Transcript

Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Welcome everyone to today's meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee being held in the Cape Stone Room at Mathuskill Town Hall. I'm Councillor Michael Beanland, Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee. I'd like to welcome Adele Taylor, the Interim Director of Finance and Customer Services to her first audit and governance. She stays for the next one. I would also like to welcome Councillor Brian Drake, a new member of the committee to his first meeting. And I would also like to thank Rachel Bailey for her attendance as a matter of fact. As a reminder, the meeting is being audio recorded and the recording will be published on the Council's website after the meeting. Please could I ask members to raise their hands fully when voting and indicate them to speak. Agenda item 1, apologies for absence. Thanks, Chair. We've received apologies from Councillor Heller. And the declarations of interest from the committee members. None recorded, thank you. Three minutes of the previous meeting. The object is to approve the minutes of the meeting held on the 7th of March, 2024, which can be found on page 5 of today's agenda pack. Proposes of a seconder. All those in favour? Aye. All those against? Any abstentions? I have to propose that the minutes have been approved. Reminded to announce the vote for the audio, which is 5-4, none against and two not voting. Four, public speaking. There are no members of the public registered to speak today, but we do have two visiting Councillors. Councillor Janet Close and Councillor Rachel Bailey, who wish to speak on a number of items. But Councillor Bailey has asked to take up the public speaking time. Thank you, Chair, and I have all of it. It's all yours. Thank you for your can work, Councillor Beane. I have served on all of the Government previously and the importance of this committee is absolutely clear to me as this Council navigates a route following its announced budgetary overspend. And I won't go in the way. I'll open with a thank you to the monitoring officer, Mr Brown, for providing the information in relation to costs for the sand batch standards complaint. The item is actually attached to the last minutes, the last meeting awarded in Government's shelf, if you like, online. And I have been asked by a resident where it was and couldn't find it. I do think we should ensure that we signpost any information because when it's retrospective, you expect minutes and you expect the report. It's a full response, which I appreciate. It shows, and obviously we've seen a handful before, it shows the external legal costs to sand batch of 23,500 and, again, lists the handfuls of over 90,500. Interestingly, that includes the cost to the Council. And there is a generalisation I hope all members of committee have seen whereby 920 hours a year could be lost on this work. In 22, 23, it was 231,000. It was 231, which would equate to 212,500. This work is not without a cost, but this work is vital to ensure that the standard system is upheld and it is the responsibility of Cheshire East. I'm therefore concerned in welcoming these, that this committee has considered the handful's town council investigation via a redacted report. But how many years on and the sand batch town council report, which I would assume would be redacted, has not been considered by this committee. I would ask that members of committee look to address this inconsistency in practice as a matter of urgency. Secondly, at the last committee meeting, we had a member of the public, which is not for Debbie Jamieson, who raised a number of concerns, including the potential impact on the number of staff acting up within the Cheshire East structure. Indeed, in the communication from Cheshire East leaders, leader and deputy leader and chief executive on the 4th of April that was shared with members and media, there is a recognition that the peer team saw there is a significant lack of capacity across the organisation and there has been instability in permanent roles at the senior level. The council says it recognises this and is working with the LGA. Please may I ask that this committee listens to the tape of the last meeting because we clearly debated that we would like an item on the work programme in relation to Ms Jamieson's questions. And in view of the publicised report, two more words, in view of the publication of an update from the council following the peer challenge. Actually, I really think that this is an important piece of work and we not only owe it to the member of the public who asked for it but also to this council and our staff. Thank you, chair. I thought I'd got all of 15 minutes. All of the 15? That's fine. Thank you very much. You can hear the full point of the two more and either in the publication or the theatre. Sorry, if we're going to, I have to say, listen to a councillor sort of set out the concerns, I'd like them in. Is that right? I mean, I think particularly if you want to talk about this, you've got some pointed out. I mean, maybe councillor Bailey could tell us that she said everything but there was a tall point, I think. I may have got it wrong. You're very kind because in theory I wish to stay at this meeting and listen, such is my commitment to holding governments, not least following my time in leadership. It's not kindness, councillor, I have to tell you, it's just accuracy and precision. Well, thank you and I have time to stay but I need to go and help others is the way I'll put it now. Can we just go for the four? Okay, right. If I move quickly on. When you say two words, can we make it two? That's fine. Moving quickly on, I will just raise the annual governance statement update. Welcome document. A concern to me in there that I feel I need to highlight is that the planning backlog and the piece of work by committee was done in 2022. This committee has looked very seriously at section 106. I would ask this committee to consider whether it is time to look at planning with that retrospective eye, not least because in the governance update, statement update, we are openly and transparently informed that the IT system that was very much part of the improvement journey for planning is much delayed. My reading of it also is that planning officers are having to step in and help to try and rectify the failure of the IT systems thus far. When I became lead member for reg services way back in 2011 maybe, guess what? The IT issues were a major concern, planning officers were deployed to it. If this council is not able two years on to show good progress in terms of its performance in planning, how can it rectify its financial concerns when businesses and properties are being held back by delays and an IT system? We've got the point. I ask that you look to add this to your work programme. In regard to the updates, finally would you wish me to go further? I welcome the response to the best for business concerns that were raised with regard to registration of starters and levers. I think we heard in committee that it was user error. I'm sorry, Councillor Bailey, but we need to move on to the committee. I've got lots of comments to make. I'm sorry, I was asked to raise two more points. Yeah, that's fine. We've taken the AGS and the planning and we've taken best for business concerns, both of those are on the work plan and the option model. Unless you've got a particular point you wish to raise briefly, then… I've got a question now, thank you. It relates to item 10. An FOI from this council has been released to show that a significant amount of money has not been brutalised from developer contributions. I believe it's 78,000. It's a significant figure. This committee, I condone their work on considering section

1. Bearing in mind this council has released that figure, at what point will this committee be able to consider its section 106 work in the public section of the committee? Thank you, chair. Okay, thank you. Okay, probably speaking time. Thank you very much for that, Councillor Bailey. Move on to agenda point 5, committee action log update. The updated action log can be found on pages 11 to 14 of the agenda pack. I will firstly hand over to Josie Griffithis to provide an update. Thank you, chair. I'm going to focus on the items outstanding on the action log to begin with. The skills audit members should now all have received a link to a skills assessment survey. I think a number of members have completed that, but it would be great if members could complete that at their earliest convenience. And if there's any problems, do let either Nicky or myself know. The outcome of that survey is going to inform a training plan and that will form part of the progress review that's coming forward to July's meeting, but we'll develop that specific training plan, I think, in correspondence with committee members before then. The practice guidance notes, I think we will find that the skills survey outcome is going to help us to prioritise where some of those guidance notes, et cetera, will be needed in priority order. So, conscious capacity issues as well across a number of services, this will be ongoing for a while yet. In relation to the briefing on the HR function, this was delivered to the committee members and the visiting member who attended previously by the head of HR, Sarah Barkham, 21st May. We've got responses to a number of queries have been circulated. Sarah's actually on move this week, so we do have very kindly Abby Rushton, our workforce and organisational development manager, here should any members have any further comments or questions or queries. Would you like to pause at that point for any further questions, or continue with, sort of, counter through the action log and then return to Abby at the close of my update. Yes, it's your turn. You finish your question. I'll finish this, thank you. Also from the March committee meeting, the committee requested an update on the dedicated schools grant deficit, and that's covered on item 7 of this agenda. Section 106 update, we have, in turn, already been working very closely with planning colleagues over the last week to validate where we're able to, some of the updates that they've provided us with, and get the latest possible update. What I intend to do is circulate that position along with some of the actions on the community infrastructure levy, and there will actually be a further update then from the service to the July meeting. That was also agreed at the March meeting of the committee. Thank you Chair. Do any members have any questions on the action log? Thank you Chair. I just have a comment in relation to the skills audit. I've had to request that I've put it in my response, I've filled in my skills audit, that included in the training for councillors, this training on how to challenge and scrutinise in the services, because I think it's a really important area for council. We've got some issues on that. For me, that's one of the most important things that we need to do. Thank you. We'll make a note of that, and certainly refer to it during the training. Are there any other comments? Councillor Beeston? Yes. Regarding the next level audit timing on the progress of B4B, I would like us to look at the potential overspend on this project, and what lessons can be learnt going forward when we take on other projects like this, or if we should even take on projects like this. OK. I've got a comment about that. Thank you Chair. Is it appropriate to raise S106, as I mentioned? It's on the action log, yeah. Thank you. Yes, Chair, I welcome the suggestion that we're going to get a report on the section 106 internal audit report, which we had a briefing on on the 19th of September, 2023. On that report, there were 19, I think, implications of the work that had been done, and actions that should follow. Really, my question is, what proportion of those actions have been completed? Are there any still to complete, and what will be the timeline for those completions, please? It does seem to me that progress on this, in spite of the work that we've done to try and work jointly with the responsible committee here, which I think, obviously, it's a planning issue, and therefore, overall, the section is in place. We've not made a sufficient process quickly enough, and I understand that the IT system, which has been mentioned already, may be a difficulty, but it does seem to me, net of the IT system, we still need continuously a proper, if you like, and detailed analysis of where we are with our S106 grants in relation to contracting, sorry, contractual obligations of developers in relation to every aspect of their work. But particularly, I think, councillors are interested and concerned in probably any road amelioration arrangements in order to encourage safety in their wards, and also any expenditure of community funds, which I have to say, I have to declare an interest there, because my perspective in relation to one of those, and one miner I know, a matter of £40,000, but there has been considerable delay in the expenditure there. So, I'm hoping that the report that comes forward will tell us not only what has been done and what needs to be done, but what would state the system is in at present to manage this very, very important flow of funds into the council for a variety of purposes. Thank you. That's true. Are there any other questions? If this is following on from my last comment regarding the IT system, I also wonder if on the risk register, we should have an indication regarding the significant lack of capacity in the officer's core or jetteries, which I believe led to the problems we had with B4B, and probably would have impact on other contracts which we don't yet know about. But we have got a discussion on the risk register, so we can bring that up on that point. Yeah. Just to clarify, I'd like this also to be a piece of work we're doing, so I'd like it to be looking particularly at this issue regarding B4B. Thank you. Mr Jones. Thank you, Chair. A very minor point with regard to the skills audit I did complete it, and during my time in industry, I found when conducting accident inquiries, it was often better to ask the witnesses to describe what happened in their own words. The point I'm making is that the tick box on a scale, just going down, doesn't always elicit perhaps information that might be of use to both the council and the committee. So I would ask, is it possible just to give the opportunity and such questionnaires for the individual to make a personal comment and enlighten them at large on what perhaps it has. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I did complete the skills audit, but that was only the test version, so I've got to do it again, so I'll certainly raise that as a point. The skills audit should be completed by us all. If you haven't done, please do. The same also applies to the Ernst and Young declaration of any interest. Apparently there are still some councillors, not fortunately on this committee. There are some councillors still haven't responded, but everybody needs to respond. Section 106 is a concern that we have raised. The internal audit department did raise a schedule of timeline deadlines that was supposed to be met, and I was disappointed at the last review that was presented to this committee. There wasn't an update on that timeline. We've got a very good detailed report of what's gone right, but what we didn't get was what has not happened, and I think those comments have been made today. It's certainly important that we do get to know what isn't working as well as what is. B4B is mentioned on the action log, and I think it is important. It's mentioned quite a lot in the audit reports. There are issues with it, and we've had meetings with the people concerned, with QAC and Cheshire who say that it's working fine, but we know it isn't, so we still need to dig up the process. I think we need a B4B report. The committee is quite happy calling for that. We need to understand why it isn't working, and again, what the costs are. There is a discussion later on about the new software for risk that's being produced by our IT department. We certainly don't want similar issues to occur in the development of that software, so these things need to be taken into account, and we need to gather assurance that we are producing the best system that serves both the council, the offices and the residents. We have noted a HR report, which is going to be delivered now, I believe. It's not an agenda, it's just if any members have any questions, I'll leave it for now. So there was a meeting last week at which council is being attended, and if there are any questions raised from that meeting, please ask the questions now. Thank you, I just had a quick comment on the young questionnaire, which is really important. Can I suggest that any councillors that haven't responded to that will put a paper copy in the post and then covering that to say how important it is? They are being phoned up. They're being phoned up, aren't they? There may be people struggling. You've got to print it out and then scan it. Some people need to edit that. Some people can't do that. Well, we should bring that up in the conversation that they have. They are being chased, definitely. Because we can't start the audit until Ernst & Young get all the qualifications done. Mr Brown. Just to reassure the committee, there are three councillors receiving personal attention. Excellent. Mike Braceson. The issue, the very important issue of the lack of capacity in the senior management team and the possible contribution, if it doesn't happen, of senior managers having a number of roles on hopefully a temporary basis. We did bring that up at the briefing, I think, and it was discussed and dealt with, and as I understood, information was going to come forward in relation to that issue. I'd just like to confirm, is that the case or not? Is my memory of it incorrect? Because it is an important issue. I understood that we understood it and that it was being, if you like, examined. There is a report. Do you want to speak on this? Yes, a further update to the committee will be coming in July on Section 106 and that will be comprised of the latest position in terms of internal audit's perspective of the actions outstanding but also will ask that the service are attended and provided immediately over the case as well. That's fine. With respect, I don't think it was the S106 issue that I was referring to. I was very happy about the S106 situation. It seemed it was being dealt with. No, this is the question of the impact of the fact that we have a number of interim appointments. I'm very grateful for them. But also, we have a question of capacity, as I understand it, within the senior management team and a question of leadership. It does arise in the risk register but I'm just trying to ascertain that at the briefing it was considered and I thought some decision was taken that a piece of work would be done. If that is incorrect, then obviously in relation to the risk register and ask for it. Apologies, Chair, I'm with you now. The HR update, I don't believe we sat on a specific piece of work. What I did suggest was that as part of the risk register update here, the second recommendation on that report is for the committee to identify the next area of specific briefing that they would like to receive and that this is one of the areas that have come out in other discussions that could be put forward for a deeper brief. There may be other reports coming forward in the next committee cycle which may address some of those things as well but that may be something that we actually look for the head of head service to reply on as well. Okay, can we make sure that that's on the progress then? There was a discussion about the Pulse report but there was a point raised about exit interviews and what recordings back. There's a report of exit interviews and what detail is fed back to the directors of the particular areas and whether that could be given to the committee. The Pulse survey is obviously a survey that's carried out for existing members of staff so everybody that currently works in the council is sent a link to response in terms of questions on a regular basis. In terms of exit interviews, exit interviews for staff exiting the organisation are carried out in two ways. There is a grandparent manager interview that's held with any member of staff in the organisation and data collected from that conversation. In addition, there is a separate survey that's sent out from our research and consultation team to ask questions on a number of reasons as to why the committee and the organisation are asking for feedback. The results from those surveys are looked at on a quarterly basis and are fed back to exit directors and directors and heads of service and the action varies specifically for consideration of key themes that come out of those survey results to be included in the service workforce plans that each head of service is asked to complete as part of a service business planning process on an annual basis. That process is obviously just answered for this year and each head of service is asked to develop a service workforce plan that considers the full survey results, exit and also their exit results as well. So themes are picked up and addressed with the HR business partner for each director I think in that way. So could we see that? We can circulate some of the headline response obviously with those we need to preserve some anonymity on some of that especially confidential information within some of those. We could certainly circulate the number of key themes that emerge and figures around the number of staff that are excellent to the organisation that complete those surveys. I'm just following on from what Councillor Edwards said and taking in the comments from the head of audit and risk management. I don't want to see this addressed on a bit by bit of a basis. I want to see a holistic view of what's going on rather than just it gets mentioned in various reports. I want to see the direction of travel and I want to be concerned that this lack of capacity is causing instability in the permanent roles through acting up and overworked key staff. Thank you. OK thank you Councillor Jackson. I think those points will be addressed. Mr Jones. Thank you chair. Could I ask the HR, are annual appraisal interviews conducted and are they in nature 180 degrees and is there a gleaning process carried out from depersonalised information to point to the interviewers in the trends, considerations, concerns. Items of that nature are fed back to the executive. Thank you chair. The PDRs have been carried out on an annual basis and are tracked through our learning lounge so there's a dashboard which we produce that is fed back to each head of service and director will get to see the numbers of staff within their areas that have completed those annual PDR conversations. We do collect key themes around training and development from those PDRs and pull out from there if there's some common themes that are coming through and keep that through into the development of our training programmes. Thank you. Just a comment that I'd like to make in regards to the DSG. I'd like to take this moment to remind the committee that auditing governance members don't micromanage the policy but we need to seek assurance that the concerns that we raise as a committee are being noted and addressed because assurance is our watchword at least. Thank you. Are there any other comments on the action log? Thank you members. I will take the action log as noted by the committee. Thank you. Moving on to action agenda point six. The company's audited financial statements, external audit findings and action report 2223. This is to receive a report on the audited financial statements of ANSA Environmental Services Limited and Orbitas Bereavement Services for the year 2223. This report can be found on pages 15 to 96 of today's agenda pack. I'll hand over to Tracey Paulwin to present the item. Thank you chair. As noted this report presents the audited financial statements for ANSA Environmental Services and Orbitas Bereavement Services for the year 2022-23 and we are linked to the financial statements in paragraph B of the report on page 17. The report provides a summary of findings from the Grinnell interviews external audit for 2223 and the audited findings identify the key issues that have been considered by Grant Fullerton before issuing their audit review on the single entity financial statements. The ANSA and all the task boards are responsible for signing off the financial statements and this was undertaken on the 27th of March, 2024 for ANSA and the 27th of December for Orbitas. As a result of the external audit work there have been no material changes to the financial statements for the year since the summary accounts were presented to the audit and governance committee on the 8th of June, 2023. The auditors have provided an unqualified opinion on the accounts of both companies providing assurance to the Jesuits group. The audit finding reports present the findings, conclusions and recommendations from the audit work undertaken and prior to approving the financial statements that formed and attended the respective boards and that was undertaken in November for both companies to report the findings directly to the company directors. In the report, appendix A on page 21 summarises some of the internal control findings from the respective boards and just to note that these items are ongoing and financed through working with companies to review processes and procedures with companies looking to reduce these internal control risks going forward and there will be further reports back on due course on Orbitas. The audit and governance committee is recommended on page 62 and then the finding of the reports. Thank you. Are there any members wishing to ask questions on those accounts? Can I propose to be recommended? I've got a couple of questions that I'd like to answer. Page 17.12, there's a shareholder agreement that's not been signed. Is there a reason for the delay? I don't know the reason for the delay, Chair, but I will take that way and seek clarification from you for any feedback. Okay. Page 23 and 37, Unit 4 again, issues with regard to staff numbers. Surely a viable system can reconcile staff numbers. I just don't understand why a standard HR Payroll report cannot do this. I find that difficult to understand. There were reports provided in 22, 23 from Unit 4 but there were delays in companies receiving those and having to completely encourage them to start to review the reports underlying the establishment. So there's a cost establishment as part of setting the budget each year for management and then there's an ongoing piece of work that's undertaken to reconcile the cost establishment to the Unit 4 establishment report. So as part of this year's order of the 23, 24 accounts, we're hoping that we will demonstrate the influence in that particular item and the headcount numbers that are reported in the accounts and the reconciliation of those items. Well, I hope we can work with more than just to help, to be honest, that these things need to be done properly. Page 21. Recognise the liability. Is there an insurance for promise internal audit that answer are being recharged any premium costs? As insurances within my own responsibility, Chair, happy to confirm that they are recharged request of premiums. Excellent. Thank you very much. On page 22, there's a lack of receipt records. This is basic accounting. Why is it not operating correctly? In relation to the purchase cards, the employees, the company sign the cardholder undertakings and within that they are required to provide receipts. So in 23, 24 we've introduced an additional procedure where all the receipts are provided back by the cardholders as part of the monitoring of cards. It's quite a manual process at the moment but the companies like Council are moving to a new card provider this financial year and that will provide more automated, sorry, recording and receipting of that information so we'll be able to have better reporting, streamlined reporting information from that process as well. Just to provide the committee with assurance, we do feedback to the management and the companies on any persistent delays from cardholders and there is a monthly process of the line managers of the cardholders signing off how the card is used, what they're spending information on and what supporting information is provided. So since 22, 23 they're sort of the improvements that were put in place and going forward the new card system is looking to improve that further. Page 23, performance obligations. This is an issue raised from previous years and without doubt needs to be resolved. Just on that point I think this one will continue into the next audit report but there is work underway. ANSA have undertaken some assurance work with a separate external committee on their commercial activities and how they're processed and recorded. I think there's a bit of further work that needs to happen beyond that so the finance team are working with the company as part of doing the review of the 23, 24 external income. So this is predominantly any income that's not coming from the Council or the government that's any external income. Just ensuring that audit trail is complete end to end and putting in appropriate processes to improve that going forward. And page 23, back to features. I don't want the HMRC looking at you. This is an open picture. This is in relation to the difference between the year-end VAT liability on the card balance and the actual March fact claim which is actually done a month later. We do provide the auditors with a reconciliation of that position. They're happy with that reconciliation but they're just saying it's unusual and we're pursuing that from our perspective. We work in the same way for the companies as we do for the Cheshire East VAT returns and it's all consistent reporting from the unit law system and we're not aware of any issues related to that. So we're pursuing this item with the external auditors in terms of how we can resolve this item and get it taken off the internal control. Because they do say it's out of context with similar organisations. We are pursuing that with the auditors to seek clarity in how we can provide the appropriate level of assurance to them. And whilst these are marked as the efficiency status, the issue should be rectified ASAP. As the Grant Thornton Report states, the audit of the financial statements does not relieve management or those charged with governance of their responsibilities, which is our problem with insurance. And there is on page 39, number 4, what's the associated receivable balance due from Cheshire East? So at the end of March 23, the amount owed to Cheshire East by answer was $1.4 million and auditors tutored $267,000. The figures overall reflected in the related parties note that as part of the work that we do for the group of counts, we do a complete intercompany affiliation across all entities, so from Cheshire East answer and all the tax. And as part of that process, we do flag off if there are any late payment invoices put all the companies within the group but using the Unifor system and therefore there's a closer sort of margin of scrutiny and we do pick up regularly if there are any overdue payments, which is unusual to have because we work within the 30-day terms on the system. But a point number 4 does say the associated receivable balance due from Cheshire East, what is that value? As at the 31st of March, 2023, it was pronounced that it was $1.4 million and $267,000 from Orbitask. Conversely, the council owed the companies a greater amount of money, so it's a moving position but that's a snapshot position as at the 31st of March. So how much did Cheshire East have as a balance due? There's an associated receivable balance due from Cheshire East, what is that value? $1.4 million from answer. I thought that was from answer to Cheshire East. Is it $1.4 million from answer to Cheshire East or Cheshire East of answer? I'm sorry, Cheshire East $1.4 million and Cheshire East owed answer $3.18 million. So the net amount due from Cheshire East to answer was $177,900. The information that I'm referring to is detailed in the relative party's note, the later party's note in the financial statements, but just to give you assurance that all those payments received either way were cleared sooner, within 30 days of the accounting date. Thank you. As the report is done, Council Member? Could I please ask a question regarding (inaudible) and then expenses as well. I know you detailed the procedure regarding missed payments by board if they get to provide proper receipts by staff. How many times has this procedure been effective? I don't have that information directly to hand, but I can get it to the staff. Thank you very much. We've got no more questions. Chair, I have in the past asked questions about the accounts concerning the subsidiary companies. I'm reading through this data, and I totally applaud the questions you've asked. I did sort of feel what are the management doing with their numbers? Are they looking at them? Is there a management accounting process going on here? Because there seem to be culpable examples of figures not being looked at properly. So could I ask, are they being looked at properly, and how are they being analysed? Beyond these are your accounts, we approve them, pass them on. The officer's got a response to that. There's in here monitoring, so management accounts produced on a quarterly basis for the board, what the management team received from the monitoring, and then there's also monitoring through to the commissioners of the council as well in terms of the management expense as well, which is there through to the shareholder also. Yes. So there was some Councillor interest in there. Councillor Barnhill? Yes, I have a question for you actually. As a non-executive director, I'm going to say Councillor, what's his particular role as a non-executive director? He's the chair of the company, so he's the overall responsibility of the company. I'm not sure if I can provide further information. It's just from previous experience, the previous non-executive director never attended a single meeting, and I'm wondering, I'm obviously sick of that, but I'm wondering what specifically is the role of a non-executive director in terms of, we're the only shareholder, are we? She's a non-executive director on the board, and is there a particular role for a three court activist committee? So the companies have a responsibility through the shareholder agreement to report periodically back to the shareholder working group and the finance subcommittee of shareholder, and also as part of the shareholder agreement. It is a requirement because of the inclusion of the company accounts into the group accounts that the accounts that were presented last year and the audit reports today come to the audit and governance committee for oversight. So the outer, I suppose in terms of the outer reporting for the companies for the particular days that we're referring to, 2022/23, they're reported through the finance committee as shareholder, in addition to the accounts from the audit and governance committee from a reporting perspective. Councillor? Following up from Councillor Marshall's question, in my experience, non-executive directors won't be appointed because they have particular skills and professional experience. I mean, is that the case when we appoint as a council or appoint non-executive directors onto all these ads? And if it isn't, it shouldn't be, in my opinion. Do the corporate policy team have an answer to that one? Chair, if I may assist very briefly, it strikes me that the committee may well wish to have a briefing session on this subject. The current or the previous boards of the council's wholly owned companies were made up of elected members with a managing director of the company, the managing director sitting on the board, and he was supported by three or more councillors as non-exec directors. The current arrangements is that there is a managing director, two officers of the local authority and one councillor. Again, the officers and councillor are supporting in a non-exec capacity. The definition of a non-executive director is a term of art rather than a legal one because the liabilities do not really change between the roles. So it is about their function within that role. The boards are chaired by the councillor. The question I think that is being asked is how are the board held accountable by the local authority is actually the subtext of this. There is provision both in the shareholder agreement and the finance subcommittee has given instruction as the shareholder to the relevant boards to report back quarterly both to the finance subcommittee on its performance against its company plan, to the council leadership team quarterly on performance against its company business plan. There is an issue that the local authority will need to address about the future of how those company boards are structured because clearly these matters are always developing in the world of governance and there are a number of reports that this committee will be aware of relating to other local authorities that have had less positive experience with companies. So it is a work in progress and on that basis chair the committee or any members of the committee or a small task and finish group may well wish to subject your view partake of a briefing session probably before finance subcommittee on the 23rd June where this matter could be discussed in detail. I am conscious that we are discussing an external body which is a commercial entity and of course there are elements of whether or not all of that can be done in the public domain. I'd like to refer back to Councillor Garland's point. Can we just check that our representatives are regularly attending the board? Would it be sensible to have just a bit of simple information perhaps within this framework that has been suggested by our officer of a group briefing that we may structure out of this because I do think that it is very important to, particularly if there are changes in the case being recommended, very important to know absolutely what our relationship as a council is with the bodies where we are the sole shareholder and to I suppose in a sense have a short list that that's working effectively and I would have thought that if there is any question of attendance of the people responsible then it probably isn't working as effectively as it could. So I would recommend serious consideration by this committee of the proposal that's been made to have a briefing in some framework on the governance here and our relationship and performance to date if I can put it that way of the individuals with responsibility for acting as that connecting link and that responsible link. I think the framework was a good idea and if we can encompass the questions we've got with item attendance and powers that would be good. I think that's all to add on Jim. Other committee in favour of the proposal? Anybody going to second it? Sorry I've got some questions here. Just that proposal for the framework and the attendance. Is it to do with the same point? It's to do with the same point but I just want some issues to clarify. I'm not saying I'm against you or anything. I'm asking questions for both Mr Brown and... Go on then. My question is how can offices provide assurance of governance to this committee in terms of being directed from that of a country which this council is a shareholder of? I thought that the purpose of this, why we have three councils as directors on this most of the five who come with this assurance but how much of that is education on this body. I can't think how two from three to one, how does that continue? Especially if it seems like... Councillor Redstone. Councillor Redstone, could you put your back down? Sorry. Hello. Don't slap me in, you're alright. Very, very basically how can we be assured that there is sufficient representation on this board when it's claimed that having only one councillor on it is not sufficient? Councillor Redstone, these matters have been dealt with quite significantly through the finance subcommittee for the last few years and it is covered in a number of reports that but in summary the guidance and governance documents to local authorities would suggest that the role of councillors are that as a role of a councillor. When you become a director of a company your role and your duty to the company outweighs your role and duty as a councillor and that is a very important distinction. The question then becomes what value does the councillor bring to that company board of directors? Now in a business such as a domestic waste retrieval you can see a councillor who has a close ties with the community and heir to a ground can bring enormous value to how that company is perceived on the ground, how its customers perceive it and so forth. The question then becomes if the board is only made up of people with that skill set where the rest of the issues are addressed, so where do you get people with knowledge of the waste industry, with the recycling industry, with those who are used to dealing with HGV vehicles on a daily basis and that is the issue that local authorities face if it is just councillors on the board which is what started the transition to allow the boards to be supported. So what I would suggest councillor is that perhaps part of this conversation is better done in a part two setting or in a private briefing because there are of course company sensitivities and financial sensitivities because we are operating in a marketplace. Thank you, I accept your comments. My second question is actually regarding the accounts again. What I can see is there are a series of what I would call timing differences in your accounts where the items are in the previous year and you are showing them in the current year. These things, if I understand rightly, so where you are doing your trial balances, your trial balances have to be adjusted because for example the VAT, there are some receipts in that which actually are in the previous quarter I suppose, is that correct? The accounts do reflect the trial balance position as per the system of the 30% mark so if there are any expenditure recognisable that have been posted into a grey or following year then they are accrued accordingly so the accounts are on an accrual basis and are reflected as such. The issue with the VAT is just a timing difference between the VAT liability that is recognised for all invoices received or paid to the 31st of March and the timing of the back return for the March period which is undertaken at the end of April and the difference in invoices relating to March that are subsequently received in the April period and they are correctly picked up in the back return for March because the amounts have been accrued back for the actual cost of the services. The difference is essentially the VAT liability that isn't accrued and that's normal and it's that reconciliation that we provide to the auditors to demonstrate that reconciliation to the 31st of March VAT liability figure and back return figure. So yeah that's just a conclusion that the accounts are based on an accrual basis. Thank you. May I go back then Chair to my proposal? It does seem that we are having changes in the relationship between the Council and our wholly owned companies in terms of governance. I for one would certainly like to understand the implications of those changes and how effective therefore our relationship is in terms of overall responsibility and the assurances developing that we need and what input we can put into ensuring that the processes that are in place produce the correct assurances and that our understanding perhaps develops at that relationship. So I would again propose that this committee sets up a modestly sized, depending on interest of course, working party but first we're provided with a general briefing for everybody on the current detailed state of play and the responsibilities of the individuals who are, if you like, the links between the Council and our wholly owned companies. That's my proposal. Briefing and then a working group. OK. We'll see what comes out of the framework. That's the best. I am prepared to second that. Oh good. Please do in favour of that recording and that working group. Thank you. Right. As the report is to note, I'll take a sense of the meeting that the committee is happy to note the report with the issues raised. I move on to Item Agenda 7. Now unfortunately, I move on to Agenda Item 7. Now unfortunately the officer that was going to come and report is on her way. Could I suggest that we might just benefit from a short adjournment to discuss the next item and the opposite of presence and then return to the meeting? We're all enjoying ourselves. I have no wish to stop you. Head of the committee wish for a short break? Or do you want to carry on? I have a short break. OK. Five minutes. No more. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. I've got our missing officer, so I'm going back to agenda point seven. An update on the governance arrangements for the dedicated skills grant management plan, 24, 25 to 20, 30, 31. The object is to receive a report on the update on the governance agreements for the day's agenda pack. I'd like to ask Claire Williamson to present the slides to me, please. Good morning, and sorry for the delay. I think there was a bit of confusion because we're outside, so we're at parties for that. Just to go through the paper. So the paper today is to give an update on the regards of the registry management plan. It is to first and foremost make reference to that there was a detailed plan that went to each other on the committee on the 29th of April. There is also a subsequent paper that is also going to each other on Monday with a much more detailed plan. Just want to acknowledge at the beginning that the details weren't as detailed in this report was data sequencing and also to give due respect to Children and Families Committee that these papers were first and foremost published before the paper to Children and Families Committee and I would like for me to give the information to my Children and Families Committee first. I just want to acknowledge that. I have had some questions and now that that is important for me, more than happy to now talk about those because obviously committee members, Children and Families Committee have now seen that. The report today is to talk about the governance arrangements and the assurance of how offices will be reporting in regards of the plan, the mitigations and the financial implications as we are moving forward and the development of the nine individual pits which give a very detailed view in regards to the workers going forward and then the development of a governance board and who will sit on that governance board as we move forward. So I think it's really important just to note in regards of the mitigations that we are taking forward at this moment in time and I know that I have had some questions in regards of those. So I think it's what we want to really assure you today is that we have had a full review of our leadership arrangements. I took over in regards to being the Director of Education in August of last year and within that time being that Director having a view in regards of all of the operations across them to have that real detailed vision in regards to looking at where we need to be and obviously looking at the financial implications as we move forward. You will see the impact in regards of the finances from our initial prediction to where we are have improved significantly and that's around the mitigations that we are putting in place. That's around making sure that we do support for our families and children at the right time, right support and right place. I have to say, as a Director of Education, everything that we do is to improve outcomes for children and I know that the financial impact is absolute poverty in this council but what we have to do is make sure that we do the right things for children and families and that's what I'm trying to do hard in regards to putting the mitigations in. So since September 2024, the Partnership Board has been working hard to invent a new strategy that was endorsing children and families and to re-promote the new GST management plan. Within that working way, we've seen an overall reduction to the rates of growth at the agency fee plans and an increase in children's CEP support early at CEM support and support levels. We've been supporting schools earlier by specialised professionals to improve equity practice and support a graduating approach in meeting the needs. CEM support is really important for us as a council and at this moment in time, not enough children are being supported at CEM support. So what we have done is strengthened the graduated approach. We have developed a specialist team that is being delivered by our head teachers and staff at special schools who are going directly into schools and being able to support and advise much, much earlier. That's embedding the CEM toolkit effectively and supporting this outreach programme with key leaders to drive change. So we're really seeing that that is making a huge difference. Clear and more robust decision-making processes are now being embedded across our centre panels, which relate to children and agreeing EHC needs assessments and issuing plans. Advise providers to education and psychology services, part of our statutory support is happening much earlier from a preventative point of view and a supportive point of view. Decision-making process with regards to educational placements has improved considerably and we are making sure that we're looking for best value for money, most important at the heart of our decisions and looking at the best use of our resources. The drive and inclusion of improved special support over to schools is increasing our challenge for schools on best practice. The reduction you will see in regards of the special for independent non-maintained special settings has reduced significantly and that decision-making in regards to those decisions around those placements are made at a much more strategical level now. The Ready Childs in regards to replacement is a high cost placement. And then we're looking at good reviews and a clear financial strategy to ensure that at face level decision-making the strategical is more appropriate as we're moving forward. Now I appreciate lots of that information is not in this report but what you will see is the absolute list of the children's families report and I think that's really significant of how we understand the breakdown in regards to how we're moving forward. The governance arrangements that we are wanting to bring forward is now that we're going to have a set executive oversight panel. It's been reconfigured and it's been strengthened and it will be chaired by the chief executive and it will have key members who will sit on the board including the section 15 officer, executive director, myself and also chair and vice-chair of the Children and Families Committee and the chair, vice-chair, board and governance. And then what Children and Families Committee has also asked us to do is give a monthly fund date. So what we're proposing is that when we're in Children and Families Committee that within Children and Families Committee we have that as a standardized item and then on the months where we don't have a committee then we will have a dedicated meeting that takes place on a monthly basis. That they decide for Children and Families Committee is clear and happens on a regular basis. I'm going to stop there because that's quite a lot of information. I know there's a number of questions that people would like to pose. Okay, motion one. Before we go to members questions, Councillor Flowers wants to make a statement. Thank you chair and thank you for the update. It's quite helpful in relation to what I'm going to say. So first of all, you're all seeing the tables, you're all seeing the figures so I'm not going to repeat those. And I would agree that the outcomes for children are what we are most interested in and it's what we must focus on throughout. But audit and governance committee are ultimately charged with assessing the fiscal probability of activities undertaken by this council. Now the tables that you have in this report are primarily identifying numbers of EHCPs. They're proportionate changes over time, either up or down. But nowhere in this particular set of papers or indeed the papers on Monday is there a financial accounting of past, of currents and trajectories. And you will see that in line 18 of your papers. A detailed data performance suite is being developed to track and monitor progress against the strategy, work streams and implementation of the nine kids. That's on page 100 of your papers. It's being developed. It's not developed yet. And it was something I raised at the last Children and Families Committee because the same thing was said there. You need to see what that is. And I welcome the fact that there's a reduction in the forecast position of £10.1 million. But the breakdown of these savings, again, are not yet directly aligned in those papers with the nine kids. So these are the sorts of things we need to understand. From the audit and governance perspective, your focus must be on the strategic fiscal budgeting aspects of this work. As the DSG plan is a long-term project, what is still needed is a coherent accounting tool that will enable this audit governance committee to effectively and accurately trace the progression or regression of DSG financial mitigations over this next six plus years. We're now a third of the way into the new accounting period and you must seek assurance that these accounting systems are available as soon as possible. The second concern I have is in relation to the formation of a strategic DSG management board. And I think we've had a bit of an explanation of that already. A new board has been reconfigured and strengthened with members of this board, which will include the Executive Director of Children's Services, Monbiah Hall Officer. However, it's a rather different governance board that's being presented to the Children and Families Committee on Monday. The terms of reference when Cheshire East's 125-cent partnership sent the executive oversight panel is very much more robust. But the membership does not include cross-party members of the Children and Families Committee. It does include the chair, vice-chair of this committee. I don't know whether you have been aware of that, but what I would say just to finish, there must be improved clarity, consistency and approach across these committees in the future and the same terms of reference presented to this committee for noting, at the very least, we run a significant risk of losing momentum in dealing with DSG if we cannot dismantle the silo ways of working. Thank you. Thank you. Before I open this to today, I'd just like to say that audit and governance are not here to micromanage it, Children and Families responsibility. We need to make sure that the points we raise are noted and are considered. But certainly I invite questions from committee members for the points raised. Can I just seek clarification, who does this board report to? Is it for council or is it to someone else? I think that's your board you've put together. Right, okay. We report to the Children and Families Committee, so if you want updates and you've got a comment to audit and governance, with that board, we'll directly comment to Children and Families Committee and the reporting mechanisms that we're going to report and the papers that we are developing as we're moving forward with that governance, we'll go to the Children and Families Committee. That's a question. That's what you meant. So I've got two questions, make sure that's fairly close to me. The first one is on leadership capacity, considering across the council there's a highlighted issue around leadership capacity, and we're looking at a significant amount of transformative change within this programme. Do we have the capacity and skills in the management team that will make this possible? We know that some officers are off work currently, how much of a skills and resource gap is what we would prefer to make this happen? Do we have issues there or is this potentially possible? So that's the first question. The second one is, as mentioned in the later risk register on page 122 paragraph 36, there's been a budgetary increase to the school's transport fund. In November 22, Councillor Anderson and others raised the issue that our funding for our school transport is disproportionately expensive in comparison with similar councils. Around a per student average overspend of £3,000 in comparison to other comparative councils was mentioned. Rather than a saving over the past 18 months, we've seen an increased cost of about £0.9 million if I remember rightly. A saving in this area could be quite significant. From this it appears that there's not been significant movement on what could be low-hanging fruit, potentially worth millions to the council on savings. This lack of directional change leads me to ask, if we can't action, what could potentially be a smaller issue such as this in comparison to the larger transformative DSG project? Can we seek assurances from the team that we are capable of delivering the level of necessary change from the DSG transformation? Because for me this issue is actually the canary in the coal mine. So can we please be assured by what action is being taken on this area specifically as somewhat of a litmus test for the health of the broader projects? Okay, basically what we've got is leadership and sickness. I have to go back to work, which is why I'm so sick. I'm feeling well, but obviously it's a difficult period of time. I have no concerns in regards to the leadership in regards to the team. We are building a transformation team at its moments in time. I'm looking at how we do that. I'm looking at how we're going to build that expertise. I think it's really important that in regards to the plan, the plan has been endorsed by the DFA. The plan, we are clear and said that this is a doable plan. They have confidence in us as officers and confidence in the plan of how we're going to achieve the savings. I think already that is already showing that we are already working, given that we've just had a 10.1 million pound reduction, which actually that is nowhere on the plan saying that we would have even achieved that by even next year and yet we've already achieved that. So I believe that that absolutely gives a confidence in regards to the leadership and the oversight of the plan that we're taking forward. In regards to the questions in regards to transport, I think that the papers that go into children and families are already showing the reduction in regards to the transport budget. However, what we have to understand in regards to transport is that's a statutory arrangement of what we have to put in place for children. Now, given that the difficulties that we have in Cheshire East and the cost of what the procurement exercises bring forward in regards to the way that some of our operators and some of their costs, we have brought in a company that we've been working with to look at many areas and there's a full detailed report of all of the things that we are doing to reduce that transport. But the bottom line is that's a statutory requirement of children that they can receive school transport. Part of the mitigations within our plan is where we go with our own. So what we're absolutely tending to do is Cheshire East children remain in Cheshire East. We don't want children having to go out to transport and to Cheshire East where it's not possible. But what we want is some children that were needed and those that were very complex children that were needed, dedicated and in provision. But by building our own schools and building our own settings, that absolutely will lead to reduce that. So I hope that answers your questions. For some reason this has stopped saying hello. Yes it is and as somebody who did use the school transport as a teenager, I'm very aware that it is a vital link. I know certain students who are just within the boundaries for transport to school that would love that facility. So I'm very aware of how necessary it is. It is just that £3,000 cost compared to other councils. So I do hope that our current building plan does bring that down and further integration into local community schools is something that I'm very interested in as somebody who again was integrated and was within that scheme. So thank you for those answers. Are there any other questions? I would like to request some information on the HCPs in academies versus local authority that maintains schools. Are they proportionately well at the HCPs in academies? I mean you may not be able to answer that question now so thank you for the information that needs to be provided to put into this meeting. Yeah absolutely. When we are supporting children through the application of an HCP plan, it is regardless of whether they're mentored or whether they are in academy school. So obviously it's around listening requirements and the health and well-being and education needs of those children. We can provide that data but what I will say is that we are working hugely with our schools in regards to being more inclusive, supporting our children in regards to remaining in mainstream provisions because that's absolutely where we believe that with the jobs of children you can have the needs back. We can provide a detailed update but what I would say is that there's no huge mass differences between mentee skills or those at academies. They do change in different areas but that will also change around those community needs as well. So we will see some areas that will be higher than before but that's about the deprivation. Within those areas and where we've got deprivation, we'll see how it will be for children in the HCP plans. Thank you. Thank you for the report. I've come to one or two points in it but first of all I'd like to go backwards in time a little bit which I think an audit committee is allowed to do. 2018-21 Executive Summary of the Medium-Term Cheshire East Council's financial strategy. A plan has also been developed to add 270 additional centre bases over the next few years. Was that achieved? Yes it was achieved. So can I ask, what is the overall number of properties and information somewhere, I apologise if I haven't picked it up, availability of special educational needs placements in Cheshire East currently? We need a full breakdown of that because it's not just one in all that you'll have in regards to the mainstream provision. Forget the mainstream provision for a moment because the mainstream provision, as I understand it, is provided by the standard school system plus additional help from the government, as possibly, presumably, additional help from Cheshire East. Am I correct in understanding that? Yes, it depends. So for mainstream provisions you'll have source provisions, you'll have units, so again within that mainstream provision you'll still have a mixture, although that will still provide the support for children with special education needs. Okay, thank you. I come back to how many of the kind of expensive placements that we need to take outside Cheshire East are currently within Cheshire East? So we've got a very detailed plan, so I can get you those figures off the top of my head, we know more about it, Alex has got more details on this. There's approximately 550 to 600 children in special school places in Cheshire East. Within Cheshire East? Within Cheshire East. And how many currently do we have outside, and do we have any spare capacity at the moment in Cheshire East? There's no spare capacity in Cheshire East, that's part of the problem, because we don't have enough special school places. So how many currently do we have outside of Cheshire East? There's approximately 200 that are in order at a Cheshire East. So in other words they would all need transport, wouldn't they? They would. Yes, okay, and that transport obviously has to be paid for by Cheshire East. Right, okay. Now then, if I may, what plans have we got in place at the moment to build these additional special education-related places that we obviously have, and have we had a continuing set of plans since, if I may, 2018-21? Because obviously this problem has been with us since then. So we've had a very detailed plan since 2018, and what we can do is get you the full breakdown of the number of places that we've been developing, since 2018 all the way through. We can talk about it very recently, we've just expanded and built a brand new special school to make bills, we've just expanded to make bills as well. So we've got a whole programme that we've been working on, so we have been building additional places. What we have just received is agreement to receive a capital bid so that we can now bring that forward and build lots more places as we move forward. When I talk about the plan, the Day Street Management Plan, and I say it's a detailed plan, it's really important that we keep the efforts in this. The nine pins absolutely link to financial, down to the minute detail of individual places of what we need to develop. We know exactly now what we need to build, we know exactly how many children we need to repatriate back into Cheshire East. We know the financial implications of every single one of those. So when we say we've not planned, there is a plan, but a very detailed plan that's linked absolutely to the outcomes in those nine pins. So we've got full financial oversight. What we have to be careful of is not to build too many places, because what we can't afford to build, then build and build, we need to absolutely reduce the amount of EACP plans that we're actually issuing in Cheshire East. And that's because we've had a huge increase in the national average, and what we need to do is reduce the number of children that have an EACP plan, and support more children where possible at early intervention and support plans. I appreciate that, but it would seem to me in the current market situation, if we did have additional places, we could presumably market and receive an income. It's a statutory policy to come, but market school places for children, so what we need to do is build more places for children in Cheshire East, support those children to return back into Cheshire East, so that then we have a reduced cost of those places. Right, I see, so if I may, so now I understand that you couldn't enter the market yourself, even though as I understand it, most of these placements have sign Cheshires in private organisations, is that correct? No, you can't market them, so when we build a special school, any local authority can consult on a place in one of those schools. It's a very good admissions process, it's no different, we don't just gate them, these are school places, it's not a private entity that we're entering into, it's a school place, so it's all the process we have to go to. Okay, so sorry to be a little bit persistent here, I apologise to the committee, but if we commission a place outside Cheshire East, are you saying that the actual costs of that school placement are similar to a placement in Cheshire East? No, that's a problem, so the cost can be anywhere between £60,000 to £90,000 per place, especially as an independent school place. Annually? Yes, outside of Cheshire East, compared to a school place, about £25,000 if you see here, that's out of doubt, that's what we've already seen. And does that extra, if I may, include transport costs? Yes, on top of the transport costs. Oh I see, so in other words, it's the whole package? It is, it is. Okay, good, well I can see why you want to build more places. I would like, I mean personally, I would like a breakdown of the plans here, a detailed breakdown, because coming back to the general situation, when I read this report, I moved from the budgetary situation you're expecting, which I think is described on page 98 in paragraph 6 and 7, which even when you get to the mitigating forecast position in 2030/31, where you will expect an expenditure of £70.2 million against an expected grant and school block transfer of £70.7 million, resulting in an in-year surplus of £0.6 million, but you will have a total deficit at that point of £284.8 million. We will have accessories, and we will no doubt be paying interest on them, certainly on a considerable proportion of that deficit. I mean, to me, that is a huge financial problem for this authority, needing out of thought, given the fact that other authorities are in a similar position, some kind of external management. Presumably the Ministry of Education were ever so responsible at that time. You then, if I can move to paragraph 25, if I may, on page 101. Both the current and forecast deficit balances are creating financial pressures, we know that, and are unaffordable for the Council. That is a statement, a clear statement. Therefore, support for the DfE through the Safety Vault programme, or support through other avenues, is essential to avoid the need to issue an S114 notice in the future. My problem here, as an ordinary person, looking at the way local authorities work, is that I personally cannot see how you can move over time, given the budgetary situation that we have looking back, to a budgetary situation in which your grant, expected grant from external sources by the government, matches in any way the costs that we could experience at that time. I mean, I don't know if inflation has even taken into account. And I would ask the question, what are the assurances that, where are we, support through other avenues? What are we talking about here, and are they described in some detail in the plans that, presumably will be going, the detailed plans you've specified, that will be going to this new oversight, working group will be going to children and families and coming to us. Where are these other avenues coming from? Thank you. Okay, so I'm on update on this committee. So we have been working since September with the DfE with a government advisor to work on our new management plan for the DSG. That plan, as I've explained, is a very detailed plan, and if you have a look at the forecasting figures, the forecasting figures over the seven years meant that if we continue to be and continue to carry on how we were, we would have had a deficit of £1.2 billion. Yes, I do realise that. So the work that we have done is to develop a plan with all of the mitigating areas that we have worked on. Like I say, the plan is there, and I suppose that's what I don't think is planned, coming across to children and families and this committee. The plan is very detailed, it's a huge massive plan, but it gives all of those mitigations year on year with their costing, it's already developed, it's already there and developed. What we were able to achieve is by achieving that plan is to reduce that deficit any further down from the £285 million, so that's why there's a gap of £285 million if we worked and achieved all of those things over the seven years. And I am going to say really, I want to be really transparent here, for us to achieve the £285 million is a huge, huge piece of work that we need to undertake. However, we believe that it's a plan that we can endorse and we believe in because we believe we can achieve it. Already what we have seen is, we haven't included, because we have already started that work at such pace with such rigour, we've already seen that that reduction of the £10.1 million is not included in those figures and worked out. So what we are intending to do is to work with the de-economic advisor now and remodel it, but that isn't something that happens in a day, to remodel that entire plan takes a number of weeks, because it's so difficult to achieve. So we're going to do that and we believe that will reduce hugely the gap of £285 million and that's the only reason that we weren't accepted at this moment in time to say to them, I say to them I've been working with this. So we already have government intervention who are working with this, that government advisor still stayed with us because she believes in that plan as well and she believes in us as a team. So we believe that we will be able to come back when that piece of work has taken place and we believe that we will be closing that gap even less, it won't be a £285. If you imagine £10.1 million over those years, it already needs to be built in and brought back down. If we then do get into Safety Bell, what that other support means there is that for others that have been part of Safety Bell, they've had agreements where they have an upfront amount of money that the government provides, which actually helps them in regards to reduce our interest costs, it helps us to then obviously look at our mitigations in a different way. And I believe that's why we've been accepted with our capital bid is because they absolutely believe that they can see what we need to do, they can see the number of places that we need to build, we've got a timeframe, in regards to why we need to do that. In regards to the nine pits, there's already work streams that are set off that are doing key pieces of work. They've all got a timeframe on, none of those timeframe will slip and they will be provided in to update the Children's Affairs Committee. So I think it's a really complex piece of work, but I think hopefully what you can see is that we're clear in regards to that deficit of where we're going. And all I can say is that the green sheets are there and they're absolutely starting to be able to see in regards to the work that we're doing is how we're connecting and how we're not working in silence. We are working with DfE, we are working with all of our connected services and children and the wider Cheshire East now and I have to thank the other directors and the executive directors how absolutely this isn't just being owned now in education, this is being owned by Cheshire East. And I really do feel, I can feel that as a director, that we'll change as we're moving forward. Can I thank you for that explanation and just make a brief statement. I'll make it brief, Jan. It is an enormous burden, an enormous burden that officers generally in the authority are facing. Because as we all know, it is a completely, if you like, I can't even find the words, but it's an amazingly difficult thing to balance an enormous set of expanding demands without the proper financial arrangements for meeting those demands. And that creation of that situation is not and has never been the responsibility of Cheshire East as such. And the officers concerned, as we can hear now, have worked extremely hard to manage this very, very difficult situation. And I think we should all, as an audit committee, recognise the tremendous amount of energy, effort and genuine commitment to balance the very, very serious needs of some of our children with the financial arrangements that we currently have. And I admire them. Councillor Haynes. Thank you, Jan. Very, very good news on the successful casting bid. I would like a bit more information on this template with 1 million, secondly. I need to be assured that it's correct, firstly. And can we do more of it, please? Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. We've got a good crystal pole. What we can do is, now that we've got children and families committee on Monday, then there's a very detailed breakdown of exactly what is there. That's completely some of the things I've got to report here. So to give you a breakdown of the financial figures and what does that look like. So the main budget area is contributing to the approved deficit position in 2020 through 24. So accounting for that 10.1 is 7 million pound underspend on external placements, including independent special schools, non-maintained schools and post-16 institutions. That's what I've just talked about is that those children now are not going out to Cheshire East and those children remain in the Cheshire East. And that's a very significant 7 million pounds in a very short amount of time. You can see then that oversight and that real figure in our moving forward. 1.7 million pound underspend on top-up and place-under costs in mainstream schools and resource provisions. And a 1.3 underspend on CENS support services and other commission specialist provisions. So we're giving you that detail and then what does take place in each other's families is a full review of those mitigations and how that's actually in the detailed, final detail. What does that mean? What does that look like? When we're saying can we do more, the plan is the plan and the plan absolutely sets out exactly what we need to do. So it's a map for us to follow. So in regards of those mitigations now and how we take those mitigations forward, it's my responsibility to ensure that we don't slip on those timeframes because if we slip on any timeframes that will cost us. So it's about making sure that those individual work streams we take forward have that real clear focus. Quite a deal. Thank you. As the council's section 151 officer, obviously we work very closely, particularly on the negotiations with DfE. I've worked in authorities that have been in safety valve before and these types of very detailed conversations are ones that I'm used to and other councils are very used to. It's really important, it was already made the point that we haven't been turned down, we've still got the support and actually by the work that's already happening and the delivery against, essentially that underspend is, I would classify almost as some early delivery on some of the savings that you're expecting to happen in the future which is getting used. The thing for us is ideally what we want to do is we want that support from DfE so where they have not turned us down from safety valve, that would make a big difference to us in terms of both the cash flow and the wider financial picture. So there is a commitment across the council to support children and families and the wider team around this. But it's really important that those negotiations remain live with DfE and they are and the fact that the DfE advisors are sitting alongside us and working with us, I think is a good sign that there is continued ability to negotiate and it is not just on the totality of potential safety valve funding, it's actually on how they can assist us if there's things they can do in terms of the delivery of those plans. So some of the things like actually potential capital bids and things like that, it's really important, which is why my team will sit very closely alongside Claire and the rest of the team to deliver that. Thank you. Councillor Beeson. Thank you. I'm glad there's positive news in this problem and over to you and your team. I've got a couple of questions. I just want more information really. I'm trying to understand one thing you said. You said that there are between 550 and 600 send places in Cheshire East, but there's no spare capacity. How could those two statements be true? You give us a range of 50. Right, OK. So, yeah, what we're doing is that we put very much on the spot on the goals of pulling numbers out of the goals. We're very clear. What we want to do is just go back and just clarify the goals of the exact, you know, a slight variation, but quite clear. Alex and I know this plan, we live and breathe this plan every single day, but there isn't any spare capacity, and that's showing in regards to the number of children that are going out to Cheshire East. This goes back historically in regards to where we were, where we went as an authority, we split. Cheshire West got a much higher proportion of our sent schools Cheshire East didn't, and this is historical that we've been on a catch-up in regards to looking at that, but I think the numbers very clearly share with regards to if we don't have the places in Cheshire East. Every day we've got these assessments coming through for specialist independent, specialist places that we're having to link for those specialist independent. That's a huge drain for us, and that's what we need to do. But we want to be very specific in regards to our numbers, and we can come and also share that information and call back to you. Thank you. The other part of my question relates to, you told us that there are 200 children going to elderly schools outside of the area, but you've not told us how many children are going to private schools outside of the area. So do you know what that is, and is there also any private schools within the area? I'm just trying to get an idea of the totality of this problem. Not problem, but... Yeah, we can provide a breakdown on all of that. Broadly speaking, as I've taken this from Margaret, there's approximately 700 EHCB people that are attending independent specialist schools, and they're talking at the 25 area up to age 25, not just school-aged children. Some of those provisions are in Cheshire East and some of those provisions are outside of Cheshire East. I don't recall the split between those two, but that is something that we can provide. The paper that's going to children and families on Monday, which is obviously published now anyway, and it does show a breakdown of all the totality of our EHCBs broken down into provision times. That was based on January 24 information, which is in the statutory return that we have to do for the EHCB survey. So that information has been taken from there. What we'll do is we'll share the attendance, if that's helpful, and we'll share the detail further down. Sorry, members can read the committee papers for children and families and even turn up and ask questions about the committee, where they would be micromanaging it. Councillors. Sorry, I just have another ask this time. Could you give a sorcery or abbreviations? Somebody who's dyslexic, I find abbreviations really hard to handle, but thank you. Of course we will. Thank you, Chair. I have a couple of questions. Really, more for finance, I think. Is it correct? It's $285 million, but the $7 million is now $275 million. Have I understood that correctly? Yeah, but the other thing is, can I be advised how this 285 or 275 million pound problem could resolve itself because I'm having a problem with it in my mind around how that can pan out? Certainly the actual win-taking is not enough to wipe off the 285 million pound deficit, is it? So the 285 will not resolve itself, but the issue was it was a potential of a 1.2 billion. So there's quite a big difference, I'm saying, between the 1.2 billion and the 285. In terms of the 10 million disaster, you wouldn't automatically just go take the 10 million off the 285 because actually the potential is it could be bigger than that because it will be bigger because if you take out that gap earlier in the process, it reduces the fact that you would need that over the future years. It's quite a detailed model for me to be able to say, and that was exactly as Claire said, you've got to model it over time. The biggest thing is it's whether or not we would be able to attract safety level funding. So in the other authorities that I have been in, what they are able to do is if it's a number that I suppose they feel comfortable to be able to support, you are able to access funding, in essence they wipe off some of the old problem, if I put it that way. But to get that funding, you also need to hit lots of other targets too. We have not been turned down for that, and it wouldn't wipe out over 225, but it would go some way to supporting us to be able to assist with that number. However, the DFE have not turned us down, but they haven't accepted us yet. So the biggest thing that we need to do is deliver on what we say we are going to deliver on. We've shown already, in last year, so no pressure to my colleagues next to me, we've already shown that we can deliver and have over delivered on the plans. It's going to be difficult, you know, I know having worked in other areas with this as well, we will need to make sure that, and it is part of the Children and Families Committee and this committee is, that's why you're looking at the governance, is the assurance that those plans stay on track, because the more that we can deliver, the more likely we may get some support from DFE. That support may also be things like the capital funding that would seed fund us to be able to deliver things with Envira. So it's quite complicated to do that. I think the important thing is we need to make sure there are regular updates through our normal financial monitoring, as well as through the focus on this particular area that show the change over time. So this is a snapshot at that point in time. Apologies, I wish I could tell you it's all straight line, it's not. Can I just come back to another comment? I mean, at the moment we've got the issue with this capitalised interest, we've got interest by interest, which is really, really bad in my opinion. And then of course, the quicker we can make these savings, there's going to be a lot of interest savings going forward. So if you get this right and do as much as we can early on, it's going to be better and better, isn't it, instead of doing what we're going to save. From my perspective, I think that's worrying as an authority. Dealing with this particular issue is one of the highest priorities that we've got on the financial perspective. Dealing in a council on financial sustainability is never just one simple straightforward thing, but this has to be one of the highest priorities, which is why council services are wrapping around and supporting and delivering these projects, and it's really important we continue to do so. I'd just like to say, it is important, definitely, everybody's mind is concentrating on this now, hopefully. It's a question really, is the 10 million saving a reduction in the 1.2 billion or a reduction in the 285? That's the bit I'm struggling to understand. I don't expect to answer it now, because your crystal ball's a little better than mine is. I've just got a couple of questions that I'd like to raise that are picking up points that people have made. The nine PIDs - sorry Patrick, even I don't know what a PID is, but it's to do with plans in development - don't have any values attached to them. So how are children and families going to identify that particular measure is working? All you've got is nine points, and you're going to follow the nine points, I'm sure you are, you live and breathe what they are, but how are you going to get that message across to children and families, is my first point. And then coming back to what Adele's just said, what's CPC or CLT, whatever you want to call it yourself, what's your policy should the safety valve application be refused again? As I understand from the previous finance officer that we were refused, one of the reasons we were refused was because our deficit is more than 10% of the DSG grant. I don't know how we're going to answer the 285 million problem, but it's certainly something that needs addressing. It isn't even in the MTFS, other than as a footnote, which is a strange character, although the government have given us license to do it. I'd like to understand a question really for the legal people. I'd like to understand this action of compliance with the statutory duty. Does it override the financial consideration or problem that it causes? I mean, 285 million is practically all of the rates income, it's a big number, we all appreciate that. But is compliance just it, that's it, you've just got to do it? Or is there a point where you can say, this is too much? I don't know. Have legal got an answer for that? Oh, Claire's got an answer, that's good. Should I go for the first two? Yes, while they think about the other one. So in regards to the deficit we talked about, the impact would be that it's a reduced forecast. So that's where that 10.1 million pounds, where we forecast, we will now remodel it and remodel it of that 10.1, which then will give an overall reduction in regards of, it's simply a 1.2 billion pound overspend. We might even get out of the bees and get it to the millions, maybe, because it was your phone, because I don't want that categorically stated, you know, with another label if we got into the bees. Hopefully then, and then that then will then reduce then that 285 will also be a reduction, and that's how we'll move that forward. When we're talking about the nine individual pits, I just want to clarify, there's nine pits with a title, and each one of those pits have got numerous lines underneath them, and each one of them then is ported to an action with a financial savings attached to them. And that's what I think we're going to do, is absolutely be able to share that as we're moving forward. And that will go to children and fathers? Yes, a pit is a project in initiation documents. Sorry, we're talking again about that and not saying what it means. So with each one of those, it's a very detailed plan, so it's not just nine lines, it's a very, very detailed plan. And that helps us and enables then where you can see transparency, so you can see that, because it'll have a very financial element attached to it, but also with a date, and then the date that we need to achieve it, and what does that date look like, and then mitigations behind that, so they're very, very detailed as we're moving forward. And then you talked about the implications of Safety Valve, and if we're not in there, well Safety Valve haven't walked away, and they haven't walked away for the reason is, they absolutely believe that we can deliver this plan. So what the DfE are telling me, and when I returned for Sitka, I met with the lead game, he said, the reason we have not walked away if we believe that this is a doable plan, in actually 80 years deficit was a higher region, they want us to remodel it, and then they want us to come back, so by all accounts, it's certainly really, really positive that we will get into Safety Valve, they want us now to do that modeling, to be able to see what that gap is, and that gap then, even if we've seen other local authorities, is not far away from where other authorities have been, and they have been accepted into Safety Valve, so that's a confidence that they have in us. In terms of one of the biggest risks that we've got, it's actually around the change in legislation, so at the end of 25, 26, at the moment, we are being allowed to, as all local authorities, there's something called a statutory override, what it effectively means is that we can almost ignore, if I call it that, the fact that there are deficits on the DSG, so we don't have to, in our normal accounting standards, we don't have to recognise the fact that these deficits have been building up in the DSG, this has been going on for a number of years, it has been extended, because we are not the only local authority that are affected by this, nearly every single local authority in the country is affected by this, so in effect, you're almost being allowed to ignore the fact that you should have these deficits backed by some form of reserve or some other way of playing for it. The issue comes, that statutory override comes to the end, at the moment, in 25, 26. I have been in conversation with a number of other local authorities, because as I say, I've been working in other local authorities that are also affected by the statutory override, some more than others, so I'm probably in a worse position than we actually are, quite substantially worse, so I've been part of groups on that. So the issue that we've got is it's from a true accounting hat, I sit here and go, it's very core practice, in the fact that you should not be ignoring these things, however, from a national government position, it's also that they're saying actually affordability of this, nationally, is also an issue, so what I would say is it's a discussion, if I can put it that way, between DfE, Treasury, and our own department that we meet, and what we do like. At the moment, there is no movement that that statutory override is moving, there's been no announcement on that, and obviously, clearly, I wouldn't expect anything on that at the moment, when there's a hiatus on being able to determine policy at the moment. However, if that statutory override doesn't stay, then a number of local authorities, including ourselves, would automatically have to go into Section 114, doesn't matter what else is happening, in the rest of the authority, just because of the sheer size of it, so it is a very, very light discussion, but again, pure accounting hat on, it doesn't make sense, and it has been being kicked down the road for a number of years, ultimately because of the amount of lack of funding in the system, and we will continue to engage in that conversation, but the biggest thing that we can do is actually if we can get the support through the safety valve, that might help us in a long term. What, CPC or CLT haven't got an alternative at the moment, other than the safety valve? The statutory override is the other potential alternative, but let's be really clear, to be able to save that money by the end of 2025/26 is very, very challenging, and as I say, we are not the only authority in that position. I'm only worried about Cheshire East. I appreciate that, but this is not something that you can do in a matter of weeks. Our biggest issue is ensuring that we support the team to deliver what they're doing with this plan, with the support of DfE. That's what I can do at this stage. A quick one. I just want to say thank you very much for that, because that's really probably me as a qualified accountant, looking at that. Let's be frank about it, it's dodgy accounting, isn't it? It goes against accounting principles and so on, but we are where we are. This whole thing really, really concerns me, but I draw some comfort for what you just said. Thank you. I mean, obviously we all understand the financial difficulties, but one of the key things is the level of service we can still provide for our children who have particular special educational needs, and where they have PHCD plans. Obviously, I think this is going to have an impact on the level of approach to the Section F, I think it is, which is the statutory element that has to be met in those plans. So, could you please provide us with the details of the delay between when a plan is agreed for a young person and when that plan is implemented? Because my impression is that one of the strong pressures in the system currently is that the PHCD plans are being delayed deliberately because of the financial difficulties. I understand the pressures there, but that is my impression. First and foremost, I want to be really clear, I'm a director of education and I'm absolutely committed to the education and the best education for children, children within Cheshire East. There is absolutely no plans being delayed around financial things, we would never do that. So, our time limit for March is 77% and our time limit for April is 66% compared with the national average, where the national average is 23%. Cheshire East are doing extremely well and we are supporting children. In the heart of my plan is children and I would not be in my job if I wasn't about improving outcomes for children. So, I know there's a financial element here, but this is most importantly to me, children. So, my offices are working really, really hard and when we're at 77% and 66%, the difference in that is actually understanding that we've got a number of tribunals and those tribunals are bringing that percentage average down. That's how we have to count them. So, when we provide our updates to the DFB, which we have to provide updates in regards to that time limit, we provide two sets of data and I'm more than happy to be very transparent about what that data looks like in our 20 week process. That is something that we monitor each month, it's something that's on our scorecard that goes to children and families. And I hope that I really have got that across that this is about children at the heart and doing the right things. Just also to comment that you were concerned about equality, that's why in our mitigations it's really important that what we need to do is bring inclusion at the heart of Cheshire East. And I will ask all members to support us, to be able to do that, to support our schools, to be more inclusive so that children where appropriate can have the right support in their mainstream school, in their community, which is really important to me. Of those children then that do need to go into special supervision, that that happens in Cheshire East where possible for them and that right route through and that our children and young people have, we focus on preparing for adulthood from early years all the way up so that our children and young people have the best aspirations in their community to Cheshire East. Thank you. One quick comment, a quick question. The other elephant in the room is the impact of DSG. We also deliver other services which are very much valued by our residents and that hasn't been mentioned today and I think that's extremely important. That's fine. I did ask a question of legal, I don't know if I have a chance to ponder on it. Any conclusions? I don't have any conclusions on it yet, and I would have to take it away. Yeah, I think I could probably answer it more fully if we take it away. I think that some of the things that the 151 officer said in terms of the statutory override, that language comes from the fact that once we recognise that we have a statutory duty to provide something, then we're at risk of challenge if we don't. So we get ourselves into a more of a situation if we were to try and balance cost, we have a statutory duty and if we were to use cost as the reasons for not doing that, then that would be an important challenge because we recognise that there's a need and we're not aggressive yet. But I can give a full answer. Yes please, thank you very much. There is just one question I'd like to make on page 143, this is for the committee. There's a risk, SR04, where it just causes me a little bit of confusion. It says the Children and Families Committee approved the Council's DSG management plan for 23/24 in September 23. Just whose is this plan? Is it the Council's or is it the Children and Families? Or does that statement mean that the Children and Families are approving their own plan that they gave Council to approve? Yes please, Council. Chair, thank you. The plan is held by the Council. Council has delegated to the Children and Families Committee responsibility for that plan and the delivery. The full Council essentially delegates parts of its functions to its various committees. This part of it is delegated to the Children and Families Committee and the full Council would be perfectly entitled to ask the Children and Families Committee to report back up if it so wished. It's working on that delegation rather than ownership. It's the Children and Families plan. Council plan delivered by Children and Families. Are there any further questions from the committee? I think our concerns have been raised and noted and they're being worked on. When I read this report of having recoiled from what high watery numbers contain within it, I was fully expecting to find at the end of the appendix somewhere a sort of financial statement along the lines of unmitigated risk annualised over periods and mitigated risk and hopefully a tracker. Because then at least this committee can keep tabs on what is going on and see if the plans are being achieved. I fully respect that hard work has been done by the Education Department and I'm in no way demeaning that but we need a helicopter view of what's going on. That is my view, Chair. No it is. I mean the idea of this committee is that we do not take a micromanaged view. We're looking at the overall performance. It's on the risk analysis. It's certainly foremost in the Council, in the Office's minds. We can actually report when we need one. I don't know what to say. To say that we obviously do financial reporting both at a committee level and also through the Finance Subcommittee and DSG Monitoring would form part of that. So in terms of the finances, because again it's not just as simple as where's DSG, it's the impact on the other budgets so things like the borrowing so it will form part of the financial monitor and it's an area that I want to look to ensure that it's as strong as possible so all Councillors can understand the impact of the work that's being done. I'll make sure it's picked up in there. It's also important that picking up a comment from Councillor Hillard concerning committees must not operate in silos and certainly walking roofs is something that can reduce the transport costs to children. We need to work together as a Council definitely. Okay, I think that's everybody finished. As this report is to note, sorry about that, I will take a sense of the meeting that the committee is happy to note the report and will pick up on further updates as and when required. Thank you Claire for coming. Annual Governance Statement 2223, Actions Progress Updates, Supplementary Agenda, pages 3 to 28, it's on the supplementary pages, to receive an update on the progress of actions identified for significant governance issues in the Annual Governance Statement 2223. The report can be found on pages 3 to 28 of the supplementary pack. Please can I ask Michael Todd to present this item? Thank you Chair. Committee will recall that they approved the final Annual Governance Statement for 2223 at the meeting in March. This report provides a progress update on the five significant governance issues that were identified in that final Annual Governance Statement and it also sets out what the approach is planned to be to produce the 2023-24 statement. As the 2223 statement and accounts are yet to be signed off due to a delay in the external order that is completing their work, we wanted to provide a detailed update on progress in regards to those significant governance issues that's been made since March and that's included in Appendix A for consideration. Each significant governance issue update has been provided by the relevant responsible officer and in providing those updates they have considered the assurance provided to determine whether the required actions have been completed appropriately, whether the issues identified have been sufficiently and effectively managed and whether there are any further issues or concerns arising. Table 1 in the main body of the report summarises those five significant governance issues and it's worth noting that the health and social care integration issue has been recommended for removal from future annual governance statements by the responsible officer. The appendix to the report is a very detailed table, it's a comprehensive history of each of those five issues and it shows what the issue was when it was initially recorded and why it was included, the proposed actions to mitigate those issues, the position has the March sign off of the final statement and also the last box on each of the tables is progress update for this committee since March. With regards to production of the 23-24 annual governance statement, there's a slight change to the process that we previously followed in that we will now be incorporating the Risk and Assurance Management Board that's recently been established as part of the sources of assurance for the statement. The draft annual governance statement will be presented to the July meeting of this committee and prior to that meeting the committee will ensure that there's a refresh of the training on the responsibilities of the committee in relation to the annual governance statement. Thank you. Before I open this item to debate, Councillor Claus is registered to speak on the item. Thank you, Chair. My main concern in relation to this paper is related to the recommendation that health and social care integration should be removed from the future annual governance statements. I'd ask that you seriously reconsider this and err on the side of caution for the following reasons. Social care, adults and children are the largest statutory areas of council responsibility and a council spend. Consequently, any consideration of downgrading oversight and scrutiny of that risk in terms of future governance needs careful consideration. There is no doubt that Cheshire's council teams have achieved a great deal in terms of progressing the new governance arrangements required in setting up and implementing health and social care integration in the context of the Cheshire I am not assured that the governance arrangements are as robust as they need to be in protecting this council from the financial challenges being felt in the NHS and being experienced by this council and others. For example, the ongoing impacts of doctor's strikes on admission and discharge rates, increased social care requirements for those awaiting surgery, the ongoing requests for and management of continuing health care requests to the NHS. It is understood that adult social care will be subject to external inspection and this is expected to be imminent. As we deal with the current turmoil in hospital and community health care and our own financial difficulties, we need to be sure that we are alert to where governance mechanisms are impeding sustainable statutory service provision. Pages 17 and 18 of the appendix paper clearly outline perceived ongoing risks and an imbalance of power sharing at regional level. And I quote however concerns about the centralisation of decision making at a regional level remain, later engagement with local authority partners in areas of legitimate interest to local authorities is common practice. That's unacceptable. Key challenges are clearly articulated as I say on pages 17 and 18. We are doing very much better than many local authorities in progressing the ICS with health partners, but now is not the time to take our eye off the ball and ask that when you look at the recommendations, you do not take this off your scheme. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Can I take any members questions from that? Any issues of people on the room? [inaudible] [inaudible] One brief question. Reference page 7.18 and 21. How do audit and governance input into the wording of this statement? Our remit is based on a policy of being apolitical and statements included in this report reflect that, including this report should reflect that. Or are we to be in contravention of our remit and should be produced in accordance with CIPPA and SOLACE good governance framework? I need to be assured that this statement is apolitical. As David Brown mentioned earlier, the delegation from council to certain committees of other functions. So this committee has the delegation from full council responsibility for the sign up of the statement of accounts and also the annual governance statement. So it's a specific delegation that you have to actively ensure that you are satisfied that the annual governance statement, and it's provided to you, are statements that you are assured on the development of, the content of, and that you recognise them as essentially fit for purpose. So the way that you've just exercised that reflection upon the continuation of the health and social care integration, I believe that's an appropriate reflection that you've made in the meeting and does not overstep what's in the SOLACE guidance. Okay, but we haven't written a report. One of these CPC, CLC have written a report. How do we affect the wording of the report? So the development of the report happens usually led by colleagues in internal audit, and I think that's for those slides from the briefing that you were given in February about the development of the annual governance statement as a product, as a document. It's led to the bottom of the approach, but then it does involve the membership of corporate leadership members. As we move forward, and we have the management boards, the fiscal insurance board will look forward and be involved in the development of that. We can share drafts and do share drafts with the committee throughout the committee meetings. And again, that is your opportunity, I think, to challenge your question and to suggest alternative wording as part of your responsibility. And yeah, previous iterations of this committee have done so at both draft and at final level. Okay, so we need to get, well, that's experience that I've not quite yet, but I need to focus on. As a committee, we need to have input to this report, and it certainly can't sit the guidance that we need to stand by. You certainly need to have that assurance on how it's been developed, why the content in there, how it's been arrived at and why it's been included, so that you're assured. And just to presume that obviously all the information that's been provided to the chair in relation to the, if I can call it this, changing governance of the management of the DSG, that will obviously be part of the report. Sorry, that was the question. I believe it is, Councillor, but I'll just, that's not coming to a double check. Yeah, it's working. Sorry, the DSG is referenced in the Council's funding significant governance issue, but obviously as things develop, that will be included in subsequent updates. But it was during this new sort of group that's been formed that I didn't know about until today. We're supposed to be part of all that work there, or is that sort of due detail? I would imagine there'd be a reference to what's being done about which areas are given the biggest pressures on the finances of the Council. I wouldn't expect it to go into significant detail as to what they are, but that it would be recognised as one of the mitigations to address the significant governance issues. Okay, thank you. My question is relating to the four year balance statement. Do you recommend the setting of a four year balanced financial statement, a third budget to the Council if you were a modified one officer when this was set up? I particularly make reference to the fact that you only know the funding for one year. So it's really important for us, we have to make assumptions, and that is over the four years, but we do need to have a medium term view, because nothing we do as a Council is a single year. Many projects and the more things that we do are over the medium term, so it's really important that we have a medium term financial strategy and a medium term financial plan. It's inherent in the statutory role that I have as a sexual one five one officer, I need to be able to give that view. So in terms of legally setting a budget, you only have to legally balance your budget through the year. So, for example, when we set the budget in February, then we usually have to do it for 25, 26, but there needs to be a clear plan and a clear trajectory about what we're going to do in the next four years. I don't have a problem with the plan, I have a problem that is supposed to be balanced over four years. So legally we only have to balance it over the first year, but what we do have to make sure is we have to have a view over the medium term about whether or not we will be financially sustainable and financially viable. They're two very slightly different questions. The issue that we've all had in local government is the fact that it's been some time since we've had multi-year settlements. However, what we've had over the last couple of years are policy directions and policy statements that have taken us beyond one year, but not certainty on funding. But we have to be clear, when we are setting out a proper plan and our priorities as a council, we need to know whether or not we are financially viable and financially sustainable enough to be able to deliver the statutory functions that we do. I'm not quite sure that there's more that I can answer than that at this stage. The most important thing is whenever we're setting a budget, is there's a report that you will be very familiar with, which is the section 25 report, which is a personal statement by the section 151 at the time, which talks about financial sustainability and financial viability. And basically about the adequacy of things like reserves and balances for the future, you need to have that on speed dial, if I can put it that way, in terms of the section 25 report. And obviously whoever is in place in section 151 will be rewriting that. Thank you. That is the issue with the reserves, isn't it? That's what makes this budget very fragile. So I wonder if this should be an area of significant government's concern for us. In terms of, I mean, it's on your risk register, financial funding is on your risk register, it's in the end your government statement talks about financial, that the finances of the council, I wouldn't be expecting it not to. And to be honest, even if you were in a council that had, I'm not quite sure which councils have significant levels of reserves anymore, but any council that seemed to be very financially sustainable, I would still expect to see it on there. We know that there are changes coming in terms of government finance, we just don't know what they are. So I wouldn't expect any council not to be reflecting the fact that it's a risk, through the risk register, through the strategic risk register and also the annual government statement as well. Thank you. I've just got one quick question that I'd like to ask. On this report, it says the DSG is impacted by academicisation, I'd like to know how. How? Because it's based on the number of pupils in the borough, isn't it? I'm going to have to take that back and get you a detailed answer. Well, that goes for everyone, because that was my question as well. We'll make sure that response is circulated. I noticed that as well. Okay, there are other wording issues that I can come back to later, when we have input into the report. The recommendations can be found on page 4 of the supplementary pack, and I think we've already loaded on the first one. Review and approve the updates provided on the significant issues reported in the 22/23 AGS, including the recommendations to the committee on whether the items remain in the statement. We have asked that the items are remaining in the statement. That's fine. We've already voted on that. And agree with the process for the production of the 23/24. I think there's a learning process in there that we need to be updated on. And how we can affect input. Could we have a vote on the second one? All those in favour of that as a proposal? I'll propose it. Anybody can second it. I'll second it, yes. Thank you, Chair and Councillor Edwards. All those for? Any against? Any abstentions? Unanimous. Thank you. Move on to item 9. Internal audit update. Progress against internal audit plan 43/4/23/24, supplementary agenda pages 29-48. This is to consider the report which provides an update on work undertaken by internal audit between October 23 and March 24. That doesn't mean we've stopped after that point. This report can be found on pages 29-48 of the supplementary agenda pack. Please, could I ask Josie Griffiths to present this item. Thank you, Chair and thank you for the enthusiasm and the seat on this item. So there is a detailed update in appendix 1 in addition to the programming report. So just some sort of highlights of what we're sharing. We are on course to finalise quite an additional number of reports in comparison to previous years to inform this year's audit opinion. That will come to the committee in July. Items in the internal audit plan are included so that we can give specific assurance either because they're seen as high risk, high value, they're critical business systems, critical to delivering objectives and resources to residents, etc. So to ensure our audit resources is focused and maximised, we do focus on those particular areas. However, in table 3 which shows the finalised assurance reports, in table 7 which shows those on go at the end of March, we have shown an increase in the volume of the reports where the final or anticipated assurance is in the limited category of opinion. So on individual pieces of work, we identify them as good, satisfactory, limited or no assurance reports. The committee has been cited on the no assurance report this year, the section 106 report, and I can confirm there are no other no assurance reports that will land in this year at least. In fact, no ongoing work is likely to give a no assurance, give you that assurance. So the internal audit opinion has to be informed not only by our internal audit outcomes of that work but also by additional sources of assurance. And whilst we can't be finalising internal opinion at this point because not all of the work is complete, I do need to share that it's a far more challenging context in which we're providing an adequate opinion on the Council's arrangements for governance, risk management and internal control. The committee has received several assurances and most concerns about some of those very matters as part of its meeting so far. So some form of limitation on the opinion seems likely to be required, and I just want to be very honest and transparent about that, but when you receive the opinion in July, I don't believe it will be possible to give an adequate opinion overall. Slightly more positively though, in terms of implementation of actions, those actions in progress and past the agreed date which are shared in the appendix all relate to just two areas of work. So although it's not great that they are still over the agreed action dates, it's not spread across a number of other reports. They are specifically related to section 106 and community infrastructure levy reports, and we will provide an update to circulated committee members early next week, and you will also receive an update on those items in public meeting in July. That's all I wanted to just draw attention to in introducing the report, but of course if there are any further questions, please do let us know, and we've got Michael Todd with us, internal audit manager, so that's a really difficult to attest to. Are there any questions? [inaudible] Okay. Chancellor Fels has asked to speak on this item as well. She obviously loves it. I didn't go first. This is the last one. Okay, thank you very much. So first of all, I'd like to just sort of highlight a couple of what appear to be to be anomalies. And that is in Unit 3, page 38, there is a satisfactory or reasonable view given of Unit 4 and key financial controls. If we look at Table 7, the same satisfactory is given for Unit 4 of exception payments, and yet we have in Table 8 the review of the use of Unit 4 and arrangements in place for the timely and accurate raising of invoices, is work being carried forward into the next year. And certainly in other committees, this is being raised as an issue. And so I'm a little bit concerned that they may have satisfactory or reasonable ratings when they are still being investigated, still being monitored, and we are still having concerns raised in other committee settings. So that was my first question. And the second question may have in part been answered by Jodie, and that was a significant number of items in Table 7 that are of limited assurance. And with my adult social care hat on, I'm particularly concerned about purchase cards in adult health and integration and children services, and also in debt management. I don't know if you've got any sort of interim assurances you can give us on that. Certainly, the adult social care debt recovery has been raised in adults, and I'm sure it will be raised again at the next meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Burns. Are there any members wishing to ask questions on this here item? I've got a couple of questions then. On the number of days worked, on the corporate governance and risk, the plan of 130, and there are only 96, which means quite a drop. This is the reason why we haven't checked on corporate governance. Children's services, in light of the problems that we've just discussed today, are only 82 days out of 130, if you could comment on those two. I think I would draw Chair's attention to the increased amount of time spent in place as a result of the extent of work carried out on Section 106, and also on addressing the land transaction queries that were not part of our plan in the term, Lord, it works, so this finite amount of resource available, so we've directed it to those areas, given that the large areas of concern caused by benefit. Thank you. Chair, would you like us to respond to questions from Councillor Cloudes? Yes, please. Thank you. The first one, the Unit 4 assurance ratings of reasonable and satisfactory, the one that was not as reasonable, that was a joint piece of work with Cheshire West and Chester Council, that's used their assurance levels, but that was a piece of work focusing on the existence of expected key controls within the design of the system that had been undertaken. It was found that those key controls were in place, hence the reasonable assurance level. It wasn't a wider piece of work looking at how the system is operating or being operated. In practice, it was a specific piece of work to identify, prior to the development, the internal audit teams had set out what they would expect as the key controls within such a system, and it was to make sure that they were there and operating, and that was what was found. The use of exception payments, again, that was a focused piece of work that we've undertaken this year, and it was around the use of Unit 4 to use those exception payment forms where the normal raising of a requisition, a purchase order and an invoice order would have likely been matched unpaid where that hasn't been used. And that found that where those forms are being used, that they were being used correctly by officers, and that they were able to give satisfactory assurance in that specific area of operation. There's some other areas that we've looked at with regards to Unit 4 that are in the list of reports that have been finalised. The detail will be included in the annual report where we haven't been able to provide that same level of assurance. What we've been trying to do is look at specific areas and the use of Unit 4 to identify where there are issues. Some of them we've found some issues, some of them we haven't found the issues, so that's the reason for the apparent anomaly for that. And with regards to the purchase cards and the debt management, those are pieces of work where the fieldwork is complete. We've written our report, but it's actually with the service managers to get their agreement on the actions, so I wouldn't want to go into any detail on that now. But as I've just mentioned, those will be finalised and included within the annual opinion report that will come in July, and will be a summary of the findings from those pieces of work that will come with the annual report. Thank you very much. Can we just confirm that we're going to get a report on B&B as well? I think that was referred to a long time ago in this meeting, and I have to say the detail has ever swiftened my mind. So Best for Business is the Unit 4 product. So it'll come within that framework? Yes, but it's such a massive product that it's really important that we target particular areas and aspects of the overall system, bearing in mind previous outcomes, etc, and we've let back on those, just to keep those pieces of work manageable, targeted and focused. We could issue all of our work against Unit 4, and as a key critical business system, it's very important that we are constantly reviewing aspects of that work. So the scope of earlier work on Unit 4 will be requested, something we'll consider very carefully, and probably need to come back to members and just check to fully understand some of the concerns they're raising, to ensure that the scope of work, the terms of reference, can actually address those in detail. Thank you. And just a question, please, on grant monitoring and administration, bottom of page 45 going on to 46. To review the procedures in place for monitoring and reporting on grants received that are not subject to sign off by the head of audit and risk, just wanted to know the scope of that work, please. Yes, thank you. The work was looking at the wider arrangements to make sure that these grants are being managed effectively, that they're being used in accordance with the grant conditions, that there are records detailing the number of grants that the councils received, who they're in relation to, whether they're ring fenced, whether they're not ring fenced, whether there's been appropriate ODRs put in place around the acceptance and the distribution of those grants, and we also picked three or four specific grants that don't have the formal sign off from the head of internal audit by the chief exec of Section 151, and we did a review of those grants in detail to make sure that they've been operating in the way that the issue embodied, that the grant providers would expect, and in accordance with the grant conditions. So it's quite a detailed piece of work in relation to some specific grants and also looking at the wider governance arrangements that the councils got in place around these grants that we felt that may have been a risk that it could have gone under the radar without having that formal sign off, but it was to get assurance around the arrangements and, as I've said, with the other ones that I've just mentioned, the detail from that will be coming back included within the annual report as summary in Friday. Thank you. Personal interest question here. I've got a number of questions from organisations in my ward relating to grants. Since you've done this piece of work, can I refer them to you? I could get you a contact with the best person to refer them to. I mean, I've tried members' inquiries and let's see if you have a clue, or rather the inquiries they make from officers. Sorry about that, but I mean... These are incoming grants that we've been looking at, not grants that we've issued to community organisations. No, no, no, these are incoming grants. If you'd like to send me some more detail outside of the making, then I'll endeavour to find out who the best person is to ask. That's fantastic, that's very, very painful. It's not a performance indicator though. I mean, that's successful now. And just on a final point, coming back to the educational situation, and it may not be a possible piece of work that you can manage, but when I look historically at the development of the budgetary problems that have developed out of our treatment of the ESG and management of the ESG and special educational needs, I start a 2018-21 legal financial strategy, and at that stage everything seemed to be perfectly reasonable in terms of the inflow of funds and the outflow of funds as a balance of need for the rest of it. And I think, on one element of the grant, we actually had a surplus left at the end. What I would like to know really is where and why between 1821 and I think '23, '24, that went, I'll use a colloquial term, pear shaped, although it was an upside down pear, it sort of went like that. Part of the fact it didn't go like that, it went like that. Is that a piece of work that would be reasonable to do? And out of that piece of work, could you suggest or pick what elements it was that actually caused that opening? Because all the regulations were in place in 2014 that have been applied so far, the EHCBs, the fact that Section F on those documents is the statutory procedures that have to be put in place to support the child. I presume at that stage the tribunal set up and all the rest of it. Sorry again, what's the point? The point is I'd like to know why, first of all, it did go, if you like, it exploded during the period I'd stated, and I would very much like to know why, what the factors were that actually caused that. Because from my perspective, if you can focus on those causes, I'm sure that the plans that Claire outlined are sort of ameliorating them, but I'd just like to know personally, because that's what has brought about this amazingly overall financial difficulty that we're in, and I think that Councilor Adams referred to the fact that it is impacting on every other valuable service that's valued by residents in the authority, or does seem to be, over a period of time. But the DSU deficit isn't anything more than that. No, I realise that. It's not on the one side, someone. No, it is, but it does seem to be impacting on a certain order. There are reports of children and families that have looked at DSU reports. Are you saying that in those reports there is a detailed explanation? There's never been a detailed explanation of DSU, but we've yet to do it since it was first proposed back in the middle of the war. Detailed examination of the results, no, we've just got a new plan. The five-year plan was updated with a seven-year plan. Can I ask the officers through you, Chair, if I may, whether that would be a reasonable piece of work to pass through, or would they have the time to do it? Because I think, personally, it is a significant piece of work. If it hasn't been done, if it has been done already in the past, the duration of the review of children and families, then can I please give it to them? We can ask the question. So from a finance perspective, I don't know whether that has been done or not. I suppose at the moment my concern would be I would not want to pull officers off the work they're doing to actually deliver what we need them to do, which is actually to deliver the plan that we have. I would imagine, even developing the plan that they've done to get us back on track, I would expect that there will have been some consideration as to what had happened in that intervening period. But obviously, I've not been here, so I can't confirm that. But I suppose it's the benefit of that versus the reality that we actually need a focused effort to deliver. From my perspective, I need it to stop going pear-shaped, if I can put it that way using your term. I suppose it's something I would like to go away and perhaps find out what has been done previously. But given the amount of support and intervention also from the DfE, I would imagine they would also have been asking some of those questions. You can't have developed a plan without having done some of that work. And I suppose it's about a focus of effort at the moment. Looking forward, sourcing it out, for me, is the most important thing right now. But I can go away and ask the question. The information has been given about 21/22 spend, I think the deficit was 70 million. But the 22/23 was just a bold figure, 90 million. But they're not explaining where or what it was spent on. They must have some information yet, but it hasn't been given to children and families yet. But we can ask the question. If I may, the last thing I want to do is to detract officers from concentrating on the forward plan that we've got. But if there is relevant information to the question I've asked, I will be grateful to be pointed to it. And I hope that wouldn't be too much effort for officers to do that. We can ask the question. I need to understand why I've got so much pain. Just a personal question, on Phase 43, it says pothole challenge, 5.7 million. I'd like to know what they spent it on, because I can give them a few that they spent it on. Can we go back to find out what they spent it on? It's a statement in our report. How much is left? At least 5.5 million on it. I can certainly get you some more information about the nature of that grant and how long it's run for, what it's covered, etc. I would imagine it will be of interest to the rest of the committee. I'd be happy to circulate that. They haven't got the same problems I've got. I was grateful for the update on the 42 timetable deadlines that have been currently overdue. I was interested to know why that was, so I'm glad that's been updated. Past agreed date, as you say, there must be quite a lot of those in Section 106. And I don't want to hear just the good stories, I want to hear the bad ones as well on the update. There are a lot of limited judgements. And Unit 4 is something that we'd like to hear more about, definitely. Are there any other questions from any of the members? As this report is to note, I will take a sense of the meeting that the committee is happy to note the report. Fair enough. Then we'll turn to the work programme. The committee work programme has been found on pages 1 and 2. I'm afraid, Chair, I'm going to have to leave. The committee work programme has been found on pages 1 and 9 to 112. Today's agenda pack. Are there any updates or comments from officers on the work programme? Chair, if I can assist, I think there are three areas that have been identified during the course of discussion in the meeting so far. A briefing on the arrangements of governance arrangements for our early-own companies ahead of finance subcommittee. Some further work or assurance around the leadership capacity. So I'll give some thought to what that could look like for the committee and make suggestions in correspondence. Further work on Unit 4B for B as part of the internal audit plan. I think there are also probably some other pieces of assurance work that may predate some members' attendance on this committee that might be useful to recirculate. And also, we've got the section 106 update to be, I think, already on your work programme for the 29th of July. So subject to there being any other additions, the work plan does already include a number of reports for the 29th of July. One just slight change or amend I would like to suggest. We've got a report on the progress against the Sit for Review action plan. I think that would be a good opportunity for us also to include the outcome of the training plan as I mentioned earlier on the action log. Other than that, I'm not aware of any required changes, but I expect that there will also be some additions from offices when we take the work programme back to circulate around them. Thank you, Chair. And I'd just like to mention again if we can complete their skills audit, that would be good. And there are a significant number of items to consider in July, not least section 106, which is always a hot topic. The council outturn statements, ASDV accounts. I'll take the work programme as noted by the committee, so fair enough. Thank you. Item 11. Risk management object. Consider the report which provides an update on risk management activity during quarter 3/23/24. This report can be found on pages 113 to 172 of today's agenda pack. Please note that the report and the appendix B relating to ANSA contain exempt information and are set out in part 2 of the agenda under item 13. If members wish to discuss the content of the ANSA paper, the committee will need to move to a part 2. Can I please ask Josie Griffiths to present this item? Thank you, Chair. There are two acts of committee in this report, one to receive the update and secondly to identify an area for the next briefing session for committee members. The quarter 3 content relating to the strategic risk register is as per the corporate policy committee that went to March. So the additional content in here is around wider risk management activity, business continuity activity, as well as some of the emerging issues. So the inclusion of the equivalent registers for holding companies followed a recommendation from finance subcommittee I think at the end of 2023. And quarter 3 has been the first time that they've been included. It's really important to just be very clear that they don't follow exactly the Cheshire East risk rating and risk scoring guidance. They are proportionate to the individual companies, follow their own risk management guidance. And they reflect the view of risk from the company's perspective, not Cheshire East's perspective. It could be a potential where we wouldn't necessarily be in full agreement or offer the same perspective on those things. Whilst the corporate policy committee will receive the quarter 4 update at their meeting on June the 13th, there are some emerging indications for that update which can be shared. One is around an increase in the local planning authority and organisation plan risk. That's due to a lot of capacity caused by the interim director of planning, Jane Gowan, who moved to a new role during the quarterly appearances before Christmas. And other issues referenced which will include ongoing challenges with one of the ICT systems there. There will be a protecting vulnerable children risk included and it's also likely that there will be a risk in relation to failure to deliver the action plan required following the inspection of local authority children services from Oxford. There are some ongoing challenges around the council's achievement of our net zero target and funding associated with that. So that's a kind of a bit of a move or feast at the moment. And I think there will also be consideration of our senior leadership capacity and our ability to achieve organisational change in line with our transformation plans, the V&A processes and other sort of associated package of reports that was received by the corporate policy committee in March, setting out our journey of change. So those are the things I wanted to draw attention to. Just to be very clear, I'm not always cited on the very granular detail of some of the risks, so I know it's frustrating for me to say I might have to come back to you with a written answer, but I'll get that in there to start with. Apologies, Chair. How can we decide on it? Are there any questions for members on the highways analysis? On page 129, it says the highways and transport committee have no strategic risk at this time for the lanes under ongoing review and the impact of the cancellation of the HS2 project has been picked up. What's happened to the Midwich bypass? That is being picked up under the capital projects place risk which is currently allocated to the environmental environment and communities committee as a kind of on behalf of the wider place directorate. I see, so it's not under highways in charge? No, it's just been given to the capital projects area. Yes, I'd like some help in paragraph 27. At the bottom there it says some arrangement has ensured that all care requests are effective and as efficient as possible and has also highlighted where providers appear to be charging for services not delivered. A little bit of detail on that. First of all, how is it picked down? Secondly, what does one do about it? Do you prosecute them? I'm not sure of the enforcement side of things but certainly there is a meeting held within the adults area which meets three times each week focusing on quality value and quality performance and authorisation. That examines those three aspects of each and every care package which is being brought through the organisation to assess exactly whether that care planning place and whoever is delivering it is meeting people's identified needs in the most financially efficient way possible and addressing the quality of overall arrangement with those individual providers. So it's an extremely labour intensive process but certainly the fact that it's continuing is demonstrating that it is having effect. Thank you, that's got a very detailed scrutiny and I'm pleased to see that at the top of page 121 there's something referred to as care cubed. Could you just clarify that for me? I can tell you a little bit. Care cubed is a system that we use which is in effect it's a way of taking out some of the heat, if I can put it that way, some of the negotiations we've had with providers, some of the heat of the discussion around negotiation with providers around how much things cost. So it's a way of standardising negotiations and I'm sure that adults can provide a much better response but that's effectively what care cubed is. It's a way of standardising negotiations. Thank you very much. Just a quick question. As a member of the cycling industry I have the ability to deliver the cycling to work offering for the Cheshire East staff, part of our benefits package. I can also see the same for our staff across Amsterdam's saloon meters. Cheshire East allows staff to spend up to £2,500 while our early on companies allow staff to spend up to £10,000. I raise this issue by Councillor Brown received an answer based on an outstanding risk around the scheme of the council. I say this due to evidence received from over 700 freedom of information responses from the public sector. Considering this inequality across our overstate, I'm glad to ask how we are keeping up with the challenges. Are we benchmarking and looking at best practices across this area, are we looking at innovations in this space, what are we doing to change that value proposition for staff with the extra bits in our liquorice fund that create a difference for staff's attention? I believe a response at least addressing part of that has already been provided and will have been shared with the committee recently. So what I suggest is we'll check with Councillor Hilliard as to whether that addresses the question and then follow up with further if required. I think it addresses all three points. I don't think that question has been shared in detail. Thank you very much, Councillor Hilliard. Thank you very much. This could not only impact our reputation and the decisions we make, but it could also potentially lead to new challenges. I would like to discuss why organisations such as the CIA are significantly diversified specifically in part to broaden their understanding of risk. As such, I would like to suggest that we may want to look more carefully at broadening the review of these assessments with a much more diverse team, not merely involving training managers. Is there a potential route forward to reducing this risk via a wider review process with a broader range of experience? Thank you, Councillor Adams. I think that needs a considered and looking response. Thank you, Chair. I think Councillor Hilliard has raised an important issue there related to quality impact assessments and I wonder if we could have more information at a suitable time on how these are conducted across the board, sort of criteria that have been applied and ultimately any challenges that there have been due to them, what results these are. I have myself had some concerns about these being applied across the board and I think additional information would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Councillor Stroud. I suggest that I will keep this up with the relevant Head of Service for this area and go back forward. The third point, which is much shorter, overall impact. We can see that a number of risks on the register are systemic issues that have an effect across the board, leadership capacity, recruitment and retention and the ability to achieve organisation change. How significant an impact are these upon the other risks laid out in the register and if a significant area was targeted at resources, where would we best target to reduce our risks over the entire state? Thank you, Councillor Adams. I think Councillor Hilliard makes a really interesting point about some of those risks being interconnected and the impact. But again, I think it's appropriate, especially as Councillor Hilliard has had to leave to find and form a more considered and written response on that one. That's fine. Thank you. Just a couple of questions. On page 414, it talks about software and all we've had issues today discussed about B4B and Section 106 and particular software. This one is in-house. I'd like to have an update on how it's working, who's in charge of it. A summary of the new RIF software being developed. Is it on time? Is it an off-the-shelf package? Who's got control of the input and review? I'd like a report back, please. Worrying the chair, it's me. Oh, brilliant. I felt that in the water, please. Proportionately, this is not an Apple comparison to Unit 4. This is small-scale, developed in-house, utilising software that we already have existing licensing and domain to use, such as SharePoint and Power Apps. Effectively, it takes what we used to do in Excel spreadsheets, puts it into a SharePoint register and the Power Apps provides an analysis tool, which makes it both easier, I believe, for risk owners to update their registers, but also more importantly for this management team to get huge amounts of data out of the end of the process in a way that we can analyse and interrogate much more sophisticated. It's being used at the moment for the operational level of risk. It's live, it's been used in its first development form. I'm working with director groups and the leadership community shortly to ensure that we provide useful dashboards and reporting out of this at an operational level. That will certainly give me some more assurance about how we escalate the operational team strategic level on risk that will also address issues of compliance with updating risk registers versus quality and content and the greater intelligence that we get from this through other tools, such as Power BI, etc. I'm quite excited by it in a really geeky way, as you can probably tell, but it really just takes some of the heat out of, sorry to paraphrase Adele, but it does take some of the heat out of having to analyse countless Excel spreadsheets and hope that you can remember what was in, what they put in that first one at the time you get to the third one in my case usually. It's a great repository of information. We do quarterly snapshots and then things will be updated. So I'm really pleased about it. The development cost, because we use existing licence costs, it's no additional cost for the organisation. So yes, delighted it's in its first form, we'll review how it's been used across the organisation probably six to nine months time and see if there's any further enhancements that we can and need to make by then. Sounds interesting, Councillor. Thank you. I'll just clarify, it's working on the existing operating system. So we've got no problems with it talking to other elements of the system? It's a standalone system, but it's also, it uses Microsoft, it's within the Microsoft 365 domain, it uses Microsoft Product Sharepoint, etc. So its restriction is only if we ever moved out of Microsoft. So, previous. We know it works. On page 116, in positive news, the JTIE improvement plan has been delivered and the protection of vulnerable children will be viewed through a business as usual lens moving forward. And in light of the recent offset report, which talked about care leavers, and we ended up being inadequate, that's a strange comment. So Chair, I think that reflects the time in quarter three, takes us to the end of December 2023. So there is always, you know, this is one of the areas where we're looking backwards, can confirm that in the quarter four report, there is a broader risk around failure to protect vulnerable children. And in the development of the quarter one review strategic risk, there will be a scoped risk around the failure of the organisation to deliver an agreed action plan as a result of the inspection of local authority children's services by upstate during the quarter four period. So that's a consequence of this just being an old report? Absolutely, yeah. Mr. Brown's talking. Oh, he's inside. On the risk, there isn't a risk assessment of failure to enter the safety valve programme. Surely that is a risk that needs considering by somebody. There is the scoped risk around the dedicated school grant deficit more broadly as SRO thought. As it's written in the quarter three report, it will be the financial impact. When you see the continual updates on that, then the impact of the nine project initiation documents, etc, will start to be reflected in more recent updates. So that's just the financial cost, that's not to do with the performance against the marked performance level? As it's written currently, but I think that's helpful for us to consider it in future changes to the risk description and content of it. And so the SRO5, on the same page, that's the JTI, that will improve from a six, will it, or will it go up from a six in the subsequent reports? The JTI risk is not present from quarter four onwards. It's been removed from the strategic risk register and replaced effectively with a broader and longer term stake around the organisation's failure to protect vulnerable children. And then there's the successful endorsement in December 2023 on the JTI delivery plan, I think, from the DFE. Because this is an old report, it refers to something that happened on January 12th. And the significant piece of work of the safety valve program went in on, it doesn't talk about the result and the fact we weren't allowed in. Unfortunately, Chair, that is the challenge of the timing of some of these reports coming through and meeting dates and aligning is a frustration from an officer perspective, as well as I appreciate from the members. When will we get the updated one? The quarter four report is going to be called the quality committee in June, so we can certainly draw members' attention to that, whether we wish to have it added to the July agenda. You can reflect on the correspondence. That's not on the July agenda. Not for risk, that's what I mean, so we don't wish to have it added on either. Councillor Adams. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] The committee timetable itself is published 18 months in advance at full council at the AGM. I can help with the time taping. I can't really help necessarily with the delivery. [inaudible] Are there any other questions? [inaudible] The audio governance committee is recommended to note the update provided by this report to the audio governance committee. Identifying further assurance required by the committee in relation to this management of risk included on the council's 2D risk registry. We've raised a couple of points. [inaudible] So, is there any, can I propose that as a recommendation or a second? Are there any votes for? Any against? Is that votes? Any exceptions? [inaudible] Do we have any members, have you got any questions regarding the [inaudible] and the answer risk? [inaudible] Members are asked to consider the note to report relating to answer. Can I please invite Josie Ritchie to present the report? We don't need to. As the report is to note, I'll take a sense that the committee is happy to note the report. Is that fair enough? All those in favour? Any against? [inaudible] We've asked for a briefing session for the committee. Since you have most of the committee here, is there a particular date you would have in mind? I know who we're coming up to. You may have other acts.