I would agree with your assessment. It's difficult to comment though without having the evidence, you know, that it is anecdotal, there's no assumption as yet, I suppose. And the report is covering up until March, so the previous financial year. However, there's shortly going to be a report from Audit Wales on the council's financial sustainability. So that would be the opportunity for the next iteration of this report to ballyhoo about some of the good work that we're doing around finance. Just of experience of below this committee's own trumpet there, the paragraph that Nigel is referring to on page 36 there, I've got no problem with it. I agree with what Nigel says on this. But you could also add that as well as what's said there, I mean, maybe it's not relevant, but the Governance and Audit Committee also received reports on a regular basis concerning the budget process, to look at the process there. And also, we have encouraged officers to consider the financial resilience of the council as well, what was being referred earlier on by Nigel to putting a shield around the council and basically section 114 proofers. I'm not suggesting section 114 should be noted in here for a moment. But I think perhaps just to say, I think broadly, I think a little more could be said here, but I agree, you might want to wait until the Audit Wales report is out on that. We can look at that. And anything that is added, though, will be very concise, mindful of your previous comments of this committee about the length of the document, Chair. One sentence. But that's different. For you, Chair, for you. Yeah, that's different. Can I just go back, please, to page 31? This is something that this is a matter that has been of concern to this committee in the past. This is the second, sorry, the third bullet point of page 31. It's about recruitment and retention. And you rightly say recruitment was still able to take place in critical areas such as adult social care and so on, but vacancies in those services persist. I'm not talking now about the critical areas, but what our concern has been about in the past has been any possible impacts of recruitment and retention difficulties on the governance functions. We're particularly, as a committee, concerned about the governance of the Council. We get lots of reports and some of our comments here are about the governance elements rather than performance of services. And particularly in the past, we've expressed specific concerns or let's say question, not concerns, about the impact of recruitment and retention problems on such services as legal, HR, finance. In the minutes, we're talking about how the finance team are under great, they've got a number of risks there at the moment. Internal audit, we've talked about that in the previous item. Procurement, your own services and planning and performance, ICT, asset management are the ones that spring to mind there. I just wonder has consideration been given to recruitment and retention impacts on those services? So just reiterating Jola's point earlier that this is looking at the financial year 23/24 up until the end of March. So whilst decisions might have been made on voluntary exits or whatever before that, the impact of it, the actual people won't have left until this financial year. So it will be something that would be looked at more readily in the first quarter, the first six months reporting. So that's one to say. I do get that, but we raised this as a concern about two years ago. Yeah, that's fine. So we're really mindful of it as every head of service when looking at roles which come up. I think there's good governance in place around vacancy control forms and business case and thinking about impact. There was the same across budget savings suggestions last financial year as well. And there was a wellbeing impact assessment that's being looked at from the perspective of staff currently now within my team in HR. It's something that we'll need to continue to look at. I think it's right for you to flag it as a risk. It's a risk in my service plan. It's a risk in the corporate risk assessment as well around recruitment and retention. Thanks. I was just trying to get the message out that usually when recruitment and retention, usually attention is rightly given therefore to public facing services, particularly social services. I understand that and that's right, but I think there's a risk that so-called back office services can be forgotten about in that respect. And from this committee's point of view, if we're struggling to recruit the legal internal audit, et cetera, then I think that's something that is a particular concern to us. Just to add as well that Emma here is for her sins working with HR on impact assessing sort of the impacts of the whole budget proposals, the whole savings proposals that have been put forward, which includes obviously the voluntary exit scheme. So there are conversations ongoing with HR around that. And I know CET as well have been very mindful of impacts on the particular areas above others. Just to add my reflections, I'm leaving now so I can say these sorts of things, but three of the governance areas actually sit with me in my team. So you'd think I'd be concerned that I'm not, I'm assured that I'm leaving things in very capable hands and reflecting on the other areas, finance procurement, I think again, very stable hands there. Historically, I would have said the assets, asset management has probably been a weakness in the council for various reasons, managers leaving, lack of an asset strategy, but I think those are things that Helen is addressing. For a moment, just for anyone listening, there's weaknesses with the particular services. It's the risk for something happening that I'm concerned about there. And I think what I'm suggesting is that when the conversation is held about recruitment and retention, as well as what's been rightly talked about frontline services, the focus is also given to corporate governance services as well. Gary, sorry. No, I was just going to say, just to give you some insurance, places like legal procurement, we're not carrying vacancies now, we are fully staffed. Again, services are taking more innovative approaches, same as Bob. In some services, it will be about career pathways and developing our own people rather than just sort of going out and getting the finished article. The big issue around recruitment and retention when it was first raised was around some of those front facing areas. But in the governance areas, we have had in the past difficulties recruiting, we are currently able to recruit, doesn't mean it happens on the first go, but we are able to recruit. Thank you. Moving on, please, page 34, this is a greener dambisher. It says this has been given as a -- the measure is acceptable. When I read this, I'm just slightly surprised by this. Is it acceptable in light of what's said about meeting the net zero goal by 2030 and the impact of financial pressures on this? Are we sure this is acceptable rather than needing priority? In the previous report, it was actually reported as good, yellow. So actually, the new status of acceptable is taking into account some of the challenges there with those measures. But I would say that theme is not just focused on achieving net zero. It is a wider theme. So that overall status takes account of many other projects and factors that are taking place. It would be interesting at the public view on that one. Net zero is a minor theme. The carbon trading I went on, it seemed to be -- the council page, it seemed to be one of the big things there. Just as a bit of context for you, the climate and ecological change strategy has been through a review. It's first triennial review, if you like. It was always planned to be reviewed on a yearly basis. And that's been to scrutiny. And it's going to cabinet and it's going to council, isn't it? For approval. And we had good public engagement. We did a big consultation and engagement exercise. And people were supportive of the direction of travel and yellow's right. Net carbon zero by 2030 is a big challenge. But some of the nature recovery and ecological change measures that we have, we're performing really well on those. And we're not alone on the net zero challenge. It was always a very ambitious challenge. Okay. Point taken. It's one to watch, though. You know, you seem to get hearing on the national news at the time of targets getting put back and compromised. And everybody says we need to do something, but people don't like doing what's necessary for it. But point taken. On page 35, corporate planning, I just wondered why. There's no mention in this section of project and program management, should there be, or of counter fraud. I mentioned counter fraud in the previous items of this meeting. I see counter fraud, I think, was mentioned in last year's corporate assessment. And again, just my concern, as you might have heard me say before, that I think the incidence of fraud is probably low here. And that's probably the case. But that doesn't mean that the risk of it is low. And you only need one or two bad ones to happen to cause major issues there. Any thought about project and program management counter fraud? Yeah. So project management and program management. I'll take project management first. We would usually comment on that within the sort of cost management section in the report. So historically, when we've had an internal audit report, for example, that might have highlighted deficiencies in project management approaches, we would comment on it there. So the lack of perhaps comment this time actually is because there has been nothing to say. All our usual program and project management processes continue. I think we have actually commented quite extensively in this report around program changes, particularly around the governance of the corporate plan. So there's a lot of references to how the boards have changed, and also the work of the boards more broadly. So I think that is peppered throughout the report. Also on project management, there is a specific measure under the well-being, so the well-run council theme that does monitor sort of quality of information that we're getting from overall project management in the council. So I think there's a measure there looking at the regularity of updates that we're receiving from project managers. So it is in there. It's just peppered around. And on counter fraud, I will rely on perhaps Gary or maybe the lead member. Well, I think the first thing to say is that the organization is very aware of the risk of fraud. That's why it's on the corporate risk register. You know, the first line of defense is recruiting the right people and having the right controls in place. And if you put several thousand people in the proximity of a net budget of two hundred and sixty million pounds, there will always be a risk of fraud. That's why we have a counter fraud strategy. That's why, you know, we're particularly keen on proper recruitment and making sure we do all our checks correctly. I think the line I would give on that is we feel relatively assured that we've got the right controls in place, but never complacent. And a lot of what Bob's audit work will do will always be looking out for where controls can be improved in any specific area. But yeah, I remember having the conversation not long after I got here too many years ago that just because we thought we didn't have a lot of fraud didn't mean it shouldn't be on the corporate risk register. That's why it's on the corporate risk register. It will always be a risk. You probably think it's a bit of a BMI bonnet. It was mentioned in the previous item with the recommendation that we look at the effectiveness of assessing the risk of fraud. I also attended the All Wales GAC Chairs' Group last September. And again, there was a national risk register, I forget where it came from now, presented to us that showed the risk of fraud is quite low. And the consensus was that this was actually commenting on the incidence of fraud as an issue, not the risk of fraud. Because any time I look at reports outside local government, they say the risk of fraud is increasing all the time, and the sophistication of it and the scope of it. And it just makes me a bit sort of uneasy when I don't see much reference to it there. Sometimes I think it's a bit of hear no evil, see no evil. I think the first thing to say should be a B in all our bonnets. We should always be vigilant about it. We're in a time of reducing resources. The last thing we want is for resources to be lost to places that they shouldn't be going to. But I think the message is that whilst we understand the risk, we're also vigilant and that we are regularly reviewing our counter fraud measures. And I know Bob does a lot of work on that. Sure. Okay. I'm not criticizing the work that's done anyway. I think when you say you don't want financial loss, the other thing that happens with fraud is not just the financial loss, which is as welcome as a hole in the head, but also is the effect that can have on culture and so on and people's wellbeing and some of those affected by it. It can be really, it's a really negative thing to happen. So, yeah, point taken. Okay. Members, I'm going to move on now to the next section, stage by stage. The next section concerns the appendix two pages from page 41 of the pack, which is the corporate plan performance update, October to March, 2024. Councillor Ellie Chad raised a question regarding something on page 71. I didn't catch all the detail. I'm just turning to it. Ellie, do you want to repeat that question, please? Yes. I don't mind at all, Chair. Let's see. Can I ask, I want to know the reason why not all the schools are using the Public Health Wales, full school approach to mental health and wellbeing tool. So I just want to know why, because I think since COVID, lots of us are troubled. Lots of us are troubled. I know people in the family and neighbours. So I think this app, if it's an app or a tool, this should be used in all the schools. So I just, that's my question. Okay, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Chad. I think what you're seeing is actually the sort of the beginning of an improving trend. This is a relatively new thing, I think, for schools. And I know you asked a question of scrutiny about the trauma informed status of schools as well. And I think it might well be tied in with that. But if you do need any further clarity on it, we can obviously ask Education Services to provide that. Yeah. Thank you, Yolo. And best wishes as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any more questions of this section, points? This one from me on page 109, the statement of accounts. I know this is, this report is, as at a particular point in time, it's also a live document, isn't it? That might understand. It says the last centre that after consulting with audit Wales, it is currently planned that the audited accounts will be presented to the Government and Audit Committee in the spring of 2024 for a formal approval. That has not happened yet. I think it's going to be September. That's what I was informed the other day. So I don't know if you need to amend that. We'll amend the date. Yeah. Just in case it went through without being altered there. Okay, members, we'll go on to the next section now, which is the Service Performance Challenge, 2023-24, Summary of Actions in Appendix 3, which begins at page 121. Are there any questions, members, on that section? Nigel Rudd? Yeah, you jumped ahead of me. I had a question in relation to page 9, which is a reference to the stakeholder survey. I was going to seek clarification as to who was on the stakeholder survey group. Thanks, Nigel. There's no group. The stakeholder survey is an open survey that we carry out every year. So this year it ran, I think, from beginning of September up until February. It's open to the public, shared with businesses, trade unions, partners, town and community councils. We're governed there by the list of approved stakeholders, well, list of required stakeholders under the Local Government Elections Wales Act. So that determines who we share and promote the survey with. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Nigel. Anything else on that section? No. Nigel, your hand's still up. Is that meant to be, or...? Councillor Arwell? Thank you very much. Could I wish you all success as well? Looking at in English now. I think it's been very slowly been done. And it's a worry to us that our towns are looking really shabby at the moment. I'm not referring to any town in particular. I shouldn't because I love Ryl, I love Denby, I love Sangoshan and I love Rydland. So where are we with the working with Town Council? You mentioned Town Council earlier, Yolo. Is this a theme that's going to be developed and is it a risk? Sorry, Arwell, just for the benefit of the rest of the members, what page are you referring to here? Sorry. If I am on Appendix C3, aren't you? You're on Appendix 3. I found it there on Appendix 3 that the regeneration of towns, I can't recall where now, sorry. It's definitely there. Yeah, back page 123. Thank you. Sorry, I'll just respond to Councillor's question. Hi, Robert. We're just knocking our heads together here. It's not one that we can give a specific answer to. We probably have to come back to you there. It's really a specific question within the planning team. Although I'm aware that there are some consultations taking place now in some of our towns around this. So I think it's going to be an emerging piece of work that you're going to hear more about imminently. You're right, Yolo. Mahinandigwe, this is happening very slow. And I hope that this could be developed because our towns are our tourist attractions, and they should be really helped in the future. And it's a worry. Okay, go. Okay, thank you. Yolo? Sorry, I think we've just got a little bit more information. We're actually governed by grants that are available for that. So I think it's SPF funded, so the delay, sorry. Welsh Government funding, sorry. It's a Welsh Government funded thing anyway. So we've been kind of dictated by their timescales on this. That's probably some of the delay. Nigel Rudd? Yeah, there's page 122/123, which is the Planning, Public Protection and Conservation Services collaboration section and partnership work. I raised during the course of the budget process the necessity to review planning fees across Wales, given the increase in planning fees that occurred in England. And I would emphasise that this is an opportunity here and a collaboration and partnership work, but I would hope that there is sort of collaborative efforts being made across Wales in order to tackle that particular issue, in order to generate revenue. It's not appearing as typical examples under 1 and 2, but I would hope that that type of exercise is an approach that we would recommend or adopt or that we follow as a matter of course when looking at collaboration. I just raise that for, it's quite a service specific area. I don't know if the officers have a comment on that, but I would flag it as one that they need to be pursuing if they can. It was just to say that that particular action from the service challenge will be borne out of a particular conversation specifically about that specialist ecology work. So it isn't to say that Emlyn and the wider Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Service aren't looking at other collaborative efforts. It's just that that particular action related to a particular conversation and challenge that came out of that performance challenge. Then in regard to your suggestion, we can take that to Emlyn and we can feed that into Emlyn. I suspect he's looking at it across the board in terms of fees and charges, but going all together as a 6 or a 22 around fees, around planning, I think is a really sound idea. Yeah, I was looking for reassurance having that on that probably was the best way. Maybe a note outside of the meeting back would avoid me making the same representations at the next meeting of GAC. We can ask Emlyn to come back to you on that Nigel. Thanks. Okay, no more members questions in that section and then we come to the scope for the panel performance assessment 2024, which is Appendix 4 from pages 127 to 157. Are there any questions or points on this? There's a major piece of work going to be done in September. There's several references to the Governance and Audit Committee as well. Nigel? Yeah, no, I thought this was useful. I think we had a useful session with Yolo and Helen a few months back on the composition and the approach and I noticed that working closely with the LGA on this has taken a step forward. I think there are a couple of points in here that I felt were helpful, but I wasn't clear in my own mind how we got to them. The first was how is the actual appointment of the panel members undertaken and confirmed? And the second was, I do think that there is a comment about the necessity for as part of the job specification or occupational requirement that there is an understanding of the context within Wales and the issues facing the local area in the appointment to the panel. So those would be my two initial questions on it. I think the focus around leadership, budget proposals, and part-time work, I think is absolutely essential. And the clarification of the role of GAAC in considering the report. I'm still not convinced, having heard your exchange with officers earlier today, that we necessarily have a definitive role on that and I would welcome a formal view on that from the monitoring officer or legal head outside of the meeting so that we do understand the role of GAAC clearly in connection with who and when they receive this report within the council and how and when the GAAC is involved or not, and still somewhat. I think it was my understanding about this following next year. Thank you, Jo. So the appointment of the panel, actually the coordinator in the WRGA contacted me while I was sitting here and has asked me for a meeting this morning. So I will be meeting with him imminently, I hope, to look at the initial panel make-up. But that will then be put forward to cabinet as they have the responsibility under the constitution now to appoint the panel. We have also, it was a piece of feedback actually from the working group, we have fed into the WLGA our preference that the panelists do have a firm grasp and understanding of local government in Wales. So we have fed that back to them. And in terms of your last point around the role of governance and audit with the report, I'm just seeing as well on page 133 of your pack there, and the report and management response will be tabled with governance and audit for their input on November 20th. So referring to the chair's earlier quoting of the legislation, that will be this committee's opportunity to review the report made by the panel, the response made by cabinet, and to make then recommendations upon it, which will go forward to county council in January. Just on the panel, just looking at an independent panel chair. Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't, perhaps it's in here somewhere, but I've missed it. All members of the panel will be external to the Danforthshire County Council. Independent. But they could be from anywhere within Wales or the kingdom. Yeah, I mean there's potential that some of them will come from England as well, because the WRGA is sort of chimed in with the LGA's panel assessment process that they have, so they have a pool of people as well. But as I've said, we've emphasised that we would like people who have a good understanding, a good grasp of local government in Wales. But yes, there have been volunteers put forward from local authorities across Wales. But yes, they have to be independent and external to the council. OK, not necessarily with a local authority background, though, but with knowledge of local government, presumably? Not necessarily, no, but I think it would be unusual if they didn't. OK, all right. Thank you. Any other questions on this section? What you said there on page
No, 131. That's my question. The middle paragraph is as further input to the above areas of focus and Appendix 1 will be sought between May and July from the senior leadership team, Cabinet Performance Committee, and the Government and Audit Committee. Is that what's happening today as far as we're concerned? That's this report. Yeah, OK. There wasn't something else going to happen between now and July. I just wanted to be clear on that. On page 133, the table there -- yeah, sorry. That's been said. It was talking about our specific role there. I think we said before it would be good in the cover report. And lastly from my point of view was on page 145. Yeah, one of the questions there about risk and assurance. Is risk management embedded in the council? This is halfway down. Does risk awareness and management inform -- I'm sorry. Does risk awareness and management inform decision-making? As I've said before, I think risk management seems to have evolved quite -- I think it's mature. I think it does inform decision-making. I think it's in the real world. It's not just something that someone does in a corner. They've got to tick a box to say we do risk management. I'd like -- something I would like assurance of, and I've said this as far as this committee's role is concerned, is that that takes place at all levels. I think it does at corporate level. I think it's quite obvious it does. I'd like assurance of that. It takes place at, let's say, operational levels in departments and projects and so on across the board. And maybe consideration could be extending that brief a wee bit there. So the actual question in that brief there is lifted from the WLGA's methodology. So that is their wording, not ours. But I know governance and audit are going to be having a session on risk anyway with my team and internal audit, so that will be a good opportunity for you to be assured that risk management does flow throughout the Council. I know we're asking now, but I thought it might be something that the panel might want to ask as well. That would be for the panel to determine. How can we make a recommendation if the panel thinks about that as well? You could. The focus areas are what we've been asked to provide. I mean, this list of questions in the appendices, these are things that the panel will have to look at. So they may well look at that. That's all for members. Any other comments? Nigel? Final question from me on the last bit of Appendix 2, I think it was page 153. I ought to know the answer, but it escapes me at the moment. It says any Section 54 reports prepared by the Chief Executive. Can somebody remind me what S54 reports are, please? It's under the list of documents likely to be reviewed by the panel. Third bullet point from the bottom. That's a very good question, Nigel. I'm not sure. I think we might have to go away and check that, Nigel. A quick Google is referring to the modern slavery. I'm not sure if that's a UK government and not in Wales. I understand we work our staff very hard, but I didn't think we necessarily qualified under that. Again, this list is provided by the WLGA methodology. So we can ask questions of the WLGA for clarity and we'll be needing to support them getting all these documents in the coming months anyway. So that will be useful for us to know. Thank you. Best wishes to Yolo and his new employee and hope he understands what S54 is before he gets there. Thank you very much. I understand there are some very questionable characters. I think that concludes our time on this item. I think there's been a lot of ground covered there. As I said at the beginning, there's an awful lot of work here which we're really appreciative of. I think the major thing we've probably said is about the presentation of it, if you can take away that and think about it. And there's other specific things we've raised as well which you'll take account of, no doubt, on specific items. The recommendations before the committee, there's two recommendations that the Government of the North Committee considers the reports and agrees any further actions required to respond to any performance-related issues highlighted within the reports. You've got a note of the things that we've highlighted there. And secondly, that the committee reflect on key messages arising from the self-assessment and provide feedback on the draft scope for the final performance assessment contained in Appendix 4, which is what we've just been doing now, just to ask that consideration and thought is given to some of these things. So we'll take both of those recommendations together. Can we have a proposal, please, for them? Paul with them. A seconder? Eddie Chard. All in favour of those recommendations? Okay, carried. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for your patience with us and taking everything in there. And thank you for the work that's gone into this as well. And again, Iona, wishing you all the best. Thank you very much, and all the best to this committee as well. You want to watch out for some of the members of the GAC at Conway Council, then? That's what I was alluding to. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. It's 5 to 12. We've got three more items. We've got the two internal audit items, and then we've got the Govermental Audit Committee Work Programme. So bearing in mind it's 5 to 12. We've been going for nearly two and a half hours. Can we have a ten-minute comfort break, please? Thank you.

AI Generated

Summary

The Governance and Audit Committee of Conwy Council convened on Wednesday, 12 June 2024, to discuss various significant topics, including the internal audit external review, the council's performance self-assessment, and the medium-term financial strategy. The meeting also addressed the terms of reference for the committee and updates on treasury management.

Internal Audit External Review

The committee reviewed the Internal Audit External Review 2024-25 Report conducted by Alex Jenkins from Caradigian Council. The review found that the internal audit service generally conforms to the public sector internal audit standards, with 45 areas conforming, six partially conforming, and five non-conforming. The committee discussed the need for a quality assurance and improvement program and the importance of addressing non-conformance issues.

Council's Performance Self-Assessment

The committee considered the Council Performance Self-Assessment 2023 to 2024 Report, which provides a comprehensive overview of the council's performance and challenges. The report highlighted the council's progress and areas needing improvement, particularly in financial planning and performance management. The committee emphasized the importance of continuous review and improvement of corporate plan commitments and performance expectations.

Medium-Term Financial Strategy

The Head of Finance and Audit presented an update on the medium-term financial strategy and the council's financial resilience and sustainability. The committee discussed the capacity of the finance team, the impact of the new financial system, and the importance of tracking budget proposals. The committee also addressed the need for better public engagement regarding the council's financial position.

Terms of Reference for the Committee

The committee reviewed and approved the updated terms of reference, which align with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) guidance. The updated terms emphasize the committee's role in ensuring robust processes and controls for the council's financial affairs and the importance of demarcating the roles of the Governance and Audit Committee and the Scrutiny Committees.

Treasury Management Update

The committee received an update on the Treasury Management Update Report 2023/24, noting the importance of regular updates on treasury management activities. The committee agreed to receive substantive reports in January and July and information reports in April and November.

Work Programme

The committee discussed the forward work programme, emphasizing the need to balance the workload and ensure meaningful discussion within appropriate timescales. The committee also highlighted the importance of aligning the work programme with the council's cycles of meetings and ensuring consistency between the corporate risk register and the annual governance statement.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on various information reports, including the Audit Wales Digital Strategy Review and the Council's Performance Management Guide. The committee emphasized the importance of continuous improvement and effective governance in all areas of the council's operations.

Attendees

Arwel Roberts
Bobby Feeley
Carol Holliday
Ellie Chard
James Elson
Mark Young
David Stewart
Nigel Rudd
Paul Whitham

Subscribe to updates

Governance and Audit Committee - Wednesday, 12 June 2024 9.30 am

Transcript

Transcript

Summary

Internal Audit External Review

Council's Performance Self-Assessment

Medium-Term Financial Strategy

Terms of Reference for the Committee

Treasury Management Update

Work Programme

Attendees

Documents