Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] So here we're just highlighting the risk around management override of control. And this is a generic risk, as I say, is in all audit plans. And we're testing here, or we're identifying that there is a potential. And I highlight the word potential that management could manipulate the financial statements and put through potential journals transactions that influence the position. So we do specific targeted work to identify whether that has been the case. And we do that review of journals based on the risk assessment that we undertake. But this is very much a potential rather than a specific issue that we've got concerns over, but we test for that. On page 11 of our report, it's probably page 17 of the PAC, we highlight the risk around the valuation of your pension fund liability. And we look at this because this is a significant estimate in the financial statements. And with an estimate, there are a variety of assumptions. So we look at the work that the actuary has done around those assumptions to give us assurance that the judgments that the actuary has made are sound and reasonable. And because of the value of the figures, that becomes a significant risk area for ourselves. So we highlight the work that we will be doing in that area on that page. The next page, page 12, looks at the risk around the valuation of your land and buildings and your investment properties. Again, these are based on judgments and estimates comprised of a number of assumptions. So we test those assumptions, test the rationale behind those. And given the large values involved there, the material figures involved, that is a significant risk area that we focus on and do targeted work. If I could draw your attention then to pages 17 to 19 of the audit plan, that just highlights there, particularly on page 19, the materiality thresholds that we set for our work. And this is around what we deem is material and the values that we would be looking for changes to the accounts if there were any errors or issues identified of that of those values. The group audit, that's just over a million pounds at one million and 65 pounds and to the council audit the single entity, it is just over a million pounds, one million and 64. And the rationale how we determine that is highlighted there on that page. There's not much movement in terms of the values and the sort of quantity of that materiality figure from last year. On page 21 of our report, we're just highlighting there that there has been some changes to auditing standards. I said 315 requires us to gain a greater understanding around some of the controls of your key business processes. So that is just highlighting the additional work we will need to do to meet that requirement, and in particular, carrying out some walkthrough tests to check whether the controls have been implemented during during the year. Pages 22 to 25 report, just highlight that, as well as doing the work to audit your financial statements. We also do work to assess your value for money arrangements. And this work covers three theme areas around financial sustainability, around governance, and around what we call the three years around economy efficiency and effectiveness. So those pages there in the plan just highlight the sort of work that we'll be doing to address the work on value for money. Page 26 of the plan just highlights the timings throughout the year of the work and when we will be reporting back. So we expect to obtain the accounts at the start of July, we've got resources teed up to commence the audits then and throughout the summer. And the intention is to come back and report our audit findings report to this committee in November. And we will also bring our auditors draft, sorry, our auditors annual report around value for money arrangements as well at the same meeting. And then finally, on pages 27 and 28, we just highlight the audit fee for the year. I wasn't necessarily intending chair to go through any more detail, but I have to take any questions. Thank you. Thanks, Gareth. Any questions for Gareth and the committee members, Councillor Hayton. Thank you. Thank you, Gareth. I have had a good read through without report that. There are a lot of issues for the council to face in this coming year and do they feel that they have the resources in place to be able to manage our additional work that's going to be put upon them to meet the standard. Thank you. Yeah, it is, it is absolutely a tropical, we are a shared service. And so what we're doing duplicate two sets of accounts, two sets of audits, etc. But the team is we've been working on this to build up resilience within the team and to build up the knowledge to be able to do that. So we've invested in members of staffs who have, so who have gone through coming as apprentices, graduate trainees, done AAT and work their way up into more senior positions. And so we have a very qualified team who are able to do this. I'm not saying it won't be tough and it won't be tight. But at this moment in time, we're probably in the best position we've been in the time I've been here. To be able to do this, we've tightened up a lot over the course of the year on our internal controls, our reconciliation work. So the year end has become more of a month end as opposed to what it used to be, which was just the map of the task of producing the statutory accounts. So we're in a good strong position, we aren't going to achieve, and I've said that this in previous meetings, we're not going to achieve the deadline of the 31st of May for the publishing of the draft accounts. I would be surprised if many councils do that, seeing what's in the press and talking to colleagues elsewhere, and we've set ourselves a date of the 30th of June. The consequences of not hitting the 31st of May, I am yet to understand because they are published, but nothing would happen to them anyway until the auditors come in and we'll schedule that the audit will take place in July. So as long as we can achieve our deadline of the 30th of June, they will be ready for audit to commence the work. Could I just ask another question for you? On the ISA UK 315, there's quite a lot of work seemingly in that, and it said it should have come in on the 1st of April. Did that come in? This was on page 27 of the agenda. ISA UK 315? Yes, I'll take that question. The standard did come in on that date, and they say we did some work last year around that, but we need to constantly sort of refresh that work and be satisfying ourselves. There's been no changes to those business processes and systems. So again, it's a question of providing odds with sufficient assurance and updates that things haven't changed, but having to test controls in that area. It's on track then. We're hoping so, yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, can I say any more questions or any of our front bench there? Okay, on that note then, this item is for decision, and the decision required is for the committee to have to approve the proposed audit fee. I propose the audit fees on page 34. I have a proposal, please. All in favor? Item five, internal order report and opinion, 2023, 24, pages 45 to 130 in your papers. This item should be back in noting, and Dawn will present this one. All right, thank you, Chair. Yes, the report you have before you today is our annual report, and it also contains our annual opinion on the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the organization's governance risk management and control processes. This is a requirement of the public sector internal audit standards that we produce this report on an annual basis. I'll not go through all the paragraphs, but there are some key elements which I need to highlight to yourselves. So if I go down to page 52, where we look at under the paragraph heading of scope and objectives, I have to confirm to the committee on an annual basis that we are independent. And although you can see it from the words and above, I do have operational responsibility for other services. We make sure that safeguards are put in place to ensure that we can remain independent. So as you can see within this report, we have had a review of risk management, which is one of the areas that I manage, and therefore we've bought in an independent third party. The structure of the Council always ensures that I remain independent as well as I have direct reporting lines to the Chair of the Governance Committee and the Chief Executive as well. So that's the independence, and we also have to confirm that there have been no restrictions or limitations in the scope of our audit work, either in the planning phase or in the actual work that we've carried out throughout the course of the year. So when we look at the audit coverage, what we're looking for there is that the opinion is not just based upon certain aspects of the authority, but that we've covered work that covers the whole of the authority. So the chart at paragraph 14, that sets out all of the directors within the Council and how much work we've done within each particular directorate. So over the course of the year, we have provided the committee with update reports about the work that we've completed, and this is the final summary of all the work that we've completed since last April. So as you can see, which was fairly evenly split in terms of the assurance ratings, we've had five reviews which have been awarded substantial, five adequate and five limited. So in terms of the limited, we've got two reports today, which are new to the authority, new to, sorry, members, which are the housing standards and the event management review. And we have an attendance today, both Jennifer Mullen for the housing standards and Caroline and Emma who are here to answer any questions or queries you have about the event management. Again, the focus needs to be about on the action plan and how we're going to improve the arrangements that are in place. And I think it should also be noted that Caroline and Emma are new to the authority, and I'm picking this up and working with us really well. And Jennifer is fully supportive of the actions that we've raised within the housing standards as well. So over the course of the year, as I said, there have been the five limited reports. So what I've done on page 54 onwards is I've given a bit more detail about each of the findings within those reviews and where we're up to in terms of the implementation of the management actions. So as you can see with sundrew debtors, all the management actions that were raised within that review have now been implemented in full. We knew because of the issues that were raised within that review that we are such such significance that we read a really short timeline for implementation and they've all been done. In terms of the fiscal security and environmental controls, they were on track to be delivered by March, but there's been a slight delay with the contractor. So that's something outside the outside of the control of the council. But hopefully they should be done within the next week or so, as my understanding is we're still on track to have those completed by the end of May. Housing standards, like you say, that's a fairly new report that we've just finalized. So those dates will be in the future. In terms of the driving license checks, there are nine actions that have been implemented in full and they're the most important actions that are still too outstanding, but they relate to the policy and agreeing. No, sorry, both of them were in relation to the policy. So the most important section on that is that the checks are now being undertaken systematically. Again, event management, we issued this earlier in the year and Emma has picked this up and is already in progress with implementing some of the actions, but again, she is able to provide further details if that's required. The rest of the paragraphs under there really set out that the work we do that don't necessarily result in an assurance rating. So we support the completion of the annual governance statement. We are members of various teams or projects where we're more proactive in our work and making sure controls are built in from the offer rather than a backward look. We did. You remember we had, we lost an auditor towards during the summer last year and therefore we found it necessary to defer to reviews. One of those has been picked up and is included in this year's audit plan and the other one we've looked at the controls around there and as we're all related to project management so we're going to pick that up in another way. As again, from paragraph 27 we look at the direction of travel in terms of assurance ratings. And although as the report says, whilst the number of limited assurance rates, assurance rated reports is increasing, we need to look at the implementation of the actions. And we can see from this section below that we are moving very much towards the implementation has been actions been implemented in a timely way. We're raising issues, we're agreeing actions with quite short deadlines and they are being implemented. So we're just falling slightly short of the implementation target of 90%, but it's my view that over the next 12, 6 to 12 months, we will be hitting those targets. As I mentioned earlier, we have had the review of risk management and that was done by an independent party was done by wire council. The full report is included and we received reasonable assurance. They do have slightly different assurance ratings than we do. But again, they didn't raise anything we need to concern ourselves about and Julie. But the other thing I've done is I've listed all the other actions we've done to strengthen our risk management arrangements over the course of the year. We've looked at the corporate governance arrangements. As I say, we support the compilation of the annual governance statement and Chris will talk about that in much more detail later on in the meeting. When we're drawing our opinion, we can place reliance on other sources of assurance. So I've given there some other examples of the type of assurance we can place reliance on if we have external consultants coming in and they produce reports, we can rely on their work. If we know of other services that are undertaken in depth reviews, we can place reliance on those. So we use that not only to inform our opinion, but we also use that sort of information when we're pulling our plan together so that there's no duplication of work. So taking all that into account, I've put the opinion, it starts at paragraph 37. And we're saying that the arrangements that the council has in place to, for the overall adequacy and effectiveness of governance, risk management and control processes are adequate for the financial year 31st March 24. As I said, it is a requirement of the public sector internal audit standards, and we have a full report on that later on in the agenda. The other thing I've included in the report is our own performance. And as you can see, we have hit or exceeded all our targets with the exception of the agreed actions implemented, which I've already mentioned. One thing I haven't included in the report because it is hot off the press. You may recall that last year, as I said, we lost one of our auditors and we've replaced that order so with a trainee. And that trainee has been taking their Institute of Internal Audit Qualifications, and they've passed two out of three. So we're confident that he will be fully qualified by the end of the year. We're keeping our fingers crossed. So that's just a bit of good news to end on. But I'm happy to answer any questions on the report. Thanks, Don, and thank you for the, to you and the team for a very comprehensive report with a lot of words. Any points from the committee comes ahead. Thank you. On the page 54 and 19, which was the physical security and environmental controls at previous meetings, we were told that we could have the cost for that because it was going to be quite significant. But we haven't, we haven't seen those as yet. And on page on the event management side as well. I'm number 22. Is it Carolina per se? Is the events. There are a lot of actions, aren't there on that plan that you've got to work through to be able to get to a reasonable standard or correct standard. And how are you managing that? There are a lot of actions. But some of them, it's a bit of a spider's web, some of them overlap. So once we tackle some things, it kind of crosses all the things off the list. I've started in January and started to pick up on a lot of this. So when I got the audit, it was quite welcome, really, by me, because it backs up a lot of the things that I'd already found. So we have put a lot of things in place. I can briefly go through some of those things with you if you want now. The first thing that I did was set up a paper trail and also across direct to working project teams. So I was really surprised to find a lack of documentation on things that was difficult to pick up what an event looked like in previous years and what it should be looking like this year. So we've got like a series of documents for each event now. We've got a project plan and we've got event management plans and risk assessments. We've got evaluations and comms plans and for each one, we've got file sets up now. So that's working well. We've got these work project teams for a particular for the bigger events. I've got parks and open spaces attending them. John's team come from insurance and health and safety point of view and comms team are on those meetings. And that's working really well and helping me call in flavours when I need to prevent the time. The budgeting that was a big issue. I've spent a lot of time with finance going through the budget to see what last year looked like and what the projected costs for this year are. I'm making savings where we can. I'm looking at how we can bring in income. So in terms of increased ticket sales sponsorship, we've got some good sponsorship for the flower show so far this year. So it's just making those changes where we can. I think we have to be reasonable about what we can change this year. But I'm already looking at next year and what we can do to the events program to strengthen a lot of these issues. And then just in terms of one of the things that was raised was just that lack of oversight from other people and signing things off. So the event management plans have been produced much earlier. Now we're working with Don's team on those. They see I assign each one off, Caroline signs off the bigger events plus Don's team are involved in them from the start. So I think we have made good progress from last month, but yes, still quite a lot of work to do. How do you feel about the flower show because that was one that did need some work? I think this year there's quite a few new people in the team. So we want to go and review what we do for next year. We've made some changes to it where we can. So we've brought some new things in for this year's event. But it's so close to the event now that we've going with what we've kind of had our last meeting yesterday in terms of finalizing the program. It sounds like a brilliant event that brings lots of people to the area. But I think it's probably time to review it both from a budget point of view and from where people are coming from what's it actually bringing to the area. So yeah, definitely time for review. Thank you for that. And there's just one more question on why you risk review if that's all right. There were a couple of suggestions that you rejected on that review. And I wondered if you could just give us an idea. One was about the one to ones and about risk management. Is that one to ones for senior managers or is that one to ones for the whole of the staff. Sorry, the main, the action was relating to one to ones, but it was for everybody in a part of the appraisal process as well. We just thought it was a bit too much really because we've already got an appraisal process that's set that's monitored by the performance team anyway to make sure that appraisals are happening. But risk management is discussed at DMTs as one to ones and it's on their agendas as well. So we thought that to take it down to that individual level was just a little bit too much at this stage. But we, like I said, it's a group discussion at DMTs and it is part of the standard agenda within the management framework. So that's where we felt it fitted better rather than at individual appraisals. Is DMT department management? Yes. Sorry. Okay, that's great. Thanks very much. That's all my questions. Council Martin. It's just regarding the events programs. So obviously some of the items listed around the policy on different procedures. They're not due to be completed until later in the year, which will obviously be after the main events have taken place this year. So does any of that potentially place the council at risk because these policy procedures won't be finished? No, I think there's what will be in those policies and decisions. It's just the time to write those up. So I think they will bring together all the actions we're putting together now. So like these team meetings and the project plans and the documents that it's just getting all that into a format. So we purposefully put that later in the year to give us time to run the actual events. But I don't think the policy is what will make them run better. I think that's just for us to have that then and then everybody's got some clarity on how we're supposed to be doing things. And that policy won't just be for us as a team. It will be on how we can help external event organizers to process their events and also teams across the council running events. So just a bit more work and time needed to go into that. Sorry, a second question and just about the sundry debt and we had a discussion about that a few months ago. I think it was currently when we spoke about it was about two and a half million. I know there's some update in the documents about the process around recovering it, but do we actually have an updated figure of what has been recovered? Do you mean on the write-off report? I think some of it will be due for write-off, but some was still being collected. It was an ongoing amount when we discussed it last. I give you a first on page agenda, page 89. I can pick this up. As part of the capital monitoring report that we produce each quarter, we now include a section on sundry debts and what the level of outstanding sundry debt is at each of the quarter end dates. So we're just in the process of preparing the out-turn report for the whole year. I know it because we were at SMT this morning where we were discussing it. The level of sundry debt now is down to 1.3 million. That does exclude debts with other government bodies, local authorities, NHS, et cetera, because one would assume that those would be collectable and that they would not default. It also excludes any invoices that have been raised in advance. We'll say a rental income for the next year and it includes debts with truly leisure limited, because obviously again it's part of the same group company. So it's 1.3 and we are seeing some of those coming down. Following the review, there was a review across all of the departments, directors, head-subservice were asked to go away and look at the debts within their teams to review the collectability and whether there were any write-offs. If there were write-offs, they had to follow the process that had been audited and we are now seeing, following the recommendations in the report, a much more proactive approach taken across the council. So for example, for every Tuesday, a report goes out to all directors and head-subservice say these are the outstanding debts. They're all listed and directors on the head-subservice are expected to go through those and ensure that corrective action is taken. So we can nip them in the book as opposed to leaving them to be prolonged. There is a catch-up because as the report indicates, the process wasn't as vigorous as it should have been. But hopefully now going forward, people are into that mindset and that process because it ties up cash, we can get that cash in, we can either reduce borrowing or utilize it for investment. Thank you Chair and this revolves around the housing standards as we've got Jennifer. There's lots of actions there, timescales. In terms of staffing levels, do you believe everything is now in place to make sure everything falls within those timescales? Everything works as it should do. Thank you. I'm going to say yes with a caveat. So we did employ proactive housing officer to really look and review policies and procedures and look at a proactive angle at the housing in Chile. We've had quite an influx of reactive complaints with housing standards and I suppose it can be down to, there's been quite a lot of press attention on housing standards over the last 12 months with, as you could imagine, with the death of the little boy who lived in a mouldy property. So there has been a huge increase in the number of reactive complaints that we've had to deal with. So we've got a new header service, he's coming in on the 14th of July. We've got the new proactive housing officer. So with everything in the right direction, I feel that we should be able to follow the timetable and produce the strategies and reports that we need to. Any more questions? Any more points? Anyone would like to raise? I've just wanted for Jennifer. The head of public protection seems like it would be very busy. Are you adequately staffed in that department? We're just doing a service review at the moment. That's what we're looking at. The name cut you kept cropping over. Yeah, definitely. Thanks for that. Right, if there are no further questions, no further questions on that one we'll move on to the next item. Item six, internal audit effectiveness review, pages 131 to 182. Again, this item is a feedback in noting. Jackie is going to present this one. Good afternoon. So this report is the internal audit effectiveness review. So it's the results of our annual self-assessment exercise. And it sets out whether or not we need the requirements set out within the public sector, internal audit standards and the local government application note. It's an ongoing way to make sure that we're assessing ourselves and the governance committee have assurance that we're providing you with an effective service that's in compliance with the standards. So the recommendation of this report is to note the results of our self-assessment. So a bit background to the public sector internal audit standards. There's an annual requirement for us to continue assess ourselves to make sure we're compliant. And each five years we also have an external validation exercise of this. So members may remember that we were subject to peer review in July last year. And we brought you that report in September, which confirmed that we were complying with the standards at that time. Within the appendix, we provided you with the self-assessment results that we've undertaken. And as you can see, there's 135 separate components to being compliant. And I can confirm that we do conform to 130 with five areas on that report not being applicable to us as a service. We've also included appendix C details of actions that will be with completed and some of which we still have to undertake. This is to update our charter in line with the new standards that are coming out in January next year. So that's a bit of a forward look and the new public sector internal audit standards should come into practice March next year. So that would be a large part of our work going forward and showing that we're conforming to those. I'm happy to take any questions you have on our self-assessment. Thank you Jackie members of the committee any questions any comments. I think I got away very lightly there. Right. Again, this item was for noting the note for the questions will move on to the next item. Item seven, the chair of governance committee response to external audit planning inquiries pages 183 to 190. This item is for decision and the committee has to consider and approve responses to the auditors inquiry. Again, Jackie. Yeah, as advised the support gives you insight to the chair of the governance committee's responses to the planning queries made by Grant Thornton are councils external auditors. As advised, we'd like you to consider and approve the responses to the orders and queries. The questions are part of the annual audit planning process and the external orders need to make sure that the council has established good processes for fraud awareness. And if we if if errors are made that we've got good processes there to spot any areas and put these right in good time. So appendix A without lying the questions that were asked the applies that are given by the chair of the governance committee. Again, I'm happy to take any questions regarding our responses. Thanks Jackie. Any questions from the members of the committee. You're doing really well today. Sorry, sorry council. They are just a comment really that's some very thorough answers there. So, well done. Thank you. Well, as it's response from the governance committee chair. Thank you. Yeah, we can't move to vote on the responses as set out in the report. Thank you. Activate the management responses to the audit planning inquiries pages 191 to 228 on your papers. So, in a similar vein to the earlier reports on the chair of the responses to Grant Thornton, this is the management responses to Grant Thornton. As part of their external audit and their audit planning and queries. So governance committee is asked to review the responses that have been given to them and to just check that it concurs with your understanding of the information that has been presented over the course of the year at governance committee, but also in other reports that you will be aware of from council and from cabinet. They obviously start to work on their audit plan ahead of starting the audit as I've mentioned that will take place in in July. But in advance of that look at areas such as our approach to audit to fraud fraud how we assess fraud and we had any frauds and any changes in laws and regulations that might impact on the accounts that we're producing. Related party transactions so transactions that members staff officers may have with bodies that we interface with to make them aware of that from the outset. One of the other areas is going concerned so given the issues that have been widely reported in the media that some councils have got into financial difficulties. It's to seek assurance and what evidence we can provide in relation to our own ability to continue in the future our own financial sustainability. So again we answer questions in relation to that. I think one of the bigger areas is around accounting estimates and it went Gareth introduced the paper on their audit plan. He did refer to some of those aspects which present a bigger risk in the accounts and it's not necessarily the cash transactions that have taken place in the years or the income that we've had in and the expenditure that we've incurred. But having put the accounts together on that basis we then have to introduce other figures based on estimates and that's estimates in relation to the valuation of funding buildings. Some of which might be deemed to have increased in values others may be impaired. And for that we seek advice and support from a firm of professional valuers and also in relation to pensions. Again a huge figure each year the actuaries do a valuation of the pension fund and the surely section of that and then they provide us with figures so it's not just the amount that employees and the employer or the council has paid into the pension fund. It takes a holistic view of all the benefits that have accrued to members both past and present and the liabilities that will have on the pension scheme going forward and all of that is brought into the statutory accounts to the kind of extent that those figures often dwarf the transactions that have actually taken place in terms of cash during the year. So we provide information about how we produce those figures and the evidence we have to support them and the support that we have in determining what those figures are from professional advisors. Happy to take any questions. Thanks Louise, Councillor Hayton. It's a comment really not a question but on the introduction where you put together the kind of environment now that we're all living under. It just seems a bit to include in everybody and it doesn't specify how Charlie sits in that status, especially with the going concerned because we are still a growing concern. It seems like we're right in hidden somewhere and I'd like that to be a little bit more prominent and anybody in the street who lots can recognise that Charlie is at the moment in a better health condition. I mentioned earlier that we do work around value for money and one of the themes around that is around financial sustainability, slightly different from going concerned but you know how robust are your levels of reserves, you budgeting process and a lot of that is aligned to sort of going concerned. So we do provide in our auditors annual report quite a bit of detailed commentary around those arrangements that are in place and hopefully that gives members of the committee some assurances around the procedures and arrangements that are in place but there will be specific commentary on Charlie issues and the Charlie procedures and arrangements that you've got. Hopefully that might help give you that assurance. No, this might be the case in the whole of the local authority environment but in Charlie's case it doesn't apply because in up to year 23 24 you know that wasn't applicable to Charlie. I would like to see is getting a little bit of credibility or a lot of credibility where it's where it's earned and where it's where it's correct. Any more questions, any more comments. Second it comes to Hayden all in favor. Item nine charity and trust from final accounts pages 229 to 238 papers. This item's the decision and committees has to approve the accounts presented in dependencies a to we Louise I think this one. Thank you chair. And so this is a report that we bring annually to governance committee. These particular charitable accounts we prepare the accounts for them they don't form part of the statutory accounts that are presented and audited each year. So we bring them here for transparency and so there is a kind of internal control governance check over them. As you'll see in the appendices a to we there are five trust accounts that have been in place for numerous years and there is hardly any activity on them. The only movement tends to be interest earned on the sums that are in the bank account or in some cases in investment accounts. Four of the five have very small balances on them and range between about 1200 pounds up to about 5000 pounds and as you'll see from the narrative at points nine onwards. They have been set up for a number of years and one in particular was set up in 1911 and we don't have a trace of who the trustees are. And I think we will struggle we can't find any any paperwork they've just been carried forward in the accounts over time. And so they we do know that the purpose for which they were set up they aren't registered for the five aren't registered with the charity commission and as I say they have very small balances on them. And therefore the proposal is to we were in the process of taking a paper to the executive cabinet to recommend that these are wound up and that the balances on each of the accounts. It's determined where they could be transferred to to another body and that delegated authority is given to the chair of the governance committee consultation with the exec member for resources to determine where that is. As I say before of them and the maximum balance is 5,000 pounds so it's not they're not huge amounts. That would leave one which is relates to a charity that was established in 1992 from the proceeds proceeds at the sale of the format free library. There is an element of cash in relation to that and also an external investment and that is an investment where cash is put with a specific body and it's just generating interest. Again, nothing is happening on that account and we will need to have further discussions with the charity commission to understand who are the trustees and what we can. What are the options available to us in order to progress the utilization of those funds to move it forward. So the paper is just brought for for information transparency. Thanks Louise. Any comments? Any questions from the committee? Could I just ask which is the which is the trust that have no trace of them. So the Edward McKnight Memorial Fund was established to paper educational lectures in memory of the life of Charlie's first library. One is also there which is for the maintenance of Brin School Baths. I think there's a thousand pounds in there which I don't think he's going to make today in Brin School Baths. And another one for the extension of the infectious diseases hospital with no for which there's a thousand pounds. I don't even know whether exactly. So we just need to put it to use because it's doing no use at all just being set in these accounts. I mean, I think what is fairly apparent is it must cost more to produce some of these figures than exactly in the charity. Looking at the page, I think all we're being asked to do today is to approve the account. So we're not we're not being asked to decide whether the money go or anything like that. It's just purely to approve the account. So I could have the vote to thank you. Seconder? Thank you. Okay. All in favour? Thanks, everyone. The item 10, the sit for resilience index, pages 239252 of your papers, this item against the feedback and noting and Louise again. I feel the buildup of excitement on this one. But it may assist in answering Councillor Hayden's question about financial sustainability. So basically, every year, all Councillors across the country produce what is called an RO return, a revenue out turn report. It's a consistent template where we input all of the data about all the different types of expenditure that is incurred by the Council information about borrowing, interest, spend on leisure, highways, for a range across all councils. It's the main tool that the government have for understanding what is happening in local government across the area between districts, unitaries, up a tier authorities, et cetera. Given the concerns that there have been in place for a number of years around the financial sustainability of councils, except for deciding to use the information that was produced in these RO returns, it is publicly available information and just focusing on very specific areas. And that is around in the main reserves, so the reserves that councils hold, which would cushion the impact of any adverse financial situation that might arise. They look at the level of reserves compared to the size of the Council. They look at how quickly a council may be using the reserves, you know, if it's not adding to them or they're not remaining stable, whether they are being used to consistently support the underlying budget. And they also look at borrowing, the levels of borrowing, the interest payable incurred on that borrowing and how much of the Council's budget is spent in supporting that borrowing. So it's a very narrow focus, but it is a measure of financial sustainability. What's set for all so do is they, you know, not all councils are the same, there's huge differences in the size of budgets in between rural inner city areas, et cetera. So what they do is produce what they call a nearest neighbor's group to assist comparison. And within the report, it does detail who sip for Dean to be our nearest neighbors. And, you know, they are spread across the country. They will be presumably similar in size in a kind of demographic makeup, socioeconomic conditions, et cetera. And it just so happens that obviously in the shared service with the South River, it just so happens that South River and surely happened to be in the same nearest neighbors comparator group. And therefore, you'll see in the graphs that are attached there, we've highlighted both both councils, but there are others in there that are equally similar. So there are eight indicators in total, and we have been producing this report now for the past three years and have brought it to governance committee. So the first three indicators look at reserves and have a look at the level of reserves compared to the size of the budget. And they also look at how quickly we have been utilizing reserves over that period. What you can see for Charlie is that we have been pretty consistent, the level of reserves that we were holding at the end of March 2023. So it's not the latest year, it is kind of a year, a year delay from them collating the information and publishing the results. So it is now consistent with the level of reserves that we had before COVID. So all of the extra cash that was given to us to support COVID has now kind of washed through the system and has been fully utilized. And we're now back to the same level, or we were at the 31st of March 2023. But it also says that actually back then and now compared to some of the other authorities in the comparative group were at the lower end of that. So our level of reserves compared to the size of the budget is lower than some of the authorities that are in our comparative group. And there's about 180 or so district councils across the country and 163 submitted the returns, which is, I was quite surprised at given that they are mandatory returns. So I don't know what 20 of them were doing, but they did not produce the returns. And when you look at reserves compared to net budget, Charlie had the 35th lowest out of all of those reserves. So it's just an indication, we just need to keep a watch on that. And then looking at interest payable, that and the level of borrowing that's been taken out, that is covered by indicators four and five. So again, Charlie is moving towards the upper side of the comparative group in terms of the cost of borrowing that we incur compared to other councils with similar size budgets. That is not surprising because we have done significant investments in logistics house, in market walk, etc. So we have funded some of that with borrowing. What this report doesn't demonstrate is because of that borrowing, the borrowing is fully covered by the income that we receive and it generates a surplus which supports our budget going forward. So when you just look at it in isolation and see, gosh, that's a lot of interest that we're paying compared to all those, because this might have not done any investment whatsoever, and they might not be generating the same returns on investment. And I think that's borne out by indicator number six, which looks at fees and charges. So how the ability or the success of a council in being able to generate fees and charges to support their budgets, and Charlie is one of the highest in that category. And again, that fees and charges income just come from the rental income that we get on our commercial, commercial properties, as well as a whole raft of other things from green waste and pest control and other fees and charges. And then the final two indicators, look at council tax and business rates, so indicator number seven is looking at how reliant the council is on council tax to fund the budget. And what that would indicate is Charlie has more reliance than some of our nearest neighbor comparators, and that's pretty much because they will have increased council tax on a regular basis where because we have the freezes in place. We therefore don't have as much income as they do so there is some reliance on that. And finally, on business rates, it shows how much growth there has been in business rates in the borough above a baseline. So there's two aspects to that, it's indicative of the number of, I guess, larger businesses occupying larger premises within the borough, which would increase business rates, but also it's indicative of the accuracy of the baseline. The business rates baseline was set 10 to 12 years ago, and he's due for renewal. So some of the nearest neighbor comparators who may look to be doing exceptionally well in business rates growth above the baseline, it might well be that their baseline will set low. So they have a lot of growth above it when there is a reset, which we are expecting, well, we've been expecting it for a number of years now and it's not quite happened, but we do think in the next two years, three years, there will be some movement. We do expect there to be a shift in funding in that regard. So I think it's in some ways, we just need to keep an eye on the indicators, but yeah, it's been fairly consistent over the past three years. Thanks, Louise. Any comments, any questions? I think you baffled us with science. Right, that item again was for feedback and noting, so no further questions will move on. Item 11, which is in the supplementary agenda pack. Page 257 to 278, the annual government statement, and this is presented by Chris Meister. Thank you, check, and I members, right, so you're happy for you, the draft on your governance statement for the year 2324. This is a document that forms part of the statement of accounts and it feeds into our position on value for money and how we deliver our services. It's been prepared in accordance with the SIP for Solace guidance, and so follows a familiar format to those that have been on the committee before. And for those that haven't, we did do some training on Monday, just to cover off some of the elements of the annual governance statement. I'm not going to take you in detail to the first three sections, which is to commence on page 262 of the agenda pack of the AGS. This is there that kind of the background details for it, but I would like to direct members attention to section four at page 265. So this is where the council, these are the actions, the different processes we have to review the effectiveness of the council's governance framework. In particular, I'd like to take you to page 267. So the top of the table there is reference to the corporate governance group. So this is an office driven group and it lists the members of that group. This is something that we reestablished a little over 12 months ago, and this was in response to an acknowledgement of some more serious governance issues that had arisen. In this time, we've revisited the terms of reference for that group, and we've ensured that there's a greater attention to governance within the organization. So this group has now taken ownership of matters such as risk and compliance with the management actions from internal audit reviews, the AGS actions, and any actions identified by external audit. So we meet every two to three months, and there's a regular review of a fixed agenda of those items. Now, one of the changes that was introduced when we revisited the terms of reference was similar to the arrangements before committees to invite heads of service in to give us an update on the position in relation to their services, but with a particular attention on management actions and performance and delivery of management actions. Now, this was in part to hold officers to account to build that ownership of these issues. But it was also in part to get an understanding of what any barriers there were to implementation, because a strong governance environment isn't just about holding people to account, it's about supporting them and improvement. And what it's enabled us to do is work with services who've adopted actions to improve those actions to get us to the results, because it's the improvement that we're after, not necessarily the action to do it. Within that group, there's a few officers listed there, but we now have a complete CD of management team, so all the director posts are filled, and we are pretty much fully filled to have a service level as well. So that's another improvement that's taken place over the last 12 months with getting the structure staffed. We're now in a position where we can, when looking at accountability, actually go to the officers' concern, and they're understanding, as Emma's explained today, she's coming, she's getting and understanding what the issues are, and is owning them and doing those improvements. And that's a position we haven't really been in for a number of years. Another change in the last 12 months in improvement is around the service assurance statement. So part of the process is we ask directors and heads of service to do a critical view of themselves. What's their understanding of their governance environment within their services and within their directors? Do they know what the policies are? Do they know where the policies are? Are they following those policies? Now, in previous years, we've done this as a paper-based questionnaire. We've done it as a digital online-based questionnaire. We've done it as individuals, we've done it as groups, we've done it within directors. And there's always been a feeling we could do it better. There was a piece of work that was led by Jackie. She's getting a gold star today. We've actually decided, well, let's use it as a learning session rather than just as a self-analysis session. And we had a group meeting, so all directors all heads of service were required to attend. Heads of service took ownership for their own areas of the governance environment. And instead of having questions just placed in front of people, heads of service gave context to the policies, gave context to the procedures, and gave context to why it was important. And then the questions were placed to the group. They were also given an idea of what a good governance environment look like in relation to all of these areas. So that when responding, they were able to give consistent responses across the board. The benefit of this was, we got an instant response feedback from the senior management, senior leadership team. Now, from my point of view, from Dawn's point of view, head of service and the Section 151 officer, we could get an immediate sense of whether that was right, now understanding, given the work that we do. Are the responses from the heads of service and directors, do they look right? Does it look like we're in that position? It requires honesty, and we got to it. And I think overall, the responses were broadly where we expected them to be. Now, the other benefit of that session was that with the honesty, where services were saying, Well, I've not scored myself particularly highly on this, we were able to drill into it and say, Well, what's preventing you scoring higher? And then there was also the opportunity for other services who are feeling confident in those areas to share how they do it. So we have all the governance framework, how it's applied, you know, is largely up to the individual service, because it's very much dependent on the service need. So there was a real good opportunity there that was taken up to share good practice, share experience. Now, I mentioned in the briefing to the Chair and Vice. I'm not going to say that everyone enjoyed the session, but they all saw value in it. So we're actually doing the session again in October just to keep these issues in front of SLT as a part of embedding our strong governance environment and approach. The other point I just wanted to -- I mentioned it was clearly why there's highlighted bits in the AGS. That's because I'm a bit of a technical buddy, and that just draws my attention to it. It's something I just need to complete, because it's information that's still outstanding, but that relates to corporate complaints and local government complaints. I can confirm in the last 12 months that haven't been any upheld LGO complaints. I'm just waiting on some more. The other thing I don't mention it as well is the approach to risk management. So this has been a phased approach by the Council. So we re-embedded the use of GRACE, which is our risk management system a couple of years ago, and done a lot of work around training offices in its use, and trying to encourage the use through support, but also through monitoring. So part of the risk assessment -- sorry, risk management monitoring we do is running reports of GRACE just to see if it's even been completed. And the completion levels are increasing, which shows that people are beginning to embrace the use of it, which is great, because it means organizationally we can look very quickly and say, Who's actually embracing their risk management responsibilities? And where do we need to focus a bit more at that time? So the next stage in this is the risk management strategy. So now we've got people using the system, now we've got people familiar with risk management. What do they do with it? How does it benefit them? And one of the issues that was identified was escalation. What do we do when -- what does a service do when they get the risk to a certain point and don't feel they can manage it any further? Who makes the decision as to whether that's acceptable or it isn't? So the risk management strategy assists heads of service now as to who to escalate it to and provides ownership of bigger risks with SMT, because they'll ultimately be the responsiveness to senior management. So those are some of the changes and improvements that have been made in the last 12 months. And as I say, there's been a noticeable improvement in relation to the monitoring of completion of GRACE, completion management actions, and the commitment to delivery as a result. And I think what the committee will find is that you will see an improvement probably -- I won't say an exponential, but it will be a bit better next year and that will be even better the year after and even better the year after if we can continue to -- with this embedding. So Section 5 of the AGS is the governance environment section. This is probably the most important section in the document. So this is at page 271. So these are the improvements that we've identified that the organization -- these are corporate improvements, not just service-driven ones that are across the board. It's a slightly different approach to previous years. So in previous years, we presented one table of the improvements in the last year and then a second table of the ones we're adopting for this year. Any that weren't completed in the first -- in the previous year, we're simply rolled into the next year. And that's not -- it's not a proper assessment of the risk in relation to those actions moving forward or what the issues were. So there's a slightly different approach. So in the first table, you'll see that they've been categorized into completed, carried forward, or partially implemented. Now, the partially implemented ones aren't being carried over. And they're not being carried over because they've been sufficient work done in that particular issue so that we as an organization can be satisfied. It is not a significant issue for the council anymore. It's still something that needs to be improved and it will still be monitored. But it's not something that if it had come before me in that form this year, I would be putting in the AGF. The specific reference to something that has been discussed earlier, which is the issues relating to sundry debtors, there is a potential material financial implication in relation to that review, so it would be inappropriate to ignore that. There are management actions in place to resolve it, and there is a specific action plan in relation to the outstanding debt. So, again, it's not being treated as a management action for AGS purposes, but it is something that needed to be acknowledged within the issues. And then the final additional section is around the external key audit recommendations. Now, the last two external audit reports on the VFM have been four key recommendations. They've been the same key recommendations, and in part it's a timing thing. So, an issue was identified in the first year, but there wasn't sufficient time to carry out the improvements before the second year was presented, and I think they were presented around September, January time, so it's about a six-month gap for two separate years. Now, in the last 12 months, those actions have been implemented, so whilst I'm referencing them as a consideration, I'm not including them within the AGS action plan, because they have been resolved, and I expect, looking at you, Gareth, that this year, when the VFM review is done for 23-24, the grant funds will be satisfied that those key recommendations have been delivered. So, you'll see there's a table then in the page 275, which are the actual identified improvement actions, and these have been drawn from the previous year, from work done around the internal audit work, and from the service assurance statement exercise that we're on the top with staff. So, those are the actions that are proposed for next year. As I mentioned, the AGS is presented in draft form. If we do work with Grant Thornton on this document, it is our document, but we take on board comments from Grant Thornton, so it is subject to change. If there aren't any material changes, then this is the version that the chair will sign off, and we'll form part of the statement of account, and that's the report, yeah. Thanks, Driss. Any questions, comes ahead. Just a couple on a comment as well. On the corporate governance group, which has been settled, would there be any value of any of us being an observer at all, or would there be any pushback against that? It is an officer driven group because it relates to operational risks. The role for members in relation to that is we are looking at the same thing. So, for example, you will review the AGS action plan later in the year, or bring it back and say this is the progress against it. You will also get reports later in the year if the internal audit review actions aren't being delivered or there is an issue around it and is continuing to cause concern for the council, then we will be reporting that back in, and we will be reporting to Committee on Risk later. So, it is a separate function, separate role, but, yeah. I think the thing with AGS is just everything is private and it is that accountability and the special decision is being made. And this seems to be a role for that in this kind of sort of moment, nothing. I don't think there is a growth of it because I would certainly argue that you are a committee probably getting more information than they ever have done it certainly here because in the last 12 months we started bringing all internal audit reviews forward to Committee which wasn't something that we were doing before to give members an understanding of where we are. The corporate governance group was a group that was meeting regularly before COVID. It is another one of these examples where things changed for a period of time and it took a while to get it re-embedded. So, it wasn't a group that members ever attended previously. And as I say, I think there is probably more information coming to you now around the governance environment than there was, you know, even before COVID. Yeah, I am not necessarily thinking it is about the democratic deficit. It is just about knowing these groups exist. And obviously the structure is helping to deliver more information, therefore more transparency. And as I say, there is perhaps a piece of work for us to do with democratic services, perhaps about raising members awareness of the different groups within the council. So, it is mentioned in there but we have an information security council that deals specifically with data security, cyber security, F.O.I. and GDPR and DBA. But both the corporate governance group and that group is feeding to the senior leadership team, which is all the directors and they had to service that we have built that ownership. And if that is the kind of information that members feel would assist in understanding how we manage the governance environment, we can include that in some sort of training to give that kind of background. It was one about cyber security. On the log period, it has an entry of a program of cyber security training sessions should be developed and delivered to highlight to all officers and members, the risks faced by the council, which has been completed. But what I have not seen anything, there is a lot of information and these papers, is there anything in there about how we are fighting cyber security. We know about the risks, but how are we dealing with that risk? The training was focused on relative risk, so you probably picked up last year there was training sessions on phishing because that is the major risk for members in particular. To be honest, it is the same for officers, the biggest point of failure in an IT system is often the person using it as opposed to the actual systems themselves. The penetration testing work is done externally as is the cyber security, but we have appointed in the last 12 months of cyber security officer with specific responsibilities for that and that feeds into the information security council as to what actions they are taking. Again, perhaps perhaps by passing as director to do a session, it is one of the half hour sessions on cyber security for members if that is something you have been interested in. Is that something that you, members of the committee want or do you want to on a wider footprint because we can look at that as a member learning session rather than just as one focused for committee members. Something to go on the agenda there. Council Martin. Quick question. So obviously we did the update on the constitution for the code of conduct and there is reference within the report about complaints to the LGA. Would we be able to get reports back to this committee about complaint, obviously not revealing personal data, but numbers of complaints received the nature of the complaint, the outcome. I noticed they do have it at lunch council which reported back on an annual basis, and I did see the freedom of information that was online about complaints made at this council and also that was published online. But that actually detailed more information on what we even receive at the committee level. And I did think that was quite handy for us to know, because obviously if we're getting a lot of complaints about certain things, then the constitution needs changing or updating our policies being put in place. So that would be quite handy for us to have on a regular basis. Yeah, I'll have to hold my hand up there. We used to do annual reporting on breaches or complaints, and it was divided down into upheld and not upheld. We try and anonymize that as much as possible to ensure that it's not, you know my views on the code of conduct. I don't like it to be weaponized in that people just make complaints and it automatically stacks up, whether there's anything to that complaint or not. But yeah, that's something that I didn't do this year. So I'll hold my hand up to that. I will say it is not an issue. The number of complaints we get organizationally, you know, for the number of councillors we got is pretty low. And it has been, you know, for years, standard behavior on the whole is not a problem, but I accept that as an observation rather than the criticism that I should have reported in here. Thanks, Chris. Any more questions and more points? Anyone? Right. This is the draft, Chris said this is a draft governance statement. There may well be one or two amendments to it before it gets signed, preferably the removal of the yellow lines. Yes, yes. But are we happy to approve the draft governance statement to set out in report? Proposably. Councillor Clifford. Councillor Hayton. All in favour? Thank you. We will now move on to item 12, a suspension of standing orders, public questions, pages 279 to 286 of the supplementary agenda pack. This item is for decision. The committee has to consider the decision to make recommendations for council on criteria to apply for a continuation of the suspension over to Chris again. Thank you, Chair. Members will be aware as to the background to this report and the reasons behind the decision to spend standing orders previously. You'll also recall that it was agreed between members that the decision to suspend should be subject to review, and it was referred to governance committee for that. I've set out that background in the report. It's a bit of a move of ball feast, to be honest, because it might change in the next four weeks between now and the next council meeting as to how tense a situation and how likely such disturbances will arise again. I've put some options in the report as to what members might want to consider, which include just recommending leaving the status quo, recommending lifting the suspension, or recommending lifting the suspension, but qualifying it with some sort of delegation for the chief executive to re-impose it to short notice and consultation. This report was drafted, well, you know, ten days, two weeks ago. Since then, the situation has changed in that area, but in the Gaza area, which to be fair is where the previous protests related to, and it might be that it's wise just for now to leave the suspension in place. Another consideration that you might have is that, I mean, I could just on the radio in the car today that the Prime Minister is not prepared to confirm or refute the potential for a general election in July, which again would run portensions for political organizations in relation to the conflict in Gaza. So, the chair did ask me what my view was. I would be inclined to leave the suspension in place or recommend that to full council. It is a full council decision anyway. If things were to change between now and July, it would be entirely open for yourselves and your colleagues sitting as council to say, well, we don't need this restriction anymore and to lift it, but it would only apply moving forward after that time. Thanks, Chris. Any questions, any points? Anyone would like to make? Sorry, Councilor, before I do, because this is one of the very few things that we're relating to governance, but I ask our independent members whether they have any observations on this. Thank you. In that case, then, I'll read my script carefully. We need to vote on recommendations to full council regarding the continuation of the suspension to standing orders. Now, as Chris said, I think basically we have three options. One is to leave in place what was agreed at the council meeting. Second option is to remove the suspension, and the third option is the delegation, which was mentioned in there. I think it would only be fair for me to support Chris, and I would like to propose that we leave because it is for the time being. Anybody want to second that, Councillor Berry? All those in favour? Thank you. No, it doesn't. Oh, yes. Sorry. Director of governance is trying to get out of his task. Sorry, you will not be surprised to know that there is no updates on Ripper. There have been no requests made either internally or permission sought from the magistrate's court for Ripper authorizations. Yes, Chris. Can I ask that if there are, you will give us plenty of warning or we have to keep falling off the chair. I'll move on to item 14, which is the work program, 200 pages 253 to 254 on your agenda. This item is just for noting. In line with Councillor Martin's request, what I'll suggest is if we can add into the 31st of July meeting the standards of date, and if we leave it on the agenda as a standing item, then at the end of the year, because there's usually quite a lot on this meeting agenda, then I can report on the year, the previous year for complaints. I'm happy with that. Thank you. Item 15, we've had no business previous agreed. So, effectively, that concludes the meeting. I'd just like to thank Gareth for attending the officers and our two independent members. Thank you very much for your time. Well, the next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 31st of July. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]